• (cs) in reply to dingbat
    dingbat:
    The onerous chore of babysitting the router

    The irritating holier-than-thou office Christian

    The logfiles with the desktop IP address and farmsex.net

    The incomprehensible TDWTF post
  • (cs) in reply to Dan
    Dan:
    Technically, the whole plural vs singular possessive use of apostrophes is as described - ie. Chalmers's is correct.
    No, it isn't, because there shouldn't be any apostrophe AT ALL. The sentence should have read:

    "...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers calling for Principal Skinner."

    The word "calling" here is acting as a verb, not a noun (gerund). You don't possess verbs.

  • (cs) in reply to Neil
    Neil:
    I think the best way to deal with a boss like that is to hold on to all the abuse until one day you show up with an AK-47 and mow down him, and anyone else nearby.
    I remember when we used to see a much higher quality of trolling in here . . .
  • (cs) in reply to operagost
    operagost:
    dingbat:
    The onerous chore of babysitting the router

    The irritating holier-than-thou office Christian

    The logfiles with the desktop IP address and farmsex.net

    The incomprehensible TDWTF post

    The mind-numbing task of explaining the oblique reference to the "Buffoons"

  • Mr Phantom (unregistered) in reply to Zapp Brannigan
    Zapp Brannigan:
    Is kissing a prostitute on the mouth a 'may not' or 'should not' situation? Why would you want to? Given their occupation, would they care?

    Some do, some don't, some charge extra. Don't ask how I know.

  • Your Name (unregistered) in reply to Mr Phantom
    Mr Phantom:
    Zapp Brannigan:
    Is kissing a prostitute on the mouth a 'may not' or 'should not' situation? Why would you want to? Given their occupation, would they care?

    Some do, some don't, some charge extra. Don't ask how I know.

    How do you know?

  • Mike (unregistered)

    Hmm.. in addition to the speakerphone trick, I would have anonymously spread the rumour that it was a transvestite prostitute instead of Bill's "regular girl". Eddie Murphy career move, anyone?

    And I might have literally thrown Bill under a bus after quitting, or introduced him to a baseball bat.

  • (cs)
    "One last thing, student," Bill said, struggling with his bags as he got out of the car. "I've made a note of the mileage. It's 22 miles back to the office, don't be tempted to use the car while I'm gone."
    I was so hoping for a Ferris Bueller reenactment after reading this.
  • (cs) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    Dan:
    Technically, the whole plural vs singular possessive use of apostrophes is as described - ie. Chalmers's is correct.
    No, it isn't, because there shouldn't be any apostrophe AT ALL. The sentence should have read:

    "...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers calling for Principal Skinner."

    The word "calling" here is acting as a verb, not a noun (gerund). You don't possess verbs.

    Now you're just being a jerk.

    The apostrophe is what makes the word "calling" into a noun. I guess I would have used the form "call" to eliminate ambiguity. But to split that hair is too pedantic even for the likes of TDWTF comment section...

  • (cs) in reply to Satanicpuppy

    Does anyone else feels disgusted of Gary?

    Come'on, a programmer, with zero ego? No programmer at all.

  • Wizard Stan (unregistered) in reply to Voodoo Coder
    Voodoo Coder:
    Zylon:
    Dan:
    Technically, the whole plural vs singular possessive use of apostrophes is as described - ie. Chalmers's is correct.
    No, it isn't, because there shouldn't be any apostrophe AT ALL. The sentence should have read:

    "...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers calling for Principal Skinner."

    The word "calling" here is acting as a verb, not a noun (gerund). You don't possess verbs.

    Now you're just being a jerk.

    The apostrophe is what makes the word "calling" into a noun. I guess I would have used the form "call" to eliminate ambiguity. But to split that hair is too pedantic even for the likes of TDWTF comment section...

    The ownership isn't on the word "calling", it's on the word "tone". It is Chalmers's tone that we're talking about. "This report is not unlike Steve's" "This hamburger is as good as Martha's" "The tone was not unlike Chalmers's" In which case there should probably be a comma after Chalmers's.

