R2D Too..

First topic message reminder :

Congratulations to Rory McIlroy on winning the R2D again.

Anyone else feel it was a bit anticlimactic that he won this weekend without competing? So unlike Stenson's efforts and drama last year.

Is an in-form McIlroy just too strong for the rest of the European field? Do the majors have too big an impact on the points?

That's right Mac, as posted at 1.56 yesterday, before the spelling tutorial ensued.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Davie wrote:But the IE in Science isn't a sound of EEE ...

But I've never come across your qualifier Davie, even if it does iron out many exceptions .

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/i-before-e-except-after-c

Oxford dictionaries clearly know of it

navyblueshorts wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:...I before E except after C, Mac. Quite an achievement to get that wrong both ways in one post. I agree with you entirely, though.

As a scientist, I think this is a weird rule probably conjured up by those damned feisty foreigners. Or maybe my neighbour...

 Very good navy

As someone who spent time teaching English (to those damned feisty foreigners) and who has a teaching qualification, I realised that there is such a long list of exceptions to pretty much every English grammatical rule that it is pointless sitting down and trying to learn them all. English is a very easy language to learn at a basic level, but then becomes very difficult to master.

Having said all that, it's very rare for a native speaker to make such basic and frequent errors that I see from Mac. The stylistic flow indicates that they are not typos, but a fundamental lack of understanding. Looks like the primary school education system failed you Mac (am not judging), and (for Super's benefit) that these deficiencies still linger indicate you clearly didn't get anywhere near a university education.

raycastleunited wrote:As someone who spent time teaching English (to those damned feisty foreigners) and who has a teaching qualification, I realised that there is such a long list of exceptions to pretty much every English grammatical rule that it is pointless sitting down and trying to learn them all. English is a very easy language to learn at a basic level, but then becomes very difficult to master.

Having said all that, it's very rare for a native speaker to make such basic and frequent errors that I see from Mac. The stylistic flow indicates that they are not typos, but a fundamental lack of understanding. Looks like the primary school education system failed you Mac (am not judging), and (for Super's benefit) that these deficiencies still linger indicate you clearly didn't get anywhere near a university education.

eh? I teach Uni level Computer Science courses (in France) and you would not believe (with an "i" before "e" ) the amount of simply dreadful spelling I see. I have a friend who's extremely bright in his chosen field (Maths PhD, very very smart person), but has no real concept of French spelling and grammar: French has some more complicated conjugations than English, with many spellings making the same sound (é,ez,er for instance for first group verbs), and said friend basically just guesses the spelling.

University level education in Science is definitely possible without acquiring a good level of spelling and grammar.

[quote="Mad for Chelsea"]

raycastleunited wrote:As someone who spent time teaching English (to those damned feisty foreigners) and who has a teaching qualification, I realised that there is such a long list of exceptions to pretty much every English grammatical rule that it is pointless sitting down and trying to learn them all. English is a very easy language to learn at a basic level, but then becomes very difficult to master.

Having said all that, it's very rare for a native speaker to make such basic and frequent errors that I see from Mac. The stylistic flow indicates that they are not typos, but a fundamental lack of understanding. Looks like the primary school education system failed you Mac (am not judging), and (for Super's benefit) that these deficiencies still linger indicate you clearly didn't get anywhere near a university education.

To give Mac a bit of a break for a moment, I suspect he is at least 10 years younger than I am, and I'm assured that the emphasis placed on grammar and spelling and the requirement to use it properly isn't quite up to the standard that used to be demanded back in "our day".

raycastleunited wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:...I before E except after C, Mac. Quite an achievement to get that wrong both ways in one post. I agree with you entirely, though.

As a scientist, I think this is a weird rule probably conjured up by those damned feisty foreigners. Or maybe my neighbour...

 Very good navy

Nice one navy!

Mclaren is in his late twenties or possibly thirty. I think he is quite bright despite being a bad spelelr.

super_realist wrote:

To give Mac a bit of a break for a moment, I suspect he is at least 10 years younger than I am, and I'm assured that the emphasis placed on grammar and spelling and the requirement to use it properly isn't quite up to the standard that used to be demanded back in "our day".

