The plaintiff's lawyer really meant to say "Ask your Filipino au pair".

I love me some Mr. Mom.

Yawn

Men launder money all the time. It's not a gender-specific machine. The comment posed to the panel was stupid and deserved permanent ridicule in the F3d.

Fifth - and why aren't you shaming the misogynisTTT?

Admit it. You asked Kash.

Great post... For me to poop on.

Posner's wife OBVIOUSLY wears the pants in that relationship.

what would learned hand have said

do you think posner would pay me to do his laundry over the summer?

*sends resume to posner explaining how efficient i am at folding underwear*

-nervous T-10 1L

Did Posner mean none ARE????

12 - one would expect more from a federal judge than from elie...unless elie mistyped that, which wouldn't be far from the realm of possibility

You are a FAT LOSER. Horrible article.

12 + 13: I pray to God you're not in law school.

So, what attorney got the smackdown from Posner?

220... 221 whatever it takes.

15: Agreed. 12 and 13 are fucking morons.

Seconding 18's approval of 15.

18: A law student a moron? Come on, none are!

(1) I assume that Elie meant "if there had been a woman on the Seventh Circuit panel." The Seventh Circuit bench includes at least four women, at least one of whom (Judge Diane Wood) is thought to be a likely Supreme Court nominee in the event of an Obama win (she might replace fellow Chicagoan Justice Stevens) and at least one of whom (Judge Diane Sykes) would be thought a likely Supreme Court nominee in the event of a McCain win. The Seventh Circuit also includes Judges Rovner and Williams, both of whom are also well-respected.

(2) 12 - it does look awkward, but I think Judge Posner's grammar was correct.

oh jesus elie, get the eff over yourself.

I'm a moron too then, cause I don't understand what "None is." is supposed to mean there.

How many reference librarians does it take to change a light bulb? One, but she has to look it up and call you back.

How many economists does it take to change a light bulb? None. The free market will take care of it.

How many used car salesman does it take to change a light bulb? I'm running the figures right now, and when you see the total, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

How many auto mechanics does it take to change a light bulb? Dunno. We're still waiting for the part.

How many humorless people does it take to change a light bulb? One.

How many Thelen associates does it take to change a light bulb? None, there aren't any associates, there aren't any light bulbs, and there sure aren't any Thelens!

15=18=19: http://iconlogic.blogs.com/weblog/2007/12/grammar-works-1.html

seconding 19's approval 18's approval of 5.

23: "I'm a moron too then..."

Agreed.

-18

seconding 19's approval 18's approval of 15.

seconding 19's approval of 18's approval of 15.

23: "None [of the women to whom we are married] is [terribly concerned about clothes dryers causing rust stains to appear on clothes]."

For the love of God: wife=singular=is. Each Judge would ask his WIFE, the 7th Ciccuit does not cover Utah.

23: "None [of the women to whom we are married] is [terribly concerned about clothes dryers causing rust stains to appear on clothes]."

Wrong logic 31

I'm not seeing the sexism. If he said, "ask your Mexican maid"...now that is sexist.

I very seriously doubt that the Seventh Circuit -- with some of its members to the Right of Atila the Hun -- could really care less about misogyny or sexism. How many sexual discrmination plaintiffs (over the number of sexual discrimination cases they have heard) do you think they have they poured out in the last ten years?

The link 25 posted says:

The way to correctly use none in a sentence today is to determine what word it is referring to, determine whether that word is plural or singular, and then make the verb plural or singular to match, like this:

None of the apples are ripe.

None of this apple is edible.

Posner is old and so ARE the posters agreeing with his grammar.

12: "None" is singular.

30-32: Thank you for providing that grammar lesson, as unnecessary as it SHOULD have been. - 15

I very seriously doubt that the Seventh Circuit -- with some of its members to the Right of Atila the Hun -- could really care less about misogyny or sexism. How many sexual discrmination plaintiffs (over the number of sexual discrimination cases they have heard) do you think they have they poured out in the last ten years?

Guys at my high school used to ask their wives about the horrors of rust stains from clothes dryers all the time. It was no big deal.

