Iraqi's celebrate

Iraqi's in Baghdad topple a huge statue of Saddam wednesday evening (baghdad time) with the help of a US armored vehicle.

And a few blocks away, other "Iraqi's" (sic) are still giving their lives to fight against U.S. forces. Guess they missed the memo about the whole "Saddam's regime is history" thing.

Did you mean "Iraqi is celebrate"?
Or did you perhaps mean "The celebrate belonging to Iraqi"?

Your apostrophe license is revoked. Please remove the keycap and send it to...

Did you mean "Iraqi is celebrate"?
Or did you perhaps mean "The celebrate belonging to Iraqi"?

Iraqis are celibate?

I meant "Many citizens of Iraq celebrate in Baghdad."

The apostrophe and 's' were used to pluralify Iraqi, as it would be used in POW's, but obviously I made a mistake, and the apostrophe was not needed in this instance, and it was incorrect usage of it. I apologize to any punctuation marks that were harmed in this incident.

Your apostrophe license is revoked

I don't need a license. It's my God given right to use apostrophe's (apostrophes?). And I'm sure there are at least a dozen apostrophe's in the Bill of Rights. You'll have to pry my apostrophe from my cold dead keyboard.

apostrophe's (apostrophes?).

"apostrophes" -- it's the plural, it's not a contraction, and it's not possessive.

The apostrophe and 's' were used to pluralify Iraqi

Pluralize. Your "POW" example is a good one. Not all people documenting rules of English recognize it, and I was taught both ways. Notably, pluralizing an acronym or a referenced item (typically a letter or a symbol) allows use of an apostrophe. The POW example you cited is an example of the former, and not a required use of an apostrophe in all sources. An example of the latter would be:

We dotted the i's, but still need to cross the t's on the new contract.

I'm not familiar with any sources which do not require this use for an apostrophe, but I may be painfully unaware. Note also:
GOOD
1990s
'70s (contraction of 1970s)

BAD
1990's
70's (unless it's a business named 1990, or something with a "handle" of 70, or such)

So this can be generalized as:
-Do not use apostrophes when pluralizing.
-Do use apostrophes when indicating any singular possessive. (My parent's car, if I had only one parent)
-Do use an apostrophe when indicating a plural possessive, but do not add a trailing s if the word already has an s for pluralization. (My parents' house, if I have more than one parent; The children's room.)

Expect ridicule if you open a restaurant and call it "Food's Express", unless your name is John Food.

as it would be used in POW's

Here (and I'm winging it a little), the apostrophe is used because it's an abbreviation (actually an acronym), so the apostrophe is used for the contraction.

However, I believe that apostrophes on plural acronyms are falling out of favour, much as the dots between the letters have.

In particular, POWs would expand to "Prisoners of War", so why is the "s" at the end, and why the apostrophe?

Do use apostrophes when indicating any singular possessive

...except for "its". His doesn't have an apostrophe (hi's), so why should its (it's)?

I don't need a license. It's my God given right to use apostrophe's (apostrophes?)

While I don't recall any biblical references specifically giving right to use this overutilized creature, I'll note that apostrophes are not owned by apostrophe, though you did spell the word right when you parenthesized it, presumably to indicate you were uncertain of the spelling.

And I'm sure there are at least a dozen apostrophe's in the Bill of Rights.

Did it give them rights of ownership?

You'll have to pry my apostrophe from my cold dead keyboard.

At least you got this one right. Of course, I suspect like the one in front of me, your keyboard is already dead.

I'm oversimplifying. I probably shouldn't. I also shouldn't have neglected to mention contractions explicitly rather than implicitly. And it was bad of me to simplify in this manner, as I'd rather see too few apostrophes than too many.

If you want to get complicated, I found Strunk's Elements of Style online:
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1

How did this get started (and ended) without me?

There's a lot of debate on whether apostrophes should be used when pluralizing non-standard words. My personal rule of thumb is not to use it unless it becomes difficult to understand what's being talked about. And I usually use quotes when talking about a word or a sequence of letters, so that obviates the need for an apostrophe there.

