What happened to English grammar?

I think it was meant to be some sort of pun FFF?

Well it was a sort of joke, by means of pun on the guy's surname and the activity he was involved in. There were other puns flying about!

We crossed there Galen

Great minds Nellie

I remembered about Vivien Fuchs. Did not quite see the relevance though, a bit laboured as a pun. I would expect better wordplay from deserving.

I agree, Elegran. Floundering a bit, I thought.

Hang on! We were on dry land til now! Where did flatfish come from?

Oh! Must have been thinking of Orca!

[gron]

Oh not the dreaded [gron] again. I meant

I thought that was a groan.

I never groan! It is very unladylike.
I might utter a VERY FAINT moan!

Who has the nerve to ask,"relevance" on this net. Have you seen the other posts?
If relevance is necessary, it was a headline, not necessarily of the great importance of the one that started this thread, of sink sank sunk, fame, but rather amusing, I think, (that in itself should start another small war). Another, at the time, if my memory serves me was, "Explorer Fuchs off to the pole".
Many of these headlines can be quite clever and amusing, I don't think we should take them too seriously with regard to good grammar.
The journalists concerned are more concerned with appearing amusing than observing the niceties some of us seem to expect, or perhaps demand.
Nowadays if you get the gist, that seems to be enough, no time to waste on the niceties, pandering to elderly ladies.

Sometimes though DES. we like being pandered to , has that thought occurred to you .

This particular headline was clearly not intended to be amusing and I, for one, certainly expect correct grammar from journalists. 'Pandering to elderly ladies'......hm, a tad patronising, I think?

Not necessarily by the same gender though.Thoughts that occur can sometimes be likened to first impressions. Often those first impressions we are warned about having , are correct.Things that occur, give the impression of not being structured,and if acted upon can be ill-considered, or more correctly not thought out at all.And as irrelevant as Fuchs seems to have been.

I think I will stick to Jane Austen.

If you say so

Stick to?

Jane Austen writes sentences that I can understand at first reading.

Ah! That explains it. I thought at first that it was Deserving who was trying to be clever and amusing, but it was a journalist.

Or not, in this case!

Nonu - perhaps you could speak for yourself, please - I certainly don't want to be pandered to. I expect to be treated as a rational, intelligent, human being.

Am I getting (even more) demented. Or is the demon alcohol destroying my neurones faster than I realise?
I fail to understand deserving's post in its entirety. But then that is normal for me!
I think I'll stick to Jane Austin and commissioners decisions in future!

Sorry, I was about to make a nasty remark, it ,believe me or not, doesn't become me. It was you, Gnan who first quoted, to me that members were not likely to comment on others spelling, grammar etc. That was a long time ago, wasn't relevant then, and is even less relevant now.I will stick with my practice, of not getting ,my retaliations in first,although I might allude to something, be it a little obscure or not.