talkmagic.co.uk

If you're talking about discrete items, i.e. items that can be separated out into separate units, such as playing cards or dice, then you can say you have "a number of cards" or "a number of dice". You cannot say "an amount of cards/dice".

If you're talking about something amorphous, such as quantities of fluid or powder, that cannot be separated out into discrete items, then you can say "amount" such as "an amount of lager" or even "an amount of money".

That is all.

I would just like to note Mr Grue's correct use of 'that', which is often replaced incorrectly by 'which'. And that's a fact.

Argh! Let's do "less" and "fewer" next!!!

TheStoner wrote:Argh!

LOL! I was just about to type a correction

Ted wrote:

TheStoner wrote:Argh!

LOL! I was just about to type a correction

Phew - narrow escape!

Its an old chestnut but i couldnt resist posting this here for some reason

Talking about numbers , someone stated in the Bar the other night that the 8 of Diamonds is the least interesting playing card according to some dude who questioned a zillion people. ( this has now become a survey for any number you like and its on some science site if any boffins here want me to dig it out... people log in and post their fav number)

But then surely being the least interesting it then becomes interesting

i think he said the 8 of Diamonds but you get my point.

Ted wrote:I would just like to note Mr Grue's correct use of 'that', which is often replaced incorrectly by 'which'. And that's a fact.

Which goes after a comma, which eny fule kno

Antera wrote:But then surely being the least interesting it then becomes interesting.

Reminds me of the square of OS Landranger mapping that has very nearly nothing in it, Landranger map 112, grid reference 8323, which has, I think, a tiny part of a pylon in it.

Antera wrote:Its an old chestnut but i couldnt resist posting this here for some reason

Talking about numbers , someone stated in the Bar the other night that the 8 of Diamonds is the least interesting playing card according to some dude who questioned a zillion people. ( this has now become a survey for any number you like and its on some science site if any boffins here want me to dig it out... people log in and post their fav number)

But then surely being the least interesting it then becomes interesting

i think he said the 8 of Diamonds but you get my point.

I find that the eights are quite interesting and come up quite a lot. It's almost as if people say "ace of..." and then think better of it (ace being too obvious and all that) and clarify that they want the eight, not the ace after all. This especially happens with the Ace of Spades when they choose it and everyone else at the table looks at them like they're a predictable fool. "No - I said the EIGHT of Spades". There's a video of this happening with Penn & Teller somewhere on YouTube when they set up 52 outs but get messed up by an ace/eight confusion...

TheStoner wrote: There's a video of this happening with Penn & Teller somewhere on YouTube when they set up 52 outs but get messed up by an ace/eight confusion...

I think in that instance it's a deliberate ploy; Berglas does the same. It's useful to build a gag out of the confusion running the other way (mag hears "eight", but spec said "ace"), because when they say the ace of spades, it can undermine the effect.

Didn't Banachek say that the card people are least likely to pick is the 10 of Clubs?

Or am I attributing that to the wrong person...

No-one ever chooses the king of clubs. Or the five of spades. Or the ten of hearts.

TheStoner wrote:No-one ever chooses: the king of clubs, the five of spades, the ten of hearts.

And stop double spacing!

TheStoner wrote:No-one ever chooses the king of clubs. Or the five of spades. Or the ten of hearts.

I just bought some half dollars of ebay and they came in a home-made pouch made of 2 Ten of Hearts bicycle cards. Obviously the seller though no-one picks them so he didn't need them anymore.