    Or the whole of "calling for Principal Skinner" is the noun which is owned by Chalmers. "This fried chicken is better than Martha's baked chicken." Baked is a verb, but combined with chicken the whole thing becomes a noun. There's a word for such combinations, but I forget what it is.

    Isn't English wonderful? Totally unambiguous always, right?

  • (cs) in reply to Voodoo Coder
    Voodoo Coder:
    The apostrophe is what makes the word "calling" into a noun. I guess I would have used the form "call" to eliminate ambiguity. But to split that hair is too pedantic even for the likes of TDWTF comment section...
    No, the apostrophe is what makes the entire sentence grammatical gibberish.

    Sure, "...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers's call for Principal Skinner." would have also been correct, but horribly awkward.

    And using "calling" as a noun makes the word mean something else entirely. As in, "To find one's true calling in life".

  • Georgem (unregistered)

    Yeh, first job out of college, sorry, you'd be doing yourself no favours by walking out, taking legal action or otherwise kicking up a fuss. It's not a luxury you can afford, sadly. One of my junior lecturers at uni sued his employer quite early in his career. Didn't matter that he was in the right, all anybody remembered was, he's the guy that sued his employer. Result? Virtually unemployable, and had to teach for a living

    Good job the entire story's bullshit, really

  • (cs) in reply to Your Name
    Your Name:
    Mr Phantom:
    Zapp Brannigan:
    Is kissing a prostitute on the mouth a 'may not' or 'should not' situation? Why would you want to? Given their occupation, would they care?

    Some do, some don't, some charge extra. Don't ask how I know.

    How do you know?

    While I don't know how he knows, I know by having dated the occasional stripper. While none of the girls I dated ever were in the other profession, they knew plenty of girls who were. So I know that whole scene pretty well.

    And it's like he said, some will, some won't.

  • Zapp Brannigan (unregistered) in reply to Wizard Stan
    Wizard Stan:
    Voodoo Coder:
    Zylon:
    Dan:
    Technically, the whole plural vs singular possessive use of apostrophes is as described - ie. Chalmers's is correct.
    No, it isn't, because there shouldn't be any apostrophe AT ALL. The sentence should have read:

    "...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers calling for Principal Skinner."

    The word "calling" here is acting as a verb, not a noun (gerund). You don't possess verbs.

    Now you're just being a jerk.

    The apostrophe is what makes the word "calling" into a noun. I guess I would have used the form "call" to eliminate ambiguity. But to split that hair is too pedantic even for the likes of TDWTF comment section...

    The ownership isn't on the word "calling", it's on the word "tone". It is Chalmers's tone that we're talking about. "This report is not unlike Steve's" "This hamburger is as good as Martha's" "The tone was not unlike Chalmers's" In which case there should probably be a comma after Chalmers's.

    Or the whole of "calling for Principal Skinner" is the noun which is owned by Chalmers. "This fried chicken is better than Martha's baked chicken." Baked is a verb, but combined with chicken the whole thing becomes a noun. There's a word for such combinations, but I forget what it is.

    Isn't English wonderful? Totally unambiguous always, right?

    I think almost got it except for that made up word 'gerund.' So which is it: "All your base are belong to us" or "All your base's are belong to us's?"

  • Marc B (unregistered) in reply to Jasmine
    Jasmine:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    No it's correct. I know because I used to work at Russ's Market. Superintendent Chalmers is a single person, not a group.

    Go have fun: http://www.apostropheabuse.com/

    Cromulent use of apostrophes embiggens all of us.

  • (cs) in reply to Buffled
    Buffled:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    Eh? That's absolutely the correct usage. "Chalmers'" is used but it is incorrect. Usually it is only acceptable when the name ends in "es" like "Jones"; and even then it's probably safest to use 's.

