formal or legalese should be done by professionals, general communication is done by people with varied levels of education & gramatical understanding. being a <deleted> to about some minor written error is just a way for someone with little else to impress with, try to play the big one.

You never know when you may need to produce some correspondence to defend against some predator, trying to extract money from you in some way. Best to be clear and concise in all your correspondence that is accepted in a legal sense.

This still allows you to be 'creative' on Internet correspondence. It is only when it goes out on paper that it is legally quotable.

Hi HB

are you suggesting that internet correspondence or even spoken remarks are not legally attributable?

Hi HB

are you suggesting that internet correspondence or even spoken remarks are not legally attributable?

They are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service

As we are on grammar and I like to go hunting the Grammar Police with a passion, can we continue this thread, if eek doesn't mind, regarding other aspects of grammar that I just can't get my head around,

Are there any simple rules in regard to the apostrophe, because I just don't get it.

Is it Mossy's beer, or moss', or mossies or mossies's ( ok that's a stretch ) or mosses or moss's

Please be gentle

It's my beer. The barman'll be pouring Mossy's beer in a moment.

Those who comment that 'It's on fb, so spelling/grammar are less important' are, in context, probably correct.

However such an attitude may carry through to other types of communication - especially in the matter of formal letters. Here there would be other considerations, some with legal consequences.

I have spent a large part of my life formulating or defending claims in the construction industry and several have been won or lost on the construction of one or two sentences within the claim. In 2009 I managed to save over 50 million dollars for one client, due solely to a careless slip by the claimant. Made me very popular. The other guy left his company and went to work in Finland.

I deplore all these txt spk and other garbled means of communication, although I am at times guilty of using them. Depends entirely upon circumstances.

I'm lucky I'm quite a quick typist, and doubly lucky that I don't have an iPad or a smart phone, so all my internet communication gets typed on a proper keyboard - so it's a lot easier to put in punctuation and to include all the 'but's and 'and's (note the innovative use of the plural outside the inverted commas - possibly frowned upon by some grammarians...).

Erroneous apostrophation (We should not let our vocabulary be limited by the ivory towerites of Oxford) irritates me, but generally, I try not to draw attention to others' grammatical shortcomings unless there is an opportunity for a facetious and obtuse misunderstanding.

I don't know how Google Translate copes with grammatical errors, but for most of our Johnny Foreigner fellow-forumers (not to mention the semi-literate native speakers amongst us) a few apostrophes here or there, missing capitals, 'there' when you mean 'their', and 'were' when you mean 'whaiur' are surely less confusing than pretentiously inventive vocabulation like this.

SC

IfthaycannaereedInglish thayshouldnaebeoananInglishforum, bytheway

Hi HB

are you suggesting that internet correspondence or even spoken remarks are not legally attributable?

They are...

http://en.wikipedia....nternet_Service

The reference is to a libel case, or defamation.

My expertise is in contractual claims and in almost every construction contract there is a clause stating that all documents submitted by one party to the other (or one of the others) must be in writing, by hand / by post / by fax. No message transmitted through e-mail or other Internet service is considered valid. It is so easy to falsify documents on the Internet, or to deny that one has issued the document, that all internet correspondence, unless with certified signature, should be outside the sphere of 'legal' documents.

Look at the recent postings on the John Terry racism charge. No one could prove exactly what was said, and in what manner it was said. Thus JT got off the legal test in court. Ashley Cole supported him, thus annoying Rio Ferdinand and he (RF) is alleged to have put on Twitter remarks about 'choc ice' - that is, brown on the outside but white within. Now to me that is racist abuse, but a quick apology got him out of trouble. A. Cole has also attacked the FA after they found JT guilty of 'bringing the game into disrepute' which is an offense only committed within the rules of the FA, not civil law. AC has also escaped punishment after a quick apology. Both these escapes are because of the woolly state of jurisprudence on Internet postings.

If I break the rules of TV when posting, the TV Admin can give me a holiday or ban me completely. But this is because I am breaking those rules, not because I am breaking the law of the land (which land, anyway? I may be posting from the Philippines, being read in the US, UK, Japan, etc., in the English language.). If the site is registered in the US, for instance, it may be that US law has highest jurisdiction, but how many people know where the web-site is registered?

National law is buggered, as far as most cases of Internet claims are concerned - it's a pity most lawyers don't realise this.

Hi HB

are you suggesting that internet correspondence or even spoken remarks are not legally attributable?

They are...

http://en.wikipedia....nternet_Service

The reference is to a libel case, or defamation.

My expertise is in contractual claims and in almost every construction contract there is a clause stating that all documents submitted by one party to the other (or one of the others) must be in writing, by hand / by post / by fax. No message transmitted through e-mail or other Internet service is considered valid. It is so easy to falsify documents on the Internet, or to deny that one has issued the document, that all internet correspondence, unless with certified signature, should be outside the sphere of 'legal' documents.

Look at the recent postings on the John Terry racism charge. No one could prove exactly what was said, and in what manner it was said. Thus JT got off the legal test in court. Ashley Cole supported him, thus annoying Rio Ferdinand and he (RF) is alleged to have put on Twitter remarks about 'choc ice' - that is, brown on the outside but white within. Now to me that is racist abuse, but a quick apology got him out of trouble. A. Cole has also attacked the FA after they found JT guilty of 'bringing the game into disrepute' which is an offense only committed within the rules of the FA, not civil law. AC has also escaped punishment after a quick apology. Both these escapes are because of the woolly state of jurisprudence on Internet postings.

If I break the rules of TV when posting, the TV Admin can give me a holiday or ban me completely. But this is because I am breaking those rules, not because I am breaking the law of the land (which land, anyway? I may be posting from the Philippines, being read in the US, UK, Japan, etc., in the English language.). If the site is registered in the US, for instance, it may be that US law has highest jurisdiction, but how many people know where the web-site is registered?

