Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

"Many people have been recomending me to study to become a technical
writer. Does anyone know anything about it? Is there a demand in Israel?
Whats the pay like? How advanced does my English have to be?"

I wrote back "Your English is not good enough."
You should have said, "First you need to improve your English."

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources, but they may of had better
scientists.
They certainly were years ahead of the Allies in rocket science.
As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944, and saying that things would
of turned out differently if it had occured a year or two later. Care
to speculate on what the Soviet Army would of done too?

When you get the urge to write 'of', consider whether it would be
better to write 'have'. Just a friendly tip.

It wasn't a US invasion by the way. It was a United Nations invasion.

I think you're thinking of Korea. We didn't have a UN in 1944*, and
the League of Nations was, by then, defunct.
*It started in October, 1945.

No, it was the United Nations, albeit in embryonic form. The name
'United Nations' came into being in 1942 when 'The Declaration by
United Nations' of that year was made. It was the basis of the modern UN.

Embryonic? Although "United Nations" was used in 1942 by Roosevelt, as a
body it was barely more than a twinkle in a few people's eyes.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/
I doubt if the Americans, the British and the Canadians thought of
themselves as members of a UN force.
--
Ian

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]
--
Chris Morriss

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 17:29:58h +0000, Ian Jackson suggested:

I doubt if the Americans, the British and the Canadians thought of
themselves as members of a UN force.

Surely they did regard themselves as members of forces of the allies,
referred to simply as the "allied forces", and it was the allied forces
who were the boots on the ground of the United Nations in fighting the
Axis Powers.

According to http://www.historylearningsite.co.UK/united_nations.htm

QUOTE

The United Nations began life as a result of a secret meeting on board
the warship "Prince of Wales" which was moored off of the coast of
Newfoundland in August 1941. The United Nations came from a meeting
was between F D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. At this time America
was not in World War Two though she was giving help to the Allies as a
result of Lend-Lease. Roosevelt and Churchill met to discuss what shape
the world might take once the war ended.

...

After America joined the war in December 1941, the title "United Nations"
was adopted – at the instigation of Roosevelt – by the Allies fighting
the Axis forces. The title United Nations was adopted on January 1st 1942
and was used by all those nations who were at war with the Axis.

This so-called United Nations Declaration stated that all signatories
agreed with the principles of the Atlantic Charter. Twenty-six nations signed
it in January 1942, including Britain, America, Soviet Russia and China.

These four nations were essentially a ‘Big Four.

UNQUOTE

Note that in 1941, Newfoundland was not part of the Dominion of Canada.

According to http://www.wordorigins.ORG/index.php/site/comments/united_nations/

QUOTE

Believe it or not, the term United Nations was actually coined by Franklin
Roosevelt and Winston Churchill while the British prime minister was sitting
in a bathtub.

(Churchill had the habit of thinking and writing while in the tub.)

Churchill was in Washington over the New Year’s holiday 1941-42 and the
two men were struggling with what to officially call the group of nations
that was about to sign the Atlantic Charter.

UNQUOTE

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
After America joined the war in December 1941, the title "United
Nations" was adopted — at the instigation of Roosevelt — by the Allies
fighting the Axis forces. The title United Nations was adopted on
January 1st 1942 and was used by all those nations who were at war with
the Axis.

This so-called United Nations Declaration stated that all signatories
agreed with the principles of the Atlantic Charter. Twenty-six nations
signed it in January 1942, including Britain, America, Soviet Russia
and China.

So troops from 26 nations took part in the invasion?

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Chris Morriss wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]

I usually take it as an indication that the perpetrator only knows the
language through sound, probably because they have never got into the
habit of reading books.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:56:08 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
It wasn't a US invasion by the way. It was a United Nations invasion.

The UN wasn't formed then. More than a year after D-day.

There is a subtle difference between "United Nations" as used by
William Wright and "UN" as used by yourself.

Surely you would accept what is written on the UN web site?

http://www.un.ORG/en/aboutun/history/index.shtml

QUOTE

The name "United Nations", coined by United States President
Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations
of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of
26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together
against the Axis Powers.

UNQUOTE

Notice the date there -- January 1st, 1942.

QUOTE

In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco
at the United Nations Conference on International Organization
to draw up the United Nations Charter.

Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked
out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the
United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks,
United States in August-October 1944.

The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives
of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the
Conference, signed it later and became one of the original
51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945,
when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union,
the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories.

United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.

UNQUOTE

So the United Nations of the Atlantic Charter was established in 1942,
whereas the United Nations Organisation (UNO) of the San Francisco Charter
was established in 1945.

J G Miller wrote:

[a lot]

Thank you Mr Miller for taking the trouble to explain it them with your
customary thoroughness.

Bill

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:56:08 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
It wasn't a US invasion by the way. It was a United Nations invasion.

The UN wasn't formed then. More than a year after D-day.

There is a subtle difference between "United Nations" as used by
William Wright and "UN" as used by yourself.

Surely you would accept what is written on the UN web site?

http://www.un.ORG/en/aboutun/history/index.shtml

snip

Nevertheless its incorrect to call the D-day landings a "United Nations"
invasion.

D-day was not planned and authorised by the 26 signatories of the embryonic
United Nations, rather it was a US-lead action that involved only a few
other nations, in particular, of course, the UK.

So it was an "allied powers" invasion, not a "United Nations" one.

David.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I usually take it as an indication that the perpetrator only knows the
language through sound, probably because they have never got into the
habit of reading books.

It's also an indication that the person is a visual or aural thinker and
does not think in words.

A very common trait of creative people.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(