Daniel Carrico

[Ian Royal]

We bought Murts as a winger from York. When he finally stopped being injured we put him in defence.

His "injury" problems was one leg longer than the other causing him back problems wasn't it?

[Royal With Cheese]

We bought Murts as a winger from York. When he finally stopped being injured we put him in defence.

His "injury" problems was one leg longer than the other causing him back problems wasn't it?

That would explain him running around in little circles a lot.

[Scutterbucketz]

We bought Murts as a winger from York. When he finally stopped being injured we put him in defence.

Did not know that he was ever a winger. He's talking about Murty then.

[TommyF]

Glad everyone else is stumped!

Can't remember Gilkes having a big impact his first 2 or 3 seasons and he came alright. Don't think he could buy a game at one point but I was only about 13 or 14 so can't remember why. I think he just wasn't good enough (whisper that)

[If you still hate Futcher]

^^^
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna end up with a whoosh but WTF are you talking about?

If you're actually serious then you might be thinking of the time he couldn't get in the side because of a minor broken leg thanks to some b'stard at Sarfend

[Rusty royal]

It is Murts But it was nearly 2 seasons before he played a full game by which time he switched to defender

[Cripple Creek]

TVs doesn't have an apostrophe.

[TommyF]

^^^
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna end up with a whoosh but WTF are you talking about?

If you're actually serious then you might be thinking of the time he couldn't get in the side because of a minor broken leg thanks to some b'stard at Sarfend

By the time he broke his leg he was so established that I think it was probably still a difficult decision to keep him out of the team rather than let him hop down the left.

I'm talking his first couple of seasons - so about 83/84 84/85?? (one year later?) Seem to remember him getting just a handful of starts but a few more sub appearances.

Unfortunately hobnob reports don't go that far back, and I wasn't very old. Most my analysis is because I particularly remember him having a great season and remember him being a bit part player the season before. I was going through puberty at the time though so I could be completely and utterly mistaken and maybe he'd been great since he joined and I'm completely wrong (and to be fair, I only went to watch Trevor Senior - god!).

Anyone know of reports or stats going that far back?? I need to know I'm not completely mad

[maffff]

TVs doesn't have an apostrophe.

If you're saying "the transvestite is" it does.

[melonhead]

TVs doesn't have an apostrophe.

If you're saying "the transvestite is" it does.

or the subject is something owned by the transvestite

[ZacNaloen]

Or you don't get hung up on rules of grammar that don't really exist.

[melonhead]

they dont exist?


are you sure?

[maffff]

Or you don't get hung up on rules of grammar that don't really exist.

Therefore Carriço = the rules of grammar?

Gotcha.

[ZacNaloen]

they dont exist?


are you sure?

You know as well as anyone that the so called "rules" of grammar are suggestions, that last only as long people actually follow them.

"One unusual modern use of the apostrophe is in plural acronyms, like “ICBM’s” “NGO’s” and “CD’s”. Since this pattern violates the rule that apostrophes are not used before an S indicating a plural, many people object to it. It is also perfectly legitimate to write “CDs,” etc. See also “50’s.” But the use of apostrophes with initialisms like “learn your ABC’s and “mind your P’s and Q’s” is now so universal as to be acceptable in almost any context."

[melonhead]

thats a rule of language though, not just grammar


and if you accept it as the case for grammar, that means you must also accept that the definitions of words are also fluid, and therefore any word could have any meaning, depending on your standpoint.
which is obviously a daft place to start.

[ZacNaloen]

Whats daft is arguing that rules and laws can't change with usage.

[TommyF]

TVs doesn't have an apostrophe.

If you're saying "the transvestite is" it does.

I always thought TV's still had an apostrophe if they were pre-op

[Z175]

TVs doesn't have an apostrophe.

If you're saying "the transvestite is" it does.

I always thought TV's still had an apostrophe if they were pre-op

Yoiu'r're thinking of a *

[melonhead]

Whats daft is arguing that rules and laws can't change with usage.

within reason.and usually as a result of alot of incremental changes, or drift over time.


but an apostrophe should never be used for pluralising TV, regardless
Should be TVs only.


unless like was said above applies

[melonhead]

Whats daft is arguing that rules and laws can't change with usage.

but i never did argue that.



again, definitions of words can change over time.
but to assume that the meaning of all words can wand will change is incorr4ect, and would result in no one knowing what any given word, spoken in any given context means, ever.

which is stupid.

what we must do is apply the laws and rules as they apply right now, and only make changes once something has happened over a long time, & if with the benefit of hindsight it appears to be a real change.

thats not what you are doing