CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender)

"Mark M" wrote in message news:2w6Wc.93394$Lj.76730@fed1read03...
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Tony Spadaro wrote:

Mark, you might want to point out to that nerk John that pros don't put
an
apostrophy in the word.
"Pro's don't use 35mm."

... and on usenet, obsession with punctuation and grammar is
usually the sign of somebody with little else valuable to say.

Tony was just in a bad mood.


Always

Colin D wrote:

Oops - apologies for the balls-up there. A senior moment must've
overtaken me. An abbreviation not ending in the last letter of the word
is signalled with a full stop, not an apostrophe, as in 'misc.' and
'etc.' but not in 'Dr' or 'Mr'.

American English uses the period after "Dr." and "Mr.", too.

However, Oxford acknowledges "pro" as a word, not an abbreviation, calls
it "informal", and in its first sense defines it as (1) a professional;
and (2) a prostitute. And lists "pros" as the plural.

--
Jeremy |

Colin D wrote:

Oops - apologies for the balls-up there. A senior moment must've
overtaken me. An abbreviation not ending in the last letter of the word
is signalled with a full stop, not an apostrophe, as in 'misc.' and
'etc.' but not in 'Dr' or 'Mr'.

American English uses the period after "Dr." and "Mr.", too.

However, Oxford acknowledges "pro" as a word, not an abbreviation, calls
it "informal", and in its first sense defines it as (1) a professional;
and (2) a prostitute. And lists "pros" as the plural.

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
says...
However, Oxford acknowledges "pro" as a word, not an abbreviation, calls
it "informal", and in its first sense defines it as (1) a professional;
and (2) a prostitute. And lists "pros" as the plural.

I've never called a prostitute "pro." "Ho?" yes. "Pro?" No.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
However, Oxford acknowledges "pro" as a word, not an abbreviation, calls
it "informal", and in its first sense defines it as (1) a professional;
and (2) a prostitute. And lists "pros" as the plural.

I've never called a prostitute "pro." "Ho?" yes. "Pro?" No.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
However, Oxford acknowledges "pro" as a word, not an abbreviation, calls
it "informal", and in its first sense defines it as (1) a professional;
and (2) a prostitute. And lists "pros" as the plural.

I've never called a prostitute "pro." "Ho?" yes. "Pro?" No.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:58:44 -0700, "Skip M"
wrote:

There should be an apostrophe after "IDIOTS". :-)

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

No, it's a plural, not a possessive.

Note the " :-) "?
That's a joke, son; I say, that's a joke.

Hooray for Foghorn Leghorn!

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:58:44 -0700, "Skip M"
wrote:

There should be an apostrophe after "IDIOTS". :-)

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

No, it's a plural, not a possessive.

Note the " :-) "?
That's a joke, son; I say, that's a joke.

Hooray for Foghorn Leghorn!

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
However, Oxford acknowledges "pro" as a word, not an abbreviation, calls
it "informal", and in its first sense defines it as (1) a professional;
and (2) a prostitute. And lists "pros" as the plural.

I've never called a prostitute "pro." "Ho?" yes. "Pro?" No.

We needn't hear the details of your personal relationships...

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
However, Oxford acknowledges "pro" as a word, not an abbreviation, calls
it "informal", and in its first sense defines it as (1) a professional;
and (2) a prostitute. And lists "pros" as the plural.

I've never called a prostitute "pro." "Ho?" yes. "Pro?" No.

We needn't hear the details of your personal relationships...