3G pitch

[timall]

It's frustrating that on many occasions things descend into arguments.

Maybe I wasn't specific (that word again) enough in how I constructed my reply. The reason I used the word irrelevant was because you said "no credibility lost by the author at all". My counter to that was that it is irrelevant how you read it as it would only require one person reading it in a different way for the original author to have lost some strength in his case. Of course I don't think you, or indeed anyone else reading the blog, isn't entitled to an opinion or view, and frankly I can't see how you think that is somehow spiteful, but it's not my place to know how you feel about what I, or anyone else writes. So apology offered if that was how you interpreted it.

Editors and proof readers still have a place in the modern world, and are used across the entire spectrum of writers from multi-selling novelists down to bloggers. You could argue my reply may also have benefitted from the use of one in that your interpretation appears different to my intentions! I am hopeful the original author recognises constructive criticism over provocative argument for the sake of it.

You presumably also know that I copy/pasted your entire post as it stood at that time, so the subsequent edit to show EFL use in the League cup wasn't there to "make me realise...he was wrong wasn't the case". I am glad you have subsequently pointed this out. It means I have learnt something. I suspect I am not the only person to learn this. Indeed it would have been more constructive to point this out, and to suggest the original piece would have benefitted from a small edit to add that fact so that others could have learnt it too. It would strengthen the case the original author is making don't you think?

Finally I didn't say I had made a "huge amount of research on postponed games from unknown sources in a 20 minute window to constructively prove your point". Not on here, or on the PM I sent you. If you want to quote me then at least do so accurately. To make that claim to somehow belittle my credibility does you no favours.

I am content for others to judge me on what I write and what constructive criticisms I offer. I don't intend to participate in arguments of an ad hominem nature as I believe I have explained before.

[Andy K]

You don't do succinct do you?

It's such a shame that you feel it necessary to advise others on how to write. Or how to use English, as in your last reply to me.

You didn't say you did a huge amount of research in 20mins. I did. And I apologise for it. It was actually 35 minutes. And this is what you said

"I was bored so I started to check.

Working my way down the pyramid I haven't (yet) found one that has had 2 home matches postponed (for weather related reasons) in the last 2 years. For a number you have to go back 3 years or more for even a single postponement. So, perhaps surprisingly, weather related postponements aren't actually that common.

Of course as you go down the pyramid it is more likely that grounds are increasingly inferior, and resources available to overcome adverse weather effects are less. It follows that you might expect a pattern to emerge of increasing postponements as you descend the pyramid. However to get to "95% of the teams in non league..." I think is a stretch too far, and likely by some distance. So I think the answer to your question is "no"."

Wow all of that in 35 minutes. Matched by the research speed of Johnny 5 in Short Circuit there. You PM'd me that you had previously done research for the club PRIOR to the club getting 3G. Yet you contradict yourself. So unfortunately I call "bullshit" here. And for what reason? I really think you need to look at your own approach before you lay any criticism at others.

I get that you don't think highly of me, and that's fine - I'm sure there are other on the forum who agree with you. But your quite arrogant approach in this and in previous post doesn't do you any favours. Far be it from me to say how you should write though.

Give the guy a break, he wrote a good piece but all you could do was cut him down for one small detail which if you had done your speedy research you would have found to not be totally incorrect.

I think it's best that I try and avoid reading any of your future posts, because I really can't think of them having the credibility you think they deserve.

[wolfie19]

And now a thread has descended into a battle of pedant’s

[billy]

[trev]

Feb 2, 2018 19:44:22 GMT wolfie19 said:

And now a thread has descended into a battle of pedant’s

...and superfluous apostrophes. 

[wolfie19]

Feb 3, 2018 8:27:19 GMT trev said:

Feb 2, 2018 19:44:22 GMT wolfie19 said:

And now a thread has descended into a battle of pedant’s

...and superfluous apostrophes. 

[ I wondered if someone would bite!

[amberchoc]

I was on the verge of having a nibble last night, but thought better of it!

[baboonfish]

Feb 3, 2018 8:27:19 GMT trev said:

Feb 2, 2018 19:44:22 GMT wolfie19 said:

And now a thread has descended into a battle of pedant’s

...and superfluous apostrophes. 

Not necessarily trev, if one or more pedants lay claim to said battle the apostrophe could be correct. Of course 'pedant's battle' would be a better phrasing if so. If not then battle of THE pedants leaves no ambiguity. Similarly, Mallet's mallet leaves no question mark over who possesses said mallet, but mallet of mallet's would be a little confusing and could infer an ultimate mallet and a misplaced apostrophe or a mallet belonging to Mallet. Of course if multiple pedants were involved, as i believe could be the case, it would possibly be pedants' battle, but definitely not a battle of pedants', unless a word was to follow, for example battle of pedants' rights. Hope that clears things up.

[sallycat]

Not really! It would be one, not "one or more."

A "battle of pedants'" WOULD be just as correct if the battle belonged to more than one pedant, although you're right to point out that the definite article would improve the sentence.

As in "he's a friend of John's" versus "he's a friend of the Johnsons'"

Now we are being pedantic about pedantry. Obviously I do have a purpose in life after all.

[trev]

A quite interesting factoid about Timmy Mallett. In 2002, he threatened West Ham United with legal action because their mascot, Herbie the Hammer, bore an uncanny resemblance to Pinky Punky. West Ham backed down.

Not many children's [note the impeccable apostrophe placement] TV presenters can say they've taken on a Premiership football team and won.

[silverf0x]

Feb 3, 2018 12:39:00 GMT sallycat said:

Not really! It would be one, not "one or more."

A "battle of pedants'" WOULD be just as correct if the battle belonged to more than one pedant, although you're right to point out that the definite article would improve the sentence.

As in "he's a friend of John's" versus "he's a friend of the Johnsons'"

Now we are being pedantic about pedantry. Obviously I do have a purpose in life after all.

My 2 pennyworth whilst waiting for K.O. Wouldn't be much of a "battle" with one pedant, would it!

Furthermore, should it not be, "he's a friend of John" ?

[sallycat]

Well, no, it wouldn't be that much of a battle but one can fight a battle individually (as in "his battle with cancer").

I would probably say "a friend of John" myself, but the possessive S isn't incorrect. After all, you would say "a friend of yours" (or "mine").

[baboonfish]

Feb 3, 2018 12:39:00 GMT sallycat said:

Not really! It would be one, not "one or more

Not necessarily sallycat. It could be disputed which pedant had the ultimate claim over the battle in question but be accepted that one of the claimants would eventually be declared THE pedant. For example, in a disputed Kingdom it could still be the King's throne despite the position of King being contested by multiple parties.

[silverf0x]

Feb 3, 2018 13:01:32 GMT sallycat said:

Well, no, it wouldn't be that much of a battle but one can fight a battle individually (as in "his battle with cancer").

I would probably say "a friend of John" myself, but the possessive S isn't incorrect. After all, you would say "a friend of yours" (or "mine").

Well, we're pretty sure he's "John's friend"!

(I wonder what happened to the 3G thread?)

[sallycat]

Feb 3, 2018 13:08:46 GMT baboonfish said:

Feb 3, 2018 12:39:00 GMT sallycat said:

Not really! It would be one, not "one or more

Not necessarily sallycat. It could be disputed which pedant had the ultimate claim over the battle in question but be accepted that one of the claimants would eventually be declared THE pedant. For example, in a disputed Kingdom it could still be the King's throne despite the position of King being contested by multiple parties.

Fair enough - I didn't think of that - but one could argue that in order to be crowned THE pedant, you'd have to win said battle first, in which scenario they would both (or all) start out on an equal footing!