National law is buggered, as far as most cases of Internet claims are concerned - it's a pity most lawyers don't realise this.

It would be reckless for TV not to specify the applicable jurisdiction in their terms of agreement when we signed up. I cannot remember if they have done, or not. However, there will be case law for this, probably based on telephone or telegram or postal agreement, that deifines where an agreement is made. With regard to the law of the land, I understand it is the location of the accused that is critical, and therefore gambling in the UK is illegal whilst in Thailand - though as far as I know, no-one has been prosecuted for failing to terminate their National Lottery or Pools standing order while on holiday...

SC

Hi HB

are you suggesting that internet correspondence or even spoken remarks are not legally attributable?

They are...

http://en.wikipedia....nternet_Service

The reference is to a libel case, or defamation.

My expertise is in contractual claims and in almost every construction contract there is a clause stating that all documents submitted by one party to the other (or one of the others) must be in writing, by hand / by post / by fax. No message transmitted through e-mail or other Internet service is considered valid. It is so easy to falsify documents on the Internet, or to deny that one has issued the document, that all internet correspondence, unless with certified signature, should be outside the sphere of 'legal' documents.

Look at the recent postings on the John Terry racism charge. No one could prove exactly what was said, and in what manner it was said. Thus JT got off the legal test in court. Ashley Cole supported him, thus annoying Rio Ferdinand and he (RF) is alleged to have put on Twitter remarks about 'choc ice' - that is, brown on the outside but white within. Now to me that is racist abuse, but a quick apology got him out of trouble. A. Cole has also attacked the FA after they found JT guilty of 'bringing the game into disrepute' which is an offense only committed within the rules of the FA, not civil law. AC has also escaped punishment after a quick apology. Both these escapes are because of the woolly state of jurisprudence on Internet postings.

If I break the rules of TV when posting, the TV Admin can give me a holiday or ban me completely. But this is because I am breaking those rules, not because I am breaking the law of the land (which land, anyway? I may be posting from the Philippines, being read in the US, UK, Japan, etc., in the English language.). If the site is registered in the US, for instance, it may be that US law has highest jurisdiction, but how many people know where the web-site is registered?

National law is buggered, as far as most cases of Internet claims are concerned - it's a pity most lawyers don't realise this.

It would be reckless for TV not to specify the applicable jurisdiction in their terms of agreement when we signed up. I cannot remember if they have done, or not. However, there will be case law for this, probably based on telephone or telegram or postal agreement, that deifines where an agreement is made. With regard to the law of the land, I understand it is the location of the accused that is critical, and therefore gambling in the UK is illegal whilst in Thailand - though as far as I know, no-one has been prosecuted for failing to terminate their National Lottery or Pools standing order while on holiday...

SC

Yet it is impossible to play the Lottery from a server in Jersey for example.

...

...

The reference is to a libel case, or defamation.

My expertise is in contractual claims and in almost every construction contract there is a clause stating that all documents submitted by one party to the other (or one of the others) must be in writing, by hand / by post / by fax. No message transmitted through e-mail or other Internet service is considered valid. It is so easy to falsify documents on the Internet, or to deny that one has issued the document, that all internet correspondence, unless with certified signature, should be outside the sphere of 'legal' documents.

Look at the recent postings on the John Terry racism charge. No one could prove exactly what was said, and in what manner it was said. Thus JT got off the legal test in court. Ashley Cole supported him, thus annoying Rio Ferdinand and he (RF) is alleged to have put on Twitter remarks about 'choc ice' - that is, brown on the outside but white within. Now to me that is racist abuse, but a quick apology got him out of trouble. A. Cole has also attacked the FA after they found JT guilty of 'bringing the game into disrepute' which is an offense only committed within the rules of the FA, not civil law. AC has also escaped punishment after a quick apology. Both these escapes are because of the woolly state of jurisprudence on Internet postings.

If I break the rules of TV when posting, the TV Admin can give me a holiday or ban me completely. But this is because I am breaking those rules, not because I am breaking the law of the land (which land, anyway? I may be posting from the Philippines, being read in the US, UK, Japan, etc., in the English language.). If the site is registered in the US, for instance, it may be that US law has highest jurisdiction, but how many people know where the web-site is registered?

National law is buggered, as far as most cases of Internet claims are concerned - it's a pity most lawyers don't realise this.

It would be reckless for TV not to specify the applicable jurisdiction in their terms of agreement when we signed up. I cannot remember if they have done, or not. However, there will be case law for this, probably based on telephone or telegram or postal agreement, that deifines where an agreement is made. With regard to the law of the land, I understand it is the location of the accused that is critical, and therefore gambling in the UK is illegal whilst in Thailand - though as far as I know, no-one has been prosecuted for failing to terminate their National Lottery or Pools standing order while on holiday...

SC

Yet it is impossible to play the Lottery from a server in Jersey for example.

Except through a VPN, which would be criminal in Thailand.

SC

Interesting HB,

But my understanding of the JT nonsense, was not because of just the laws and sphere of influence of the FA, but because UK law works under the treaty of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and civil law, which was the FA's remit works under, 'balance of probabilities'.

JT did not deny he used the term, but stated he was only replying back to RF, under some guise of a question, absolute Horse Hockey, he was hooked on the balance of probabilities that he actually meant what he said.

What was interesting is that RF actually admitted he was winding him before hand.

Where does it all end, Cricketing Sledging is legendary, when Shane Warne was asked why he was so fat, he retorted, 'every time I shag your wife, she gives me a biscuit',

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IvWoQplqXQ&feature=related