An article that I couldn't help smiling at...

[Lilly]

[quote=BERNADETTE;492326]

Originally Posted by Lilly

Sorry Lilly got to disagree when it is constant or does spelling and grammar not matter any more? Once we get into the habit of not caring standards slip so the more thought that goes into our posts the higher the standards IMO. It is not hard to check through and correct any errors. we all make mistakes but do our best to keep them to a minimum.

Spelling and grammar certainly do matter. They matter a hell of a lot. It's my pet subject and I could go on about it forever, in fact I can get quite boring on the subject. Wherever I go I pick up errors in shops, cafes, etc. and never fail to point them out to the poor soul who has come shopping with me.

I have been told several times to lighten up about it but I won't and it infuriates me that there is such apathy these days towards spelling and grammar. As you say, once we start to accept these shoddy efforts then standards slip and what hope for the next generation? Soon we'll have nobody left who can write properly in English.

My point earlier was that as there are usually some errors in most posts we could be here all day picking them up and then the threads get interrupted. I definitely think that if someone is to be a lawyer then they should have a good command of the English language and hope that the exams they have to take ensure that they are but if we start pulling their Accyweb posts to pieces for spelling/grammatical errors it detracts from the topic in hand.

Where would we stop?

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by garinda

The women's, as well as the gay liberation movements, both started in the UK on college campuses.

They might well have done but I would say that they were started by a few dedicated individuals and that those individuals had to take their protests out into the wider world to make their presence felt, because they'd get sod all support from the vast majority of students. Most of the student protesters who I knew at college had traditional sexist attitudes towards "chicks". And, as you have said, gay rights have been achieved in the UK thanks to this government.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Just on the grammar thread wander for a moment - I know we all make odd mistakes but sometimes the grammar can be so misleading in a post that it is interpreted precisely the opposite of what the poster intended and an almighty bust up can ensue over something which is actually nothing. It does help if things can be as accurate as possible.

[BERNADETTE]

Yes I agree to a certain extent Lilly but I feel that if we don't say anything we won't be able to decipher posts before long. I do think that to remark that it doesn't matter because we are only a local forum is out of order. There are and always will be people who find spelling and punctuation difficult and I don't have a problem with that. What does annoy me is when people who quite clearly have a good grasp of language and grammar can't be bothered.

[Lilly]

Very true, Bernadette and Willow. I'm glad to know that I'm in good company.

'Eats, Shoots and Leaves' is one of my favourite books and I have considered joining the 'Apostrophe Preservation Society.'

Oh yes. I don't go out much. LOL

[garinda]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Blood donation? Are gay people turned away from blood donation centres? Why would that be? Surely 'gay blood' is identical to 'straight blood'.

I really would appreciate some clarification on those points.

Blood from what is deemed higher risk groups, such as gay men, were there is still a relatively higher incidence of HIV compared with the hetrosexual population in the UK, or intravenous drug users, isn't collected by the Blood Transfusion Service.

All donated blood could be screened and then 'washed', but this is a very expensive procedure, of which our nurse Lettie knows more, and is somewhat of an expert on the matter. The majority of gay men have no problem with this issue, and certainly don't feel discriminated against. I cannot speak for smack heads, but they are probably too out of it to care one way or the other.

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by garinda

Blood from what is deemed higher risk groups, such as gay men, were there is still a relatively higher incidence of HIV compared with the hetrosexual population in the UK, or intravenous drug users, isn't collected by the Blood Transfusion Service.

All donated blood could be screened and then 'washed', but this is a very expensive procedure, of which our nurse Lettie knows more, and is somewhat of an expert on the matter. The majority of gay men have no problem with this issue, and certainly don't feel discriminated against. I cannot speak for smack heads, but they are probably too out of it to care one way or the other.

My friend at work is gay and he wasn't too happy when the Blood Transfusion Service wouldn't accept his blood because of the HIV risk.

He wasn't happy either when the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust wouldn't accept his bone marrow for the same reason.

He hasn't got HIV. As long as someone can produce a negative HIV test why can't they be accepted for these things?

