I admit, I am not the font of all knowledge. Google is. So when I was confused looking at all the different names for cuts of meat, over the wide array displayed at the market, and , and not knowing where they came from, I turned to Google:
This is a diagram showing beef and lamb cuts, and where they originate on the animal.
This is a diagram of pork cuts.
I post this so that others may not be as confused as I was.
Having, just a few minutes ago, seen this sentence on one forum:
Never end a sentence with the word "is".
I find that I need to correct those who err in this ‘rule’… Let us follow what Oxford Online Dictionary has to say:
Were you taught that a preposition should never be placed at the end of a sentence? There are times when it would be pretty much impossible to organize a sentence in a way that would avoid doing this, for example:
in some passive expressions:
√ The dress had not even been paid for.
X Paid for the dress had not even been.
√ The match was rained off.
X Rained off was the match.
in relative clauses and questions that include verbs with linked adverbs or prepositions:
√ What did you put that there for?
X For what [reason] did you put that there?
√ They must be convinced of the commitment they are taking on.
X Of the commitment they are taking on they must be convinced.
There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.
Similarly, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary says:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0025-preposition.htm
Sorry, there is no embed code for the video.
But even after sending these links to the transgressor, lo and behold, I was battered with:
In speaking it’s allowed but not in proper writing.
My response:
Good lord! I just pointed you to one of the world's most accepted dictionary that says it is. Did you see my last sentence? It's also 'proper'… and it ended with is… again!!
As did your original:
Never end a sentence with the word "is".
It ended with is, even if you put it in quotes. (^_^)
At this point, I give up. I eh able.
This latest ‘scandal’ on the Rock revealed by Keith Rowley is really amusing. Now, I have no doubt that some people arses are ‘cutting nails’ as the saying goes… this revealed email exchange over the Section 34 débâcle is a deal breaker if it turns out to be true. Why I find it amusing though, is that it is so obviously fake.
There are several clues which reveal right off, to those who are semi-literate in email technology, why said emails are fudged.
First of all, and most strongly telling is that Gmail, even since its inception in 2004 (when people were paying for invitations to Gmail) did not allow for 4-character usernames. Not even 5… and I know; I was there… back in 2004, you had to use 6 alpha-numeric characters or more.
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
anan@gmail.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or unnecessary spaces
Secondly, unless the Guardian was exceptionally careful in editing the AG’s columns when the AG wrote for that newspaper, I have never seen such childish spelling and grammatical mistakes from Anand Ramlogan. Sure, one can argue that most people are far more informal in emails than in a commentary column… but even so some lineament of the writing style will continue to hold true. In other words, wolf cyah play sheep. These inconsistencies are raising my doubts.
Thirdly, how improbable is it for public figures in high positions to use ‘free’ email accounts to contact each other, when they have ‘official’ government provided email? Highly improbably, though in Trinidad, the dunces who set up these official emails had me shaking my head in frustration a couple of years ago. Hotmail in particular is ‘hijacked’ pretty frequently. So, I ask again, why would they (they parties involved) use Hotmail and Gmail?
What has me is a puzzled frame of mind is trying to fathom the reason Keith Rowley would bring this up in Parliament. Is he so naive that he would fall into the clutches of desperation? Malicious? Or is he merely dotish?
And why no mention of the HNIC who was ‘Action Man’ at that time? Why was he not involved in the so-called cover up?
Time will tell, but I can bet it will be Jumbie’s First Law again.
View from 16th floor of the Slavutych Hotel, Kyiv. The river is the Dnipro (also called Dnieper) River.
Luhansk (Lugansk) is a small(ish) town in the Ukraine. One thing I was impressed with is the architecture and landscaping that are occurring now. These buildings belong to rich people, let’s make that clear, but money can buy a lot 
including good creativity.
This house occupies near one block, and is built almost like a castle.
The landscaping looks amazing in the sunset.
The front has a mixture of plants ranging from cherry blossom to grapes and firs. The vines are grapes, not ivy.
The ‘tower’ seems to be a nice place to chill out but I was impressed with the wall… must have taken a lot of patience to cut and fit slices of stone together. That wall by the way, varies between 12 and 20 feet high and more than a foot wide, and is long enough to circle the property.
No plastering in sight so it might well be that it stands because of the fitting of the stones.
This one is built out of BIG wooden logs fitted together. I was prevented from taking a better photo by a huge dog who looked at me as if I was his Last Supper. As you can see though, it is still being built. The logs are held in place by ropes and by careful cutting of the wood to make perfect fit.
Some o those logs are more than 22 inches thick.
This photo is of a plane in front of the aviation club. Looks like a single person fighter that was planted there but there was no one we could confirm that with, as I passed there on a public holiday and the club was closed.
However, the plane has battle scars and this more than anything had me thinking it is real.
Not too far from here is an actual circus…. a fixed building outfitted and used by different circus acts, seen below.
