Athletic's Website

Anyone else irked by the pop-up ads on www.cornellbigred.com ? It makes the site unreadable

[www.mozilla.com]

Shameful. Other sites that are understaffed and underfunded manage better than Cornell does. But none of them has eLynah.

Yeah, because this site is SOOO well maintained

Tell me-is Matt Moulson still the leading scorer or David McKee the top goalie?

bandrews37
Yeah, because this site is SOOO well maintained

Tell me-is Matt Moulson still the leading scorer or David McKee the top goalie?

Well, nobody's beaten them yet this season.

bandrews37
Yeah, because this site is SOOO well maintained

Tell me-is Matt Moulson still the leading scorer or David McKee the top goalie?

You created an account JUST to say that.

LaJollaRed
Anyone else irked by the pop-up ads on www.cornellbigred.com ? It makes the site unreadable

Yep. Just another devolution from the bold step down discussed here (ignore the automobile thread-drift):

[elf.elynah.com]

bandrews37
Yeah, because this site is SOOO well maintained

Tell me-is Matt Moulson still the leading scorer or David McKee the top goalie?

Free equals don't complain, ass.

Trotsky

bandrews37
Yeah, because this site is SOOO well maintained

Tell me-is Matt Moulson still the leading scorer or David McKee the top goalie?

Free equals don't complain, ass.

What kind of America are you living in? Free means complain as much as you want. (OTOH, "no charge" means don't expect much in the way of prompt, polite customer service.)

ugarte
What kind of America are you living in?

I ask myself that question more and more.

Free means complain as much as you want. (OTOH, "no charge" means don't expect much in the way of prompt, polite customer service.)

Well, let me amend that. Free equals your complaint will be ignored. In the case of All-Access, a paid subscription equals your complaint will be ignored.

I've mentioned this before. I find it a disgrace to Cornell that they can't have an Athletics site that's not ridden with ads.

Really, for me, its beyond shameful and so incredibly pathetic that its hard for me to believe its the same Cornell I went to 6 years ago.

kaelistus
Really, for me, its beyond shameful and so incredibly pathetic that its hard for me to believe its the same Cornell I went to 6 years ago.

What Cornell did you go to? While I agree that it's pathetic, it seems perfectly consistent with the school I attended...

(Aside: I love Cornell. I just think the folks that run it are often cheap and pathetic.)

So you're reading their website and it's not costing you a dime to do so. They could always add that under "no-Access" and make you pay for it. Under that pretense, I'm all for pop-ups.

bandrews37
So you're reading their website and it's not costing you a dime to do so. They could always add that under "no-Access" and make you pay for it. Under that pretense, I'm all for pop-ups.

You would have a good point if there were no other source for Cornell hockey information than the official website. Fortunately you can follow the team very well online without ever going to their crappy site. Thus the pop-ups are bitch-worthy.

Also, while we're not actually paying for the Cornell website, I think of it as being included in the whole Cornell experience -- and that we paid up the ass for.

KeithK

bandrews37
So you're reading their website and it's not costing you a dime to do so. They could always add that under "no-Access" and make you pay for it. Under that pretense, I'm all for pop-ups.

You would have a good point if there were no other source for Cornell hockey information than the official website. Fortunately you can follow the team very well online without ever going to their crappy site. Thus the pop-ups are bitch-worthy.

Actually, he still doesn't have a good point. Advertising is annoying but understandable; pop-ups are *always* bitch-worthy. Punkt.

...but still not full price.

KeithK
What Cornell did you go to? While I agree that it's pathetic, it seems perfectly consistent with the school I attended...

(Aside: I love Cornell. I just think the folks that run it are often cheap and pathetic.)

The Cornell I went to was a land development scheme masquerading as a university to get tax breaks.

I loved the faculty, students, campus and mind-altering experience of Cornell. The Trustees and their policy minions were, are, and always shall be just another circle jerk of dimwitted, speculating, silver spoon assholes.

Trotsky
I loved the faculty, students, campus and mind-altering experience of Cornell. The Trustees and their policy minions were, are, and always shall be just another circle jerk of dimwitted, speculating, silver spoon assholes.

Yes, but shouldn't the apostrophe in this thread title be after the "s?"

RichH
Yes, but shouldn't the apostrophe in this thread title be after the "s?"

Yes, followed by another s.

Trotsky
I loved the faculty, students, campus and mind-altering experience of Cornell. The Trustees and their policy minions were, are, and always shall be just another circle jerk of dimwitted, speculating, silver spoon assholes.

I take back everything bad I've ever said about you.