I thought they were hard up for donors these days.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

They might well have done but I would say that they were started by a few dedicated individuals and that those individuals had to take their protests out into the wider world to make their presence felt, because they'd get sod all support from the vast majority of students. Most of the student protesters who I knew at college had traditional sexist attitudes towards "chicks". And, as you have said, gay rights have been achieved in the UK thanks to this government.

Yes but from small acorns....

I remember being at an Oxford college in the late seventies, and being lectured about the evils of Del Monte, and their business dealings, and therefore indirect support, for the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Did the student boycotting of companies like Barclays and Del Monte, as well as the lack of sales for the artists who played in Sun City, make a difference?

I guess we'll never know for sure, though international sanctions did help to hasten the end of an evil time in history.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Lilly

My friend at work is gay and he wasn't too happy when the Blood Transfusion Service wouldn't accept his blood because of the HIV risk.

He wasn't happy either when the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust wouldn't accept his bone marrow for the same reason.

He hasn't got HIV. As long as someone can produce a negative HIV test why can't they be accepted for these things?

I thought they were hard up for donors these days.

It comes down to money. It would be extremely expensive, and time consuming, to make sure all blood was fit to be used by those who need it.

I wasn't too pleased when I had to pay an extra premium on my mortgage, because I once danced with a boy, and was deemed to be in a high risk group, even though I was celibate, and it was even more galling that a married man I used to work with used to have unsafe sex with hookers every lunchtime, yet was considered 'low risk'.

Life's not black and white, and neither is the world of finance.

Perhaps your friend should read some of the stories about haemophiliac children that died because of HIV in the 80's, who became infected after being given contaminated blood transfusions.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by garinda

Did the student boycotting of companies like Barclays and Del Monte, as well as the lack of sales for the artists who played in Sun City, make a difference?

I honestly don't know whether they did or not and, as you say, there's no way of proving it one way or another.

Isn't it strange, though, that there were no student boycotts of companies who dealt with communist China or the various viciously repressive black African regimes like Uganda? In my view the reason for this was that protesting against those regimes didn't carry the required cachet of radical chic. I'm not for one minute saying that the boycotts against the South African regime weren't justified - I am saying that the majority of students did it because it was the trendy thing for students to do. In other words, their commitment to the ideas they were protesting about was skin deep.

[MargaretR]

A workmate of mine, who was ex army and high ranking in the territorials, had his blood donation refused simply because he had served some time in Africa

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

I honestly don't know whether they did or not and, as you say, there's no way of proving it one way or another.

Isn't it strange, though, that there were no student boycotts of companies who dealt with communist China or the various viciously repressive black African regimes like Uganda? In my view the reason for this was that protesting against those regimes didn't carry the required cachet of radical chic. I'm not for one minute saying that the boycotts against the South African regime weren't justified - I am saying that the majority of students did it because it was the trendy thing for students to do. In other words, their commitment to the ideas they were protesting about was skin deep.

There's always been idiosyncrasies as to what is deemed worthy, and it's wrong.

It drives me potty nowadays about the lack of protest with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, as well as Zimbabwe, all with appalling human rights records, but all places we continue to have diplomatic relationships with, because of money.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

A workmate of mine, who was ex army and high ranking in the territorials, had his blood donation refused simply because he had served some time in Africa

People that have spent a considerable amount of time in sub-Saharan Africa are deemed at being in a high risk group too.

[katex]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

Yes, I agree to a certain extent Lilly, but I feel that if we don't say anything, we won't be able to decipher posts before long. I do think that to remark that it doesn't matter, because we are only a local forum, is out of order. There are, and always will be, people who find spelling and punctuation difficult; and I don't have a problem with that. What does annoy me is, when people who quite clearly have a good grasp of language and grammar, can't be bothered.

Well, I'm not perfect, but this is how I was taught .. LOL

[blazey]

Its hardly worth a rant that a didnt use a capital F for friday, and its hardly difficult to decipher what I'm saying either for these reasons. Integrate a spell check feature on the forum if you dont like it, other forums do, though I hardly think my spelling is hard to read, and for all you know I could be dyslexic so you have no right to be so rude about it.