2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 374.22

-0.2%

Nov 21 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: carranza2 who wrote (27309)	1/4/2008 4:50:55 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) of 217927

C2, on initial observation one could think there was an apostrophical deficit, but the rule of apostrophe's is that if one is uncertain of the numbers, one judicially leaves the apostrophe to imagination by the reader who might have a better idea of whether there was only one supporter or many. <...clueless government kleptocrats lining their and their supporters pockets.> The supporter might not have any pockets, there might be only one supporter, or none in the case of dictatorship. If I wrote "supporter's pockets", that would imply there was only one supporter, perhaps only one for all the kleptocrats, but there might even be none. If I wrote "supporters' pockets", that could imply lots of supporters and many pockets or many supporters with one pocket. Since the situation is numerically imponderable, it's best to leave the apostrophe absent for the reader to ponder the imponderables of government kleptocrat's and their supporter's. There are a few spare apostrophe's to be going on with. Free free to move them around to where you like. Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next