Members' Opinion Polls
|Message board > Members' Opinion Polls > Members' poll: Which of the following will we see first?|
|Which of the following will we see first?|
I'm sure all of these events will occur at some point in the future, but which will be first?
|by Dubya - Mon 6th Sep 2004, 11:55am|
|Whoever it is that thinks Tom is going to drop below 72kg before next February is such a pessimist!|
|by RTT - Mon 6th Sep 2004, 1:59pm|
|I'd say the same about those who think we aren't going to win anything in the Uni IVs.|
|by spectator - Mon 6th Sep 2004, 4:37pm|
RTT said: I'd say the same about those who think we aren't going to win anything in the Uni IVs.Bad luck must surely destroy any chances of winning the main titles (example), whatever the odds. Why would this year be any different?!
|by Martin - Mon 6th Sep 2004, 4:41pm|
|The above options should definitely have included Ingram submitting the cricket score sheet...|
On current form I would personally bet it will take longer than every single one of the others.
|by dw229 - Mon 6th Sep 2004, 4:55pm|
|It's because he's not a bored accountant sat in an office anymore...I knew they had some role in society!|
|by correlation - Mon 6th Sep 2004, 5:02pm|
dw229 said: It's because he's not a bored accountant sat in an office anymore...I knew they had some role in society!Alternativley you could argue that it's because he's now too busy with Ms. Downing. Girlfriends can have a lot to answer for.
|by GP - Mon 6th Sep 2004, 10:47pm|
correlation said: Girlfriends can have a lot to answer for....can have a lot for which to answer.
PS Scorecard may make an appearance at the weekend, depending on how well lessons go on Wed-Fri
|by Ingers - Mon 6th Sep 2004, 10:52pm|
|Nice to see that our women have such optimism about our men. Even given the probable event of them finally climbing into W1, even I(!) think it pessimistic to think that none of the others will happen, given who will be rowing next year. Remember that even if we go up-over-down-down we have technically gained the headship.|
|by Dubya - Tue 7th Sep 2004, 8:46am|
Ingers said: the probable event of them finally climbing into W1I'd wait and see who's going to be captain before casting judgment on that..
|by Never Bumped A Caius Boat :-( - Tue 7th Sep 2004, 8:53am|
Ingers said: Remember that even if we go up-over-down-down we have technically gained the headship.Caius still need bumping first, though. Luckily, I'm not going to be in the boat trying to do that next time around.
|by dw229 - Tue 7th Sep 2004, 9:18am|
|Me neither. FaT's chances should be better than ever!|
|by Dubya - Tue 7th Sep 2004, 10:01am|
dw229 said: Me neither. FaT's chances should be better than ever!You are too harsh on yourself Mr Walker!
|by Ingers - Sun 12th Sep 2004, 12:07am|
|How about as an extra option on the poll "Extras not top scoring for BPBCCC"...|
|by Simon - Sun 12th Sep 2004, 6:06am|
Ingers said: How about as an extra option on the poll "Extras not top scoring for BPBCCC"...I've made a start of putting the scorecard into a readable format if someone else wants to carry on (in the notes section of the results page...)
|by RTT - Mon 18th Jul 2005, 8:04am|
|71.85 on Saturday and 71.80 on Sunday.|
But it seems the women got there first. Damn.
|by nipping hypercorrection in the bud - Mon 18th Jul 2005, 9:36am|
GP said: ...can have a lot for which to answer.Re-correction: can have a lot to answer for. "Answer for" is a set phrase that means something qualitatively different than "answer", and so it is incorrect to break it up. That it incidentally resembles a preposition at the end of a sentence is of no consequence; in reality, the "for" is adverbial, and the whole thing is a phrasal verb. It's of exactly the same grammatical status as "put up with" (of Churchillian fame) -- a phrase that is an entire verb unto itself and thus one that shouldn't be over-pedantified into a different meaning.
More generally, I wouldn't want my non-errors corrected on an informal message board, which is why I'm saying anything at all. A simple Google search of "end sentence preposition" will give you a fair sampling of the opinions of online dictionary and usage-guide writers, and I've never heard a good argument to refute their contention that prepositions at the ends of sentences are fine (make that necessary for good writing). I find myself shuddering when I see people writing weird, ugly, non-idiomatic sentences to avoid a final preposition. This is what usage expert H.W. Fowler said about it:
"It was once a cherished superstition that prepositions must be kept true to their name and placed before the word they govern in spite of the incurable English instinct for putting them late. The fact is that even now immense pains are sometimes expended in changing spontaneous into artificial English. Those who lay down the universal principle that final prepositions are 'inelegant' are unconsciously trying to deprive the English language of a valuable idiomatic resource, which has been used freely by all our greatest writers except those whose instinct for English idiom has been overpowered by notions of correctness derived from Latin standards. The legitimacy of the prepositional ending in literary English must be uncompromisingly maintained."
And this guy was a Brit writing in 1926, not a cheeky American writing in 2005. So please stop!
|by RTT - Mon 18th Jul 2005, 9:54am|
nipping hypercorrection in the bud said: I've never heard a good argument to refute their contention that prepositions at the ends of sentences are fineHow about the threat of a full cavity search?
|by metaphorical pedant - Mon 18th Jul 2005, 12:17pm|
nipping hypercorrection in the bud said: ...I would have thought that since September, when the post to which you're replying was made, the bud would have swelled, bloomed and long since gone to seed, so any 'nipping' is possibly a little overdue!
|by unmetaphorically chagrined - Mon 18th Jul 2005, 4:20pm|
metaphorical pedant said: I would have thought that since September, when the post to which you're replying was made, the bud would have swelled, bloomed and long since gone to seed, so any 'nipping' is possibly a little overdue!Hrm, good point. I should pay attention to the dates and not just respond randomly to previous items on threads that have been recently updated. (Damn you, FAT homepage, for your informative Recent Updates!)