36 - I don't know where you learned that rule, but it's wrong.

of course, this decision may be a reflection of both the judges' collective sexism and arrogance, or simply their elitism. rust in a washer or dryer is a serious concern for people who have to wash clothes. it sounds petty, but ruining every outfit due to rust coming from a supposedly rust-free appliance could be a major inconvenience, particularly for people who do not have much extra cash simply to buy new outfits on a whim. The judges do not care about such concerns, because washing clothes is "not for them", either because it is "women's work" or it is simply a task for either "the hired help" or "the cleaning service".

This is Posner here.

Get of my Lawn!!

-back to handing down judgments.

25, your link's advocacy of the contrary notwithstanding, popular error does not change the rules of grammar. It merely reinforces the need for beating them into the aggressively ignorant, such as yourself.

36 - I don't know where you learned that rule, but it's wrong.

24--Aren't Thelens the things Scientologists believe inhabit us as alien souls and cause all of our problems in life? Or am I mixing that up with Mormons?

21, while there are women on the 7th Circuit, none were on the bench in this particular case.

21 again, wondering whether Elie was going for humor, i.e., suggesting that counsel wouldn't have asked the question if there were any women on the Seventh Circuit because there *are* women on the Seventh Circuit, which would mean simply that it was a stupid, bone-headed thing for the lawyer to have said. The problem is that the generally sloppy writing -- much lower quality than Lat's or Kash's -- makes "error" rather than "intentional misstatement for purpose of humor" the first, and probably most logical, conclusion.

Oh, well: guys at my high school used to have trouble distinguishing between mistakes and attempts at wry or sarcastic observations when trying to read sloppy writing all the time, it was no big deal.

23: "None [of the women to whom we are married] is [terribly concerned about clothes dryers causing rust stains to appear on clothes]."

42,

I'm assuming by "cleaning service" you mean Mexican maids?

21: You're an idiot, the "panel" refers to the judges specifically hearing a case. Here, per the norm, there were three. In this instance they were all male. Elie never said anything about the entire Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit has some amazing female justices but they were not involved in this decision. You're pretty much a moron.

MyTTTal

46 - I believe you are correct, but we'll have to ask Joseph Smith for certainty.

Joseph...are you there brother?

"Is" or "are," it was a poor choice of phrase by Posner in any event, because it does not properly refer to the sentence preceding it. "Plaintiff's lawyer asked us to ask our wives if they are concerned" required something more like "They are not," not the ridiculous "None is," which would properly refer only to the plaintiff's lawyer or the judges ("us") in the previous sentence.

53,

All Mormon discussion is being funnelled through the Pls Handle Thx thread.

Joseph Smith

Yo Mystal, these cupcakes are like CRAZY DELICIOUS!

Say hi to your mother for me.

Triggy

Casting yourself as "superior" to circuit court of appeals judges = stupid. This is nothing more than an additional illustration and confirmation that there are too many law schools and that bar exams are too easy to pass. "Ask your wives..."? Are you serious? Now that is idiotic...

Great googly moogly.

51: thanks for explaining to me what an appellate "panel" is-- and to think that during my clerkship, I never knew there was an actual term of art for that three-judge thingy that decided cases except in rare cases when the full court decided a case en banc. Now I know. Unless I misread, Elie's original post didn't include the word "panel" -- it just said "if there was a woman on the 7th Circuit." Thanks again for the help with the terminology -- I'll definitely bring it up at the next clerkship reunion. (Wonder if the judge knows about this whole "panel" thing?)

How many male chauvinists does it take to change a light bulb in the laundry room?

The attorney's name is Christoff. Anyone know who in specific that might be? His comment was made at 19.04, and his quote was: "If they have to worry about rust stains, that's a concern, ask your wife. " It sounds pretty bad to me.

21 is a moron with some stupid agenda.

I have no idea why people are posting ad nauseum regarding if it should be "(1) none is" or (2) "none are". Either way, it is a terrible sentence. I personally prefer Rudy Giulani's speaking style, where every sentence "has a noun, a verb, and '9/11').

Guys at my highschool used to believe "none is" was correct grammar when answering whether wives are concerned with laundry-related stains. It was no big deal.

I checked my sexist crack and it was full of ass-lint. Maybe some poo flakes too. I'll need to sniff my finger to make sure.

Yup. Those are poo flakes for sure.

59,

Maybe your state circuit court had a different name for a panel???

"There's no way that attorney would have joked about women washing clothes if there was a woman on the 7th Circuit."

Wood, Sykes, Rovner...

