The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science?

[Bob Prudhomme]

No, that isn't at all what I was thinking. What I meant was it was unlikely a tonsillectomy would be mistakenly claimed on the insurance form. What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim? There is a chance that Laza misunderstood Marguerite's explanation of a osteopathic tonsil massage but somehow I doubt it. Greg is ignoring that David spoke to the pharmacist and he said tonsillectomy surgery was a regular part of Dr Philben's practice.

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

Greg

It is a sad day when one Commonwealth citizen has to explain the King's English to another Commonwealth citizen but, you are from Australia, after all. Considering the fact your ancestors were convicts and Irish rebels, one can begin to understand the situation better.

Mr. Doyle is not referring to two Marguerites in his sentence, he is referring to either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI. Are you able to comprehend that the word either is applied to Marguerite, Laza OR the FBI, and not two Marguerites?

Robert,

Are you still reigned on by King George VI? Has news not yet reached Canada that he fell off his perch in 1952 and was replaced by a female?

You know, I agree, It's is sad. But you know what's sadder? When the person doing the correcting gets it wrong. I'll let you figure it out, or ask someone with a 3rd grade education where it was you took a detour off the cliff.

Just for the unenlightened and the unwashed masses amongst us, an excerpt from Wikipedia:

The King's English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The King's English is a book on English usage and grammar. It was written by the Fowler brothers, Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler, and published in 1906, and thus pre-dates by 20 years Modern English Usage, which was written by Henry alone after Francis's death in 1918.
The King's English is less like a dictionary than Modern English Usage; it consists of longer articles on more general topics such as vocabulary, syntax and punctuation, and draws heavily on examples from many sources throughout. One of its sections is a systematic description of the appropriate uses of shall and will. The third and last edition was published in 1931, by which time Modern English Usage had superseded it in popularity.
Because all living languages continually evolve, the book is now considered outdated in some respects, and some of the Fowlers' opinions about correct English usage are at times incorrect with regard to contemporary standards. For example, the Fowlers disapprove of the word "concision" on the grounds that it had a technical meaning in theology, "to which it may well be left"; but "concision" is now a common synonym for "conciseness". The Fowlers also criticised the use of standpoint and just how much (as in "Just how much more of this can we take?"), describing them as undesirable "Americanisms", but both are now common in British English. The book nevertheless remains a benchmark for usage, and is still in print.