I think you should call the page the Pedant’s Corner like they do at the Bead Museum library! To avoid crossing the line from homage to appropriation you could call it the Pedant’s Quarters (jaunty nautical theme)!

“Pedants’ corner

Description: The place for… members who keep a piece of chalk in their handbags for correcting badly punctuated restaurant chalkboard menus. For members who would rather leave off their underwear than leave out an apostrophe. If you swear in court on a copy of Eats, Shoots and Leaves, this is the place for you.”

(AZ Bead Museum)

I am ROFLMAO!!

Are you really Sara Palin? WOW!!! (I know you claim that was by Mark Twain, but I know it was writ by you, Sara. So modest.)

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez “c”, “y” and “x” — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais “ch”, “sh”, and “th” rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Mark Twain (1835 – 1910), “A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling”

Two golden rules: 1. the thicker the rulebook, the worse the organisation. 2. Justice is “just this”. This means all legislation should be so easy a 6-year old can spell and understand it.

“All are equal, some are more equal than others”, what more do you funkin’ need….

awesomeness.

As I have often said, I do not know how you find the time to write this blawg, but we all appreciate that you take whatever time you have to present it.

Corrections
This page is reserved ONLY for suggested factual or grammatical errors — not for disagreements over the conclusions or interpretations found in blog entries. If readers disagree with the merits of a story, they should use the comment section of that story to raise such issues.

First, the headline says that a retired major general joined the suit, but his participation is in dispute according to the news article that Sandra linked. He says he never consented. So he should not be accused of joining the suit.

Sandra 1, July 20, 2009 at 7:54 am
Childers denies being part of this suit. He claimed he signed up as a plaintiff on another motion and she “signed” him up on the Cook case without his permission.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/779856.html

The second point is that the lead article does not make it clear that Cook volunteered for his deployment. That changes everything. It is one thing to sue to stop a deployment if the President had ordered him to Afghanistan against his will, but his voluntary request changes the facts completely.

Vince Treacy 1, July 22, 2009 at 8:30 am
Cook volunteered for deployment. He could have changed his mind at any time. Then he filed a lawsuit to stop deployment. That was pretty good evidence that he had changed his mind. How could the Army possibly defend on the merits? If they agree to his request for an injunction to stop the deployment, then they have to cancel his orders. There was no possible way for this case to present a case or controversy to the court. There was simply no basis for jurisdiction.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/25/idaho-man-sodomized-by-police-taser-plans-to-sue/

whooliebacon,

En Garde indeed!