Unless he was only doing it once a year I would instead use the term anally retentive.Scott Brehaut wrote: 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:
=D
Nothing wrong with your grammar Trojan, unfortunately I rarely understand your "double edged posts" anyway.Trojan 67 wrote:And there's me thinking Gullscorer was guiding Danny with his journalistic studies.
Grammar matters not to me or the hectoring from pendants, getting the gist of a double edged post does.
Point made ?
Scott Brehaut wrote:The moment when a joke falls flat on its face because you can't spell.
FML
I think he's extracting the urine about everything scotty.Scott Brehaut wrote:No idea what the hell you are on about.
I was taking the p*ss out of myself for attempting to crack a joke and then spelling the main word incorrectly.
Jerry wrote:
Any chance you could make them a bit clearer for us simple types?
Scott Brehaut wrote:No idea what the hell you are on about.
I was taking the p*ss out of myself for attempting to crack a joke and then spelling the main word incorrectly.
This made me a cry with pride a little bit.Gullscorer wrote: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:
Didnt realise it was that bad!royalgull wrote:You won't see Poke all pre season, torn thigh muscle.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests
