• Vlad (unregistered) in reply to Anne
    Anne:
    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.)

    I also worked in Russia's Market. Is Good job. We hav "15 or fewer item"
  • Crusty (unregistered)

    What the fucks' wrong with all the bozo's on this bus?

  • James (unregistered) in reply to Jasmine
    Jasmine:
    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.

    some years ago, I worked as a bus driver. As most drivers will attest, complaints come in almost daily from the General Public (often something as ludicrous as the bus ran 30seconds late). Often these complaints didn't make much sense, but if the Government Transport Department passed them on to a depot, they had to be investigated and dealt with (as I say, even when the complaint made no sense whatsoever, the truth of the complainant was assumed - people complaining they were nowhere near a bus stop {and not necessarily even visible to the driver} and the bus didn't stop was probably the most common). Enough complaints, or for other issues (such as knocking kerbside mirrors on trees) and the depot manager would formalise things with a 'written warning'. I once recieved a written warning (which I had to sign). I signed it, and noted below that I sign to acknowledge that the warning was given, but not necessarily in agreement that the warning was fair. I was happy, the boss was happy (he just needs the paper trail), and we all lived happily ever after.

    I like stories....

  • frank (unregistered)

    I think we're all getting a little carried away - given that this story started out as:

    "there was this one time my boss caught VD of a prostitute and we found out, boy that was funny..."

  • Dave G. (unregistered)

    Well written! I'm sure the story was embelished a bit, but hell it was entertaining. Loved the line about his voice cracking on the four letter word - gold!

    Moar!

  • frank (unregistered)

    and anyway grammar is so last century...

  • Anne (unregistered) in reply to Vlad
    Vlad:
    Anne:
    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".

    I also worked in Russia's Market. Is Good job. We hav "15 or fewer item"

    No wonder everything's being off-shored these days. When a Russian speaker catches the grammatical error and none of the native English speakers here did.... <shaking head>

  • Michael (unregistered) in reply to Jasmine

    I agree that it's proper usage, but your argument is wrong.

    Lincoln, NE not only hosts Russ's Market, but it also hosts Fast Buck's Check Cashing and Computing Extra's

  • (cs) in reply to Anne
    Anne:
    Vlad:
    Anne:
    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".

    I also worked in Russia's Market. Is Good job. We hav "15 or fewer item"

    No wonder everything's being off-shored these days. When a Russian speaker catches the grammatical error and none of the native English speakers here did.... <shaking head>

    a) Whoosh! b) Even if "Fifteen items or less" were an error, it would not be a grammatical error but a semantic one. Of the four dictionaries I consulted, only Merriam-Webster did not explicitly list "fewer" or "smaller in number" as meanings of "less", but even that conceded it is used in this way since King Alfred's days, so it's perfectly cromulent.

  • Jugs (unregistered) in reply to Ilya Ehrenburg
    Ilya Ehrenburg:
    Anne:
    Vlad:
    Anne:
    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".

    I also worked in Russia's Market. Is Good job. We hav "15 or fewer item"

    No wonder everything's being off-shored these days. When a Russian speaker catches the grammatical error and none of the native English speakers here did.... <shaking head>

    a) Whoosh! b) Even if "Fifteen items or less" were an error, it would not be a grammatical error but a semantic one. Of the four dictionaries I consulted, only Merriam-Webster did not explicitly list "fewer" or "smaller in number" as meanings of "less", but even that conceded it is used in this way since King Alfred's days, so it's perfectly cromulent.

    Just to buy into the argument.... On dictionary.com (I realise you never claimed this was one of the four you used, but it suits my purpose) it does acknowledge: 7.a smaller amount or quantity: Hundreds of soldiers arrived, but less of them remained. However I don't think this is a case where fewer should be used anyways. (I thought) Fewer is used when the quantity is quantifiable. Since this example uses "hundreds" as opposed to "3 hundred", or "742", the number of soldiers remaining is some amount smaller than some unknown original amount, so less is perfectly acceptable. I don't think this makes a case for 'less' being correct in any case where 'fewer' could be used.

    Interestingly their usage note: Even though less has been used before plural nouns (less words; less men) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns (less sugar; less money) and singular abstract nouns (less honesty; less love). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states. Modern standard English practice does not reflect this distinction. When followed by than, less occurs at least as often as fewer in modifying plural nouns that are not units or groups, and the use of less in this construction is increasing in all varieties of English: less than eight million people; no less than 31 of the 50 states. When not followed by than, fewer is more frequent only in formal written English, and in this construction also the use of less is increasing: This year we have had less crimes, less accidents, and less fires than in any of the last five years.

