View Full Version : Grammar Fascists

23rd Aug 2008, 06:57
Go a it too far.... :O

Grammar vandals fined for altering historic Grand Canyon sign (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2605213/Grammar-vandals-fined-for-altering-historic-Grand-Canyon-sign.html)

Two obsessive grammarians who changed a historical handpainted sign at the Grand Canyon national park have been sentenced to probation for vandalism.

Jeff Deck and Benjamin Herson, both 28, had spent this spring travelling across the United States correcting errors on government signposts.

The pair set up the Typo Eradication Advancement League and were interviewed by National Public Radio and the Chicago Tribune, which referred to them as "a pair of Kerouacs armed with Sharpies and erasers and righteous indignation".

Their brush with fame brought about their downfall, however, after investigators looked up their web page.

A diary entry by Mr Deck said they had visited the Desert View Watchtower in Grand Canyon national park and "discovered a hand-rendered sign inside that, I regret to report, contained a few errors".

Using a marker, he replaced an erroneous apostrophe and added a comma to the yellow lettering on a black fibreboard sign.

However, the pair did not realise the sign had been made by Mary Elizabeth Jane Colter, the architect who built the watchtower and other landmarks in the Grand Canyon area.

They pleaded guilty to conspiracy to vandalise government property and were sentenced to a year's probation during which they cannot enter a national park or change any public signs.

They were also told to pay £1,500 to repair the sign. Fortunately they had ignored a more egregious typo: the word immense was spelled "emense".

Their website now carries this message: "Statement on the signage of our National Parks and public lands to come"

However, it lacks a full stop.

23rd Aug 2008, 07:42
I hate the inappropriate use of the apostrophe (guilty of it myself actually; my moniker used to say "Pilot's Pal, when, of course, I am a pal to many pilots :ok:)

The BBC regularly commit spelling and grammar howlers, the most notable on the scrolling news bar on their excellent website. I recently saw "barracade" for "barricade".

By the way, have I used the semi-colon correctly?

23rd Aug 2008, 08:18
"Pilot's Pal"

A tiddle tube. Yes, I can see why you'd move the apostrophe.

23rd Aug 2008, 08:41
That's 'cos I'm always taking the p**s

23rd Aug 2008, 09:11
My grammar wasn't a fascist ... she was Irish.

Coat ... door ... :(

23rd Aug 2008, 09:26
'Surves :um glad?!, :bored:

23rd Aug 2008, 17:03
I think the deal with the semi-colon is that you could use a full stop in its place and still have what you wrote make sense; you should have two closely related, complete sentences joined together by a semi-colon. What you wrote there fails that test, I think you shall find.

Not to be stuffy but I think anyone using emoticons should be taken out and shot, without trial. It is nothing personal, just that they must be eradicated. That said, one showed up unbidden on one of my posts. Are they sentient and are they infiltrating?

23rd Aug 2008, 18:46
So, Rainboe'''''s sphere of influence is growing!

23rd Aug 2008, 19:38
Actually chuks, I believe emoticons are subject to copyright. The fella wot created them has compiled a list of those infringing his right.

23rd Aug 2008, 21:01
May you never run across a half-assed proctologist and be subjected to a semi-colonoscopy.

23rd Aug 2008, 22:51
I think you shall find.

Chuks, point of order.

Shall is only used with 2nd or 3rd person in the subjective conjugation. i.e. as a strong assertion, promise or command.

You intended the objective conjugation. i.e. a statement of fact. In this case shall is only used with the 1st person (I or We).

Thus you should have typed 'I think you will find.'

Don't you love a public school education?

PS. To answer your previous question, one likes to play pool and one takes care of crazy cats.

24th Aug 2008, 23:32
So Chuks as a pedant you have committed the ultimate sin.

An excessive or inappropriate display of knowledge was violated.

Sticks out tongue

25th Aug 2008, 07:03
Hoist by my own petard!

I think I shall try to use "will" instead of "shall" in future! Point taken!

I had a public school education. Unfortunately it was at a public school in the States and grammar was not one of my strong subjects. So, sue me.

25th Aug 2008, 07:10
Go to the limerick thread:

A grammar pedant known as chuks

25th Aug 2008, 07:36
A grammar pedant known as chuks

Needn't post cuz he don't know much

25th Aug 2008, 07:46
So, Chuks, as a pedant, you have committed the ultimate sin.

Unfortunately, it was at a public school in the States,(1) and grammar was not one of my strong subjects.

