On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:00:19 +0000 (UTC),
gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article
<cb4ea0b7-4476-459e-97de-f67665e022c8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Andrew B. <bulland@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>On 22 Apr, 10:05, John Hall <nospam_no...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <35a7a6fb-effc-4d73-ab8e-77d78f815...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>
>>> rita.c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>>> >In the 70s my partner's ex-father-in-law had a book of bridge
stories/
>>> >anecdotes which he had hoped to be given when XFIL went to join the
>>> >great bridge game in the sky. Sadly it had disappeared.
>>>
>>> >One story from the 30s, at the height of bridge mania, was about a
man
>>> >who found himself in court for shooting at his wife at a bridge
>>> >competition. (Non fatally, I assume) The judge who was also an avid
>>> >player, asked what cards they were holding at the time of the
offence,
>>> >and what the bidding had been. He was appalled at the wife's poor
>>> >bidding which he judged to have provoked her husband and he dismissed
>>> >the case. I know, probably urban myth!
>>>
>>> No, it's quite true. It's known as the Bennett murder case.
>>
>>Except it was Mr Bennett who was shot, and Mrs Bennett wasn't actually
>>acquitted because his play/bidding was so poor, but because it was
>>deemed to be accidental.
>
>I assumed (and continue to do so) that we are talking about different
>things. Besides the genders being reversed, there's not much else in
common
>between OP's description and the Bennett case. He must be talking about
>some other case.
You should stick with the singular they.
|
