Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (27309)	1/4/2008 4:50:55 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217925

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

To: carranza2 who wrote (27309)	1/4/2008 5:28:51 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 217925

Ooops, my edit got cut off at the pass [time expired] so here's the full version: 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. In government work, it would take them a week to deal with the position of the apostrophe. They would want a law to decide. Resource Management Act approval would be required and the Tangata Whenua [meaning Maori ticket-clippers] would have to be consulted to ensure no principles of Te Tirit [The Treaty of Waitangi] were offended. The Ministry of Women's Affairs would also want to be in on the act as there's no show without Punch [so to speak]. I put an apostrophe in "Womens" to show the problem in another context. Apart from the sexist gender bias that there is no "Ministry of Mens Affairs" in our lesbian coven's totalitarian rule [men are expected to arrange their own affairs, without government help, though at least prostitution and brothels are legal businesses now, so they are able to consult professionals on such matters], I have never seen anything to suggest women have to pay to have their affairs arranged by the Ministry of Womens Affairs, while men have to pay an arm and a leg to have their affairs arranged by professional consultants. We don't know whether there are many womens affairs to be arranged and whether there are many women or one woman. In New Zealand, women is pronounced woman and the words are used interchangeably. There is increasingly no plural of woman. I think that results from the Maori influence because Maori doesn't use plurals, though Te Reo [new Maori including a written version - there was no writing in Maori] might have been adapted to include some grammatical advances. So "women" in "Ministry of Womens Affairs" might actually mean "woman", the singular, but they have changed the language to give it an air of sophistication. You could email the Minstry of Women's Affairs to see if they have any women wanting affairs with you, or need any affairs arranged from a legal point of view, what they think should be done with the apostrophe and whether their title refers to plural or singular woman. Hmmm, that's interesting. I asked Google for a link to Ministry of Womens Affairs and as expected, it gave me a list of choices. Afghanistan is on the case [after a gap of a couple of years they say, presumably time out for a few floggings and decapitations for unIslamic affairs] mowa.gov.af Their website popped up quickly, complete with apostrophe's. This part of the NZ equivalent came up, but still no response from their main site. population.govt.nz You will see they have popped in an apostrophe and have a special sub-division for Maori women. That is the "Population and Sustainable Development" part of NZ government. Any government or public writing should include at least one of each of sustainable, sustainability, sustain and preferably multiple uses to show a sustainable attitude towards sustainability in sustaining New Zealand, Women and Tangata Whenua. There's still no response from the Ministry of Womens Affair site, but here's the main "front door" of NZ government: newzealand.govt.nz The government women must be hiding in there somewhere. Maybe they are all busy with affairs over the Xmas period [which is not a snide reference to hormone changes]. They say a woman's work is never done. You can see why!! They aren't even there. In my jobs, my work was always done. It men don't get on with their work and get it done, they are soon fired, or their customers go somewhere else. No, still nothing [I keep checking]. The MWA is/are MIA mwa.govt.nz I had a look for "women" and got this search.newzealand.govt.nz; If you do a search for "men" you get links to alcohol, prison, car crashes, early death, violence etc. Mqurice