Comments on: Monday squibs http://www.tamark.ca/public/2006/08/07/monday-squibs-29/ It's about the journalism Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:09:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Bob Stepno http://www.tamark.ca/public/2006/08/07/monday-squibs-29/comment-page-1/#comment-69435 Bob Stepno Tue, 08 Aug 2006 04:32:57 +0000 http://www.tamark.ca/students/?p=2280#comment-69435 Thanks $2 million this one... and just when I'm sorting out the new semester web links! Eats, shoots and leaves behind quite a bit of cash, eh? Thanks $2 million this one… and just when I’m sorting out the new semester web links!

Eats, shoots and leaves behind quite a bit of cash, eh?

]]> By: Lost Remote TV Blog http://www.tamark.ca/public/2006/08/07/monday-squibs-29/comment-page-1/#comment-68669 Lost Remote TV Blog Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:26:19 +0000 http://www.tamark.ca/students/?p=2280#comment-68669 [...] The next time someone tells you grammar doesn’t count, point them to this article. Rogers Communications may be out more than $2 million because of an errant comma in a contract with Aliant, Inc. The clause in question: The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.” The problem? That second comma changes the meaning of the sentence from its intent of enforcing the deal for the first five years and then giving a one-year out afterwards. (Go back and look.) Now it would seem to give the one-year out immediately, and Aliant has excersized that right. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has ruled that the comma does indeed change the meaning of the contract. Watch your punctuation. (Via Corante) [...] [...] The next time someone tells you grammar doesn’t count, point them to this article. Rogers Communications may be out more than $2 million because of an errant comma in a contract with Aliant, Inc. The clause in question: The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.” The problem? That second comma changes the meaning of the sentence from its intent of enforcing the deal for the first five years and then giving a one-year out afterwards. (Go back and look.) Now it would seem to give the one-year out immediately, and Aliant has excersized that right. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has ruled that the comma does indeed change the meaning of the contract. Watch your punctuation. (Via Corante) [...]

]]>