(1) Serial comma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma)

25th Aug 2008, 08:37
Hoist by my own petard!

"By"? Or as Shakespeare might, in fact did, put it:

For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar: and it shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon.

Hamlet, III. iv. 206; and be damned, Sir, with your metres.

25th Aug 2008, 09:58
A grammar pedant known as chuks

Needn't post cuz he don't know much

ORAC n DAVAAR love this stuff...

25th Aug 2008, 10:03
I seem to be having a pretty bad day here and it is only 1145 European Summer Time. I guess I had better give up this pedant business as a bad job and go back to being a self-styled pundit. Facts are so hard to argue with but opinons?

"Shall" for "will," a serial comma and a possible misquote of whoever it was who actually wrote Hamlet if I were quoting him or her there: whatever next? (Thinks: comma, semi-colon, colon... what? Written speech is just so much tougher for a public school-educated Yank. Mrs Silverstone was right after all when she told me I might need this stuff some day instead of zeroing in on "Thuvia, Princess of Mars" and mostly ignoring our rather boring, little blue grammar textbooks.)

I don't really know about that one. It is a fair cop that I didn't follow the wording of Bacon or whoever but then I didn't use quotation marks, did I?

Modern usage supports "by" I think. "With" nowadays means that you and your petard would go up together when of course it is the exploding petard that is hoisting you.

Never mind that now, though. I have put the Greater European Metrification Police on the trail of yet another Brit who obstinately is using yards instead of the more correct metres. Davaar to be dragged away in metric chains, put in the stocks and pelted with kilos of rotten vegetables as yet another "Metric Martyr" for my Schadenfreude!

25th Aug 2008, 10:13
Not to be stuffy but I think anyone using emoticons should be taken out and shot, without trial. It is nothing personal, just that they must be eradicated.

"I'm glad they invented emoticons, otherwise I wouldn't know what my dad was thinking" – Kerry Godliman

25th Aug 2008, 10:19
I always thought that a British Public School was private, wheras yer aktul forin Public Skools was publik. :confused:

25th Aug 2008, 10:57
guilty of it myself actually; my moniker used to say "Pilot's Pal, when, of course, I am a pal to many pilots http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif By the way, have I used the semi-colon correctly?Yes you did, but you spoilt it with the pal to many pilotsYou are a pal of many pilots. Or many pilots are pals of yours. (Try putting "to" into that sentence, then).

Edit.....standing-by for the people who hate "Or" at the start of a sentence. Wrongly.

25th Aug 2008, 11:21
of course it is the exploding petard that is hoisting you

Ummmm .............. No.

Felix Saddler
25th Aug 2008, 11:25
The semicolon is also used to connect two closely-related independent clauses.

25th Aug 2008, 11:31
Wonderful' ! I would'nt of thought it was possible that people would wake up to proper grammar! See, prod 'em enough and people do find they care!

How can we finally exterminate the worms guilty of 'would of' and people who spend 10 or 12 years at school and still don't know the difference between their, there or they're? I visualise grammar vigilantes going around burning victims in the street's (that's one's a joke to see if you are awake)! Rise up!

25th Aug 2008, 11:58

Oh dear! But that was just a typo, and I shouldn't start my sentence with 'But'.

25th Aug 2008, 12:06
Yes, it was highlighted to show the 2 big errors these days of out-of-control apostrophes and the grammar howler of 'would of' that is increasingly making an appearance here.

One should be grateful you recognised the intentional mistakes, even though they were highlighted to assist you! Take a grammar rosette, young man, anyway! Not a lot gets past you (even if it is highlighted to catch your attention!).

25th Aug 2008, 12:18
May I suggest "grammatical howler" and "which is".

25th Aug 2008, 12:19
I propose that the International HQ be established at a restaurant not far from here, trading as: < LOUI'S >

25th Aug 2008, 12:20
I will drown and nobody shall save me.

I shall drown and nobody will save me.

25th Aug 2008, 12:37
what is the acceptable threshold for grammar pedantry then?

We had an article on the news last night (http://video.nbc5i.com/player/?id=287197)about teachers getting ready for the new school year, which starts today. They had the cameras in one woman's classroom and filmed a sign she had made that said (in big letters):BE ON TIME!




25th Aug 2008, 13:29
Davaar, before they come to take you away, let me in on the secrets of being hoist with a petard, please. No, sorry, wrong again! They are coming to take you away; before they get there, let me in on the secrets of being... etc.