    Of course, the fact that the use of less is increasing in these circumstances, does not make it correct. At least not to Nazi Puritans.

    Of course this is just my opinion, but feel free to attack...

  • Anonymous (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/

    So the real WTF comes from the English language's incredibly unintuitive apostrophe rules.

    PS: Is that a grammar equivalent of thedailywtf? Holy shit!?

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Ilya Ehrenburg
    Ilya Ehrenburg:
    Anne:
    Vlad:
    Anne:
    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".

    I also worked in Russia's Market. Is Good job. We hav "15 or fewer item"

    No wonder everything's being off-shored these days. When a Russian speaker catches the grammatical error and none of the native English speakers here did.... <shaking head>

    a) Whoosh! b) Even if "Fifteen items or less" were an error, it would not be a grammatical error but a semantic one. Of the four dictionaries I consulted, only Merriam-Webster did not explicitly list "fewer" or "smaller in number" as meanings of "less", but even that conceded it is used in this way since King Alfred's days, so it's perfectly cromulent.

    Even if "Fifteen items or less" was an error...

    :)

  • Intercom (unregistered)

    Since when is it possible to conference in the office's intercom from a phone call?
    Putting him on speaker I could understand...

  • (cs) in reply to Boris
    Boris:
    I'm tired of junior level people in my organization just rolling over and taking it up the yingyang when they really -should- be upsetting the applecart. Its the entire reason many software companies are producing mediocre crap instead of quality. The smart people are being bullied and shouted down by the idiots. If enough smart people fight back, it will end. Fighting back doesn't mean tender resignation, it means letting everyone know the truth of the situations.

    I feel exactly the same way... Especially in my government job where no one ever has the balls to stand up for some reason (while ironically these are the hardest jobs to actually lose).

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Even if "Fifteen items or less" was an error...

    :)

    Not a native speaker, very little grammar taught in school :-/ I got the impression that for the "irrealis" (it's probably called differently in English, but you should be able to guess which mode I mean) one used "were" and "was" was used for the "potentialis". Is that impression wrong? If so, what's the rule?

  • Mal (unregistered) in reply to Ilya Ehrenburg
    Ilya Ehrenburg:
    Anonymous:
    Even if "Fifteen items or less" was an error...

    :)

    Not a native speaker, very little grammar taught in school :-/ I got the impression that for the "irrealis" (it's probably called differently in English, but you should be able to guess which mode I mean) one used "were" and "was" was used for the "potentialis". Is that impression wrong? If so, what's the rule?

    Which makes a good point. Bottom line (and I know the Grammar-Nazis will have my head for this) it's about communication. If Other People can understand what you are saying, does the grammar actually matter?
    The very fact that these turds even argue over it usually shows that they understood what the intention was. What else matters? (I could understand their concerns a little more if they were commenting on some 'great work', but on a site like this.... sigh

  • 50% Opacity (unregistered) in reply to Mal
    Mal:
    Which makes a good point.

    Which is a good point.

    Sorry. :)

    Mal:
    Bottom line (and I know the Grammar-Nazis will have my head for this) it's about communication. If Other People can understand what you are saying, does the grammar actually matter? The very fact that these turds even argue over it usually shows that they understood what the intention was. What else matters? (I could understand their concerns a little more if they were commenting on some 'great work', but on a site like this.... *sigh*

    I totally agree, but:

    1. Many here are programmers and in that line of work an apostrophe more or less can really make quite a difference. Hence many are simply naturally in nazi mode here, I suppose.

    2. To a certain degree I don't care about grammer/spelling all that much, but once it gets to "would of"/"should of" level I can't tolerate it either. The nazi purists should probably be admired for consistently and rigorously standing up for their ideals.

  • Mads (unregistered)

    meh

  • (cs) in reply to 50% Opacity
    50% Opacity:
    1) Many here are programmers and in that line of work an apostrophe more or less can really make quite a difference. Hence many are simply naturally in nazi mode here, I suppose.
    The funny bit is that so many of them get it wrong.
  • (cs)

    How come a recent college graduate had had so much experience with the three different kinds of managers?

  • (cs) in reply to Wooble
    Wooble:
    Smash King:
    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".

    QFT.

    Pestulant:
    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?

    Actually I think Sytle's Elements are dicating, unless it's an irregular verb I don't know.