    TRWTF is that not even americans and british know their own language's rules. And then when anyone (from any country, where english may not be a widely known language) makes even a simple misspelling a lot of grammar nazis appear out of nowhere.
  • IT Girl (unregistered) in reply to Marc B
    Marc B:
    Jasmine:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    No it's correct. I know because I used to work at Russ's Market. Superintendent Chalmers is a single person, not a group.

    Go have fun: http://www.apostropheabuse.com/

    Cromulent use of apostrophes embiggens all of us.

    ... but the sound "chalmerz.z" is much more fun (read awkward) than "russ.z" thereby causing the distress and confusion. I have to say though, I have a Bachelour of Arts in English Language and Literature (that's what it says on my official degree) and have never seen so many people get so worked up over usage, grammar, syntax or any of the other specific vagaries of the language as I've seen in this forum.

  • PRMan (unregistered) in reply to Georgem

    In my first job, at college, my boss got mad at me because she ran a query that sent letters to

    "Dear Deceased,"

    Instead of accepting the blame, she tried to make it out to be my fault (and she was best friends with the University President).

    At one point, after working until 8:30 the night before (no overtime, even though I was a student, because she "didn't have it in the budget"), I was 5 minutes late to work and she threatened to fire me on the spot.

    I looked her in the eye and said, "Fine, go ahead. Fire me. But the very first thing I will do is call the BSA and report to them that you knowingly and willingly pirate software for profit, and I can get a lot of people to testify that you do this. Enjoy your time in prison." And I walked out.

    Fortunately, she was older and didn't realize that it's pretty hard to go to prison for copyright violations, but I worked there for 2-3 more years after that and she never threatened me again. Strangely enough, after about 3-4 months, we got along better than we ever had.

    Job or no job, there is no way I was going down when I was busting my butt for the company on my dime. BTW, I worked very little OT after that as well...

  • Jasmine (unregistered) in reply to IT Girl
    IT Girl:
    Marc B:
    Jasmine:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    No it's correct. I know because I used to work at Russ's Market. Superintendent Chalmers is a single person, not a group.

    Go have fun: http://www.apostropheabuse.com/

    Cromulent use of apostrophes embiggens all of us.

    ... but the sound "chalmerz.z" is much more fun (read awkward) than "russ.z" thereby causing the distress and confusion. I have to say though, I have a Bachelour of Arts in English Language and Literature (that's what it says on my official degree) and have never seen so many people get so worked up over usage, grammar, syntax or any of the other specific vagaries of the language as I've seen in this forum.

    Meh... you can't even spell Bachelor, LOL ;)

  • IT Girl (unregistered) in reply to Jasmine
    Jasmine:
    IT Girl:
    Marc B:
    Jasmine:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    No it's correct. I know because I used to work at Russ's Market. Superintendent Chalmers is a single person, not a group.

    Go have fun: http://www.apostropheabuse.com/

    Cromulent use of apostrophes embiggens all of us.

    ... but the sound "chalmerz.z" is much more fun (read awkward) than "russ.z" thereby causing the distress and confusion. I have to say though, I have a Bachelour of Arts in English Language and Literature (that's what it says on my official degree) and have never seen so many people get so worked up over usage, grammar, syntax or any of the other specific vagaries of the language as I've seen in this forum.

    Meh... you can't even spell Bachelor, LOL ;)

    Yank.. :)

  • morry (unregistered)

    Gary, while not the strongest individual, should be given a pass. Not everyone is ready to stare down an HR department and his boss while fresh out of college / university.

    Give it a decade, Gary, and call them back, especially if they have an opening tailor made for you. Listen to their spiel again with experienced ears, and realize that you learned something. and for gods sake turn down ANY job offer.

    what amazes me is that so many corporations are so full of fail like this, yet continue to exist.

  • Wooble (unregistered) in reply to Smash King
    Smash King:
    Buffled:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    Eh? That's absolutely the correct usage. "Chalmers'" is used but it is incorrect. Usually it is only acceptable when the name ends in "es" like "Jones"; and even then it's probably safest to use 's.