It's a kind of hand-held demolition device that blew holes in stuff, with the problem being that it easily could blow up the petardee along with that which was being petarded. So "hoist" I would take as being some sort of positive vector imparted by the misused petard; you should, sorry, would go "up," for a while at least. Or am I missing something here?

Part of the problem might be that I am using the Classic Comics Shakespeare translation here. We didn't do any of that "Oxford" stuff in my public school, you see. Well, shoe polish, but that was all.

25th Aug 2008, 14:01
Interesting thing about a Petard was that if you made the fuse too long, they could come out of the castle and extinguish it, so the idea was to make it as short as possible...

...but not too short. :ooh: :ouch:

Does that make me a Petard Pedant?

25th Aug 2008, 14:37
Perhaps 'teecher' taught this lot?

Gas Firm Redfaced Over Road Mark Blunder (from thisisoxfordshire) (http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/display.var.2428911.0.gas_firm_redfaced_over_road_mark_blund er.php)

25th Aug 2008, 14:48
Or am I missing something here?


Part of the problem might be that I am using the Classic Comics Shakespeare translation here. We didn't do any of that "Oxford" stuff in my public school, you see.

But surely you are not still at school? Wherever you are, authoritative versions of the classics must be available. Just try a little harder.

chucks, I usually stay away from these "pedant" threads because they always bring someone who thinks he is the fastest gun in the west, but finds to his chagrin that he is not. That person may be I, and I like to spare myself the embarrassment; but not, I think, this time.

You reveal a fixation that they will take me away because you just goldarn know better than I. Why that should be cause to take me away, or why you should find it necessary so to express yourself, I do not know. I envy your self-assurance, though, based as it is on the Classic Comics Shakespeare; but then, as you say, that may be part of the problem. Your problem, that is.

I have known the meaning of the "petard" reference since I was at school, but let us seek heavier authority. Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable**, Cassell, New Edition (undated) page 841 tells us that “hoist with his own petard” means “beaten with his own weapons, caught in his own trap; involved in the danger intended for others, as were many designers of instruments of torture”.

It continues that the petard was a thick iron engine of war, filled with gunpowder, and fastened to gates, barricades, and so on to blow them up.

Shakespeare or, as you prefer, Bacon, and I am quite at ease on that, contemplates that the engineer sets a trap and tangles himself in (hoist with his own) his own trap intended for someone else. Since we are here, I'll mention that Brewer at page 502 offers a collection of inventions or "petards" that turned to bite (chucks! this is a metaphor for which I am responsible; can't blame Brewer for this one) their inventors, viz: Aubriot, who built the Bastille, was the first man imprisoned there; the Earl of Salisbury, first man in England to use cannon was killed by a cannon; the inventor of the Catherine Wheel killer machine was killed by one; Eddystone of the lighthouse was washed away with said lighthouse; etc., etc., with horrors not to be missed. I wish not to steal the pleasure of your own researches, so I leave them to you.

The petard verse is a study in irony, really, and given your own insistence on misunderstanding it, an irony redoubled.

** draper's own.

25th Aug 2008, 16:20
WARNING: aviation content

Garros, the inventor of the interrupter gear :ouch:

25th Aug 2008, 17:03
Nicely put, Rainboe.

Point taken.

25th Aug 2008, 17:45
Davaar, you are to be taken away for the use of a forbidden units, the yard. That's nothing to do with me really, just the way it is. Personally I have no problem with that since I often use the nautical mile and Greenwich Mean Time but those are not forbidden units such as yards, pounds and pints. Not to worry, I think all they do when they take you away is to make you listen to ABBA records until you agree to conform.

I am with you up to a point on this petard busines. I have seen pictures of them, when they look like a sort of crude shaped charge, a sort of conical basket on a stock, loaded with gun powder and set against whatever was meant to be petarded so that, yes, to be "hoist with your own..." could be a metaphor for falling into a trap you set for another. My question is: is my assumption that "hoist" implies a certain upward velocity correct? Or did the verb have another meaning back when, like "to know"? Classic Comics is silent on this point.

25th Aug 2008, 18:04
With respect to the metres, it is a fair cop, Guv. I'll come quietly. By all means let them use their metres for meteorology and such-like trivia, but for the serioius business of life we go Imperial, although I have a warm regard for the American system: regular, king size, and giant economy. The Hell with the French, I say.

With respect to the "hoist", I follow the Concise Oxford, which looks to "raise" as of a flag or with tackle. I do notice that the CED also gives "hoist with his own petard" to mean "blown up with his own bomb, ruined by his on devices against others". Honesty compels me to mention this slack definition, but I think it is compressed. "Hoist" does not as I understand it mean to blow up, but to haul up.