59: You were a clerk?!?!?! If that's true, I'm going to spend the rest of the day diving into ice cream, as women sometimes do when depressed. Oh wait, was that sexist?

46- thetans, not thelens

First to consider a "Bad to the Bone" joke, and then back off.
And I think "Great googly moogly" was Bruce Willis on Moonlighting, not Micheal Keaton. Wrong 80's wiseass.

None = not one

Not one [of the women...] is

I doubt Posner does his own laundry. Regardless, most wives would agree that they know far more about how to wash clothes than their husbands do. It's not sexist, but rather a simple fact.

64: Nope, it was a federal court of appeals (not the Seventh Circuit), but I'm pretty sure they still called three-judge units of the court "panels."

66: I'm not really sure, but then again I'm also not sure why the fact I clerked would make you spend the rest of the day eating ice cream. (My guess would be general unhappiness with the state of your life or some kind of endocrine issue. Probably general unhappiness with the state of your life.)

59

The judges should have made the lawyer submit an interrogatory to each wife asking whether that wife was concerned about rust stains.

Posner got this one wrong. Why would Sears advertise its dryers as having a stainless steel drum if it didn't intend for the consumer to rely on the representation and believe the feature served a practical purpose? The part of the dryer that is stainless steel is INSIDE the dryer, not visible, and therefore likely serves a practical, rather than aesthetic purpose.

Of course there will be consumers who buy the dryer with rust concerns in mind. People who have ever had a dryer leave rust stains will seek out dryers that don't rust their clothes.

While Plaintiff's counsel could've been more tactful, it seems his point is that anyone who does laundry may have experienced rust problems with their dryers and would therefore be mindful of the issue when purchasing a dryer.

So which clerk washes Posner's "briefs" for "rust" stains?

It would have been more effective with the Court of Appeals panel to have them inquire with their maids.

I thought the comment was a witty way of presenting the issue in a real-world context.

73--It's all okay, though, because the free market is necessarily self-regulating and will remove all those rust stains.

Lame, Posner, just lame. Wives are still doing laundry, last time I checked, even if they're not expected to do ALL the laundry. My domestic goddess still does all the laundry, and I loathe the day she returns to work because I hate doing that shit more than billing hours. But I digress.

The plaintiff's attorney's comment was also marriage-ist and sexual orientationist, assuming that they have wives. That filthy, filthy bastard. He should be disbarred.

"It is not as if rust stains were a common
concern of owners of clothes dryers. There is no suggestion
of that either, and it certainly is not common
knowledge.

Stainless steel clothes dryers are not advertised as
preventing rust stains on clothes. The only reference to rust in Sears’s marketing that the plaintiff refers to or that we have found is “Stainless Steel Drum resists rust and won’t chip, peel or snag clothes.” The only thing potentially deceptive about this claim is that a ceramic coating on non-stainless steel is unlikely to rust, chip, peel, or snag clothes either. But that is not Mr. Thorogood’s complaint. His concerns are idiosyncratic."

(i) Actually, rust stains are a common concern where wet, white clothes and old dryer drums are involved.
(ii) The whole reason for stainless steel, rather than ceramic coated mild steel, is that the coating can and will chip--allowing rust to form.

Posner is either very stupid, or deliberately feigning ignorance here.

79 - Or maybe the unmarried and non-straight lawyers should be disbarred? That would ensure that the next plaintiff's attorney who came along couldn't make the same mistake.

73. You have no fucking clue. The stainless steel is on the outside you fricken moron. You are as stupid as 59.

59, Mysttal referred to the "all-male bench". You (and 21) are the only ones that think that the word "bench" refers to the entire 7th circuit.

Who is Christoff?

Results 1 - 100 of about 2,120,000 for "none is".
Results 1 - 100 of about 3,090,000 for "none are".

Google has spoken

82, you seem confused as to what part of a dryer the drum is. Here's a hint: it's the big, perforated metal DRUM inside the dryer, into which one places the wet clothes.

82 - 73 is spot on. It's a "stainless steel drum"! What part of a stainless steel drum is on the OUTSIDE of dryer? It's only visible when you open the dryer's door, and, according to the opinion, the mild steel part is only visible when you put your head in the drum.

82 - 73 is spot on. It's a "stainless steel drum"! What part of a stainless steel drum is on the OUTSIDE of dryer? It's only visible when you open the dryer's door, and, according to the opinion, the mild steel part is only visible when you put your head in the drum.

