Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[AlunB]

Yeah, but £12.50.

I lolled a lot.

Care to explain?

The black Friday sales were nominated as a 'Thing that pisses you off' I said in their defense that I had bought a second hand motorcycle jacket, marked up at £25 from a charity shop, but reduced to half price on black Friday, thereby saving me £12.50.

Someone then went on to list the people who had been killed or injured and the damage that had been done on black Friday, but I countered with "Yeah, but £12.50.

  Thanks. Pretty funny

[tikay]

I am still convinced that the correct plural of "buy in" is buys in.

Tal insisted that I was incorrect last time I raised the subject, although I really don't understand why anything other than the "buy" should be in the plural.

Surely not?

"buys in" is singular, I would have thought.

"John buys in to a tournament. If he rebuys, he has two buy-ins."

"One buy-in", "two buys-in" seems logical to me as in how many did you have?.

Like one court-martial, two courts-martial.

I think it's because martial is an adjective in that context. This is a weird made up word where neither bit modifies the other as far as I can tell and if you remove either bit it makes no sense in context. It's a single entity and could equally be written buyin as it frequently is.

That's all just a huge guess. I was educated in a comprehensive school in the 80s/90s. We no more studied grammar than we did Latin.

Which neatly brings us to the old chestnut from horse racing.

The chap responsible for the course is known as the Clerk of the Course.

If several of them get together for a meeting, are they Clerks of the Course, or Clerk of the Courses? Or even Clerks of the Courses?

It's terribly sad that this interests me.

[tikay]

Yeah, but £12.50.

I lolled a lot.

Care to explain?

The black Friday sales were nominated as a 'Thing that pisses you off' I said in their defense that I had bought a second hand motorcycle jacket, marked up at £25 from a charity shop, but reduced to half price on black Friday, thereby saving me £12.50.

Someone then went on to list the people who had been killed or injured and the damage that had been done on black Friday, but I countered with "Yeah, but £12.50.

Yay, at last. I was scared to ask, lest I looked silly.

I almost never open that thread, as all that moaning pisses me off.

[AlunB]

I am still convinced that the correct plural of "buy in" is buys in.

Tal insisted that I was incorrect last time I raised the subject, although I really don't understand why anything other than the "buy" should be in the plural.

Surely not?

"buys in" is singular, I would have thought.

"John buys in to a tournament. If he rebuys, he has two buy-ins."

"One buy-in", "two buys-in" seems logical to me as in how many did you have?.

Like one court-martial, two courts-martial.

I think it's because martial is an adjective in that context. This is a weird made up word where neither bit modifies the other as far as I can tell and if you remove either bit it makes no sense in context. It's a single entity and could equally be written buyin as it frequently is.

That's all just a huge guess. I was educated in a comprehensive school in the 80s/90s. We no more studied grammar than we did Latin.

Which neatly brings us to the old chestnut from horse racing.

The chap responsible for the course is known as the Clerk of the Course.

If several of them get together for a meeting, are they Clerks of the Course, or Clerk of the Courses? Or even Clerks of the Courses?

It's terribly sad that this interests me.

[tikay]

I remember the day john Lennon died. I was 7, at home, as I was off school because I was ill. I remember it was the third time I'd heard he had died and was thinking, who the f**** are they talking about? Keeps interrupting my telly. 😡 then my mum came in and she was shocked, gave me a lesson on who he was, then I went back to watching playschool. And all was well in the world again.

Guess it would not mean much to a 7 year old.

For my generation, it was right up there with the deaths of John F Kennedy & Princess Diana, above most others for wow-factor (family excepted). Maybe add Ayrton Senna to the list, just.

[Karabiner]

I am still convinced that the correct plural of "buy in" is buys in.

Tal insisted that I was incorrect last time I raised the subject, although I really don't understand why anything other than the "buy" should be in the plural.

Surely not?

"buys in" is singular, I would have thought.

"John buys in to a tournament. If he rebuys, he has two buy-ins."

"One buy-in", "two buys-in" seems logical to me as in how many did you have?.

Like one court-martial, two courts-martial.

I think it's because martial is an adjective in that context. This is a weird made up word where neither bit modifies the other as far as I can tell and if you remove either bit it makes no sense in context. It's a single entity and could equally be written buyin as it frequently is.

That's all just a huge guess. I was educated in a comprehensive school in the 80s/90s. We no more studied grammar than we did Latin.

That makes perfect sense if buyin is one word.

My Latin "O" Level and I are now convinced.

[celtic]

If I have one chewing gum, I have a chewing gum. If I have two, is it two chewing gums?

[tikay]

I had to submit my January article to Bluff Europe by 9am yesterday.

I tried to start it last week, but could not bring my mind to bear on it. I need to be tight to a deadline before I seem to be able to do something.

