A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
The undoing of that terrible diminishment is a joy to us all, and even more so with the addition of the hidden concession. Is a greater concession about to be added?djewesbury wrote:altogether restored my joie de vivre, which was perhaps a little diminished
Well, even if I were not so minded, the revelation elsewhere that you are considering the use of heavier bullets has prompted me to re-examine my course of action.jdaw1 wrote:The undoing of that terrible diminishment is a joy to us all, and even more so with the addition of the hidden concession. Is a greater concession about to be added?djewesbury wrote:altogether restored my joie de vivre, which was perhaps a little diminished
We have already established that the law cannot be applied retrospectively, have we? In that case, yes, it is self-evidently a Good Idea.jdaw1 wrote:Honour is satisfied: thank you.
But as you have clearly implied. just because a rule seemingly has been something, does not mean that it should always be so. Which nudges me towards a new rule.
You have falsely accused a chap of a non-trivial transgression, of heinous villainy, or a terrible atrocity, of an apostrophe crime. Surely there should be some penalty on those falsely making such grave accusations. I suggest a fine: at your next tasting, you should bring an extra bottle.
On balance, do you think that such a rule would be good public policy?
Well, if you’re going to be so d sporting about it, then I’ll bring, to the next appropriate tasting attended by the two us, an extra bottle.djewesbury wrote:yes, it is self-evidently a Good Idea.
There's a chance you might have to post that, if as I fear I can't make the October tasting..jdaw1 wrote:Well, if you’re going to be so d sporting about it, then I’ll bring, to the next appropriate tasting attended by the two us, an extra bottle.djewesbury wrote:yes, it is self-evidently a Good Idea.
Which makes two extras: what’s not to like.
Then again, I don't mind too much being made an example of. More port all round after all.djewesbury wrote:We have already established that the law cannot be applied retrospectively, have we?
Is it half a double mag of Sandeman Vau in two bottles?jdaw1 wrote:I’ll bring, to the next appropriate tasting attended by the two us, an extra bottle.
DRT wrote:Is it half a double mag of Sandeman Vau in two bottles?jdaw1 wrote:I’ll bring, to the next appropriate tasting attended by the two us, an extra bottle.
Then it can be a subsequent tasting: next time you and I are each bringing one bottle to a not-too-structured event attended by the two of us, we’re each bringing two. You as payment for defamation; me as acknowledgement of you being sporting.djewesbury wrote:There's a chance you might have to post that, if as I fear I can't make the October tasting..
Perhaps the 27th of November (my proposed near-birthday tasting)?jdaw1 wrote:Then it can be a subsequent tasting: next time you and I are each bringing one bottle to a not-too-structured event attended by the two of us, we’re each bringing two. You as payment for defamation; me as acknowledgement of you being sporting.djewesbury wrote:There's a chance you might have to post that, if as I fear I can't make the October tasting..
No date has yet been fixed, though I do have a hunch of what port fine port from a fine vintage, sir I shall bring.
It is too difficult to write an explanatory post using my phone. So you must wait to find out.djewesbury wrote:Who are you cheering on here? Stop sitting on the fence.Glenn E. wrote:"More than one A."jdaw1 wrote:How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?djewesbury wrote:I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.
I get the feeling that this situation is similar to prepositions, with which one should not end a sentence. The correct usage is at times awkward, so technically incorrect usage is occasionally accepted.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
What I meant by my previous post is that, in much the same way that slang words are often incorporated into the O.E.D. once they have become sufficiently ingrained in the language, grammar rules might also change to suit the common fancy.Glenn E. wrote:It is too difficult to write an explanatory post using my phone. So you must wait to find out.djewesbury wrote:Who are you cheering on here? Stop sitting on the fence.Glenn E. wrote:"More than one A."jdaw1 wrote:How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?djewesbury wrote:I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.
I get the feeling that this situation is similar to prepositions, with which one should not end a sentence. The correct usage is at times awkward, so technically incorrect usage is occasionally accepted.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
This isn’t a problem for me. He could have said something like ‟having accreted to 90% of its terminal mass”, but that seems needlessly formal, especially in a radio interview.DRT wrote:I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".
While I share jdaw1's annoyance with the misuse of decimated, I don't have a problem with this statement. To me, "90% formed" does not necessarily refer to its mass, but to the state of existence that we think of as our world. "90% of the way to being capable of supporting life as we know it," for example.DRT wrote:I share your pain on this one. I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".
Regarding "90% formed" I side with DRT; it might be acceptable in a very generic hand-waving way to express a concept, but it's so inaccurate without defining what you mean by formed in this context as to make it useless for most purposes, especially for a professor unless he is catering to an audience with no understanding of the topic and limited ability to understand the concept.DRT wrote:I share your pain on this one. I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".
