PSF thread: Torquay v Yeovil (16/7/13)

[Colorado Gull]

will all sides of the ground be open?

Yes

[Colorado Gull]

Being a little bit cheeky but I didn't think this deserved a thread of its own. Check out my article on the OS here if you haven't already seen it http://www.torquayunited.com/news/artic ... 14363.aspx

[yellowforever]

Anyone know what the prices are for tonight?

[Yellow4life]

Anyone know what the prices are for tonight?

£10 adults (definitely)

I think...
£5 concessions
£1 children

[PlainmoorRoar]

Yep that's right^^

[OllieGull]

Are children classed as under 18s?

[Gullscorer]

Being a little bit cheeky but I didn't think this deserved a thread of its own. Check out my article on the OS here if you haven't already seen it http://www.torquayunited.com/news/artic ... 14363.aspx

Danny, just to point out that in your article you correctly mentioned 'the amount of money', but you later mentioned 'the amount of people' when you should have said 'the number of people'. To use the word 'amount' in this way is a common error, though most of the time the meaning is not lost and no harm is done.

There are often more appropriate words to use. Hence, one can say, for example: 'volume of water', 'degree of mistrust', 'amount of rubbish', the 'extent of the damage', 'the scope of the survey'. As a basic rule of thumb, where something can in theory or practice be counted (people) we would use 'number', but where something cannot be so counted (rubbish) we would use 'amount'.

Another common mistake when referring to people is to use the word 'that', when the correct word to use is 'who'. For example, it is correct to say 'the people who went to the football match', or 'the man who lost his ticket'. The word 'that' should be reserved for use in regard to inanimate objects or things otherwise lacking identity. For example, 'the dog that barked', 'the land that flooded', though it should be pointed out that, instead of 'that', the word 'which' may sometimes be more appropriate in certain contexts.

People are often confused as to the appropriateness of the word 'that' as opposed to 'which'. Basically, 'that' is used as a determiner preceding a noun, as a subordinating conjunction, an adverb, an intensifier, as a relative pronoun in restrictive clauses, or to emphasise a previous noun, whereas 'which' generally refers to my battle-axe harridan of a mother-in-law.. :whip:

[Yellow4life]

Are children classed as under 18s?

correct, as post below!*

[gullno4]

Under 18 - £1
Students and concessions £5

[Scott Brehaut]

Danny, just to point out that in your article you correctly mentioned 'the amount of money', but you later mentioned 'the amount of people' when you should have said 'the number of people'. To use the word 'amount' in this way is a common error, though most of the time the meaning is not lost and no harm is done.

There are often more appropriate words to use. Hence, one can say, for example: 'volume of water', 'degree of mistrust', 'amount of rubbish', the 'extent of the damage', 'the scope of the survey'. As a basic rule of thumb, where something can in theory or practice be counted (people) we would use 'number', but where something cannot be so counted (rubbish) we would use 'amount'.

Another common mistake when referring to people is to use the word 'that', when the correct word to use is 'who'. For example, it is correct to say 'the people who went to the football match', or 'the man who lost his ticket'. The word 'that' should be reserved for use in regard to inanimate objects or things otherwise lacking identity. For example, 'the dog that barked', 'the land that flooded', though it should be pointed out that, instead of 'that', the word 'which' may sometimes be more appropriate in certain contexts.

People are often confused as to the appropriateness of the word 'that' as opposed to 'which'. Basically, 'that' is used as a determiner preceding a noun, as a subordinating conjunction, an adverb, an intensifier, as a relative pronoun in restrictive clauses, or to emphasise a previous noun, whereas 'which' generally refers to my battle-axe harridan of a mother-in-law.. :whip:

How would you phrase the term annually retentive?

Would it be "the annually retentive man is called Gullscorer", or "the man who is annually retentive is called Gullscorer", or "the man that is annually retentive is called Gullscorer"

Or does it not matter in this case....

:devil:

[ROADRUNNER]

love it scott.

[ROADRUNNER]

hi dan,

just read your post on os mate, although i wont be at the friendlys i will see you on the 3rd against the dons, coyy

ps, hope ive worded that correctly?

RR

[Gullscorer]

'Anual retentivity' can be referred to as 'constipation' or as 'diarrhoea', depending upon the degree of fluidity and speed of evacuation of the verbal prolixity..

[SuperNickyWroe]

note to gullscorer.

get thee sen 'aht a bit more me old cock.

[Gullscorer]

note to gullscorer.

get thee sen 'aht a bit more me old cock.

=D