Hughton v Pardew

[Guest alex]

So your conclusion based on this stat is that you can't draw conclusions based on this stat? Glad it only took 3 pages to find that out. You'll never be a Fop. In fact, you'll do well to match CT at this rate.

[sammynb 3517]

I really wish the fat cunt that owns our club would pump the money he spends on PR into the team, that way we'd have at least £10.50 opposed to the £4 budgeted currently.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

Yes, that is indeed my conclusion, alex.

But I can draw an 'indication' from it, and that indication is that both managers are quite even.

Which I consider to be food for optimism. Since we all know that Hughton was doing an excellent job, that also means that Pardew appears to be doing an excellent job too. But remember, only indications, not conclusions.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Nick-Kielce-Poland

[Guest alex]

That was a rhetorical question, dipshit.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

That was a rhetorical question, dipshit.

Do you ever read Barbara Cartland?

[ewerk 31230]

I posted it because I think it plays a part in the discussion about who is better of Hughton or Pardew.

At the moment it suggests that they are very even, nothing else.

And notice, I say 'suggests' not proves.

 

I am only after the truth.

I hope Pardew is better, since he is the current manager, but in no way do I think this stat proves anything of the sort, and I never have.

 

What's the points ratio to pounds spent? That's the kind of stat we need.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

ewerk then we'd have to work out exactly how much had been spent, but that info is hard to find.

However, in this case, it is obvious that Pardew would win, because of one particular transfer, namely that of Carroll. But if you want exact figures, I repeat, very hard to find the necessary info.

[Guest alex]

Really hard, in fact.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

Alex, we don't need to know, thank you.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Nick-Kielce-Poland

[sammynb 3517]

[Happy Face 29]

ewerk then we'd have to work out exactly how much had been spent, but that info is hard to find.

However, in this case, it is obvious that Pardew would win, because of one particular transfer, namely that of Carroll. But if you want exact figures, I repeat, very hard to find the necessary info.

 

Not that hard....

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...9&hl=ashley

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound, when we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Nick-Kielce-Poland

[ewerk 31230]

I said DO IT.

[GeeForce 0]

also tbf to pardew he has suffered from not having Andy Carroll during his current reign, our top striker, and he has had to deal without the use of Ben arfa, I know only got 4 games in but still won us 3 points v everton. and arguably the second half of season is full of injuries etc and much harder! I still think I like hughton more tho

[acrossthepond 878]

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound, when we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

 

You really have to work on your comma use, mate. It's driving me crazy.

 

Look, two independent clauses (that is, parts of a sentence that could grammatically stand on their own) cannot be joined by a comma. A comma is used to join a dependent clause to an independent clause if the def. comes first. For two independent clauses, you have to use conjunctions or a semicolon.

 

Considering we already know that Pardew would win hands down, I don't see the point in working it out to the pound.

 

OR

 

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound when we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

 

OR

 

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound; we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

 

The content of your posts is bad enough without having to look at those awful superfluous commas staring out at me like tiny wisdom teeth and tearing into my cerebral cortex. Sort it out.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound, when we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

 

You really have to work on your comma use, mate. It's driving me crazy.

 

Look, two independent clauses (that is, parts of a sentence that could grammatically stand on their own) cannot be joined by a comma. A comma is used to join a dependent clause to an independent clause if the def. comes first. For two independent clauses, you have to use conjunctions or a semicolon.

 

Considering we already know that Pardew would win hands down, I don't see the point in working it out to the pound.

 

OR

 

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound when we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

 

OR

 

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound; we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

 

The content of your posts is bad enough without having to look at those awful superfluous commas staring out at me like tiny wisdom teeth and tearing into my cerebral cortex. Sort it out.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

acrsoothepond a clause that starts with 'when' is a sub-ordinate clause.

(How could a clause that starts with 'when' possibly be on its own, you nugget?)

 

Subordinate clauses are joined by subordinate conjunctions like 'when' for example.

 

Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'.

 

A subordinate clause (which starts with 'when') DOES contain a finite verb, and that might be why you mistook it for an independent clause). There is also another category, namely the phrase which isn't a clause.

