I was in traffic court last week and a guy was there fighting a ticket he got for impeding traffic. According to the cop, the guy was stopped in the middle of the road and did not pull off the road when asked.
According to the guy, he was stopped because there was traffic in front of him, and pulled over after the light turned green and the cars blocking him in cleared out.
The guy (a casually dressed minority with tattoos all over his arms and neck) seemed frustrated as hell when all the cop did was was to simply tell the judge "I didn't see anyone in front of him" over and over as the guy tried to explain his side of the story. The ruling: guilty as charged.
I don't know what the truth was, but it sure would have been nice if there was videotape to see who was lying. As it was, it was the cop's word against the word of a guy who looked like it would be all to easy to declare him guilty.
My guess is that in negotiations the risk of telling them who they are competing against outweighs the benefit of keeping them guessing. I suppose they could think you are bluffing and not really talking to any other VCs at all, but if they believe you actually are meeting with other VCs, I could see the benefit of keeping them in the dark.
I believe I have used the apostrophe when writing 1960s, etc. Good to know the rule, even though I'll need to get used to no apostrophe looking right. Does the same rule apply when abbreviating 1960s as 60s. In this case, would an apostrophe go before the 6, thus '60s?
According to the guy, he was stopped because there was traffic in front of him, and pulled over after the light turned green and the cars blocking him in cleared out.
The guy (a casually dressed minority with tattoos all over his arms and neck) seemed frustrated as hell when all the cop did was was to simply tell the judge "I didn't see anyone in front of him" over and over as the guy tried to explain his side of the story. The ruling: guilty as charged.
I don't know what the truth was, but it sure would have been nice if there was videotape to see who was lying. As it was, it was the cop's word against the word of a guy who looked like it would be all to easy to declare him guilty.