  • Tim (unregistered)

    so, the whole story's made up but hey, as they said in "Risky Business"

    Sometimes you just gotta way, "What The F**K"

  • will (unregistered)

    Why would anyone put up with it? You need the money or the money is really good. Besides I get paid the same driving the boss around or sitting at the desk doing another assignment.

    As for the comments about right to work states yes you can be fired for almost any reason(race, sex, and few others not allowed) however most companies have an employee handbook that give a process and courts in most US states have ruled that this is a contract and not following places the company at fault. Most of these cases get settled out of court but the few that have gone through have result in decent cash awards.

  • ceiswyn (unregistered) in reply to Jugs
    Jugs:

    Just to buy into the argument.... On dictionary.com (I realise you never claimed this was one of the four you used, but it suits my purpose) it does acknowledge: 7.a smaller amount or quantity: Hundreds of soldiers arrived, but less of them remained. However I don't think this is a case where fewer should be used anyways. (I thought) Fewer is used when the quantity is quantifiable. Since this example uses "hundreds" as opposed to "3 hundred", or "742", the number of soldiers remaining is some amount smaller than some unknown original amount, so less is perfectly acceptable. I don't think this makes a case for 'less' being correct in any case where 'fewer' could be used.

    Interestingly their usage note: Even though less has been used before plural nouns (less words; less men) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns (less sugar; less money) and singular abstract nouns (less honesty; less love). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states. Modern standard English practice does not reflect this distinction. When followed by than, less occurs at least as often as fewer in modifying plural nouns that are not units or groups, and the use of less in this construction is increasing in all varieties of English: less than eight million people; no less than 31 of the 50 states. When not followed by than, fewer is more frequent only in formal written English, and in this construction also the use of less is increasing: This year we have had less crimes, less accidents, and less fires than in any of the last five years.

    Of course, the fact that the use of less is increasing in these circumstances, does not make it correct. At least not to Nazi Puritans.

    Of course this is just my opinion, but feel free to attack...

    So your argument is... what, precisely?

    Dictionary.com acknowledges that 'less' and 'fewer' were regarded as interchangeable in the time of King Alfred and are regarded as interchangeable in standard modern usage.

    You have provided no reason why it should be considered 'correct' to slavishly follow the rules arbitrarily set by certain grammarians.

    Language experts acknowledge that the 'fewer'/'less' distinction is without foundation (see almost any post on languagelog!); do you have any reason for perpetrating this error other than that: a) it's what you were taught and b) it allows you to feel superior?

  • (cs) in reply to 50% Opacity
    50% Opacity:
    1) Many here are programmers and in that line of work an apostrophe more or fewer can really make quite a difference. Hence many are simply naturally in nazi mode here, I suppose.

    BTFY :-)

  • Cyberwizzard (unregistered)

    Wait, he actually signed that document?! For a senior slip up? WTF ever - I would have never done that, let them fire me for being honest. Beats getting sued for being stupid enough to sign...

  • st0815 (unregistered) in reply to DOA

    I didn't quite get the bit about professional assistance. Could someone explain it to me?

    Sure let's take a step back: it's like the birds and the bees. You know about the birds and bees? No?

    Ok, let's take another the step back: the birds and bees ... well you know when you have sex with a girl? Birds and bees do the same thing.

  • brandy_and_ginger (unregistered) in reply to Bappi

    Locomotives don't let you kiss them on the lips.

  • Peter and the wolf (unregistered) in reply to Smash King
    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.

    I wonder how many of them come from other countries where English may not be a widely used language. (Like Germany, you know, I heard there are many of them over there.)

    Captcha: luptatum, wolfs's'ses milk, of course.

  • (cs) in reply to Mal
    Mal:
    Bottom line (and I know the Grammar-Nazis will have my head for this) it's about communication. If Other People can understand what you are saying, does the grammar actually matter?

    This is a favored argument of lazy people with horrible grammar.

    It matters because any effort someone has to expend figuring out what someone meant, is mental energy directed away from the actual message. As you say, language is about communication. When exchanging ideas, language should ideally be as transparent as possible, and any differences in grammar between speakers works directly against this.

  • Brad (unregistered) in reply to adiener
    adiener:
    I'd really be curious to know what this story was like before dramatization. Seemed way over the top on this one.

    I doesn't add up; there's no way this supposed jackass would be revealing intimate details to "student" over the phone from the other side of the world.

  • golddog (unregistered)

    For some reason, while reading this I remembered that Bill Lumbergh was played by Gary Cole.