 

Forexample, Seeing his car gone, John called the police.

The above sentence has a main clause at the end, but the underlined part doesn't qualify as a clause at all (not even as a subordinate clause). It's a phrase, since it doesn't contain a finite verb (a verb in present simple, or past simeple).

 

You probably thought that my subordinate clause was independent, because it contained a finite verb.

Yes, it is a clause, but it doesn't quality as an independent clause, unless it contains a finite verb.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Nick-Kielce-Poland

[ChezGiven 0]

This thread just took an exciting turn.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

ChezGiven, I am the last person that would start to write about language on a football thread, but you'll notice that I was responding to someone else.

 

(you probably did notice, but only decieded to say something after I had posted about it, you rogue )

[acrossthepond 878]

acrsoothepond a clause that starts with 'when' is a sub-ordinate clause.

(How could a clase that starts with 'when' possibly be on its own, you nugget?)

 

Subordinate clauses are joined by subordinate conjunctions like 'when' for example.

 

Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'.

 

The clause didn't start with 'when'. 'When' is the conjunction. 'We already know that Pardew would win hands down' is an independent clause and can't be joined to the previous clause with a comma whether or not you include 'when.'

 

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound when we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

 

Both of the red clauses are independent. 'When' can join them, but a comma cannot. That's a comma splice.

 

I wonder if this is just more of your trolling or if you genuinely don't know grammar but think you do.

 

(What may be pedantry to you is the stuff of life and death to my students, Chez. I am infamous for the brutal strokes of red that cut a swath through the hazy constructions and usage of passive voice that they offer me, hoping I will 'go easy' this time because their English teachers don't even cover grammar any more. )

[ChezGiven 0]

Grammar is not a question of life and death, it's more important than that.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

acrossthepond

 

'when' is a subordinating conjunction.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm

 

Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'.

 

A subordinate clause (which starts with 'when') DOES contain a finite verb, and that might be why you mistook it for an independent clause). There is also another category, namely the phrase, which isn't a clause.

 

Forexample, Seeing his car gone, John called the police.

The above sentence has a main clause at the end, but the underlined part doesn't qualify as a clause at all (not even as a subordinate clause). It's a phrase, since it doesn't contain a finite verb (a verb in present simple, or past simeple).

 

You probably thought that my subordinate clause was independent, because it contained a finite verb.

Yes, it is a clause, but it doesn't quality as an independent clause, unless it contains a finite verb.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Nick-Kielce-Poland

[trophyshy 7084]

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

acrossthepond

 

'when' is a subordinating conjunction.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm

 

Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'.

 

A subordinate clause (which starts with 'when') DOES contain a finite verb, and that might be why you mistook it for an independent clause). There is also another category, namely the phrase, which isn't a clause.

 

Forexample, Seeing his car gone, John called the police.

The above sentence has a main clause at the end, but the underlined part doesn't qualify as a clause at all (not even as a subordinate clause). It's a phrase, since it doesn't contain a finite verb (a verb in present simple, or past simeple).

 

You probably thought that my subordinate clause was independent, because it contained a finite verb.

Yes, it is a clause, but it doesn't quality as an independent clause, unless it contains a finite verb.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

Ant, I didn't start it. I think it's really pathetic to correct people's language outside the classroom.

But when someone does it, and they are wrong, I will answer them back.

 

acrossthepond

 

'when' is a subordinating conjunction.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm

 

Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'.

 

A subordinate clause (which starts with 'when') DOES contain a finite verb, and that might be why you mistook it for an independent clause). There is also another category, namely the phrase, which isn't a clause.

 

Forexample, Seeing his car gone, John called the police.

The above sentence has a main clause at the end, but the underlined part doesn't qualify as a clause at all (not even as a subordinate clause). It's a phrase, since it doesn't contain a finite verb (a verb in present simple, or past simeple).

 

You probably thought that my subordinate clause was independent, because it contained a finite verb.

Yes, it is a clause, but it doesn't quality as an independent clause, if it starts with, for example, 'when'.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Nick-Kielce-Poland