Kyle

Beeeej

RichH
Yes, but shouldn't the apostrophe in this thread title be after the "s?"

Yes, followed by another s.

Oh, you're one of those? Tisk tisk.

ftyuv

Beeeej

RichH
Yes, but shouldn't the apostrophe in this thread title be after the "s?"

Yes, followed by another s.

Oh, you're one of those...

...whose possessives make sense? Why, yes, I am.

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

RichH
Yes, but shouldn't the apostrophe in this thread title be after the "s?"

Yes, followed by another s.

Oh, you're one of those...

...whose possessives make sense? Why, yes, I am.

Well, suit yourself. Personally, I like my possessives like I like my women: apostrophe-s or s-apostrophe, but never s-apostrophe-s; and irregular in the case of pronominals.

It's just never made the slightest bit of sense to me to say, "Okay, it's apostrophe-s if it's a singular, and s-apostrophe if it's a plural, but if it's a singular or collective or proper that ends in s, go ahead and spell it s-apostrophe even though it's not plural and even though you pronounce it like it's s-apostrophe-s." Plus, even those who use s-apostrophe for some singulars, collectives, and propers don't use it for others; there's often no consistency, just "whatever feels right at the time."

The Chicago Manual of Style's rule amuses me - they agree with me except when the proper is Jesus or Moses, then it's just s-apostrophe.

I like my women like I like my coffee; saturated with Irish whiskey and topped with whipped cream.

Wow, this thread sucks.

French Rage
Wow, this thread sucks.

Pretty much my point, but I said it without actually saying it.

Beeeej
The Chicago Manual of Style's rule amuses me - they agree with me except when the proper is Jesus or Moses, then it's just s-apostrophe.

AP style distinguishes between voiced and unvoiced final Ss.

ftyuv

Beeeej
The Chicago Manual of Style's rule amuses me - they agree with me except when the proper is Jesus or Moses, then it's just s-apostrophe.

AP style distinguishes between voiced and unvoiced final Ss.

That's the policy I've always followed. Either is correct. But I think we can all agree that what's in the subject name isn't correct for any form of written English.

French Rage
Wow, this thread suck's.

Fixed yer post.

CowbellGuy

ftyuv

Beeeej
The Chicago Manual of Style's rule amuses me - they agree with me except when the proper is Jesus or Moses, then it's just s-apostrophe.

AP style distinguishes between voiced and unvoiced final Ss.

That's the policy I've always followed. Either is correct. But I think we can all agree that what's in the subject name isn't correct for any form of written English.

Unless it is referring to this.

ugarte

CowbellGuy

ftyuv

Beeeej
The Chicago Manual of Style's rule amuses me - they agree with me except when the proper is Jesus or Moses, then it's just s-apostrophe.

AP style distinguishes between voiced and unvoiced final Ss.

That's the policy I've always followed. Either is correct. But I think we can all agree that what's in the subject name isn't correct for any form of written English.

Unless it is referring to this.

The AP style also says that people have a right to be called whatever they wish, and that you shouldn't print their name in a way other than what they want unless you have good reason (such as them lying about their name). I would assume the same applies to institutions. So if Sam wants his name to appear as S'sam, you do it, and if the A's want their name to appear as the A's, you do it.

This has been a really long off-season...

Beeeej
It's just never made the slightest bit of sense to me to say, "Okay, it's apostrophe-s if it's a singular, and s-apostrophe if it's a plural, but if it's a singular or collective or proper that ends in s, go ahead and spell it s-apostrophe even though it's not plural and even though you pronounce it like it's s-apostrophe-s." Plus, even those who use s-apostrophe for some singulars, collectives, and propers don't use it for others; there's often no consistency, just "whatever feels right at the time."

You expect sense here? In a written language that seemingly for no other reason than pure laziness drops letters and replaces them with apostrophes? Maybe if we put the "e" back in the genitive case it would be easier tio have a rule that seems to make sense.

ftyuv
if the A's want their name to appear as the A's, you do it.

Not the point I was making, actually. Look at the jersey on the page. The team goes by both "A's" and "Athletics".

Jason Kendall's page would be an Athletic's website no matter how odd it is that the A's render their name with an apostrophe.

ugarte

ftyuv
if the A's want their name to appear as the A's, you do it.

Not the point I was making, actually. Look at the jersey on the page. The team goes by both "A's" and "Athletics".

Jason Kendall's page would be an Athletic's website no matter how odd it is that the A's render their name with an apostrophe.

Hm, I don't see a jersey on that page. But point taken, and good catch. Btw, their apostrophe in the "in '06" of the top-left image is backwards.