    Certainly the Bill part fits, I'm surprised they didn't anonymize Gary's part to "Peter".

  • (cs) in reply to 50% Opacity
    Mal:
    If Other People can understand what you are saying, does the grammar actually matter? The very fact that these turds even argue over it usually shows that they understood what the intention was. What else matters? (I could understand their concerns a little more if they were commenting on some 'great work', but on a site like this.... *sigh*
    I tend to agree. I don't argue about the grammar used until someone is both pedantic and wrong. Then, for me, it turns into a side issue as to "what the proper grammar is/was" Since I do care about that issue, loving formal rules for language (it derived from having to write too many NLPs, a hard enough task if people use grammar consistantly and correctly), I get drawn into it.

    Plus, if someone's going to be a troll, they should be taught enough to at least be a correct troll.

  • Sumatra (Not Java) (unregistered) in reply to Jim Lard
    Jim Lard:
    Unit tests? What're they?

    Duh, they're the medical tests that diagnosed the problem with Blamer Bill's "unit", if you get the point I'm jumping up and down on while shrieking loudly.

  • (cs) in reply to golddog
    golddog:
    For some reason, while reading this I remembered that Bill Lumbergh was played by Gary Cole.

    Certainly the Bill part fits, I'm surprised they didn't anonymize Gary's part to "Peter".

    Not really - Lumbergh is a completely different type of bad boss. (and to some extent the problem wasn't him per se as it was Initech's management structure - remember, eight bosses, each of which came by personally to berate him about the TPS reports.)

  • A Gould (unregistered) in reply to nitehawk
    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...

    Can I come work with you? I'd love to be at a job where you don't have to worry about such things.

  • Worf (unregistered) in reply to Intercom
    Intercom:
    Since when is it possible to conference in the office's intercom from a phone call? Putting him on speaker I could understand...

    Sometimes the office intercom is a regular extension, so a "conference with extension" function works with it just fine, though audio-out only. Dial 0 for reception, 1 for intercom, extension for extension, etc.

  • Dr_Legacy (unregistered) 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

    applause

  • Epaminondas (unregistered) in reply to Zapp Brannigan
    Zapp Brannigan:
    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.<snip for space/>

    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?"
    Neither: it's the Yankeenglisch version of an ablative absolute (Latin) or a genitive absolute (Greek).

    Of course, English declensions rarely feature the dative or the genitive case, so these antecedents are moot. There's probably an official term for it, but I like to think of

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

    (Curious how the original quote got lost while everyone indulged in a bitch-fest, isn't it?)

    The ablative/genitive/gerundal absolute part is "Superintendent Chalmers calling for Principal Skinner." (The verbal part of the absolute is, of course, "calling."). Essentially, we're dealing with an extended adjectival subclause ("not unlike...") utilising the absolute form of the subclause. English may not be exact, but it's wonderfully (and expressively) flexible

    To insert a diacritical apostrophe after "Chalmers" would be otiose. I might say that it would be supererogatory, were it not for the fact that it scarcely merits the epithet of erogatory in the first place.

    So. I wouldn't say that Zylon is entirely correct. I wouldn't say that I'm entirely correct, either; but Zylon doesn't remotely deserve to be called a jerk.

    And to everyone else on this sub-thread: I will defend to the death your right to use an apostrophe. But I'll be damned if I'll let you crow about it afterwards.

  • (cs) in reply to Jaded
    Jaded:
    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.

    I didn't say he was poor management material. But you should still look out for your coworkers. As I understand from the story Gary just barely discovered the bug. What is the point of tattling on anyone? Does he know the history of the bug? does he KNOW Bill caused the bug? Was the bug that the higher ups discussing the SAME bug that Gary just found?

    I didn't say to turn a blind eye. My point was the more than just Bill is at fault. Sounds to me like something was in production without a decent amount of QA.

    Personally I think Bill was fond of Gary, and felt like Gary stabbed him in the back. And if you are given a choice between the three B's for management I'd take a Bill over the other two any day.

  • Aloysius (unregistered)
    From professionals in the oldest profession, if you're hearing what I'm screaming.
    Farmers‽‽
  • XML Data Not Found (unregistered)

    If there was more than one other person on the project, the kid should have been able to get away with "I'll have to get that information for you from the version control logs." That way it's the logs themselves ratting out the boss, rather than Junior. Then, perhaps he could suggest that it's just an artifact of the software's pre-testing state, and assure the wigs of the safety afforded by unit testing, QA people, whatever they use for testing. Or not, if he'd rather not smooth things over.

