Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[villa4europe]

8 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

We've discussed it before, but I find the US usage 'wrong' because... it's inconsistent. Both for football teams and music groups. They are either a singular entity, or a collection of people, they can't be both. 

So, if you say "The Who is a 60s band", then you have to say "The Beatles is a 60s band". 

Similarly if it's "Aston Villa is winning", then it must be "Blackburn Rovers is winning" 

Those usages both sound absurd to me. 

Whereas in my head I picture four musicians or eleven footballers. They are plural. 

The Who ARE a 60s band. Aston Villa ARE winning. 

Don't disagree

But -

Chicago is a city in the US

Chicago is winning

That's where I think the US get it from

It should be Chicago are winning but they don't make that change because they use the city, I'm pretty sure they would say the bears are winning but they often use the city as the reference and therefore use is instead

Not disagreeing that it's wrong just trying to guess why they do it

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

if it's "Aston Villa is winning", then it must be "Blackburn Rovers is winning" 

Let's extend my analogy a little. 

If 'Aston Villa' is singular, and you don't want to keep repeating the name, you'd have to use a singular pronoun. Obviously not 'he' or 'she', as 'Aston Villa' is not gendered, so it would have to be 'it'. 

Sports anchor: "Well, last we heard, Aston Villa was (sic) beating Manchester United. What's happening now, Chris?" 

Reporter: "Well, Jeff, it's still winning" 

See? It doesn't work. Surely even an American would say "They're still winning"? Ergo, Aston Villa ARE winning. Aston Villa ARE a football club. THEY are by far the greatest the world has ever seen. 

[villa4europe]

7 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Let's extend my analogy a little. 

If 'Aston Villa' is singular, and you don't want to keep repeating the name, you'd have to use a singular pronoun. Obviously not 'he' or 'she', as 'Aston Villa' is not gendered, so it would have to be 'it'. 

Sports anchor: "Well, last we heard, Aston Villa was (sic) beating Manchester United. What's happening now, Chris?" 

Reporter: "Well, Jeff, it's still winning" 

See? It doesn't work. Surely even an American would say "They're still winning"? Ergo, Aston Villa ARE winning. Aston Villa ARE a football club. THEY are by far the greatest the world has ever seen. 

Villa don't really work but using Blackburn Rovers as the example

Rovers are winning

Blackburn is winning

That's what American sports tend to do from my experience of NFL commentary and a city is singular so it's not wrong, what's wrong is the reference to the city rather than to the team

[mjmooney]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Villa don't really work but using Blackburn Rovers as the example

Rovers are winning

Blackburn is winning

That's what American sports tend to do from my experience of NFL commentary and a city is singular so it's not wrong, what's wrong is the reference to the city rather than to the team

How would they handle the Manchester derby? 

[sidcow]

3 hours ago, mjmooney said:

The Who ARE a 60s band. Aston Villa ARE winning. 

Bad example 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Let's extend my analogy a little. 

If 'Aston Villa' is singular, and you don't want to keep repeating the name, you'd have to use a singular pronoun. Obviously not 'he' or 'she', as 'Aston Villa' is not gendered, so it would have to be 'it'. 

Sports anchor: "Well, last we heard, Aston Villa was (sic) beating Manchester United. What's happening now, Chris?" 

Reporter: "Well, Jeff, it's still winning" 

See? It doesn't work. Surely even an American would say "They're still winning"? Ergo, Aston Villa ARE winning. Aston Villa ARE a football club. THEY are by far the greatest the world has ever seen. 

. Without repeating the same thing from last time we discussed this, I’ll put it like this: “Aston Villa” as an institution or Football club which was (not were) formed in 1874 - actually we use Aston Villa to refer to different things. The club which is almost 150 years old, but also the players representing the club. So when talking about a game “[the players of] Aston Villa are winning”.  So it’s all about which Aston Villa you are talking about when you use the name Aston Villa. If it’s the whole entity, the institution, then it’s “is”, but if it’s the team then it’s “are”.  It actually pisses me off that people can’t grasp this point.

[mjmooney]

53 minutes ago, blandy said:

. Without repeating the same thing from last time we discussed this, I’ll put it like this: “Aston Villa” as an institution or Football club which was (not were) formed in 1874 - actually we use Aston Villa to refer to different things. The club which is almost 150 years old, but also the players representing the club. So when talking about a game “[the players of] Aston Villa are winning”.  So it’s all about which Aston Villa you are talking about when you use the name Aston Villa. If it’s the whole entity, the institution, then it’s “is”, but if it’s the team then it’s “are”.  It actually pisses me off that people can’t grasp this point.

Fair enough, there a specific cases (such as your 'founding' example) where the singular is appropriate, e.g. when comparing to a different singular word - 'Aston Villa is an institution in the midlands', 'Aston Villa is practically a religion', etc. That is where it is being used almost as an abstract concept. But in most cases, we are talking about a collection of people - either the eleven men on the pitch, or the wider roster of owners, management and backroom staff. They ARE Aston Villa. Aston Villa IS (there's that exception - the abstract concept) them. 

But I'm not having 'Aston Villa is pleased to announce...' That ain't no abstract concept doing the announcing, it's Wes, Nas, Purslow, Lange, the staff in the PR office. They are the ones who are pleased. They, in this instance, are Aston Villa. 

[Seat68]

Joel Corry. 