Possibly Super. I work for a major graduate employer, we get thousands of applications a year. I only get involved in the final stage - so admittedly I don't see the dross - but the standard of graduates I interview is extremely high. We like to criticise the "youth of today" but I'm frequently impressed with the work ethic and resourcefulness of the students who sit in front of me. They wouldn't get a foot in the door with the poor attitude, spelling and grammar associated with the text speak generation.

raycastleunited wrote:

super_realist wrote:

To give Mac a bit of a break for a moment, I suspect he is at least 10 years younger than I am, and I'm assured that the emphasis placed on grammar and spelling and the requirement to use it properly isn't quite up to the standard that used to be demanded back in "our day".

Possibly Super. I work for a major graduate employer, we get thousands of applications a year. I only get involved in the final stage - so admittedly I don't see the dross - but the standard of graduates I interview is extremely high. We like to criticise the "youth of today" but I'm frequently impressed with the work ethic and resourcefulness of the students who sit in front of me. They wouldn't get a foot in the door with the poor attitude, spelling and grammar associated with the text speak generation.

Absolutely Ray, competition is far too tight in employment for errors in grammar and spelling to immediately write off your application.

Last time I was looking over a few CV's I discarded half because of poor spelling and grammar. I always laugh when I see people on Linkedin asking for companies to look over their CV.

raycastleunited wrote:

super_realist wrote:

To give Mac a bit of a break for a moment, I suspect he is at least 10 years younger than I am, and I'm assured that the emphasis placed on grammar and spelling and the requirement to use it properly isn't quite up to the standard that used to be demanded back in "our day".

Possibly Super. I work for a major graduate employer, we get thousands of applications a year. I only get involved in the final stage - so admittedly I don't see the dross - but the standard of graduates I interview is extremely high. We like to criticise the "youth of today" but I'm frequently impressed with the work ethic and resourcefulness of the students who sit in front of me. They wouldn't get a foot in the door with the poor attitude, spelling and grammar associated with the text speak generation.

Absolutely Ray, competition is far too tight in employment for errors in grammar and spelling to immediately write off your application.

Last time I was looking over a few CV's I discarded half because of poor spelling and grammar. I always laugh when I see people on Linkedin asking for companies to look over their CV. I'd instantly exclude them for that.

raycastle

Do you really think that the applications you see haven't been poured over many times by both the applicant and their friends/family for errors before they were sent it?

Anyway, I am well aware my english is terrible and the C i received for it is enough evidence to prove that is the case, your pop psychology analysis of my posts on a golf forum are worse than anecdotal.

raycastleunited wrote:

super_realist wrote:

To give Mac a bit of a break for a moment, I suspect he is at least 10 years younger than I am, and I'm assured that the emphasis placed on grammar and spelling and the requirement to use it properly isn't quite up to the standard that used to be demanded back in "our day".

Possibly Super. I work for a major graduate employer, we get thousands of applications a year. I only get involved in the final stage - so admittedly I don't see the dross - but the standard of graduates I interview is extremely high. We like to criticise the "youth of today" but I'm frequently impressed with the work ethic and resourcefulness of the students who sit in front of me. They wouldn't get a foot in the door with the poor attitude, spelling and grammar associated with the text speak generation.

they know how to use a spellcheck

in all seriousness spelling and grammar is no longer as important as it used to be, in today's digitalised age where very little is handwritten anymore. A typed report (or cover letter, CV, etc.) will be spell and grammar-checked. Obviously you have to know the basics but I think most bright people do know these. Every older generation has always criticised the "youth of today", but in reality they're no more stupid than the previous generation, they're just bright in different ways. Each young generation faces their own challenges, usually dismissed by (some of) the older generation with a "you don't know how good you lot have it, we had to fight for everything, etc." The world changes, some things get easier (as a researcher it's a lot easier to find scientific papers for instance), others get harder (I'm resigned to not actually buying a home, at least not until my late 30's or so, for instance).

PS: when I say "spelling and grammar is no longer as important as it used to be", I don't mean that poorly spelt out CVs or application letters are acceptable. They aren't. On a lesser level I get really annoyed when my students have months to complete a project which includes a short-ish (5 pages or so) report, only to find a lot of spelling mistakes in said report, and don't hesitate to mark them down for it.

What I mean is that people writing things can check the spelling and grammar easily, which means their knowledge of spelling and grammar is less important.

"Errors in grammar and spelling" pervasive on the BBC web-site, the Sports pages anyway. You'd've thought their English would be exemplary, but it's absolutely hopeless, insulting really.

Spelling in American for American and English for the ROTW can be very difficult . . . . . . .