I was aware of both the formal "one-tenth" use, and the more colloquial use along the lines of "a dramatic reduction, almost wiping out"; however in my head, I had put the two together and confused the formal definition into "reducing to one-tenth" instead of "reducing by one-tenth"; Now I know better - thank you! 
One crime prevented hurray!PhilW wrote:Regarding decimation, I have to admit to having just had my understanding corrected
Indeed; except that if I ever used decimate in the formal sense, I'd have to qualify it to ensure the person to whom I was speaking understood my intention.jdaw1 wrote:One crime prevented hurray!
Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ‘kill one in every ten of (a group of people)’. This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ‘kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of’, as in the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this is incorrect, but it is clear that it is now part of standard English.
jdaw1 wrote:in a radio interview.
I believe that qualifies, does it not?PhilW wrote:especially for a professor unless he is catering to an audience with no understanding of the topic and limited ability to understand the concept.
Be careful of being over-generous to the R4 audience. Have you ever listened to Any Answers?DRT wrote:It was on Radio 4. I do not think Radio 4 listeners qualify as "an audience with no understanding of the topic and limited ability to understand the concept".
Why him, given the following?djewesbury wrote:Or would someone like to contact him and ask him to elucidate..?
jdaw1 wrote:This isn’t a problem for me. He could have said something like ‟having accreted to 90% of its terminal mass”, but that seems needlessly formal, especially in a radio interview.DRT wrote:I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".
Sorry. Entirely my fault. Confused the two of you. Easily done.jdaw1 wrote:Why him, given the following?djewesbury wrote:Or would someone like to contact him and ask him to elucidate..?jdaw1 wrote:This isn’t a problem for me. He could have said something like ‟having accreted to 90% of its terminal mass”, but that seems needlessly formal, especially in a radio interview.DRT wrote:I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".
Germans, Americans, and seemingly me in New York. Apologies.In April 2009, whilst living in New York, jdaw1 wrote:If you guess wrong, you can’t guess again until somebody else has had a guess
Ask yourself where you are in yourself before asking others to guess incorrectly.djewesbury wrote:I'm lost
good advice generally. Perhaps the motto ofDRT wrote:Ask yourself where you are in yourself before asking others to guess incorrectly.djewesbury wrote:I'm lost
?No.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=60651#p60651]Here[/url] DRT wrote:May I basque in the glory for a while before thinking of a question?
i have tried posting the comment 'a very disturbing image' twice but Tapatalk only quotes JDAW's comment (no) and does not quote what he quoted from DRT, even though I see the BB tags for everything above what I write here. It may be Tapatalk can only display one level of quoting..? Anyway Derek in a basque is not right.jdaw1 wrote:No.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=60651#p60651]Here[/url] DRT wrote:May I basque in the glory for a while before thinking of a question?
DRT wrote:Avoid! I think this is the port that we ordered and sent back three bottles in a row at The Crusting Pipe as they were fowl.djewesbury wrote:Croft 85 is pricier here. Was it one of the vintages affected by VA in that year?
Don't fail us now, we need you.. get better drugs..DRT wrote:I'm not doing well at the moment. It must be the drugs.
quite. You almost wish the ad agency had printed two versions.jdaw1 wrote:Wonderful thing seen in the gentlemen’s facilities in The Bung Hole:
Look carefully: an optional apostrophe!
You don’t see that very often.
[url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2013/speech685.pdf]A Deputy Governor of the Bank of England[/url], at the Institute of International Finance 2013 Annual Membership meeting, wrote:As I have said before, ‘bailin’ is a verb not a noun. It is a power, not a special kind of bond.
!
Bailin is no different from other resolution tools in that respect.
I can think of one, but perhaps there are others?jdaw1 wrote:Little punctuation quiz (but don’t post the answer). There’s a BBC story, Muslim free school allegations prompt Labour questions. What small change to this headline’s punctuation would have dramatically changed its meaning?
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=62739#p62739]Here[/url] DRT wrote:tis you, tis you...
Guilty m'lord. Can I plead diminished responsibility as a result of really enjoying my Talisker?jdaw1 wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=62739#p62739]Here[/url] DRT wrote:tis you, tis you...
After last weekend, that is not what you should be doing. Do I detect, ahem, a lapse?DRT wrote:really enjoying my Talisker?
Oops.jdaw1 wrote:After last weekend, that is not what you should be doing. Do I detect, ahem, a lapse?DRT wrote:really enjoying my Talisker?