To add another, unrelated pet peeve of prescriptivism (P3 as we call it), I really dislike when cashiers call out, "Can I help who's next?" Hmph.

ugarte

ftyuv
if the A's want their name to appear as the A's, you do it.

Not the point I was making, actually. Look at the jersey on the page. The team goes by both "A's" and "Athletics".

Jason Kendall's page would be an Athletic's website no matter how odd it is that the A's render their name with an apostrophe.

I could swear that there was a convention (which I don't follow) of using an apostrophy to pluralize letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's." Using an apostrophe in the plural of the letter A prevents it from being mistaken for the capitalized form of the word "as".

I could swear that there was a convention (which I don't follow) of using an apostrophy to pluralize letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's." Using an apostrophe in the plural of the letter A prevents it from being mistaken for the capitalized form of the word "as".

this convention did exist, and still prevails. if it has waned in recent years, it is probably due to backlash (i believe the aformentioned truss tome goes into this). the apostrophe after single letters presumably led to the placement of apostrophes with scores of abbreviations and acronyms where it had no place. people annoyed by this took a polar, minimalist apostrophe stance and eliminated the mark whenever possible in their own writing. one would think those willing to point out and harp on incorrect punctuation (...spelling...grammar...word choice...) would be able to react more moderately. as this thread (and all its forebears) has proven, however, perfect adherence to some style rules does not indicate an even competent embrace of the balance of them.

Wow... the way you talk about it, you'd think there was blood running in the streets or something.

(Excuse me, "street's."

Seriously, though, I accept and follow the convention with single letters because of the potential for confusion, but I've never understood the reasoning behind using it with numbers - e.g., the 1990's - so I don't. Am I really the only moderate not taking a violent, reactionary stance on this?

well, if what i wrote insinuated street violence, beeeej, then mea culpa. i should have been more specific that the real result was pedantic ramblings by those in the quasi-know on hockey message boards...unless you and whelan want to go duel over the convention.

What, I'm not allowed to use hyperbole?

Proud Member of the International League of Pedants:

[www.goats.com]

Jacob 03

I could swear that there was a convention (which I don't follow) of using an apostrophy to pluralize letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's." Using an apostrophe in the plural of the letter A prevents it from being mistaken for the capitalized form of the word "as".

this convention did exist, and still prevails. if it has waned in recent years, it is probably due to backlash (i believe the aformentioned truss tome goes into this). the apostrophe after single letters presumably led to the placement of apostrophes with scores of abbreviations and acronyms where it had no place. people annoyed by this took a polar, minimalist apostrophe stance and eliminated the mark whenever possible in their own writing. one would think those willing to point out and harp on incorrect punctuation (...spelling...grammar...word choice...) would be able to react more moderately. as this thread (and all its forebears) has proven, however, perfect adherence to some style rules does not indicate an even competent embrace of the balance of them.

To me the argument for using an apostrophe with a single letter follows to abbreviations. It states that this is where the random collection of letters ends, that the s is not one more letter in the abbreviation that should be read as an s.

Jacob 03

I could swear that there was a convention (which I don't follow) of using an apostrophy to pluralize letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's." Using an apostrophe in the plural of the letter A prevents it from being mistaken for the capitalized form of the word "as".

this convention did exist, and still prevails. if it has waned in recent years, it is probably due to backlash (i believe the aformentioned truss tome goes into this). the apostrophe after single letters presumably led to the placement of apostrophes with scores of abbreviations and acronyms where it had no place. people annoyed by this took a polar, minimalist apostrophe stance and eliminated the mark whenever possible in their own writing. one would think those willing to point out and harp on incorrect punctuation (...spelling...grammar...word choice...) would be able to react more moderately. as this thread (and all its forebears) has proven, however, perfect adherence to some style rules does not indicate an even competent embrace of the balance of them.

The convention many of us use is the commonsense one which I believe evolves from AP Style: Use an apostrophe if there'd be confusion without or if it replaces characters. Thus:

1990s
'90s <-- though the Grey Lady New York Times uses 90's
p's and q's
Oakland A's
P's and Q's <-- probably but some would say the uppercase P is enough to distinguish but then again it might be in a series of consonants and syllables such as "How many A;s and B's did he get last semester?"
A'S and B'S <-- in an all capitals phrase

Law.com addresses this critical issue: [www.law.com]

Lol. Well, I think too many Ss together looks bad, as do too many s's -- to say nothing of too many S's. That's why I omit the second. One particularly bad hole in the author's logic is the attempt to tie English spelling and pronunciation:

The surprisingly popular practice of omitting the final "s" in all s-ending words is ... completely illogical. Indeed, the use of an additional "s" accurately reflects proper pronunciation.