    TRWTF is that not even americans and british know their own language's rules. And then when anyone (from any country, where english may not be a widely known language) makes even a simple misspelling a lot of grammar nazis appear out of nowhere.

    That should be "their own languages' rules".

  • (cs)
    I'd file that report !

    Boy, he really did (verb) that (noun) !

  • (cs) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    That's perfectly correct apostrophe usage, as dicated by Elements of Sytle.

  • (cs) in reply to morry
    morry:
    what amazes me is that so many corporations are so full of fail like this, yet continue to exist.

    +100 to this. I've worked for so many companies that were "full of fail" and yet they chug along at a very small profit and make life miserable for employees, all the while talking about how great they are and how much of a genius the owner of the company is.

    It's very disheartening, when idiots are allowed to prosper.

  • Larry (unregistered)

    I had a blamer boss like that. His hard drive crashed and wiped out months of his work. He blamed me for not backing up his computer, which he never told me to do. I guess he expected me to sneak into his office at night and back it up for him.

  • (cs) in reply to Larry
    Larry:
    I had a blamer boss like that. His hard drive crashed and wiped out months of his work. He blamed *me* for not backing up his computer, which he never told me to do. I guess he expected me to sneak into his office at night and back it up for him.

    In which case he would have blamed you for sneaking into his office at night and performing an unauthorized backup of his computer (presumably for your own nefarious purposes, naturally)

  • Pestulant (unregistered) in reply to Capt. Obvious
    Capt. Obvious:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    That's perfectly correct apostrophe usage, as dicated by Elements of Sytle.

    Who is Sytle and why are they dictating?

  • (cs)

    Not only would I have no signed that form, I would have immediately started looking for a new job and simultaenously painstakingly document every bug introduced by "Bill" I could find.

    My last day of working there I would email it to every developer and manager in the company.

    but.. i also like to burn bridges I dont' see any good coming from.

  • Anne (unregistered) in reply to Jasmine
    Jasmine:
    No it's correct. I know because I used to work at Russ's Market.

    And I'll bet $10 that Russ's Market had a checkout lane with a sign that said "Fifteen items or less".

    (If you don't see the WTF in that one, you should have flunked English in high school.)

  • (cs) in reply to Capt. Obvious
    Capt. Obvious:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    That's perfectly correct apostrophe usage, as dicated by Elements of Sytle.
    Try reading the whole thread first next time.

  • Loren Pechtel (unregistered) in reply to EatenByAGrue
    EatenByAGrue:
    This was Gary's first gig out of school. Should Gary have quit? Probably. But in his defense there were a number of good reasons why he didn't: 1. It's a bad job market right now in general. 2. In a lot of markets for programmers, "entry-level" means 3+ years of experience. It's extremely difficult to get those first 3 years in. 3. He hadn't had enough time on the job to build up a financial cushion to get through a period of unemployment. 4. Student loan payments. 5. Having to explain in each job interview why his first job out of college lasted only a few months. And "My boss was a complete jerk" actually is about the worst possible explanation to give even if it's true.

    I'll agree with 4 out of the 5. #5, however--the explanation was that he was fired for not taking the fall for the boss's mistake.

    When something like this happens you're probably better off playing along but immediately starting job hunting.

  • (cs)

    I also thought Gary was being spineless at first, but then I read the comments and realized he's actually a pretty tough customer.

    Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there was a reason he put up with the abuse for so long. Maybe the job paid really well, maybe he couldn't find anything else, or maybe there was a political issue at work that made Bill untouchable.

    Sure, from a moral standpoint, the right thing to do is to stand up to the bully. But sometimes, you just end up getting your butt kicked, and then the next day it's back to wedgies as usual.

    So Gary wisely bided his time, and managed to roll with the punches. Then one day, he got his opening, and with a single stealth conference call, managed to completely destroy his antagonist's reputation.

    Revenge is a dish best served cold.

