Gordon Brown Billions
Gordon Brown Billions
Author
Discussion

The Prophet

129 posts

205 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
I hadn't noticed that.

I'm normally too busy getting annoyed by everything else the prick says.

bull996

1,442 posts

236 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
I noticed it too.

Also drives me fking mad when fools say "It was 27 pound" inseatd of "27 poundS" (I think Gordon "the one eyed scottish tt" does that too scratchchin)

Jasandjules

72,423 posts

256 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
I don't listen to the w****er. It just raises my blood pressure so I don't bother.. I can't even stand the way he breathes.

Mazda Baiter

37,069 posts

215 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
I can't even stand the way he breathes.
I've thought of a solution to that...

Simpo Two

92,384 posts

292 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
Interesting point - '3' is plural so it ought to be 'billions' - you say 'three poundS'

Maybe 'billion' is a plural word like 'sheep'. If not, what is a singular billion? nuts

Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

269 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
3 billion pounds.

Not 3 billions pounds.

anonymous-user

81 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
It's a fking milliard anyway, the Americans who can't count inflicted us with the concept that inflating a an odd power number of a thousand million sounds better as billion, rather than a million million.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 19th March 15:26

soad

34,507 posts

203 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
I don't listen to the w****er.
Same here, therefore not noticed it.

Doofus

34,067 posts

200 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
Perhaps billion isn't singular or plural, maybe it's collective:

A herd of cows. Three herds of cows.
A billion of cows. Three billions of cows.

Nope.

Maybe it's both, like sheep:

A sheep. Three sheep.
A billion. Three billion.

Sounds reasonable.

Just to be sure, we should think about what if it was singular?

A woman. Three women.
A billion. Three wobellion.

Hmmm...

A dog. Three dogs. A pack of dogs.
A billion. Three billions. A pack of billions. A rabid billion. The Dangerous Billions Act. Post pictures of your billions. My billion's got no nose.

So it seems Winky might be correct. That can't be right, surely?


Besides, his Government have given us a new monetary multiple:

"fking shed loads".

A fking shed load. Three fking shed loads.


Quod erat demonstrandum.

Chris71

21,549 posts

269 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
This is one case where I'd happily see the grammar police be allowed to issue a death warrant. smile

theaxe

3,571 posts

249 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
Interesting point - '3' is plural so it ought to be 'billions' - you say 'three poundS'

Maybe 'billion' is a plural word like 'sheep'. If not, what is a singular billion? nuts
But billion is part of the number. You don't say "Threes" you say three.

motco

17,533 posts

273 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
Actually he says "bill-yons"

Jasandjules

72,423 posts

256 months

Friday 19th March 2010
quotequote all
Mazda Baiter said:
Jasandjules said:
I can't even stand the way he breathes.
I've thought of a solution to that...
Form an orderly queue.....