Joel Corry is a Producer and DJ. Amongst other popular songs he is responsible for Lionheart by Joel Corry featuring Tom Grennan. Joel Corry must provide the vocals and Tom Grennan must help. No. Tom Grennan sings all of the song, Joel Corry supplies no vocals. OK, he must have written it. Take the credit, all his own work. Joel Corry is one of 9 songwriters. As is Grennan, so nothing there to single him out as deserving top billing. Producer? Yes, but as are 2 other people. So what does he do, I am at a loss as to what Joel Corry, Jax Jones and their ilk do to deserve top billing over the vocalist. Why isn't it Nova Wav featuring Beyonce or Fred Again featuring Ed Sheeran?

[rjw63]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Joel Corry. 

Joel Corry is a Producer and DJ. Amongst other popular songs he is responsible for Lionheart by Joel Corry featuring Tom Grennan. Joel Corry must provide the vocals and Tom Grennan must help. No. Tom Grennan sings all of the song, Joel Corry supplies no vocals. OK, he must have written it. Take the credit, all his own work. Joel Corry is one of 9 songwriters. As is Grennan, so nothing there to single him out as deserving top billing. Producer? Yes, but as are 2 other people. So what does he do, I am at a loss as to what Joel Corry, Jax Jones and their ilk do to deserve top billing over the vocalist. Why isn't it Nova Wav featuring Beyonce or Fred Again featuring Ed Sheeran?

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Joel Corry. 

Joel Corry is a Producer and DJ. Amongst other popular songs he is responsible for Lionheart by Joel Corry featuring Tom Grennan. Joel Corry must provide the vocals and Tom Grennan must help. No. Tom Grennan sings all of the song, Joel Corry supplies no vocals. OK, he must have written it. Take the credit, all his own work. Joel Corry is one of 9 songwriters. As is Grennan, so nothing there to single him out as deserving top billing. Producer? Yes, but as are 2 other people. So what does he do, I am at a loss as to what Joel Corry, Jax Jones and their ilk do to deserve top billing over the vocalist. Why isn't it Nova Wav featuring Beyonce or Fred Again featuring Ed Sheeran?

You've hit the jackpot, Jack, with your new pop cack

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Joel Corry. 

Joel Corry is a Producer and DJ. Amongst other popular songs he is responsible for Lionheart by Joel Corry featuring Tom Grennan. Joel Corry must provide the vocals and Tom Grennan must help. No. Tom Grennan sings all of the song, Joel Corry supplies no vocals. OK, he must have written it. Take the credit, all his own work. Joel Corry is one of 9 songwriters. As is Grennan, so nothing there to single him out as deserving top billing. Producer? Yes, but as are 2 other people. So what does he do, I am at a loss as to what Joel Corry, Jax Jones and their ilk do to deserve top billing over the vocalist. Why isn't it Nova Wav featuring Beyonce or Fred Again featuring Ed Sheeran?

This is why we can't have nice things. 

[tonyh29]

The boy passed his driving test on Monday so went out with him and bought a car yesterday .

we kinda new it was going to be expensive for the insurance … meerkat is giving the best option as around £2k

thought I’d try direct line as they advertise on the radio that they aren’t on comparison websites … their quote came in at ….£6k !!
 

I’m tempted to call the police about an attempted robbery:) 

Edited June 18, 2023 by tonyh29

[TheAuthority]

15 hours ago, mjmooney said:

This is why we can't have nice things. 

My instinct is that whatever Joel Corry has "produced" it isn't very nice.

[Genie]

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

The boy passed his driving test on Monday so went out with him and bought a car yesterday .

we kinda new it was going to be expensive for the insurance … meerkat is giving the best option as around £2k

thought I’d try direct line as they advertise on the radio that they aren’t on comparison websites … their quote came in at ….£6k !!
 

I’m tempted to call the police about an attempted robbery:) 

There’s a good reason they aren’t in comparison sites! 

[sidcow]

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

The boy passed his driving test on Monday so went out with him and bought a car yesterday .

we kinda new it was going to be expensive for the insurance … meerkat is giving the best option as around £2k

thought I’d try direct line as they advertise on the radio that they aren’t on comparison websites … their quote came in at ….£6k !!
 

I’m tempted to call the police about an attempted robbery:) 

Try Adrian Flux.  He'll have to have a black box. Both of mine are with them. 

First renewal the boy insisted he'd pay more to go elsewhere without the black box but it was double elsewhere so he saw the light. 

[Rds1983]

The Disney Plus interface. It's awful and not user friendly.

[choffer]

2 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

The Disney Plus interface. It's awful and not user friendly.

Wholly agree but it's still better than Prime or NowTV.

[stuart_75]

2 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

The Disney Plus interface. It's awful and not user friendly.

 

Just now, choffer said:

Wholly agree but it's still better than Prime or NowTV.

I hardly ever browse Prime because its so naff. Netflix's GUI takes some beating.

[mjmooney]

2 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

The Disney Plus interface. It's awful and not user friendly.

All the streaming services (TV and music) have crap interfaces. 

[Rds1983]

26 minutes ago, choffer said:

Wholly agree but it's still better than Prime or NowTV.

Don't use NowTV but agree about Prime being naff.

It used to be okay but has gone downhill. 

Disney is just awful though. I regularly lose continue watching and the search function is very poor.