If however there is any lingering uncertainty, I shall dispel it: where the CED and I differ, I invariably follow the Davaar precedent. No sense in being a wimp.

25th Aug 2008, 18:20
So there might be a sort of metaphor within the metaphor? "Hoisting" is a gradual thing but involuntary petardation must be rather abrupt, no "screek-screek-screek" of creaky Elizabethan stage machinery but more of a, "Hey! Where's Rosencrantz got to?" So Hamlet's carefully worked-out counter-scheme, a sort of laborious "hoisting" if you like, results in a sudden (to the audience) disappearance?

Isn't it interesting that the author didn't use a more dramatic word to describe the effects of a small, mishandled bomb? Lucky some Elizabethan pedant didn't blue-pencil out that one as a mistake, eh?

It is worse than you think! Meteorology uses metres (Well, "D'oh!") for the horizontal but then goes Imperial for the vertical.

My airplane, a rather archaic beast, uses pounds for fuel, which I need to order in litres in French. The manifest has weights in kilos which I must then convert to pounds to work out the loading according to positions in inches, lots of inches.

The possibilities for a screw-up in all of this are many but I doubt we ever shall get rid of Imperial units.

25th Aug 2008, 18:46
involuntary petardation must be rather abrupt .... a small, mishandled bomb?

The English noun "petard" comes from the French noun "petard", which comes from the French verb "peter", which reminds us that involuntary petardation [is] rather abrupt [not unlike] a small, mishandled bomb, and is yet another reason to stay away from the French.

25th Aug 2008, 18:58
In France the condemned were placed on a cart-wheel with their limbs stretched out along the spokes over two sturdy wooden beams. The wheel was made to slowly revolve, and a large hammer or an iron bar was then applied to the limb over the gap between the beams, breaking the bones.
Afterwards, the condemned's shattered limbs were woven ('braiden') through the spokes of the wheel which was then hoisted onto a tall pole, so that birds could eat the sometimes still-living individual.

Compassionate, eh?

25th Aug 2008, 19:42
...but no more than anyone who misuses the English language and/or its grammar deserves, however...........

25th Aug 2008, 19:52
Ani fule who plays Age of Empires kno that the Petard is the bloke with a barrel of gunpowder wot blows himself up on contact with the enemy.

A suicide bomber.

25th Aug 2008, 20:03

Yes, but given that rule I hope you are not using that "however" as a conjunction, "like" they do over here.

tony draper
25th Aug 2008, 20:09
Then there was that Carpenter who built a fine new gallows for his town and was its first customer.:uhoh:

balsa model
25th Aug 2008, 22:29
by ORAC:
Unfortunately, it was at a public school in the States,(1) and grammar was not one of my strong subjects.

(1) Serial comma.

To the learned:

Is the above quotation really a bona-fide example of a serial comma ? The given reference link seems to insist that a list of items be involved.
(And am I using the correct form of the verb "to be"? This has been bugging me, too.)

25th Aug 2008, 23:22
1. In my opinion, No.
2. What other form of "to be" might you use?

balsa model
26th Aug 2008, 01:30
Hm... What other forms? What other forms that might be correct in the context?
"is" doesn't sound right, to me, but that's not much to go on, since this is not my native tongue.
"should be" sounds like avoiding the issue.

26th Aug 2008, 08:17

Your use of the subjunctive "be" is impeccable. The "should" is rightly silent.

26th Aug 2008, 08:21
Wot I wrote there would read better without the second, mistaken comma. I just dashed it off without bothering to check it closely. Looking at it more closely I think I could have done better without any commas at all. They are so small and cheap and I like to scatter them over my prose like poppy seeds on a roll, just another of my prose failings.

That is not a clever thing to do when jousting with pedants but then I am not particularly clever or at least not as clever as I hold myself to be. In this I am not alone.

I had a colleague who was playing with firecrackers in the bar, seeing how long he could hold one before throwing it. The game ended about the way you might expect it to. He must not have been paying attention in school when they were studying "Hamlet".

26th Aug 2008, 09:00
Yes, but given that rule I hope you are not using that "however" as a conjunction, "like" they do over here.

Let me be taken out and tarred and feathered were I to have done such a thing. The 'however' might equally well have been the first word in the sentence. It is at the end for marginal effect but not as a conjunction. My error was to have added an ellipsis that allowed such a potential misconstrual to occur.

