Forum: Author Hangout

I'd suggest a correction if the author was a Brit, but just suck it up if the author was a colonial ;)

This from someone who can't tell the difference between a french fry and a chip. ;)

This from someone who can't tell the difference between a french fry and a chip. ;)

Untrue..!! He can tell the difference..!!

He (almost) never has a french fry on his shoulder..!!

This from someone who's never had a chip buttie

The question is, why would someone want one? But, then again, I eat chitlins, so there is no accounting for taste.

I eat haggis. Does that count?

who knows. I haven't had them to my knowledge so will have to withhold judgement until I get the chance to actually taste them.

I eat haggis. Does that count?

I prefer Black Pudding - Ecky Thump! Careful you don't die laughing.

I eat haggis. Does that count?

Depends.

Yes it counts if you shot your own and ate it. (Wild haggis tastes divine)

No it does not count if you bought and ate the GM modified 'farmed' ones.

What's GM modified about the fake variety? I thought GM labelling was compulsory in the UK but the ingredients list doesn't mention it.

It is GM modified because the fake ones are bred in the Grampian Mountains.

Please note that to avoid delicate sensibilities I avoided the issue of exactly how they are modified, suffice it to say that it is inhumane and includes them being forcibly shaved...

Sadly there is little to be done, the authorities, fools all, are still busy ascertaining exactly what is, or is not, to be found beneath a true highlanders kilt.

An utter waste of public money, everyone knows that were you to lift a true highlanders kilt high, all you'd find is 100% highlander... and lipstick.

Of course, obviously if his wife finds lipstick, he will have a lot more than blue balls. If you doubt me, ask Mel Gibson..!!

It is GM modified because the fake ones are bred in the Grampian Mountains.

I thought you were talking about the antipodean ones

I thought you were talking about the antipodean ones

Mere hills, not worthy of being mountains, nor do haggis exist in New Zealand.

Thanks to their presence being exposed in 'Middle Earth' though they survived the books, even the Silmarillion, they were eaten to extinction by the film crews...

I eat chitlins

I have enjoyed them also, but like many things have a bad reputation.

You can hunt and kill a sheep's stomach stuffed with onion and barley?!? I did not know that.

Those fake haggis are only for lowlanders and sassenachs...!!!

Edited to add link

the little-known grammatical rule

Who's rule?
Who is advocating it?

HM.

Who's rule?
Who is advocating it?

English professors, who collectively haven't had a new idea since the sixth century.

but I hate trashing a grammatical rule I con't yet fully comprehend

If you can't find anyone who can explain the rule in a comprehensible way, maybe the problem is that the rule is just plain incomprehensible.

Shouldn't that be "whom"?

Beats me! What I remember is, having watched political conventions on television for decades, that speakers who wanted to place a name in nomination, in introducing the man (in the old days it was inevitably a man), the started each sentence with "the man who" did this thing great, followed by "the man who" did that thing great before they ever mentioned the fellow's name. If they were correct in using "the man who," then why wouldn't it follow that it should also be "the horse who"? (as long as Mrs. Higginbotham was correct that a horse with a name should not be referred to as "that")

No, Trigger is the subject of the sentence.

No. Trigger was Roy Rogers Horse.

Shouldn't that be "whom"?

No, Trigger is the subject of the sentence.

Maybe my understanding of English isn't well enough, but if Trigger is the subject of the sentence, then Trigger rides on Roy Rogers.
So it should be "whom". Then it's clear Roy Rogers rides on Trigger.

HM.

It depends on who was made famous in this sentence, Roy Rogers or Trigger.

Trigger is the subject of the sentence, Roy Rogers is the subject of the subordinate clause introduced by 'who'.

Then it should have been 'whom' and Roy Rogers made Trigger famous. I'd argue it's a play on words and Trigger is the subject of both clauses. He rode him into fame = He made him famous.

And if I'm wrong, I'll never admit it.

Nothing new here, so let's move on.