I appreciate I have contributed to the OT nature of this thread, but is it possible for the mods to remove all non R2D comments, as somewhere in all this is an interesting discussion about a golf related topic. Or at least move the spelling and what degree I have comments to the anything goes thread.

Youz don't now how gud what you ave it these days, like.

Bloody inglish poleese.

Give us a job?

McLaren wrote:I appreciate I have contributed to the OT nature of this thread, but is it possible for the mods to remove all non R2D comments, as somewhere in all this is an interesting discussion about a golf related topic.  Or at least move the spelling and what degree I have comments to the anything goes thread.

What's wrong with it going off-topic? If people were really interested in R2D, we'd be talking about it, wouldn't we?

Chelsea,
Couldn't disagree with you more about checking "spelling and grammar easily, which means their knowledge of (both) is less important".
Load of cobblers. If you don't know what is correct, how does that thesis work?
You only have to look at any "journalism" these days to see that even professional writers can't distinguish right from wrong. And spellcheck is never an adequate panacea.

Broadcasters can be even worse.

"not doing nothing", "what was you doing" etc

super,
We get Prem games with all the patois that the perpetrators would say is colloquial, guys like Paul Walsh and Tony Gale both pretty awful in that respect; the Scots who commentate speak far better English, guys like Davy Provan, Craig Burley etc.
Not sure why that is, but a pleasure to listen to those guys compared to some of their southern colleagues.

Southerners often speak poor English Kwini, not sure why.

It's often said that Highlanders speak the "best" English in Britain in terms of getting the words in the correct order.

McLaren wrote:raycastle

Do you really think that the applications you see haven't been poured over many times by both the applicant and their friends/family for errors before they were sent it?

Where did I think or say that? Surely you would have to be a fool or a loner not to get someone to review your CV.

McLaren wrote:
Anyway, I am well aware my english is terrible and the C i received for it is enough evidence to prove that is the case, your pop psychology analysis of my posts on a golf forum are worse than anecdotal.

There's no psychology analysis in my posts. Nothing anecdotal either. Do you even know what those phrases mean? It was merely evidence based assessment of your education level. Not making it to university is nothing to be ashamed of, I know plenty of successful people without a degree. You can be honest if you want Mac - try it and you'll see that people won't attack you for it.

By the way,   for successfully spelling "received" in you post above. Keep it up and you'll get a gold star at the end of the week.

He's a "Scientist" Ray, how dare you.

Back on topic for a moment, I do hope I have spelled everyfing right

kwinigolfer wrote:That's right Mac, as posted at 1.56 yesterday, before the spelling tutorial ensued.

Kwini, my bad on the eligibility of Rose, Oosthuizen, and Casey.  I confused category 15 with the number of events required.  I took that to be 15 events after the DP World Tour Championship.  The actual number needed is 13.  It would appear Lipsky and Wilson were most likely classed as affliate or category 15 so the minimum event requirement is waived rather than them needed to play a percentage of available events.

My question with Manassero playing is based on the FedEx.  Dustin Johnson qualified for the Tour Championship and didn't play.  I don't remember them going to 31 on the FedEx list to complete the 30 man field.  I could be wrong on that and the newfangled PGA Tour website doesn't appear to let you see historical stuff at the moment.

In the guff on the Race to Dubai the ET website states:

 The leading 60 players in The Race to Dubai (ranked according to their points from all events on The European Tour International Schedule) following the conclusion of  the Turkish Airlines Open held the previous week will qualify for the end of season event.

From my reading of that Manassero, at 61, didn't qualify maybe because he's available he's playing due to Casey's absence

but ray, as I explained you can be educated to a very high level (upto and including PhD) in Science and still have a desperately poor grasp of spelling and grammar. The friend I mentioned has far far worse spelling than anything I've seen of Mac for instance. Obviously this is just one example, but plenty of my students who'll be getting graduate degrees aren't much better (and again, worse than Mac). Simply put, good spelling and grammar isn't much of a requirement for scientists, nor indeed, should it be.

Yup Grumps
Definitely states Top sixty "available" golfers from R2D make up the field (albeit  - oh no, what have I said! - perhaps in the fine print).

FedEx different, but vive la difference.

What I don't understand MFC, is how people get to adulthood and still make such obvious and rudimentary grammar and spelling errors.

It's not a question of intelligence, it's laziness on behalf of those teaching and those learning.

I personally think it is important, especially in a professional context to be able to write using correct grammar and spelling, without using a spellchecker to help.
Obviously you get the odd one which might slip through the net, but writing like a Yoda script isn't acceptable.