26th Aug 2008, 09:56
That's it! Y'all's deputized.:}


26th Aug 2008, 11:06
Thread Baron, have 'em made.

My family will buy me one.

Price is an object, but give me a quote.

tony draper
26th Aug 2008, 11:20
Imperator Romanorum et Supra Grammaticam. :rolleyes:

26th Aug 2008, 11:29
No commas or other punctuation in Latin, Mr D.

Punctuation (http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/scripts/punctuation/punctuation1.htm)

tony draper
26th Aug 2008, 11:40
Yer one of the letters has a furrin squiggly thing above it as well, but me keyboard don't do furrin squiggly things.

2 sheds
26th Aug 2008, 11:52

Am I not correct in saying that an ellipsis should comprise only three dots?

2 s

Ancient Observer
26th Aug 2008, 12:07
The sticklers for grammar were only 28. I am impressed that they were so concerned, being so young.
However, I detect thast some of the names on this thread belong to folk over 50. e.g. Mr Jackson. You must be over 50 to have comeup with that name.....

2 sheds
26th Aug 2008, 13:10
Did you just make those ellipses five dots deliberately?

Arthur Whatagiveaway Jackson

26th Aug 2008, 13:19
QUOTE]Let me be taken out and tarred and feathered were I to have done such a thing ...

Indeed Yes, self. Agreed. Would not suggest such a solecism it for a moment. My anxiety arose only from your enthusiasm for the G-CPTN punishment, the breaking on the wheel. He attributes this, no doubt correctly, to France. What else might we expect from that lot? It also had admirers in Russia, among them Peter the Great.

I read of one Russian nobleman who put up his own money to pay the troops when the Pay Corps was on a binge with the petty cash. Seemed a dacent fulla to me. Anyway in some minor way he narked Peter, and nothing would do but: "With a will, lads, get out the wheel and hammers! Happy days are here again!". They broke him, and social critics in the audience sniffed a little at his screams. Poor form, you know.

The grammar polis are ruthless, but you yourself applaud their condign punishments. I am more cagy. I find them akin to non-smokers (not guilty!) and teetotallers (guilty as charged, m'lud, so I know of whom I speak), the reverse of: “Praise him still the same as ever, slow to chide, and swift to bless”. With them, to suspect is to condemn, like Vishynski with a Red Army General during the purges. Oh Self! Self! Self! Is that the true Self? And do you really mean "misconstrual"?

26th Aug 2008, 13:57
2shed. Yes, it should have only 3 dots. Did I add some more? well....

Davaar. I rather like misconstrual as a word, but there are few occasions when one has the opportunity to wheel it out - so this seemed too good to miss. As for my enthusiasm for the Wheel, I merely enjoy the irony of the idea that those who shatter and break the glories of English grammar and spelling might themselves suffer shattering and breaking.

In truth, I should probably be thrown out of the Grammar police for a tendency to mercy - (always provided the error is a first offence of course...)

26th Aug 2008, 15:26
I have the solution. We shall adopt the Thai language forthwith. That should end the bickering.

The grammar of the Thai language is considerably simpler than grammar in Western languages, and for many students, this makes up for the additional difficulty of the tones. Most significantly, words are not modified or conjugated for tenses, declensions, plurals, genders, or subject-verb agreement. Articles such as a, an, or the are not used. Most Thai words are a simple single immutable syllable.

26th Aug 2008, 15:52
I rather like misconstrual as a word

... and why not?

I started a collection of desirable words culled from legal practice.

One letter in a mining file touched on the geological anomalies to be found in the subject strata. Back from the typist came a tale of "geological nummalies". Why not? It is a poor language, it seems to me, that cannot find a place of honour or at least a place of use for a "nummally".

Then, going back to when the law was less developed, there was the divorce action based on "incestuous adultery" or, as it came back from the typist, "tempestuous adultery". What other kind can there be?

A colleague wrote to a client about his coming trip round the "fleshpots of Europe" (i.e., the regional offices he was to visit on a business trip). Secretary consulted me. Did Mr X really mean that? Sure, said I. Why not? Turned out that the Biblical allusion had gone straight past her (could happen here, I suppose), and she thought he meant "belly dancers". I always looked on her with a greater respect after that.

Let's hear it for the neologisms.

tony draper
26th Aug 2008, 16:03
Lets hear it for the Rev Spooner as well,
"I remember your name perfectly well Sir but I cannot think of your face"

26th Aug 2008, 16:14
One has always had an affection for those two antonyms, callipygous and steatopygous. My discovery of them was serendipitous; indeed the discovery made me feel everything was copacetic.

tony draper
26th Aug 2008, 16:19
Oh dear! if we wish to become embroiled in a interesting word war, be warned! one's Brewer is on the floor by one's prunning chair.:E

26th Aug 2008, 16:22
You bring me over all discombobulated, Mr D.

