<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rents to Rise 38 Percent at the Seafield</title>
	<atom:link href="http://seafieldapartments.com/rents-to-rise-38-percent-at-the-seafield/1143/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://seafieldapartments.com/rents-to-rise-38-percent-at-the-seafield/1143</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:59:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Derek Richer</title>
		<link>http://seafieldapartments.com/rents-to-rise-38-percent-at-the-seafield/1143/comment-page-1#comment-588</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek Richer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 22:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seafieldapartments.com/?p=1143#comment-588</guid>
		<description>In just this one sentence Nelson has slaughtered the English language: 

“They hung Jason and I in an effigy in front of the building.”

First, it is proper to use “hanged” in the past tense or as a past participle when referring to either capital punishment or imprecations. Second, it would appear that Nelson does not know the difference between a subject and object; he should have written: “They hanged Jason and me.” Third, in idiomatic English it is customary to say or write “in effigy” - without an article.

Therefore, properly constructed the sentence should read: “They hanged Jason and me in effigy in front of the building.”

If Nelson cannot state such a simple sentence correctly, one must surely doubt his ability to ascertain the market rate of rental apartments in the West End. 

As for describing the Seafielders’ behaviour as intimidating, coercive and threatening, I think Nelson has the wrong end of the stick; such words describe the treatment Gordon and Nelson have imposed on the Seafielders. Indeed, Nelson started the dispute by announcing to the Seafielders that he planned to evict them to complete a renovation of the entire building (which, of course, was just a ploy to end the tenancies). Facing the prospect of losing one’s home sickens anyone with feelings. In addition, it is important to remember the removal of the laundry machines, the repeated loss of rent cheques and similar antics, which have collectively taken a toll on the personal lives of the Seafielders. The time spent defending their homes and rights is a further insult the Seafielders must bear. What Nelson is really describing is his frustration at the Seafielders’ Churchillian determination never to surrender in the face of injustice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In just this one sentence Nelson has slaughtered the English language: </p>
<p>“They hung Jason and I in an effigy in front of the building.”</p>
<p>First, it is proper to use “hanged” in the past tense or as a past participle when referring to either capital punishment or imprecations. Second, it would appear that Nelson does not know the difference between a subject and object; he should have written: “They hanged Jason and me.” Third, in idiomatic English it is customary to say or write “in effigy” &#8211; without an article.</p>
<p>Therefore, properly constructed the sentence should read: “They hanged Jason and me in effigy in front of the building.”</p>
<p>If Nelson cannot state such a simple sentence correctly, one must surely doubt his ability to ascertain the market rate of rental apartments in the West End. </p>
<p>As for describing the Seafielders’ behaviour as intimidating, coercive and threatening, I think Nelson has the wrong end of the stick; such words describe the treatment Gordon and Nelson have imposed on the Seafielders. Indeed, Nelson started the dispute by announcing to the Seafielders that he planned to evict them to complete a renovation of the entire building (which, of course, was just a ploy to end the tenancies). Facing the prospect of losing one’s home sickens anyone with feelings. In addition, it is important to remember the removal of the laundry machines, the repeated loss of rent cheques and similar antics, which have collectively taken a toll on the personal lives of the Seafielders. The time spent defending their homes and rights is a further insult the Seafielders must bear. What Nelson is really describing is his frustration at the Seafielders’ Churchillian determination never to surrender in the face of injustice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