  • Mike B. (unregistered) in reply to Voodoo Coder
    Voodoo Coder:
    Zylon:
    Dan:
    Technically, the whole plural vs singular possessive use of apostrophes is as described - ie. Chalmers's is correct.
    No, it isn't, because there shouldn't be any apostrophe AT ALL. The sentence should have read:

    "...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers calling for Principal Skinner."

    The word "calling" here is acting as a verb, not a noun (gerund). You don't possess verbs.

    Now you're just being a jerk.

    The apostrophe is what makes the word "calling" into a noun. I guess I would have used the form "call" to eliminate ambiguity. But to split that hair is too pedantic even for the likes of TDWTF comment section...

    Both wrong. What's being possessed is the tone.

  • Jasmine (unregistered)

    On not signing the form... you kinda have to sign it, and signing it can also be fairly meaningless. Depending on the form, signing it is not an acceptance of guilt or even acknowledgment that the facts are correct - it simply indicates that you were shown the form and allowed to read the report. It is a good idea to keep a copy of it for yourself. See the following...

    http://www.kollman-saucier.com/forms/discipl_form.html

    Refusing to sign the form is not as good an idea as it might sound. What you want to do is sign it and get another copy and get the original signature of the reporting party and preferably a third party as well. That way, you can dispute it - if you don't sign it, it's hard to dispute it.

    The issue here is that the employee was either written up for something he didn't do, or for being honest about what actually happened, neither of which are grounds for disciplinary action in any company I'm aware of. If the manager person was claiming that he didn't write the code, and saying the employee lied about it - then there should be documentation in the source control system, and if there isn't then it's the manager's fault for not documenting activities under his control.

  • AshG (unregistered) in reply to Voodoo Coder
    Voodoo Coder:
    nitehawk:
    Does anyone remember when the stories on this site were not complete bullshit?

    A guy getting threatened to be fired because he did not cover up for his supervisor? Please...

    Or the same supervisor sharing details of his romp with a prostitute?

    Or how he contracted an STD?

    I guess I've met people with very little shame...but I gotta say, even they had their limits on who they would tell something to...

    I'm calling shenanigans on this one...somebody get me my broom...

    I worked for a call center where we had two devs and three managers. The managers were all incompetent bullies hired by their friend who held the authority but no responsibilities.

    One of the managers was scratching his balls in front of us and saying how he'd prefer a woman with big fake tits (not that he'd get any. he was a short fat obnoxious dude with a Napoleon complex). One day he rushed to my cubicle with a timesheet with my name on it and asked me to beef up the numbers to make up for 80 hours for last week. He apparently has already billed a client for 80 hours. The client has called his bullshit. He needed me to lie on the timesheet and come up with all sorts of fake work for that client.

    I filled up that timesheet with honest 40 hours and emailed it back to him and a few more people. I apologized in the email saying that was all I could come up with.

    It was then when the discrimination started. I took extra 1 hour to debug the code - "took too long to finish the project". HR warnings for all sorts of shit followed. The HR lady was a total bitch that was more worried about her ass than the health of the company. Anything that the prick said in front of the two of us, she just nodded in approval.

    The company doesn't exist anymore, and I am happy where I am now.

  • Jcn (unregistered) in reply to Kef Schecter
    Kef Schecter:
    Buffled:
    Eh? That's absolutely the correct usage. "Chalmers'" is used but it is incorrect.

    No. Both Chalmers' and Chalmers's is correct, depending on the style guide being followed.

    I hate it when people get locked into thinking that a certain way of doing things is "correct" without stopping to question whoever taught them. It's not like God created rules for apostrophe usage. It's merely a convention, and sometimes different people/organizations have different conventions.

    Interesting point, but since grammar is the issue, I think you meant they *are* both correct.
  • (cs) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    Try reading the whole thread first next time.
    To understand that you have an issue understanding this common English usage? I suppose that could have helped. But, don't feel bad, lots of people misuderstood.
    ...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers's calling for Principal Skinner
    is parsed as
    ... in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers's [tone when] calling for Principal Skinner

    Putting "'s" after a singular noun ending in "s" is considered proper English (as from Strunk and White).