So, 5am Monday, there I was, staring at a blank screen, trying to find some subjects to discuss, & a framework for the whole piece. (It consists, usually, or 6 ot 7 sub-headings).

I sort of forced myself to come up with the various subjects, & then wrote about 1,500 words.   

It contained one or two commercially delicate matters, (Amaya/Stars, Full Tilt, Sky Poker etc) & of course, like it or not, poker media rely on Online Sites for advertising, so one has to be a little careful.

I decided to give the Editor, who seems a splendid chap, an easy "out" to delete or edit the awkward stuff, & suggested in my covering note he should feel free so to do. Not that he needed my permission, but it's just niceties I suppose. (I'm hardly Giles Coren). 

I was not thrilled with my submission, but it was the best I could manage.

Anyway, he took it in the right spirit, & tidied it up magnificently, just with a little emphasis here & there by adding or removing a single word. It looked like a totally different article after he'd fettled it.

I was both pleased, because it will read better, & disappointed at my writing inadequacies.

So, next month, afrter I've finished my article, I'm going to re-visit the changes he made yestyerday, & see if I can learn from them.

There's a lovely little book waiting to be written, if only I could write better

[tikay]

If I have one chewing gum, I have a chewing gum. If I have two, is it two chewing gums?

You have two chewing gums - an upper & a lower.

[tikay]

And, allegedly, fund ISIS

Really?

They seem such a nice couple.

They deny it I believe. One of many articles about it. And assume you were being at least a tad ironic about the nice couple bit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11110931/How-Qatar-is-funding-the-rise-of-Islamist-extremists.html

I was being a touch facetious, yes, I have never met them & know nothing of them, good or bad, it was just a turn of phrase to end the piece.

I genuinely was not aware they were rumoured to be linked to extremism.

Talking of which, how about this for an ironic headline in today's Times?

Beheading damages our image, Yemen al-Qaeda boss rules

[AlunB]

And, allegedly, fund ISIS

Really?

They seem such a nice couple.

They deny it I believe. One of many articles about it. And assume you were being at least a tad ironic about the nice couple bit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11110931/How-Qatar-is-funding-the-rise-of-Islamist-extremists.html

I was being a touch facetious, yes, I have never met them & know nothing of them, good or bad, it was just a turn of phrase to end the piece.

I genuinely was not aware they were rumoured to be linked to extremism.

Talking of which, how about this for an ironic headline in today's Times?

Beheading damages our image, Yemen al-Qaeda boss rules

Just google human right violations qatar

[tikay]

And, allegedly, fund ISIS

Really?

They seem such a nice couple.

They deny it I believe. One of many articles about it. And assume you were being at least a tad ironic about the nice couple bit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11110931/How-Qatar-is-funding-the-rise-of-Islamist-extremists.html

I was being a touch facetious, yes, I have never met them & know nothing of them, good or bad, it was just a turn of phrase to end the piece.

I genuinely was not aware they were rumoured to be linked to extremism.

Talking of which, how about this for an ironic headline in today's Times?

Beheading damages our image, Yemen al-Qaeda boss rules

Just google human right violations qatar

"flogging & stoning are legal in Qatar due to Sharia law".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar


Completely unrelated, but an interesting piece of timing as we are on these subjects, did you see this?


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal

So, we have (to me, anyway) a new phrase.

rectal hydration

[AlunB]

I don't even know what to think about that. So depressing and upsetting. And all for what purpose? This paragraph is chilling.

The Senate report squarely rebuts CIA claims that the use of such methods generated intelligence that prevented further terrorist attacks and therefore saved lives. Feinstein said its investigators had not found a single case where that was true. Detainees who underwent torture either disclosed nothing, or supplied fabricated information, or revealed information that had been already been discovered through traditional, non-violent interrogation techniques.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

[tikay]

I don't even know what to think about that. So depressing and upsetting. And all for what purpose? This paragraph is chilling.

The Senate report squarely rebuts CIA claims that the use of such methods generated intelligence that prevented further terrorist attacks and therefore saved lives. Feinstein said its investigators had not found a single case where that was true. Detainees who underwent torture either disclosed nothing, or supplied fabricated information, or revealed information that had been already been discovered through traditional, non-violent interrogation techniques.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

Little wonder there is such anti-American feeling in some parts of the world. 9/11 was abhorrent, just terrible, and I suppose an emotive response was inevitable, maybe even understandable.

And so it goes on, back & forth. 

[AndrewT]

It's one thing to use torture if it gets results - then you can have the whole 'do the ends justify the means' discussion.

But the most revelatory part of the report was when they said that it didn't work - torture had prevented a grand total of zero terrorist attacks.

And two guys got paid $80m for being torture consultants - not sure I remember that being an option at school careers day.