26th Aug 2008, 16:35

I expect you are familiar with the story of Saartje Baartman, the Hottentot Venus of the early 19th century. If not, go for it!

everything was copacetic

That's good. Otherwise it would all have been a bummer.

26th Aug 2008, 16:41
ปัญหามีไว้แก้ ไม่ได้มีไว้กลุ้ม

tony draper
26th Aug 2008, 16:59
One understands your discombobulation Mr ORAC, were I you I would.

26th Aug 2008, 17:15
Strictly speaking, callipygous and steatopygous are not true antonyms. Callipygous means having beautiful buttocks but steatopygous only means having large or fat (rather than ugly) buttocks. Ugly-buttocked would have to be something like cacopygous (except I don't think that exists).

26th Aug 2008, 17:23
Callipygous means having beautiful buttocks but steatopygous only means having large or fat (rather than ugly) buttocks

The law report from 'way back (in fact it was 'way back that I last read it) stated as I recall that Miss Baartman was "remarkable for the formation of her person". You see how clever we lawyers are with words?

tony draper
26th Aug 2008, 17:36
Well in less sophisticated parts like up here one would be more likely to hear "She has an arse like the Co-op Store Horse"

26th Aug 2008, 18:33

26th Aug 2008, 19:32
Her buttocks were so prodigious
Most called her steatopygous,
But to Draper, who prizes
Ladies in larger sizes,
She certainly was callipygous.

26th Aug 2008, 21:10
Miss Baartman, it’s true, was never an elf
But nevertheless she was not on the shelf;
Steato-callypy did jointly confer:
She’s not on the shelf, the shelf is on her.

27th Aug 2008, 00:53
We shall adopt the Thai language forthwith

.... but you forgot to mention the 26 vowels and 44 consonants ...:ugh:

3rd Sep 2008, 19:43
Who says grammar fascism isn't catching on? Have you noticed the marked improvement in pprune grammar recently?
Grammar Fascists unite! (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-%26-technology/grammar-pedants-fewer-interesting-200809031225/)

3rd Sep 2008, 20:01
Has anyone else noticed a new noun 'ask' ?
We all know any verb can be 'nouned', but I hadn't spotted this one until I watched parts of the US Republican Convention on TV.
One news commentator asked the reporter a question about the party's policy re the Iraq War, and the reply was something on the lines of "Yes, that's a big ask here"

3rd Sep 2008, 20:09
There's nothing new in a "big ask". Television sports commentators discussing one team's prospects versus another's have been using that irritating expression for years.

It's akin to "new build" for new building and "spend" for expenditure. Shoot 'em all I say!

3rd Sep 2008, 20:14
Sorry - it just shows what a sheltered life I've led recently- must get out more !
Pip Pip

3rd Sep 2008, 20:22
Footballers who play hoping for a result . . .

3rd Sep 2008, 21:16
Is a metric chain 22 yards?

3rd Sep 2008, 21:26
.....a metric chain is what should be put around the necks of anyone who says we can't use pounds and ounces.....

3rd Sep 2008, 22:06
"new build" for new building and "spend"
... and while you are at it, add a round of .303 ball for each of those damned sociologists and their "social constructs".

3rd Sep 2008, 22:15
Is a metric chain 22 yards
Yes. As in Queens' chain ( but you have to live in NZ to understand that - it is the amount of land that the State take off coastal landowners to provide public access around their property )

3rd Sep 2008, 22:44

1 Statute Mile (1 Land) = 8 Furlongs = 80 Gunter's Chain = 320 Rod.

U.S. Surveyor's Measure:
1 Statute Mile = 8 Furlongs = 52.8 Ramsden's Chain = 320 Rod.


Imperial Surveyor's Measure:
1 Square Mile (Section of Land) = 640 Acre = 1600 Rood = 6400 Square Chain = 102,400 Square Rod.

U.S. Surveyor's Measure:
1 Square Mile (Section of Land = 102,400 Square Rod.

The Ramsden Chain (http://ramsden.info/Ramsdens/RamsdenChain.htm)

Online Gunter - Ramsden conversion tool. (http://www.onlineunitconversion.com/chain.Gunter.survey_to_chain.Ramsden.engineer.html)