One word: ghoti.

Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

I think you just avoid pluralizing words like "that's" that can't be pluralized in ordinary usage. If you insist on pluralizing verb contractions then you have to suffer the consequences.

There is a "National Punctuation Day"

[www.nationalpunctuationday.com]

And, for the unaware, there is a song about the poor, misused apostrophe (lyrics at: [www.sentex.net]).

Anybody really interested can get the mp3 from me (I don't expect too many takers on this one).

Ck

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

Beeeej

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

I dunno, but at least with my system you have the flexibility to do so, should the mood strike you.

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

I dunno, but at least with my system you have the flexibility to do so, should the mood strike you.

You have the flexibility to pluralize "that's" to "those're" in the current, correct system, anytime any mood strikes you. Are we talking about the same thing when we use the word "pluralize," or are you thinking "make into a possessive" and not quite putting it into words properly?

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

I dunno, but at least with my system you have the flexibility to do so, should the mood strike you.

You have the flexibility to pluralize "that's" to "those're" in the current, correct system, anytime any mood strikes you. Are we talking about the same thing when we use the word "pluralize," or are you thinking "make into a possessive" and not quite putting it into words properly?

I was making a joke. Sheesh. Y'all are too literal.

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

I dunno, but at least with my system you have the flexibility to do so, should the mood strike you.

You have the flexibility to pluralize "that's" to "those're" in the current, correct system, anytime any mood strikes you. Are we talking about the same thing when we use the word "pluralize," or are you thinking "make into a possessive" and not quite putting it into words properly?

I was making a joke. Sheesh. Y'all are too literal.

Y'all apparently aren't funny enough.

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

I dunno, but at least with my system you have the flexibility to do so, should the mood strike you.

You have the flexibility to pluralize "that's" to "those're" in the current, correct system, anytime any mood strikes you. Are we talking about the same thing when we use the word "pluralize," or are you thinking "make into a possessive" and not quite putting it into words properly?

I was making a joke. Sheesh. Y'all are too literal.

Y'all apparently aren't funny enough.

Touche. But I'd rather be incapable of resisting a bad joke than incapable of recognizing one

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

I dunno, but at least with my system you have the flexibility to do so, should the mood strike you.

You have the flexibility to pluralize "that's" to "those're" in the current, correct system, anytime any mood strikes you. Are we talking about the same thing when we use the word "pluralize," or are you thinking "make into a possessive" and not quite putting it into words properly?

I was making a joke. Sheesh. Y'all are too literal.

Y'all apparently aren't funny enough.

Touche. But I'd rather be incapable of resisting a bad joke than incapable of recognizing one

You apparently have your wish!

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv

Beeeej

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

I dunno, but at least with my system you have the flexibility to do so, should the mood strike you.

You have the flexibility to pluralize "that's" to "those're" in the current, correct system, anytime any mood strikes you. Are we talking about the same thing when we use the word "pluralize," or are you thinking "make into a possessive" and not quite putting it into words properly?

I was making a joke. Sheesh. Y'all are too literal.

Y'all apparently aren't funny enough.

Touche. But I'd rather be incapable of resisting a bad joke than incapable of recognizing one

You apparently have your wish!

And not just that, but deeply nested quote tags, which are just about my favorite thing on online chat boards. I was on one once where the admins installed a "cool" mod to cut out all but the most recent few, and it made threads so much less fun.

Beeeej

ftyuv
Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"? It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!

Pluralize "that's"? Under what circumstances could you possibly pluralize a noun-verb contraction, other than changing it to "those're"?

That'ss/That's'/That's's apparently induce a lot of grammatical confusion.


The only likely scenario I can think of is a discussion of the noun-verb contraction itself. I'd probably simplify the sentence by using a singular "that's" as the subject, though, use italics or quotation marks for it to lessen confusion, and adjust the subject-verb agreement accordingly.

Liz '05
That'ss/That's'/That's's apparently induce a lot of grammatical confusion.

See, now I have to assume you're being serious.

When have you ever seen "that'ss" "that's'" or "that's's"?!

Beeeej

Liz '05
That'ss/That's'/That's's apparently induce a lot of grammatical confusion.

See, now I have to assume you're being serious.

When have you ever seen "that'ss" "that's'" or "that's's"?!

I've never seen it, but I can conceive of a situation where I'd write about it. But then again, I'm a linguistics dork. I just wanted to throw out a possible situation where you'd pluralize "that's".

Liz '05

Beeeej

Liz '05
That'ss/That's'/That's's apparently induce a lot of grammatical confusion.