    "calling for" is a dyad that cannot be anaylzed independently, that is, will show up as a two-word phrase in a dictionary. Hence, "calling for Principal Skinner" is a single adjective phrase. Since it must modify a noun, and the only noun in the phrase is "tone", the sentence is unambiguous.

  • (cs)

    Still wrong. That interpretation has the tone calling for Skinner, not Chalmers. Try adding some more commas and maybe you'll have something sensible. Or, y'know, we could just take out the possessive and have it read perfectly clearly.

    This sort of crap wouldn't happen if they stopped paying Jake by the character.

  • (cs)

    When I first start reading the story I was thinking the Gary was a whiner and Bill sounded like a decent enough guy. So he makes a few jokes, and has a nickname for his underlings. I wouldn't mind working for someone like that.

    Then Gary finds a bug. He doesn't say he is sure Bill checked it in (sure, maybe Gary traced the source code back to Bill's check in, but maybe someone else made a change?) So he ratted out his boss. Sure Gary is still new, but that is stupid, and not good management material. He shouldn't have named names, just say there is a bug in the code.

    Of course I'm not exactly sure what he was disciplined for, and that is where the story takes a bad turn, and does make Bill look bad. Looks to me like Bill was irate because he felt Gary stabbed him in the back (and in a way he did, we all make mistakes)

    If this function was as core as was suggested, sure unit tests would have found the error, but so would some good QA, which sounds like there was much.

  • glwtta (unregistered)

    Sounds made up.

  • Jaded (unregistered) in reply to chrismcb
    chrismcb:
    When I first start reading the story I was thinking the Gary was a whiner and Bill sounded like a decent enough guy. So he makes a few jokes, and has a nickname for his underlings. I wouldn't mind working for someone like that.

    Then Gary finds a bug. He doesn't say he is sure Bill checked it in (sure, maybe Gary traced the source code back to Bill's check in, but maybe someone else made a change?) So he ratted out his boss. Sure Gary is still new, but that is stupid, and not good management material. He shouldn't have named names, just say there is a bug in the code.

    Of course I'm not exactly sure what he was disciplined for, and that is where the story takes a bad turn, and does make Bill look bad. Looks to me like Bill was irate because he felt Gary stabbed him in the back (and in a way he did, we all make mistakes)

    If this function was as core as was suggested, sure unit tests would have found the error, but so would some good QA, which sounds like there was much.

    Holy cow, are you off the mark. The whole premise of your argument seems to be that Gary is not good management material? good god man.

    Yeah, uh. I'll just turn a blind eye and hope they catch that skimming in (probably non-existent) testing.

    And derogatory names and generally poor treatment given to "underlings"? Again the whole thing reads of sympathy for the devil.

  • (cs) in reply to Charles400
    Charles400:
    I'd file that report !

    Boy, he really did (verb) that (noun) !

    ...ladies.

  • Jolly (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Mike:
    Hmm.. in addition to the speakerphone trick, I would have anonymously spread the rumour that it was a transvestite prostitute instead of Bill's "regular girl". Eddie Murphy career move, anyone?

    And I might have literally thrown Bill under a bus after quitting, or introduced him to a baseball bat.

    The article said he 'accidentally' included everyone over the intercom. I thought that was the WTF....That a (presumably) competent programmer couldn't even work his phone properly. Not much of one, of course, but that's quite the norm...

  • MaGee (unregistered) in reply to Voodoo Coder
    Voodoo Coder:
    Zylon:
    Dan:
    Technically, the whole plural vs singular possessive use of apostrophes is as described - ie. Chalmers's is correct.
    No, it isn't, because there shouldn't be any apostrophe AT ALL. The sentence should have read:

    "...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers calling for Principal Skinner."

    The word "calling" here is acting as a verb, not a noun (gerund). You don't possess verbs.

    Now you're just being a jerk.

    The apostrophe is what makes the word "calling" into a noun. I guess I would have used the form "call" to eliminate ambiguity. But to split that hair is too pedantic even for the likes of TDWTF comment section...