Chelsea,
Why are scientists excluded from the common courtesy of learning one's own language?
Not sure I get that one.
Aren't scientists expected to communicate?
No excuses, just bl00dy laziness.

Semantics I suppose Kwini. They makes the rules, they can do what they like.  Evidenced by having less than 60 in previous years they wanted to ensure 60 players take part this time around.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Simply put, good spelling and grammar isn't much of a requirement for scientists, nor indeed, should it be.

How do scientists publish research papers, seek funding, communicate with their peers? You need good spelling and grammar to do this credibly and effectively. I'm no scientist, and you're creating in my mind an image of scientists as techie geeks who are socially awkward and unable to communicate. I'm sure this group exists, but are they the ones going on to enjoy successful careers, or is it the ones who can communicate professionally that do well?

kwinigolfer wrote:Chelsea,
Why are scientists excluded from the common courtesy of learning one's own language?
Not sure I get that one.
Aren't scientists expected to communicate?
No excuses, just bl00dy laziness.

I think there has to be a difference made between making a few mistakes (like Mac does) and plain old inability to understand what someone's saying. You can understand what someone says even if they make a few mistakes. Obviously the friend I mentioned is perfectly capable of communicating, and everyone understands what he writes (it's written French he has a problem with, spoken is fine).

Maybe we're at cross purposes. Expecting scientists to write and spell everything perfectly is not necessary. Obviously they do need to be able to be understood, but I've never seen anyone accuse Mac's posts of being unintelligible (is that the correct spelling? It is in French...).

Also, for what it's worth, most scientists these days (at least in Maths/CS) communicate in English anyway (except maybe in China, Russia, and the odd conservative in France and Germany, to the best of my knowledge), so my French is mostly redundant at work (I communicate with my colleagues in French, but if I could only speak English we would communicate in English with very few problems).

Does that make my point clearer?

raycastleunited wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Simply put, good spelling and grammar isn't much of a requirement for scientists, nor indeed, should it be.

How do scientists publish research papers, seek funding, communicate with their peers? You need good spelling and grammar to do this credibly and effectively. I'm no scientist, and you're creating in my mind an image of scientists as techie geeks who are socially awkward and unable to communicate. I'm sure this group exists, but are they the ones going on to enjoy successful careers, or is it the ones who can communicate professionally that do well?

I've amended. "good spelling and grammar" should be replaced by "perfect spelling and grammar" (or something in between). Papers, etc. usually take a while to write, but a journal won't reject you if your English is a little clumsy at times (they're more interested in the scientific content). Again, I research in Maths, where most papers don't contain much explanation with words anyway, no doubt it's different for other areas. When I help my supervisor seek funding (or we co-write a paper) I usually do the "English" part, as I'm more qualified than he is. Yes, it needs to be done, but again, I've never seen a paper rejected because of the language (it might be mentioned in the review, but that's about it...).

As for your last sentence, I guess it also depends on what constitues a "successful" career. In Academia, it tends to be considered that those who've made a worthwhile contribution to their area have been successful, doesn't mean they've made millions, or become famous (outside the group of researchers who do similar stuff). It is unlikely that you will have heard of someone called Gilles Schaeffer for instance, unless you study discrete mathematics, but his research for his PhD in the late 90s had groundbreaking consequences in the field of combinatorics.

I don't see being a Scientist as an excuse for a lack of spelling and grammar.
We learn spelling and grammar (or at least we should) long before we embark on our vocational path.

It is something which should be fairly automatic, and using phrases like "we was robbed" isn't something we should be hearing from young children, let alone broadcasters.

Chelsea,

Surely all the meritorious accomplishments of "academia" (hate that word, seems to be saying "I'm different") or scientists is a cop out for learning one's language correctly?

A load of b0ll0cks I would think.


Charles Osgood's ode which starts:
"There once was a pretty good student, Who sat in a pretty good class",
ends:
"If you want to be great, Pretty Good is in fact Pretty Bad."

Not a good mantra for a scientist or academic I would have thought.

anyway, we've drifted off-topic from the off-topic debate. My initial post was merely to explain to ray that it's perfectly possible to have achieved (with an i before e) a high level Uni degree in a scientific discipline and still make spelling/grammar mistakes. Hence his judgement of what level of education Mac could have achieved based on his spelling mistakes was a flawed analysis.