How did this get started (and ended) without me?

I've been rabidly anti-apostrophe-abuse long before I owned an empeg, or knew who you were.

However, I believe that apostrophes on plural acronyms are falling out of favour, much as the dots between the letters have.

Oh. I would have said that the apostrophe was once used only in specific circumstances (when its absence would cause ambiguity, i.e. when the s would otherwise cleave too closely to the abbreviation: we awarded five MScs this year) but nowadays is increasing in use. The old old way to do it was to repeat the last letter: pp for pages, mss for manuscripts.

In particular, POWs would expand to "Prisoners of War", so why is the "s" at the end, and why the apostrophe?

Would you rather write PsOW? As the its-vs-it's thing shows, clarity and lack of ambiguity beat consistency every time in this game.

Peter

Obligatory "The Onion" article for this discussion...

NEW YORK--Stopping for lunch at a Manhattan Burger King, New York Times 'On Language' columnist William Safire ordered two "Whoppers Junior" Monday. "A majority of Burger King patrons operate under the fallacious assumption that the plural is 'Whopper Juniors,'" Safire told a woman standing in line behind him. "This, of course, is a grievous grammatical blunder, akin to saying 'passerbys' or, worse yet, the dreaded 'attorney generals.'" Last week, Safire patronized a midtown Taco Bell, ordering "two Big Beef Burritos Supreme."

I love this BBS. What might have become a political discussion has turned into a grammar discussion.

So if I were going to pluralize SSN, would it be SSNs or SSN’s? I use this a lot in my work, so I’d really like to know which version is correct.

Some people will argue for one, some for the other. I'd go with SSNs, as it's still perfectly clear what you're talking about. The basic rule about apostrophes is that they're used to indicate possession or to indicate contraction, not to pluralize.

But no one would crucify you if you went the other way, as it's also sometimes used to indicate pluralization of acronyms and abbreviations, and pretty much must be used when a simple trailing `s' is unclear.

The Americans seem to get knocked down a lot on this BBS, but one thing they are very good at, is fixing the English language.

What is needed is a character (or characters) that indicate(s) that the attached word is pluralized. Something like *person or person[].

What is needed is a character (or characters) that indicate(s) that the attached word is pluralized.

I coulda sworn that, with a few exceptions, that's what `s' did.

I coulda sworn that, with a few exceptions, that's what `s' did.

And it's the reason that there are only four "S"'s (???) in Scrabble, which is very frustrating. They should have just made plurals not count and put in a reasonable number of "S" pieces.

But then you wouldn't get to use ``oxen'' or ``children'' or ``alumni'' or ``criteria'' or ``dice'' or ``algae'' or ``graffiti'' or the various other irregular and ``irregular'' plurals.

Maybe a rule against using simple `-s' plurals.

Hmm, never new they did that. That certainly is lame. Do they also limit the number of Es and Rs so you can't make dumb -> dumber? Then you need to limit the number of Ts so you can't make dumb -> dumbest... You're right, they just shoulda made a rule against plurals.

To be fair, I dont know that's why there are only four; I just assume it because it would seem there should be a lot more.

Do they also limit the number of Es and Rs so you can't make dumb -> dumber?

Yeah, it's more than just that, though.

To win really seriously at Scrabble, you need bingos. (For those out of the loop, a Bingo is when you lay down all seven letters to form a word, earning you an additional 50 points above and beyond the normal score for the play.)

To do that, you need to hoard E's, R's and S's because they allow you to turn smaller words into bingos in multiple flexible ways. Thus allowing you to squeeze the bingo onto the board combined with the other words. E R and S are most flexible because the RE can be a prefix or a suffix to many words.

Example: "work" with ERS could become "reworks" or "workers" depending on the board layout.

Of course, if you hoard too much and make sucky plays the whole rest of the game, then a bingo isn't going to save you. It's all very strategic...

Something like *person or person[].

Isn't it considered rude to *person?

Not as rude as it is to !person. At least in public.

I've only ever seen that (never knew it was called a "bingo") a few times. But my wife did it once (and I don't remember the word) where she managed to cover two triple word scores as well. My father and I both quit at that point.

Not as rude as it is to !person

Isn't that what we've been doing in Iraq for the last few weeks?

Isn't that what we've been doing in Iraq for the last few weeks?

You're not bringing us back on topic are you?

I've only ever seen that (never knew it was called a "bingo") a few times.

When you start getting into the really hardcore scrabble tournaments, several bingos per game is not uncommon.

"Extreme" scrabble?....

NAH....

Isn't that what we've been doing in Iraq for the last few weeks?

Yeah. We're just trying to find &saddam_hussein.

We're just trying to find &saddam_hussein

You win

You need a new knew. Or maybe a gnu.

To win really seriously at Scrabble, you need bingos.

My wife had one when she, rmitz and I were playing a few nights ago. She still only beat me by 10 points (226 to 216, I think) after she used her letters first and got the points for our leftover letters.

She had another chance for a bingo which I guessed and blocked.

You don't get many bingos when you have the Old McDonald tiles (EIEIEIO).

Well, it wasn't quite that bad. But I got none of the 5 or more point letters, and one 4 point letter, or something similarly sad.

You win

Woohoo! What do I win?

And just to beat everyone else to the punch...

if ( iraq != NULL ) {
free(iraq);
}

IPA. That still leaves the problem of inventing new (unique-sounding) words.

You need a new knew. Or maybe a gnu.

No /* */.

and pretty much must be used when a simple trailing `s' is unclear.

Yes, I think that's why my subconcious wanted to use it on "Iraqis" and "apostrophes".

Yes, I think that's why my subconcious wanted to use it on "Iraqis" and "apostrophes".

Likely story.

So this can be generalized as:
-Do not use apostrophes when pluralizing.
-Do use apostrophes when indicating any singular possessive. (My parent's car, if I had only one parent)
-Do use an apostrophe when indicating a plural possessive, but do not add a trailing s if the word already has an s for pluralization. (My parents' house, if I have more than one parent; The children's room.)

I was also taught to not use apostrophes on possessive pronouns.

I was also taught to not use apostrophes on possessive pronouns.

Sure, but you already forgot what you were taught, apparently, so why worry about that?

I suspect the Coalition use object orientated language:

while(n) {
n = iraqiWithGun[n].removeGunOrIraqi(); // recalculates number of Iraqis with guns after operation
}

Sure, but you already forgot what you were taught, apparently, so why worry about that?

Hey man, (Hey, man, ...) now you're starting to get a little bit out of line. I've always used my apostrophes correctly when it comes to possessives or contractions. These false accusations are going to hurt my reputation. I used apostrophes on two words that otherwise could have been unclear with a trailing 's', like wfaulk said. It's a loophole or an exception. Someone could have thought 'Iraqis' was something more like 'marquis', or they could have thought 'apostrophes' was 'apostrophess', which would not make any sense.

Arab-American's in Dearborn rejoice at Saddam defeat



This is what's going on in my home town just a 5 or so miles from my house.... I'm heading over there now to check it out - might take my camera with me. One Iraqi-American was just on the radio saying he is (seriously) changing his first name to "Bush" because he is so thankful for what this means for his people. Hundreds of Iraqi-Americans from Dearborn are now returning to Iraq. It will be kinda sad seeing them go.

Now, if we could only make the Palestinian-Americans living here as happy... maybe France can take care of that one because we're a little out of ideas... (Doesn't anyone think that I'm being silly by hoping the newly appointed Palestinian "President" will be a road to peace there?)

To keep on topic, feel free to pick away at my grammar.

I was watching the Dearborn celebration and the Iraqis taking down the statue on live tv this morning. It was quite a sight to see, with the Iraqis banging their shoes on Saddam, jumping up and down, dragging pieces of the statue in the street, tearing down Saddam paintings, setting government buildings on fire, etc. They actually cheered when an american soldier put an american flag over Saddam's head. I would like to hear the opinions of the anti-war people after they see this, especially the french, germans, and various europeans. Al-Jazeera was also carring the live feed of the statue to all of the arab nations.

I used apostrophes on two words that otherwise could have been unclear with a trailing 's', like wfaulk said. It's a loophole or an exception.

Only on abbreviations. Don't take the rules as I state them out of context.

Edit: Oddly enough, they're not ``my rules''.

Then call it civil disobediance.

I would like to hear the opinions of the anti-war people after they see this

I'm sure I haven't really said it, but I do hope that the removal of Saddam helps the general Iraqi populace.

That, however, does not change my stance on this war. It was started for, IMO, selfish reasons, and despite any initial positive images, is likely to have very detrimental long-term consequences in the continuing of Arabic hate towards the US. In addition, it sets a very bad precedent in favor of ``preemptive'' (read ``unprovoked'') invasions.

And the supposed reason that we went in, to find nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons appears to have been a bust. I'm willing to wait for that, as I'm aware it's not the grunts' jobs to do that, but to have not heard of anything more than the Ortho store is disheartening. In some ways, I hoped that our administration wasn't simply lying to us and the world, but, for right now, it seems that that was the case.

I wish that the UN would prosecute the Bush administration for conquest. I only assume that there is some sort of international law against what we just did. If not, there ought to be.

In reply to:

---

I wish that the UN would prosecute the Bush administration for conquest.

---

You've got to be kidding me. Did I miss some press announcment saying that Iraq will be the 51st state? I'm hoping that comment was just some bitter Bush-hatred leaking out and not an honest opinion on international law (or Belgium Courts to be more accurate).

EDIT: And how about waiting until the bullets stop zipping through the air before you reach the conclusiion that WMD's were not found?

So I guess if we would have attacked Hitler before WWII for breaking the agreements of WWI, that would have been considered "preemptive" and "unprovoked"?

The invasion of Kuwait was the provocation. We decided to let them stay in power as long as they followed certain rules, which they failed to do so.

but I do hope that the removal of Saddam helps the general Iraqi populace.

Clearly, it's helped them out already. They're rioting and looting as we speak.... That's right, we've Americanized 'em!

I've been out of line for years.

I went in my brother's place of employ today to look at a computer they were having trouble with, and nearly immediately started cursing at it. It was running Windows 98 and the PCI-Cardbus bridge my brother installed wasn't working correctly.

One of the guys he worked with made some crack that he could tell we were related, and I asked why. Referring to my attitude, he said "you sound just like him."

In the "full circle" vein,

Arab-American's in Dearborn rejoice at Saddam defeat

What belongs to "Arab-American"? Or is this "Arab-American is in Dearborn"? If so, I'd like to go see him (or her).

Then call it civil disobediance.

I might have considered calling it civil disobedience.

In reply to:

---

continuing of Arabic hate towards the US

---

This is one opinion that I shared with you, although to a lesser degree, concerning "fall out" from the current war in Iraq. But consider this: Blaming the US for all hatred directed towards it by the Muslim (not Arabic) world is akin to blaming rape victoms for wearing sexy clothes. Think about it, it's very similar. "So, just because we should have known they were going to fly two planes into the Twin Towers we never should have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them from an invading army."

But all of this is really irrelevant. The point is, the Iraqis are joyous for this. ABSOLUTELY BEYOND WORDS: THEY ARE SO HAPPY. Thinking that the televised coverage of Dearborn, Michigan was being blown out of proportion, I drove over to East Dearborn to check it out for myself. People had been calling into radio stations since 8:30am saying how there were parades of people driving up and down the main streets waving American and Iraqi flags, honking their horns and dancing in the street. Then I heard NPR mention this and report from the scene. Donald Rumsfeld even mentioned the reaction in Michigan during the opening of his press conferance. So I looked it up online when I got to my PC and posted a link here. But for some reason, I had to see it for myself. Perhaps news crews were there at a certain time and people hammed it up for the cameras. Maybe it was all staged. Or if it wasn't, maybe it was just a fleeting moment that passed with the lunch hour.

Let me tell you this: What I saw there at 8pm tonight - a full 12 hours after it began - was one of the most wonderful things I've seen in my life. There were (and are) hundreds upon hundreds of Arabic peoples (mostly Iraqi, but not exclusively) celebrating in the streets. I have never seen so many people, so happy in my life. This even topped when the Wings won the Stanley Cup (and even my friends in Toronto consider Detroit to be "HockeyTown") celebrations - and these people were sober. Seriously though, I can't over stress how happy these people are.

I really wish I could put into words what I saw and felt. I imagine you'd have to know this community to really understand the scope of it. However this community has never been a flag waving group of pro-American people. If anything, they have never been afraid to speek out on favoritism in Palestine, our questioning of Arabs after 9/11 or our past in-action in Iraq. But today I saw something I thought I'd never see: make shift stores on the street selling American flags on the sidewalk with a line wrapped around the block. There were cars, hundreds of them lined up for miles, horns blaring, lights flashing and people hanging out of moonroofs and windows waving American flags and home-made signs saying "We Won" and "Saddam: Iraqis Enemy". I wish I could share the joy on these people's faces with you, but I can't even begin to express the sight. I was litterally at the edge of tears. I'm even moved by it now as I write this. This isn't something I saw on TV or read about. I was there, less than an hour ago.

And, there were no television crews present. This wasn't a publicity stunt. This was people celebrating. Iraqi people celebrating for their families that are still in Iraq and for their homeland that they love. And it appears that the same thing is happening in Iraq.

So how on Earth, does anyone have the right to say this wasn't the right thing to do? How can anyone, sitting behind their keyboard, mad at the Supreme Court, dare say that all these people - people who were more affected by the war with Iraq than you or I - don't deserve this new found hope? Would it have been better to wait for Saddam, then his sons, then his sons' sons to die in order for this to happen? Because that is the ONLY way anything would have changed if action wasn't taken. France promised to veto ANY resolution, no matter what it said or what timeframe it laid out if it had ANY mention of holding the (former) Iraqi government accountable for its actions.

What would have made these conspiracy theory weavers happy? Would they sleep better at night knowing that the Iraqi people are living under tyranny so long as the Security Council was okay with it too? How do they explain their glee that they felt when they made little comments saying the US's war plan was failing? Do they get a little skip in their step everytime the US death toll goes up because it means that Bush looks bad? I swear, some people posting here sound as if they are wishing for our troops to get slaughtered and Iraqi homes to get bombed just so that they can jump around and say "I told you so!"

But anyway, back to my experience here in Dearborn. It solidified one thing in my mind. I truely believe that the Iraqi people will see us as liberators and will build a successful democracy (despite France's official stance that the Middle-East is not sofisticated enough for one yet). They will be an ally. And so will Afghanistan, Qutar, Kuwait and Turkey. And these other countries who sent fighters to Iraq to fight the Western imperialists will soon find out - from the Iraqis themselves - that they had it all wrong.

EDIT: I've gone over this post a dozen times and I still can't express the joy that is on the street right now.

In reply to:

---

What belongs to "Arab-American"? Or is this "Arab-American is in Dearborn"? If so, I'd like to go see him (or her).

---

I had to throw that typo in there to keep on topic!

First, this is markedly offensive:

Do they get a little skip in their step everytime the US death toll goes up because it means that Bush looks bad? I swear, some people posting here sound as if they are wishing for our troops to get slaughtered and Iraqi homes to get bombed just so that they can jump around and say "I told you so!"

I hate it when anyone dies, including the probably thousands (my bogus estimate) of Iraqis, military and civilian, that died at the US's hands, as well as the US soldiers and international journalists that died. Yes, yes. I know that Saddam was likely to kill that many people on his own, and I'm glad that he's gone.

But this whole dog and pony show about humanitarian aid is just a smokescreen. If that's the reason that we were going in there, then that should and would have been the first words out of our administration's mouth. But it was not. It all centered around how Iraq was somehow complicit in the deaths of thousands of people in New York and Washington several years ago, despite the fact that those attacks were demonstrably committed by Saudis, who we support, and supported by Afghanistan, or that they might somehow be complicit in some crime in the future.

Again, I'm very happy for the Iraqis who are happy. But I've seen any number of reports of Iraqi civilians who are not happy. It may be that all of these people are friends and family of killed civilians, but even that seems unlikely.

Also, the reports of Iraqis in Dearborn who are overjoyed is not surprising. Those people are no longer in Iraq for a reason. They are likely the ones who were oppressed under Saddam. Of course they're glad he's gone. They have a personal interest in it that overshadows any potential international ramifications. So that's certainly a biased sample.

Again, I'm glad for the Iraqis. I'm glad that Saddam is, likely, gone. But I'm scared for us. I'm saddened for those that lost loved ones, whether they be Iraqi, US, or anything else. And this is not a wound that will close cleanly. It will leave a scar so big that it may have been better to leave the cancer. And it's all due to an incompetent doctor who wouldn't listen to the rest of the medical community.

I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that this isn't the start of more selective ``regime change'' in the Middle East. We'll have to wait and see. But I don't think that we should assume that the ends justify the means or the intent. The ends now exist, and I'm glad of them in and of themselves, but that doesn't excuse the rest.

I'm hoping that comment was just some bitter Bush-hatred leaking out and not an honest opinion on international law

My opinion on international law is worth nothing, since I know, basically, nothing about it. But it's not just bile. I think that this action was as wrong (I was going to say illegal, but I just said that I have no basis for that) as the bombing of Cambodia. I hope that somehow we can show the US populace that the intentions of this action were, at least, self-serving, beyond the weak ``preemption'' argument.

In reply to:

---

I hate it when anyone dies, including the probably thousands (my bogus estimate) of Iraqis, military and civilian, that died at the US's hands, as well as the US soldiers and international journalists that died. Yes, yes. I know that Saddam was likely to kill that many people on his own, and I'm glad that he's gone.

---

You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.

In reply to:

---

But this whole dog and pony show about humanitarian aid is just a smokescreen. If that's the reason that we were going in there, then that should and would have been the first words out of our administration's mouth. But it was not. It all centered around how Iraq was somehow complicit in the deaths of thousands of people in New York and Washington several years ago, despite the fact that those attacks were demonstrably committed by Saudis, who we support, and supported by Afghanistan, or that they might somehow be complicit in some crime in the future.

---

Not really.

In reply to:

---

Again, I'm very happy for the Iraqis who are happy. But I've seen any number of reports of Iraqi civilians who are not happy. It may be that all of these people are friends and family of killed civilians, but even that seems unlikely.

---

You are completely wrong.

In reply to:

---

Also, the reports of Iraqis in Dearborn who are overjoyed is not surprising. Those people are no longer in Iraq for a reason. They are likely the ones who were oppressed under Saddam. Of course they're glad he's gone. They have a personal interest in it that overshadows any potential international ramifications. So that's certainly a biased sample.

---

Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.

In reply to:

---

Again, I'm glad for the Iraqis. I'm glad that Saddam is, likely, gone. But I'm scared for us. I'm saddened for those that lost loved ones, whether they be Iraqi, US, or anything else. And this is not a wound that will close cleanly. It will leave a scar so big that it may have been better to leave the cancer. And it's all due to an incompetent doctor who wouldn't listen to the rest of the medical community.

---

Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already.

In reply to:

---

I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that this isn't the start of more selective ``regime change'' in the Middle East. We'll have to wait and see. But I don't think that we should assume that the ends justify the means or the intent. The ends now exist, and I'm glad of them in and of themselves, but that doesn't excuse the rest.

---

You're wrong.

Source.

When you got to your second sentence I knew what source you were citing

In addition, it sets a very bad precedent in favor of ``preemptive'' (read ``unprovoked'') invasions.

At the risk of replying to my own post ... it continues:

Rumsfeld Accuses Syria of Aiding Saddam

(I know; it says nothing about invasions, but it does lay the groundwork in another ``sources we're not going to tell you about'' kind of way.)

This picture is awesome.
Saddam was an [censored].
The US is great.
The US sucks.

I truely believe that the Iraqi people will see us as liberators and will build a successful democracy

Well, I certainly hope so. But I can't help thinking that winning the war was always going to be the easy bit of Operation Iraqi Freedom, compared to the challenge of building a stable country in the place of Saddamite Iraq. And I'm not saying war is particularly easy: I'm sure US and UK forces conducted themselves with skill and heroism all the way. War is hard. But stabilising occupied countries is really, really hard; the British Empire screwed it up literally all over the map, despite having plenty of practice.

(despite France's official stance that the Middle-East is not sofisticated enough for one yet).

Is that actually the way they word it? Or have they just had more experience of the immense difficulty of decolonisation, especially Middle-East decolonisation, than the US?

After all, nobody really liked the Taliban. But the decolonisation of Afghanistan has yet to produce a government with influence reaching much beyond the suburbs of Kabul. If the Kurds, and, say, the Marsh Arabs rise against Baghdad once the garrisoning forces pull out, then sure things will be a different kind of bad in Iraq than they were under Saddam, but they'll still in fact be pretty bad.

Peter

So where do I go with: I went down to St.James's Infirmary?

Either St. James's or St. James' would be correct.

Again, we're getting into personal preference, but the rule of thumb is that you use "'s" on every name ending in an "s" unless the person referenced is ancient (historically, not just a nonagenarian) or mythological: "Jesus' tears", "Moses' tablets", "Zeus' lightning bolts", but "Mrs. Jones's house down the street".

So it depends on, I guess, exactly which St. James it is (I assume that there must be more than one). You might also want to find out if it's his hospital or if it's just named after him. That is, whether a possessive should be used at all ("St. Mark's Hospital" vs. "St. Mark Hospital").

The real answer would be to call the hospital and find what they prefer, as it is the name of an established organization, and they might prefer "St. Jamess'sss", for all you know.

I remember read "James and the Giant Peach" when I was little, and it was the first time I ran across this. I can't quite remember which one Dahl used. Anyone have a copy? I think it's in the first few pages.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

exactly what i was trying to tell friends of mine earlier. a few thousand (if it was that many) people celebrating the toppling of a statue doesn't really reflect the 8 million or so that live in Baghdad does it?

I've read many other reports from indy media guys who have photos of how the food distributions were media events which were oddly staged. Strange stuff man.

Then you come across Op-Ed pieces like this one. [nytimes reg required]

it's so impossible to get a clear picture of what's really going on. It's all just too huge to break down into black and white.

[nytimes reg required]

Odd, I had no trouble viewing it.

My only guess is that, while the war is still going on, going and finding thousands of anti-Saddam Iraqis would not be the easiest or smartest thing in the world to do. I believe that many of these people are against Saddam, but how do you tell who's sincere about it when there's still citizens fighting our troops? That would be pretty dangerous just to tear down a lousy statue.

Does the scene at the right look like the Fall of the Berlin Wall?

For one, why is that guy capitalizing "Fall of the Berlin Wall" like he's refering to a book or something? Also, the Berlin Wall was a little bigger.


I think it's dangerous to take the word of both sensationalist news sources and cynical underground skeptics. I like your second source better.

I believe that many of these people are against Saddam, but how do you tell who's sincere about it when there's still citizens fighting our troops?

The Iraqi people have been taught to dissemble for the past... what, twenty years now, simply as a basic survival mechanism. That's not going to go away overnight. It's not difficult to believe that they really want Saddam out, and are happy to see him go, but can you trust their outward expression of "yay America" anymore than you can trust their outward expressions of "yay Saddam"?

Um, I think you're agreeing with me.

Uh... I think I am too.*


*This is a limited time offer, while supplies last. Offer open only to residents of the United States and Canada as applicable by law. Offer not valid in Quebec. I reserve the right to change my mind at anytime.

Hehe, okay, I wasn't sure. I thought you were arguing with me