    Either way, the new guy isn't the one pointing a finger. Much better, politically.

    Oh, and my local market has a lane marked '15 items or Les' - the owner's friend Les can use the express lane with a full cart. (not really)

    haero

  • (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.

    Please attend a school as soon as possible. Preferably one that serves edumacation.

  • (cs) in reply to Aloysius
    Aloysius:
    From professionals in the oldest profession, if you're hearing what I'm screaming.
    Farmers‽‽
    No, silly. Priests.

    Because farmers don't turn tricks.

  • (cs) in reply to Ilya Ehrenburg
    Ilya Ehrenburg:
    Anne:
    Vlad:
    Anne:
    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".

    I also worked in Russia's Market. Is Good job. We hav "15 or fewer item"

    No wonder everything's being off-shored these days. When a Russian speaker catches the grammatical error and none of the native English speakers here did.... <shaking head>

    a) Whoosh! b) Even if "Fifteen items or less" were an error, it would not be a grammatical error but a semantic one. Of the four dictionaries I consulted, only Merriam-Webster did not explicitly list "fewer" or "smaller in number" as meanings of "less", but even that conceded it is used in this way since King Alfred's days, so it's perfectly cromulent.
    It's pretty much accepted that Merriam-Webster is a flawed publication.

    American English spellings, in fact, arose from one Webster, who chose to list only the lesser-used spellings, where a choice existed. This gained traction, due to a desire to be different than those pesky Brits. The British education system reacted in kind, by insisting that Americanised spellings were now incorrect, where up until that point, they had been perfectly valid alternatives.

    One man; one big fat WTF. Many readers; many little WTFs.

    Addendum (2009-06-03 20:00):

    Ilya Ehrenburg:
    Anne:
    Vlad:
    Anne:
    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".

    I also worked in Russia's Market. Is Good job. We hav "15 or fewer item"

    No wonder everything's being off-shored these days. When a Russian speaker catches the grammatical error and none of the native English speakers here did.... <shaking head>

    a) Whoosh! b) Even if "Fifteen items or less" were an error, it would not be a grammatical error but a semantic one. Of the four dictionaries I consulted, only Merriam-Webster did not explicitly list "fewer" or "smaller in number" as meanings of "less", but even that conceded it is used in this way since King Alfred's days, so it's perfectly cromulent.
    It's pretty much accepted that Merriam-Webster is a flawed publication.

    American English spellings, in fact, arose from one Webster, who chose to list only the lesser-used spellings, where a choice existed. This gained traction, due to a desire to be different than those pesky Brits. The British education system reacted in kind, by insisting that Americanised spellings were now incorrect, where up until that point, they had been perfectly valid alternatives.

    One man; one big fat WTF. Many readers; many little WTFs.

    As to less/fewer, of course it's correct to say "15 or less", just as it's perfectly correct to end a sentence with the English analog(ue) of a Latin preposition (I wish we'd get our own word for it).

  • Ah... (unregistered)

    Nothing like a good story about revenge.

    CAPTCHA: eros

  • (cs) in reply to rfsmit

    WTF: a 5 minute or less limit to comment editing and a prefilled "addendum" with the entire comment, not just the diff.

  • Georgem (unregistered) in reply to st0815
    st0815:
    I didn't quite get the bit about professional assistance. Could someone explain it to me?

    Sure let's take a step back: it's like the birds and the bees. You know about the birds and bees? No?

    Ok, let's take another the step back: the birds and bees ... well you know when you have sex with a girl? Birds and bees do the same thing.

    Bees can take out restraining orders?

  • Company names need to be used.... (unregistered) in reply to MadtM

    Incorrect. The correct response to that is...

    "Here are your keys boss. Wow you can burn the tires on that car, I was able to slide it sideways into the parking spot. I cant wait to try and get a full 360 out of it, can I park it tomorrow?"

    They will never let you touch the keys again. works great.

  • (cs) in reply to 50% Opacity
    50% Opacity:
    1) Many here are programmers and in that line of work an apostrophe more or less can really make quite a difference. Hence many are simply naturally in nazi mode here, I suppose.
    1. To a certain degree I don't care about grammer/spelling all that much, but once it gets to "would of"/"should of" level I can't tolerate it either. The nazi purists should probably be admired for consistently and rigorously standing up for their ideals.

    As a Nazi purist, I call you on: Nazi (capitalization) grammar (spelling) "would have"/"should have" (grammar)

    ;-)

Leave a comment on “Hell Hath No Fury”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article