Back on topic, it all depends on what the R2D is meant to achieve. If it's meant (as it seems to be) to reward the best player of the year, then clearly it's done its job perfectly. If it's meant to provide some sort of gripping finale (a la Fedex) then obviously it has its flaws, which are exposed when one golfer dominates too much.

In Tennis, you have the World Tour Finals to end the season, and the Year End n°1, which can and usually is decided before the WTF. The WTF have their own prestige though, they're usually ranked as the next best thing after Majors (though recently Olympic Games seems to be gaining prestige...)

Now Golf has a rather silly and complicated ranking system (IMO) which means there's no concept of YE n°1 as such. In place of this, you have the money lists (including the R2D). It's even more complicated by the presence of two competing tours, so that the most prestigious events are the Majors, but after that it's a little murky. I admit to being not the most arduous golf follower so I hope I'm getting this right BTW. Which I realise makes my previous parallelism with Tennis fairly inconsequential, sorry about that.

Anyway, in an attempt to summarise my jumbled thoughts: I think it's only fair to have a system which rewards the best player of the year. That doesn't mean that you can't also have a grand finale (as with the Fedex), but winning said grand finale means exaclty that: you were the best player for a short-ish period of time, not the whole year.

Does anyone know if your position on the previous years money gives you any status in the PGAT or european tour? As MFC points out there are too many systems and remembering such things is a little tedious.

kwinigolfer wrote:Chelsea,

Surely all the meritorious accomplishments of "academia" (hate that word, seems to be saying "I'm different") or scientists is a cop out for learning one's language correctly?

I'm genuinely not sure I understand this. I was trying to understand the use of the word "successful" and suggesting that being successful in a business (for instance) or being successful as a researcher in University can have completely different meanings.

And again, maybe my threshold for "learning one's language correctly" is lower than yours, but I consider Mac's posts to be perfectly understandable. If he was a Scientist in my field and wrote a paper I would have no problem understanding it. That's my point. There's a world of difference between making the odd spelling or grammar mistake (most of which can be ironed out using spell-check/through reviewing in any case) and not being able to communicate...

Oh no! The thread has been hijacked - now I know how Kwini feels

Meanwhile, back at the Race To Dubai, I wonder how strong the competitive force will flow through McIlroy - it's not like he needs the bonus pool money, and I think he's a player that requires a significant goal or motivation to really hit top form.  I predict a mediocre performance, although I still hope for fireworks.




Oh for what it's worth, there are two issues with poor grammar and spelling:

1. Clarity.  In the majority of cases, scientific papers are less likely to lack clarity because of poor grammar and spelling since the bulk of the content is technical in nature, but even then poor grammar can effect readability.  Read "Eats, shoots and leaves" by Lynne Truss for some classic examples of poor grammar leading to confusion.

2. Credibility.  If you don't think poor grammar and spelling is likely to impact your credibility with some people then you're deluded. If you run the risk of not getting that job, that funding, that recognition or just a good hearing because you've been too lazy to use good grammar and spelling, then more fool you.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Chelsea,

Surely all the meritorious accomplishments of "academia" (hate that word, seems to be saying "I'm different") or scientists is a cop out for learning one's language correctly?

I'm genuinely not sure I understand this. I was trying to understand the use of the word "successful" and suggesting that being successful in a business (for instance) or being successful as a researcher in University can have completely different meanings.

And again, maybe my threshold for "learning one's language correctly" is lower than yours, but I consider Mac's posts to be perfectly understandable. If he was a Scientist in my field and wrote a paper I would have no problem understanding it. That's my point. There's a world of difference between making the odd spelling or grammar mistake (most of which can be ironed out using spell-check/through reviewing in any case) and not being able to communicate...

Intelligence doesn't come into it. Simply by having been to primary school, whether you clean toilets or whether you are a Scientist at CERN for a living should not make a difference as to whether you have a grasp of grammar and spelling.

Bob_the_Job wrote:Oh no! The thread has been hijacked - now I know how Kwini feels

Meanwhile, back at the Race To Dubai, I wonder how strong the competitive force will flow through McIlroy - it's not like he needs the bonus pool money, and I think he's a player that requires a significant goal or motivation to really hit top form.  I predict a mediocre performance, although I still hope for fireworks.