See, now I have to assume you're being serious.

When have you ever seen "that'ss" "that's'" or "that's's"?!

I've never seen it, but I can conceive of a situation where I'd write about it. But then again, I'm a linguistics dork. I just wanted to throw out a possible situation where you'd pluralize "that's".

Far as I've seen, you still haven't yet. Can you give an actual example?

Liz '05

Beeeej

Liz '05
That'ss/That's'/That's's apparently induce a lot of grammatical confusion.

See, now I have to assume you're being serious.

When have you ever seen "that'ss" "that's'" or "that's's"?!

I've never seen it, but I can conceive of a situation where I'd write about it. But then again, I'm a linguistics dork. I just wanted to throw out a possible situation where you'd pluralize "that's".

I was taught to always quote a word when meaning the word itself and not its meaning. Multiple instances of "that's" would be "that's"s. Not that thats's much easier to read

Somehow I feel like people are trying to contract "that's his" or something into "that's's" and just explaining it badly. I can't think of any other use for the made-up double apostrophe word that would make any kind of sense.

Beeeej

Liz '05
I've never seen it, but I can conceive of a situation where I'd write about it. But then again, I'm a linguistics dork. I just wanted to throw out a possible situation where you'd pluralize "that's".

Far as I've seen, you still haven't yet. Can you give an actual example?

How many that's's can I include in a sinale sentence? I doubt I could write a grammatically correct, non-run-on sentence with more than two that's but I'm not sure. "That's" is such a fun contraction that I'd like to see as many as possible in my writing.

Silly meta-example, but one that a linguistics dork might enjoy.

KeithK

Beeeej

Liz '05
I've never seen it, but I can conceive of a situation where I'd write about it. But then again, I'm a linguistics dork. I just wanted to throw out a possible situation where you'd pluralize "that's".

Far as I've seen, you still haven't yet. Can you give an actual example?

How many that's's can I include in a sinale sentence? I doubt I could write a grammatically correct, non-run-on sentence with more than two that's but I'm not sure. "That's" is such a fun contraction that I'd like to see as many as possible in my writing.

Silly meta-example, but one that a linguistics dork might enjoy.

Indeed

KeithK

Beeeej

Liz '05
I've never seen it, but I can conceive of a situation where I'd write about it. But then again, I'm a linguistics dork. I just wanted to throw out a possible situation where you'd pluralize "that's".

Far as I've seen, you still haven't yet. Can you give an actual example?

How many that's's can I include in a sinale sentence? I doubt I could write a grammatically correct, non-run-on sentence with more than two that's but I'm not sure. "That's" is such a fun contraction that I'd like to see as many as possible in my writing.

Silly meta-example, but one that a linguistics dork might enjoy.

I think technically you'd want to write,

How many "that's"s can I include in a single sentence?

/spoilsport

ftyuv

Liz '05

Beeeej

Liz '05
That'ss/That's'/That's's apparently induce a lot of grammatical confusion.

See, now I have to assume you're being serious.

When have you ever seen "that'ss" "that's'" or "that's's"?!

I've never seen it, but I can conceive of a situation where I'd write about it. But then again, I'm a linguistics dork. I just wanted to throw out a possible situation where you'd pluralize "that's".

I was taught to always quote a word when meaning the word itself and not its meaning. Multiple instances of "that's" would be "that's"s. Not that thats's much easier to read

Bingo. Even if you don't follow that incredibly sensible rule, though, I can't imagine why you'd pluralize "that's" any other way besides "that'ses." Adding apostrophe-s to make something plural should be avoided strenuously unless absolutely necessary for clarity, and "that's's" and "clarity" don't belong in the same sentence.

Except that one.

OH MY GOD SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP PLEASE JUST LET THIS DISCUSSION END

jmh30
OH MY GOD SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP PLEASE JUST LET THIS DISCUSSION END

That's a lot of shut up's.

Step 1: In the message list page, move your cursor over this thread's title, which is a hyperlink.
Step 2: Don't effin' click.

ftyuv
Step 1: In the message list page, move your cursor over this thread's title, which is a hyperlink.
Step 2: Don't effin' click.

1. In the forum list page, move over hyperlink called "John Spencer is Dead".
2. Place insipid grammer discussion there.

French Rage

ftyuv
Step 1: In the message list page, move your cursor over this thread's title, which is a hyperlink.
Step 2: Don't effin' click.

1. In the forum list page, move over hyperlink called "John Spencer is Dead".
2. Place insipid grammar discussion there.

The thread started out appropriately placed and then drifted. That's not too uncommon, especially give that it's the off-season. I'd have no problem if the thread were moved.