Fewer thingies, less of a thing.

That's the commonly held (and right   ) opinion but apparently "Fowler's Modern Usage" disagrees.

[Less or fewer?]

A nugget from today's "The Times".

Less or fewer?

Is it "10 items or less" or "10 items or fewer"?

The grammatical question has puzzled Tesco so much that it is changing the wording of signs on checkouts to read "Up to 10 items". Tesco said the solution was suggested by the PEC (Plain English Society).

I'm in the "fewer" camp, myself.

Up to ten



so am i allowed 10?

Yes.

I also believe that the question with Steve Bull as an option is wrong. I'm pretty sure that he played top flight football. According to the "always reliable" wikipedia he did, anyway.

what was the question?

Which of the following England footballers never played top flight football? Something like that anyway. Oops, I've given the game away.

pft that's easy - I don't even need to see the options.  Steve Bull, ldo

yes, ldo, but he did - so the question/answer is wrong

he played for Wolves, so he has never played top flight football FACT !

He had a spell at West Brom - wikipedia "FACT"!

I also believe that the question with Steve Bull as an option is wrong. I'm pretty sure that he played top flight football. According to the "always reliable" wikipedia he did, anyway.

what was the question?

Which of the following England footballers never played top flight football? Something like that anyway. Oops, I've given the game away.

pft that's easy - I don't even need to see the options.  Steve Bull, ldo

yes, ldo, but he did - so the question/answer is wrong

I also believe that the question with Steve Bull as an option is wrong. I'm pretty sure that he played top flight football. According to the "always reliable" wikipedia he did, anyway.

what was the question?

Which of the following England footballers never played top flight football? Something like that anyway. Oops, I've given the game away.

How about one for "oh yes, I understand now, I totally agree with you, I was wrong all along, how silly of me"?

What, we don't need one for this???

I knew my non-existent knowledge of Eastenders (and other soaps) was going to cost me.

I also believe that the question with Steve Bull as an option is wrong. I'm pretty sure that he played top flight football. According to the "always reliable" wikipedia he did, anyway.

Welcome to the asylum.
Please don't poke the exhibits.

I hate Rabbit RUnning (i believe the term is) there were on a flush draw or straight draw and wanted to know if they would hit and start dealing out the rest of the turn and river , bugs the hell out of me even if im not involved in the hand.


End of the day you didnt call ,so why should you see what you would have won/lost

"Rabbit Hunting" more usually.

Ok , i aint feeling too clever about this but ...

Whats with everyone typing [ ] and

• and all that sorta stuff , i aint with it , can someone explain ?

Cheers

[ ]  doesn't think this is a level

Like you say, ignoring all the flaws in our electoral system, that allows a minority choice total power, Our Gordon wasn't democratically elected, and any system that allows any old Tom Dick or Harry to suddenly become our leader ( one with the power to actually lead us to war etc, not just a figurehead like Liz ) is every bit as flawed as the idea of a monarchy.

wow how wrong can 1 person be?

Explain to me how Mr Brown was not democratically elected.

I probably shouldn't be answering for someone else, but I guess that the point is that Gordon Brown was not leader of the Labour party at the time of the last election. It's possible to argue that no PM is truly democratically elected since many people vote for a local candidate rather than a particular party but I don't think that is a worthwhile debate.

Errm every PM is democratically elected.

Oh dear, I know that I shouldn't be starting this but I can't help myself.

Strictly speaking only the MPs are democratically elected. The majority party then forms a government and the leader of that party is PM. In some cases, in a hung parliament, deals are done to work out a working majority with the support of one or more other parties - otherwise another election is held. So the leader of a minority party could be PM. This is leaving aside the tricky issue of whether people actually vote for their local candidate, the party or the leader of that party. The way that the leader of the party is determined varies depending on the party but this is always by a small percentage of the population, typically only members of the party would vote. In Gordon Brown's case no other candidates stood for election as leader of the Labour party so nobody got to vote for him. So, IMHO, it would be difficult to say that he was democratically elected.

Typically, presidents could be said to be elected democratically, since people vote directly for them - however, in the case of a vice-president taking over the reins in the event of assassination, for example, even this would not be true.

I know that I'm going to regret posting this - sorry.

Just to summise this for those that don't understand.

What he's saying is that GSTQ is a quality f**king song!!!!!

[ x ] level

Too right it's a level mate, I f*@king hate GSTQ. 

Like you say, ignoring all the flaws in our electoral system, that allows a minority choice total power, Our Gordon wasn't democratically elected, and any system that allows any old Tom Dick or Harry to suddenly become our leader ( one with the power to actually lead us to war etc, not just a figurehead like Liz ) is every bit as flawed as the idea of a monarchy.

wow how wrong can 1 person be?

Explain to me how Mr Brown was not democratically elected.

I probably shouldn't be answering for someone else, but I guess that the point is that Gordon Brown was not leader of the Labour party at the time of the last election. It's possible to argue that no PM is truly democratically elected since many people vote for a local candidate rather than a particular party but I don't think that is a worthwhile debate.

Errm every PM is democratically elected.

Oh dear, I know that I shouldn't be starting this but I can't help myself.

Strictly speaking only the MPs are democratically elected. The majority party then forms a government and the leader of that party is PM. In some cases, in a hung parliament, deals are done to work out a working majority with the support of one or more other parties - otherwise another election is held. So the leader of a minority party could be PM. This is leaving aside the tricky issue of whether people actually vote for their local candidate, the party or the leader of that party. The way that the leader of the party is determined varies depending on the party but this is always by a small percentage of the population, typically only members of the party would vote. In Gordon Brown's case no other candidates stood for election as leader of the Labour party so nobody got to vote for him. So, IMHO, it would be difficult to say that he was democratically elected.

Typically, presidents could be said to be elected democratically, since people vote directly for them - however, in the case of a vice-president taking over the reins in the event of assassination, for example, even this would not be true.

I know that I'm going to regret posting this - sorry.

Like you say, ignoring all the flaws in our electoral system, that allows a minority choice total power, Our Gordon wasn't democratically elected, and any system that allows any old Tom Dick or Harry to suddenly become our leader ( one with the power to actually lead us to war etc, not just a figurehead like Liz ) is every bit as flawed as the idea of a monarchy.

wow how wrong can 1 person be?

Explain to me how Mr Brown was not democratically elected.

I probably shouldn't be answering for someone else, but I guess that the point is that Gordon Brown was not leader of the Labour party at the time of the last election. It's possible to argue that no PM is truly democratically elected since many people vote for a local candidate rather than a particular party but I don't think that is a worthwhile debate.

I played a poker tournament with the Queen once and she finished about 14th out of 36.

She didn't know what she was doing when the blinds got big. Kept limping and then folding to a raise.
If she did hit a flop, she would never bet it, just wait for people to hit their draws and then pay them off.

Silly cow.

She got knocked out by KK in the end, which I thought was kinda funny but no-one else did. I started singing GSTQ when she picked up a gutshot on the turn, but I just got dirty looks.

The highlight of the game was when Prince Philip got outdrawn out to finish in 7th, and then took a tantrum and shot the guy in the face.

The dead guy was blinded off and finished on the bubble, but the Queen refunded his buy-in to his next of kin (which I thought was a classy touch.)

You shouldn't be posting things like that here, it's appalling


.....





... it should be in the Rail forum - that's the place for serious poker debate