• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hello from a non-skeptic

Blue Bubble said:
Garrette said:
A moss's rock rolls less far from truth than Charles' tome.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't that be "A moss' rock rolls ..." ? ;)
Click to expand...
To be serious for a moment, I recall that, when deciding whether it is preferable to add an apostrophe plus "s" to a one syllable word ending in "s," you should consider whether the final "s" is voiced (Charles or James) or voiceless (moss or Keats). In other words, you generally add 's to a voiceless "s." Moss' definitely doesn't sound right. On the other hand, people do say Keats'.
 
Lucian said:
To be serious for a moment, I recall that, when deciding whether it is preferable to add an apostrophe plus "s" to a one syllable word ending in "s," you should consider whether the final "s" is voiced (Charles or James) or voiceless (moss or Keats). In other words, you generally add 's to a voiceless "s." Moss' definitely doesn't sound right. On the other hand, people do say Keats'.
Click to expand...
To remain serious, I used to think I was very good at grammar and syntax. Then I took German and learned I didn't know much. I got better at it and considered myself good again. Then I took Russian and learned I didn't know much. I got better and considered myself good again.

Then I came here and find I need to take English again because apparently being a native speaker isn't sufficient.


Sigh.... If only I were a native Mandarin speaker.
 
After spending a few weeks in China, I found Mandarin speakers to all sound like they're using Kermit the Frog's voice, especially with emphasis on the "r" with a lot of "z"s woven in. The accent became much easier for me after that.
 
Last edited:
Well, since Big Les is the purchaser, from here on I will call it [size=+4]Big Leses's Book.[/size]
 
Actually, many of us helped purchase it, so it should maybe be the Forums'es Book

(the extra 'e' gives it Extra flava...)
 
Last edited:
Audible Click said:
I shall call it:

BODEN'S FOLLY
Click to expand...

That would be a good alternate name for the book, maybe the title for the European Second Edition. Now, all we have to do is convince Charles to change the name of his book and get someone from Europe to order one so there will be a European Second Edition. :D
 
Brace yourselves!

Oh, to hell with this grammar Nazism! (Although I'd just like to say that in the UK the use of the apostrophe in Charles' book is perfectly acceptable.)

Ladies, gentlemen, persons of (genuine) royal descent, I do believe it's time for a spot of schadenfreude.

Earlier today I had a quick look at the history of the "Lady of Lawers" Wikipedia article and noticed something very interesting: when it first appeared on 28th March 2006 it began with the words:

Around 1650, John Campbell of Lawers took for his wife a Stewart from the Appin district of Argyll. No one knows her Christian name as she was always referred to as Baintighearn Labhuir or the Lady of Lawers.
Click to expand...

This is essentially the version of the tale that can still be found elsewhere on the net. Not until 24th December 2009 was it altered to read:

Around 1630, John Stewart, second son of Laird Duncan Stewart 6th of of Appin, took for his wife a daughter of Sir James Campbell, Sherriff of Perthshire. Her Christian name was Mary Campbell, but she was always referred to as Baintighearn Labhuir or the Lady of Lawers.
Click to expand...

I must admit that when I first read the link so kindly provided by Charles I felt a bit...suspicious. Where did this information come from? As we already know, the only person who believes that John Stewart married and had children is Charles Boden.

The edit was made by someone with the IP number 189.25.133.246 who has made no other edits to Wikipedia articles. Look what I discovered through www.ipaddresser.com:

Reverse IP Lookup - 189.25.133.246
City/Region/Company: Rio de Janeiro
Country:Brazil
Click to expand...

Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!
 
Last edited:
Alice Shortcake said:
Oh, to hell with this grammar Nazism! (Although I'd just like to say that in the UK the use of the apostrophe in Charles' book is perfectly acceptable.

Ladies, gentlemen, persons of (genuine) royal descent, I do believe it's time for a spot of schadenfreude.

<snip>

Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!
Click to expand...


Wow, Alice! Just wow. :bigclap
 
Alice Shortcake said:
I must admit that when I first read the link so kindly provided by Charles I felt a bit...suspicious. Where did this information come from? As we already know, the only person who believes that John Stewart married and had children is Charles Boden.

The edit was made by someone with the IP number 189.25.133.246 who has made no other edits to Wikipedia articles. Look what I discovered through www.ipaddresser.com:



Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!
Click to expand...

I bow down to your superlative investigative skills. :eye-poppi
 
Alice Shortcake said:
I must admit that when I first read the link so kindly provided by Charles I felt a bit...suspicious. Where did this information come from? As we already know, the only person who believes that John Stewart married and had children is Charles Boden.

The edit was made by someone with the IP number 189.25.133.246 who has made no other edits to Wikipedia articles. Look what I discovered through www.ipaddresser.com:



Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!
Click to expand...

Let me test my predictive powers: Go ahead and slam a good amount of "citation needed" tags in there, and i predict that soon enough his book will be added as a citation source. By someone with an IP-Number in Brazil, that is.

In any case, great find, and far too strange to be just a coincidence.

Quite funny how things in this puzzle fall together. He copypasted quotes from his book, and a forumite found that book then. Then he gives some strange ancestry story and references WP and soon enough a forumite will find that strange coincidence in the articles edit history.

Somehow i'm sure that if someone would go to that strange "spiritualist center" over there, that person would surely find out that Charles was talking about his supposed royal ancestry all the time, and thus made it easy for the medium to get and use that piece of information.

I'll bet a six-pack of tasty german beer on all that.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Alice Shortcake said:
Oh, to hell with this grammar Nazism! (Although I'd just like to say that in the UK the use of the apostrophe in Charles' book is perfectly acceptable.

Ladies, gentlemen, persons of (genuine) royal descent, I do believe it's time for a spot of schadenfreude.

Earlier today I had a quick look at the history of the "Lady of Lawers" Wikipedia article and noticed something very interesting: when it first appeared on 28th March 2006 it began with the words:



This is essentially the version of the tale that can still be found elsewhere on the net. Not until 24th December 2009 was it altered to read:



I must admit that when I first read the link so kindly provided by Charles I felt a bit...suspicious. Where did this information come from? As we already know, the only person who believes that John Stewart married and had children is Charles Boden.

The edit was made by someone with the IP number 189.25.133.246 who has made no other edits to Wikipedia articles. Look what I discovered through www.ipaddresser.com:



Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!
Click to expand...
:clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom