Lucy Earl on the correct use of apostrophes

I stopped watching after she talked for two minutes and she hadn’t said a damned thing. Pretty gal, isn’t she?

I must admit my punctuation suffers when typing on my I-Phone.
 
Yes, Mott, she’s very pretty. If my English teacher had looked like her back in 1980 I’d probably not know how to use apostrophes....or question marks...or...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I stopped watching after she talked for two minutes and she hadn’t said a damned thing. Pretty gal, isn’t she?

I must admit my punctuation suffers when typing on my I-Phone.
Click to expand...

You could always have fast forwarded!! She starts talking turkey at 2:30.

You also need to watch this video, sorry couldn't find one by the luscious Lucy.


Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
You could always have fast forwarded!! She starts talking turkey at 2:30.

You also need to watch this video, sorry couldn't find one by the luscious Lucy.


Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Naaa i’m all right too.
Apostrophes are easy. If you own it or contract it.
 
leaningright said:
Yes, Mott, she’s very pretty. If my English teacher had looked like her back in 1980 I’d probably not know how to use apostrophes....or question marks...or...
Click to expand...
No doubt. I had that problem as a Freshman in High School algebra. I had a hot young auburn haired babe with a bubble butt and who was improbably named, I kid you not, Miss Bang. Needless to say I had to retake algebra.
 
I wouldn’t worry about it Jade. Half the members here are philistines who don’t know the difference between a salad fork and a soup spoon.

Oh...and just so you know...Grind saw this video ages ago.
 
Last edited:
katzgar said:
apostrophes caused the fall of the british empire,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...
I blame it on Alexander Haig. The worst winning general in human history. He won a war and lost an Empire...not to mention a million British lives. Small account to him. They were commoners after all.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I blame it on Alexander Haig. The worst winning general in human history. He won a war and lost an Empire...not to mention a million British lives. Small account to him. They were commoners after all.
Click to expand...
It was actually 888,246 British and Colonial soldiers.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I blame it on Alexander Haig. The worst winning general in human history. He won a war and lost an Empire...not to mention a million British lives. Small account to him. They were commoners after all.
Click to expand...

Very simplistic analysis to my mind, if I can be bothered I might just point out why! Did you know that prior to the battle of the Somme, over 1.7 million shells were fired at the German trenches and the bombardment lasted a week?



Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Nothing complicated about the apostrophe - you use it when you leave a letter out e.g. cannot - can't. Once upon a time English had a genitive case, e.g. sheepes = belonging to a sheep, but people started saying it as we do, 'sheep's' so they put an apostrophe in to replace the 'e'. The only trouble came when some halfwit decided, 'Oh it means 'belonging to' does it? So how do you say "Belonging to many?"' They should have told the fool to go away and die, but instead they put an apostrophe in after the plural 's', which was half-witted, since nothing had been left out. Therefore idiots still made "dog's bone" and "dogs' bones" 'correct' - which shows what idiots grammarians are!
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
Very simplistic analysis to my mind, if I can be bothered I might just point out why! Did you know that prior to the battle of the Somme, over 1.7 million shells were fired at the German trenches and the bombardment lasted a week?



Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I did and I also know that Haig and his general staff grossly over estimated the impact the bombardment would make, which was negligable, and he enforced suicidal infantry tactics on the inexperienced Pals divisions that ensured their slaughter. 60,000 casualties on the first day with 24,000 KIA. Just a hideous disregard of human life. It is certainly best described as donkey's leading lions.

Black Jack Pershing was without a doubt the best general during WWI as he had the sense not to allow the Allies to command American troops. He did bend during the 2018 spring offensive and soon regretted it. Haig would kill of your soldiers as soon as you gave them to him. Denying the allies command over American troops was one of the smartest decisions ever made by an American commander. He saved untold thousands of lives.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I did and I also know that Haig and his general staff grossly over estimated the impact the bombardment would make, which was negligable, and he enforced suicidal infantry tactics on the inexperienced Pals divisions that ensured their slaughter. 60,000 casualties on the first day with 24,000 KIA. Just a hideous disregard of human life. It is certainly best described as donkey's leading lions.

Black Jack Pershing was without a doubt the best general during WWI as he had the sense not to allow the Allies to command American troops. He did bend during the 2018 spring offensive and soon regretted it. Haig would kill of your soldiers as soon as you gave them to him. Denying the allies command over American troops was one of the smartest decisions ever made by an American commander. He saved untold thousands of lives.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that Haig was a saint, by any means, but the artillery barrage is easy to ridicule with the benefit of hindsight. Haig, and Rawlinson, had used the same tactics a year previously to great effect at the Battle of Loos. Sadly the biggest blunder they made was not noticing that the barbed wire was still intact, even after a week of bombardment.

Pershing had the benefit of coming into the war late and being able to study the mistakes made earlier, he also had tanks at his disposal. Even so some of his tactics have been criticised, both by other commanders at the time, and by modern historians. His reliance on costly frontal assaults, long after other Allied armies had abandoned such tactics, has been blamed for causing unnecessarily high American casualties. The British Army of 1917-18 was vastly different to that even a year earlier, they had learnt, at great cost admittedly, how to stop the Germans and overrun their trenches even when they started to deploy mustard gas,and chlorine on the battlefield.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Havana Moon said:
I am not saying that Haig was a saint, by any means, but the artillery barrage is easy to ridicule with the benefit of hindsight. Haig, and Rawlinson, had used the same tactics a year previously to great effect at the Battle of Loos. Sadly the biggest blunder they made was not noticing that the barbed wire was still intact, even after a week of bombardment.

Pershing had the benefit of coming into the war late and being able to study the mistakes made earlier, he also had tanks at his disposal. Even so some of his tactics have been criticised, both by other commanders at the time, and by modern historians. His reliance on costly frontal assaults, long after other Allied armies had abandoned such tactics, has been blamed for causing unnecessarily high American casualties. The British Army of 1917-18 was vastly different to that even a year earlier, they had learnt, at great cost admittedly, how to stop the Germans and overrun their trenches even when they started to deploy mustard gas,and chlorine on the battlefield.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
He also ignored intelligence reports of the quality of the redoubts the Germans were building in the trenches and his infantry tactics were simply inexcusable. Pershing certainly had many benefits of learning from the Allies experience. It still does not change the fact, given the enormous pressure on him by the allies and the condescending attitude he had to tolerate from a gross mediocrity like Haig to give them command over American troops. Despite any of Pershings flaws it was the single most important and best decision Pershing ever made as a commander. Haig once flipped out on Pershing when Pershing noted that following up an infantry offensive with a cavalry attack was the height of stupidity. Which it was. Haig to his dying day believed in the legitimacy of cavalry attacks far beyond it having been proven beyond a doubt that they were obsolete and suicidal. The difference between Haig and Pershing was Pershing learned from his mistakes. One just has to study the Third battle of Pachendale to fully understand just what an out of touch loon Haig was.

The British Empire has in it's history produced some great military figures, Marlborough, Wellington and Nelson. Haig sure as hell wasn't one of them and what's disheartening is the British senior politicians were well aware of what mediocrities French and Haig were. Though towards the end of the war. Lloyd George did wise up after 1916 and made it very difficult for Haig to slaughter more British subjects but lacked the power to have sacked him, which he seriously wanted to do.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
He also ignored intelligence reports of the quality of the redoubts the Germans were building in the trenches and his infantry tactics were simply inexcusable. Pershing certainly had many benefits of learning from the Allies experience. It still does not change the fact, given the enormous pressure on him by the allies and the condescending attitude he had to tolerate from a gross mediocrity like Haig to give them command over American troops. Despite any of Pershings flaws it was the single most important and best decision Pershing ever made as a commander. Haig once flipped out on Pershing when Pershing noted that following up an infantry offensive with a cavalry attack was the height of stupidity. Which it was. Haig to his dying day believed in the legitimacy of cavalry attacks far beyond it having been proven beyond a doubt that they were obsolete and suicidal. The difference between Haig and Pershing was Pershing learned from his mistakes. One just has to study the Third battle of Pachendale to fully understand just what an out of touch loon Haig was.

The British Empire has in it's history produced some great military figures, Marlborough, Wellington and Nelson. Haig sure as hell wasn't one of them and what's disheartening is the British senior politicians were well aware of what mediocrities French and Haig were. Though towards the end of the war. Lloyd George did wise up after 1916 and made it very difficult for Haig to slaughter more British subjects but lacked the power to have sacked him, which he seriously wanted to do.
Click to expand...
Yet it was Haig that saw the promise of tanks at the Somme and ordered hundreds more to be built. That really doesn't chime with your notion that Haig was old fashioned and incapable of change. They didn't win the war but they sure scared the hell out of the Germans, at least for a while anyway. Their greatest contribution was in breaching obstacles like barbed wire and barriers.

What finally did for them was hugely improved artillery, aerial reconnaissance/bombardment and far better logistics and supply chains.

Yes Haig believed in cavalry attacks, hardly surprising as he was a cavalryman. However they weren't to know at the outset, that they would end up with trench warfare which prevented widespread use of horses anyway. In the very early days, cavalry were devastating against infantry, the battle of Mons is a good example of that.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top