Re: Partnership split
- From: "Troy Steadman" <troysteadman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:04:50 -0700
Martin wrote:
"DoobieDo" <doobie@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fNWGg.35431$fV1.34446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Martin" <ngng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qkVGg.10848$5g6.20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So why did you put an apostrophe in "doesnt" ?
'cause doesnt isn't a word but does not is shortened as such
Hee hee. So you weren't trying to be clever with it's, it's and it's, then?
Typos happen. But three in a row is ignorance. Or do you plead the defence
that the readers knew what you meant?
Martin, are you naturally an imbecile or have you recently had a "make
under"?
In my Vth Edition COD (which was a vintage year for English BTW) under
"do":
"doesn't, and vulg. don't, for does not"
It is a perfectly good word, and much used and much loved around this
neck of the woods - where the literate people live. I think the very
least you can do is apologise to Dopey :p
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Martin
- Re: Partnership split
- References:
- Partnership split
- From: Dave
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Peter Saxton
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Ronald Raygun
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Peter Saxton
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Martin
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Peter Saxton
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Dave
- Re: Partnership split
- From: DoobieDo
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Martin
- Re: Partnership split
- From: DoobieDo
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Martin
- Partnership split
- Prev by Date: Re: Partnership split
- Next by Date: Re: Partnership split
- Previous by thread: Re: Partnership split
- Next by thread: Re: Partnership split
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|