A) My grammer is worse
B) If Matt took the time to carefully proof read his blog posts he would probably only have time to write half the posts he currently does, Cost > Benefit

BTW Fibby, checked out your blog. Raupraha, Matt and I all did honors at VUW together, your posts have brought back some painful memories, haha

[Can you tell I’ve had a poor morning?]

Ahhh that is unnecessary 🙂

I believe fibby is referring to “comma’s”.

Indeed my grammar is appalling – but can’t I also use an apostrophe to denote singular ownership, as in it’s ANZ’s weekly (a single ANZ) rather than ANZs’ weekly (multiple ANZ firms).

Furthermore, there is a difference between bad grammar and using a sarcastic writing style to demean a result that doesn’t support your priors – I was criticising the use of inverted commas for the second, more important (IMO) reason.

Good point – but I don’t think I’m in any position to criticise grammar …

Stop using apostrophes when no letter was omitted.

Sorry – it had to be said.

If the words are a direct, attributable quote then that should be made clear in the text. If the writer doing the quoting thinks the word is debatable, then single quotes are often used to denote his-words-not-mine or a similar idea. But it might be better to write the word and then (sic).

Maybe at some level – but I feel morally obliged to say when I’m wrong. IMO as soon as a forecast is finished your job is to explain why it is wrong, and where the balance of risks are shifting. It is important not to flitter around when the data is a tiny bit different – but this isn’t a “slight surprise” …

I’m not sure sarcastic statements that ignore the data are particularly entertaining either …