That only shows how unprincipxxd they are.  --  Jim


From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. on behalf of Jacek Niecko
Sent: Thu 08-Sep-05 3:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: {{very OT}}RE: Echoes of Eliot

I am afraid that the issue is not debatable.

"Printers' " is not an option.  Such term does not exist.

But one should not be surprised that some are not aware that it is so.
After all, we live in an age when the editors of at least one of the
national newspapers in the United States do not distinguish between
"principle" and "principal."

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Carless" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: {{very OT}}RE: Echoes of Eliot

>> For the same reason it took the assorted listers several days recently to
>> discern the difference between
>> "printer's" and "printers' " [as in marks (rather than MARX)].
> Actually, that's not true.  The context was not given, and it wasn't clear
> whether "printer's" or
> "printers'" would have been correct.
> --George