|
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2010 0:47:14 GMT -5
They have a new Nattie shoot on the preview on the main page but when I click it, it's not there  . FAIL!  HOT  . |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 15, 2010 0:55:40 GMT -5
WWE.com IS very lazy.
Brought to you by the Grammar Task Force.
|
|
Stotty
Unicron
This is what happens when you don't give Taker the hot tag
Posts: 2,932
|
Post by Stotty on Jan 15, 2010 1:01:17 GMT -5
That's not lazy, it's just a mistake. That sort of stuff happens all the time on busy sites
|
|
Dee.
Team Rocket
Posts: 997
|
Post by Dee. on Jan 15, 2010 1:03:34 GMT -5
What a tease.
|
|
livetowin
Dennis Stamp
Just Keep Walkin'
Don't be negatin'!
Posts: 4,430
|
Post by livetowin on Jan 15, 2010 1:09:42 GMT -5
WWE.com IS very lazy. Brought to you by the Grammar Task Force. What if "WWE.com" was used to refer to a group of people? |
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2010 1:12:10 GMT -5
WWE.com IS very lazy. Brought to you by the Grammar Task Force. But WWE.com is ran by a bunch of guys including Joey Styles  . |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 15, 2010 1:24:45 GMT -5
WWE.com IS very lazy. Brought to you by the Grammar Task Force. But WWE.com is ran by a bunch of guys including Joey Styles . WWE.com is not a person. Therefore, it cannot be stupid. You could say, however, that "The guys who run wwe.com are stupid." Also, see my avatar. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2010 1:35:29 GMT -5
But WWE.com is ran by a bunch of guys including Joey Styles . WWE.com is not a person. Therefore, it cannot be stupid. You could say, however, that "The guys who run wwe.com are stupid." Also, see my avatar. Consider it done. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 15, 2010 1:58:08 GMT -5
WWE.com IS very lazy. Brought to you by the Grammar Task Force. But WWE.com is ran by a bunch of guys including Joey Styles . Then you have to refer to that bunch of guys for it to be plural. WWE.com, on it's own, is a singular entity. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jan 15, 2010 6:32:02 GMT -5
I think the guys running WWE.com are actually the most consistantly good aspect of the WWE these days.
There's the odd mistake like this, natch, but in terms of presentation, content and media they're pretty damn good.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyk9 on Jan 15, 2010 7:01:03 GMT -5
Vince McMahon said himself at a media meeting that wwe.com sucks
|
|
B.B.M
Hank Scorpio
Scavenger Hunt All-Star
Where did the Lime go?
Posts: 7,404
|
Post by B.B.M on Jan 15, 2010 7:20:34 GMT -5
It's either a website mislink, which can easily be fixed, or they're probably trying to tell you guys something.
|
|
Gummydavidson
Dennis Stamp
Johnny Davidson for Prime Minister!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Gummydavidson on Jan 15, 2010 8:57:47 GMT -5
Is it not the photos after the 1st group?
|
|
Lardlad
El Dandy
Live reaction to @WWE #WWENetwork
Posts: 8,250 
|
Post by Lardlad on Jan 15, 2010 9:18:00 GMT -5
Seems like it's been fixed?  |
|
Urethra Franklin
King Koopa
When Toronto sports teams lose, Alison Brie is sad
Posts: 11,090
|
Post by Urethra Franklin on Jan 15, 2010 9:33:52 GMT -5
But WWE.com is ran by a bunch of guys including Joey Styles . Then you have to refer to that bunch of guys for it to be plural. WWE.com, on it's own, is a singular entity. It's a collective noun. Either a singular or plural verb conjugation is correct. Singular sounds more elegant, but if you say that "WWE are...", then the "guys at [WWE]" or "people at [WWE]" is assumed. It's not incorrect. It just doesn't sound as proper. |
|
Gummydavidson
Dennis Stamp
Johnny Davidson for Prime Minister!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Gummydavidson on Jan 15, 2010 9:44:48 GMT -5
Seems like it's been fixed? That photoshoot was put up a week or 2 ago. Great one though  |
|
. FAIL!
.
.