Oh for what it's worth, there are two issues with poor grammar and spelling:

1. Clarity.  In the majority of cases, scientific papers are less likely to lack clarity because of poor grammar and spelling since the bulk of the content is technical in nature, but even then poor grammar can effect readability.  Read "Eats, shoots and leaves" by Lynne Truss for some classic examples of poor grammar leading to confusion.

2. Credibility.  If you don't think poor grammar and spelling is likely to impact your credibility with some people then you're deluded. If you run the risk of not getting that job, that funding, that recognition or just a good hearing because you've been too lazy to use good grammar and spelling, then more fool you.

I think you meant affect  

"a grasp", yes. Perfect mastery, probably not. I don't think it's fair to say Mac doesn't have a grasp of grammar and spelling. For all we know, some of his "mistakes" may be merely typoes anyway...

Yes, and saying things like "we was robbed" isn't having a grasp.
I would never have made such a rudimentary error at 10 let alone 40, yet people say that sort of thing all the time without even noticing it doesn't make sense.

Bob_the_Job wrote:Oh for what it's worth, there are two issues with poor grammar and spelling:

1. Clarity.  In the majority of cases, scientific papers are less likely to lack clarity because of poor grammar and spelling since the bulk of the content is technical in nature, but even then poor grammar can effect readability.  Read "Eats, shoots and leaves" by Lynne Truss for some classic examples of poor grammar leading to confusion.

2. Credibility.  If you don't think poor grammar and spelling is likely to impact your credibility with some people then you're deluded. If you run the risk of not getting that job, that funding, that recognition or just a good hearing because you've been too lazy to use good grammar and spelling, then more fool you.

1. To a point. In reality, context gives you the meaning in most cases (including in the panda example). As you rightfully point out, the vast majority of scientific papers are perfectly readable even if the language is a little clumsy (which it usually is, especially when the paper isn't written by a native speaker, so as a scientist you quickly get used to reading clumsy English, believe me...)

2. Yes, I agree with this. When you're preparing a paper, asking for funding, applying for a job, you should do your very best to make sure it's well written. I did point out that I get very annoyed when my students have months to prepare a report but write it in very poor French with spelling mistakes all over. I will get less annoyed if they make a few mistakes in a quick-fire 30-minute test.

Once more, I posted in response to ray that Mac can't have a high level of education because of a few spelling mistakes. That's simply untrue.

Anyway I think we should drop this one now, it's drifting too far away from the topic. Really I suspect we've all said what we thought, and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the finer points.

super_realist wrote:Yes, and saying things like "we was robbed" isn't having a grasp.
I would never have made such a rudimentary error at 10 let alone 40, yet people say that sort of thing all the time without even noticing it doesn't make sense.

This is true, but I don't think it was my point (or if it was, I didn't intend it to be).

super_realist wrote:Yes, and saying things like "we was robbed" isn't having a grasp.
I would never have made such a rudimentary error at 10 let alone 40, yet people say that sort of thing all the time without even noticing it doesn't make sense.

Isn't that a colloquiallism super? just a phrase people are brought up saying and it becomes automatic

MustPuttBetter wrote:

I think you meant affect  

Damn it.

incontinentia wrote:

super_realist wrote:Yes, and saying things like "we was robbed" isn't having a grasp.
I would never have made such a rudimentary error at 10 let alone 40, yet people say that sort of thing all the time without even noticing it doesn't make sense.

Isn't that a colloquiallism super? just a phrase people are brought up saying and it becomes automatic

It probably is, but it is grammatically wrong. I was always picked up for making mistakes like that when young. Don't parents do that these days?

I'm sure I use generic phrases or words local to my area, but I wouldn't use them in an essay, presentation, interview or broadcast the way people do these days as if they are grammatically correct.

People hiding behind grammar and spelling being less important in Science are missing the point. It's the sort of thing which everyone should know extremely well by the time they have finished primary school. Whether you are a toilet cleaner phoning up for a doctors appointment or a PhD student writing a thesis up, you should have the same level of grammar.

Teachers should be getting the red pen out more.

Mac!
What do you mean by "previous year's money" affecting status on Tour?


Chelsea,
I think some of our leading cricket umpires adopt the close enough philosophy when awarding/denying lbw decisions?

I wonder what your take is on:
"When doing arithmetic problems,
Pretty good was regarded as fine.
5 + 5 needn't always be ten,
A pretty good answer was nine!"

Not surprising "assembly required" is such a nightmare.

Kwini

I mean can a players finishing position in the money list give them any status for the next season?

PS maths is way more important than spelling and grammar.