    I can see where he's coming from (but then I disagree with you, so I'm probably a jerk too) While 'calling' being a noun in this sentence would work, it seems to make more sense for calling to be a verb (in this case).

    In a tone not unlike SI Chalmers doing what? Sounds like a verb to me....I'd leave the Apostrophe off altogether too....

  • MaGee (unregistered) in reply to Wizard Stan
    Wizard Stan:
    Voodoo Coder:
    Zylon:
    Dan:
    Technically, the whole plural vs singular possessive use of apostrophes is as described - ie. Chalmers's is correct.
    No, it isn't, because there shouldn't be any apostrophe AT ALL. The sentence should have read:

    "...in a tone not unlike Superintendent Chalmers calling for Principal Skinner."

    The word "calling" here is acting as a verb, not a noun (gerund). You don't possess verbs.

    Now you're just being a jerk.

    The apostrophe is what makes the word "calling" into a noun. I guess I would have used the form "call" to eliminate ambiguity. But to split that hair is too pedantic even for the likes of TDWTF comment section...

    The ownership isn't on the word "calling", it's on the word "tone". It is Chalmers's tone that we're talking about. "This report is not unlike Steve's" "This hamburger is as good as Martha's" "The tone was not unlike Chalmers's" In which case there should probably be a comma after Chalmers's.

    Or the whole of "calling for Principal Skinner" is the noun which is owned by Chalmers. "This fried chicken is better than Martha's baked chicken." Baked is a verb, but combined with chicken the whole thing becomes a noun. There's a word for such combinations, but I forget what it is.

    Isn't English wonderful? Totally unambiguous always, right?

    Okay, you sway me...I can see this either (or both even) way....

  • Bob (unregistered) in reply to Kermos
    Kermos:
    Your Name:
    Mr Phantom:
    Zapp Brannigan:
    Is kissing a prostitute on the mouth a 'may not' or 'should not' situation? Why would you want to? Given their occupation, would they care?

    Some do, some don't, some charge extra. Don't ask how I know.

    How do you know?

    While I don't know how he knows, I know by having dated the occasional stripper. While none of the girls I dated ever were in the other profession, they knew plenty of girls who were. So I know that whole scene pretty well.

    And it's like he said, some will, some won't.

    Greetings Mr Naive

  • Jack (unregistered) in reply to Smash King
    Smash King:
    Buffled:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    Eh? That's absolutely the correct usage. "Chalmers'" is used but it is incorrect. Usually it is only acceptable when the name ends in "es" like "Jones"; and even then it's probably safest to use 's.

    TRWTF is that not even americans and british know their own language's rules. And then when anyone (from any country, where english may not be a widely known language) makes even a simple misspelling a lot of grammar nazis appear out of nowhere.
    And if the grammar nazis can't agree on it, how can the rest of us be expected to get it right...

    I think people just like being right, even when they're not.

  • Dilbert (unregistered) in reply to IT Girl
    IT Girl:
    Jasmine:
    IT Girl:
    Marc B:
    Jasmine:
    Zylon:
    "Superintendent Chalmers's"

    Oh, wow. It's been a while since I've seen apostrophe usage as fractally wrong as this.

    No it's correct. I know because I used to work at Russ's Market. Superintendent Chalmers is a single person, not a group.

    Go have fun: http://www.apostropheabuse.com/

    Cromulent use of apostrophes embiggens all of us.

    ... but the sound "chalmerz.z" is much more fun (read awkward) than "russ.z" thereby causing the distress and confusion. I have to say though, I have a Bachelour of Arts in English Language and Literature (that's what it says on my official degree) and have never seen so many people get so worked up over usage, grammar, syntax or any of the other specific vagaries of the language as I've seen in this forum.

    Meh... you can't even spell Bachelor, LOL ;)

    Yank.. :)

    Hahaha...Which part of the world do you come to spell it like that??

Leave a comment on “Hell Hath No Fury”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article