82, calm down. You're wrong. The drum, the part that is advertised as stainless steel, is INSIDE the dryer.

1. look up what a dryer drum is.
2. read the opinion again:

Part of the front of the drum, a part the user would see
only if he craned his head inside the drum, is made of aceramic-coated “mild” steel, which is not stainless steel because it doesn’t contain chromium;

Are there any wives on this board who can enlighten us on the debate over this dryer-contraption everyone is speaking of? Thanks in advance.

83:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680 for Elie Mystal rules.
Results 1 - 10 of about 53,700 for yurt interior decorators.

according to http://iconlogic.blogs.com/weblog/2007/12/grammar-works-1.html, it should be "none are."

"The way to correctly use none in a sentence today is to determine what word it is referring to, determine whether that word is plural or singular, and then make the verb plural or singular to match, like this:

None of the apples are ripe.
None of this apple is edible."

Here, Posner is referring to the WIVES of the all-male jurors. So, it should be "none are."

As if this blog could get any more boring - first it was hijacked by the grammar police, and now everyone is arguing about laundry.

That said, I have had a dryer rust stain my clothes, and it's a pain.

47: your comment should read "none was on the bench in this particular case."

Well then, perhaps one of the more interesting points here is one raised by 80:

Is it apppropriate for Posner to rule partly based on what he perceives as "common sense" or "common knowledge" despite the fact that he is probably out of touch with the every day American's version of "common sense" as evidenced by his opinion?

Some pathetic wretches spend time arguing on the Internet that the phrase "None is" is objective error from a grammatical standpoint. That is wrong.

90 - "none" means "not one" or "no one." It's always singular. The prepositional phrase "of the apples" doesn't affect the subject-verb relationship.

"One (in three dentists) recommendS."
"None (of the apples) is ripe."

MysTTTal

95 and others: none actually can mean 1) not one, 2) not any or 3) no part. It can be singular or plural depending on construction.

-- Grammar Wizard

I think the grammar discussion is missing the point... I just found a whole new level of respect for Posner

"whole new level of respect for Posner"? From one of his most asinine opinions to date?

My wife and I have a system.

(1) I do dishes, she does laundry.

(2) I make lots of money and she does freaky sh*t in bed.

This is a boring story.

My wife and I have a system.

(1) I do dishes, she does laundry.

(2) I make lots of money and she does freaky sh*t in bed.

This is a boring story.

He made a poor attempt at a joke. Fact is, women usually do the laundry. Maybe not in LA, SF, NY or DC, but everywhere else, yes.

My quest is this: who does your laundry, you or your boyfriend?

99 is concerned about rust stains on her husbands clothes.

Yea women in NYC etc dont do laundry bc they work at biglaw firms ibanking etc and are too busy. Fair enough. Then they "retire" at 34 to have kids and are still too good to do laundry while thier husbands work 80 hour weeks.....

One thing that keeps grammar interesting is that the rules sometimes change to keep up with the ways people use the language. A rule you learned in elementary school--or that your boss learned in elementary school--may no longer be in effect. In my grammar classes I find that people are shocked to find that certain rules have changed.

The rule for how to use none in a sentence is an example of a rule that changed.

I remember being taught that none means "not one" and should be matched up with a singular verb, like this:

None of the many pens I own works when I need to take notes on a phone call.

The theory was that "none works" should be read the same as "not one works." But when people use the word none in everyday speech and writing, they often match the verb to a plural word that follows the word none, like this:

None of the pens are working.

The people who write grammar books finally decided to go with the flow and change the rule to match the way actual writers and speakers of English use the word. The big change occurred, as best I can remember, around 1983. New grammar books published about that time started listing none as a word that can be plural or singular in a sentence, depending on the word it refers to.

The way to correctly use none in a sentence today is to determine what word it is referring to, determine whether that word is plural or singular, and then make the verb plural or singular to match, like this:

None of the apples are ripe.

None of this apple is edible.

In the first sentence, none refers to apples, which is plural, so you use the plural verb are. In the second sentence, none refers to apple, which is singular, so you use the singular verb is.

Taken from: http://iconlogic.blogs.com/weblog/2007/12/grammar-works-1.html

that's why I live in NY 102! i have never done a boyfriend's laundry in my life!!

106, you want to go out? I got some Snuggles for ya!

105: does citing an uncited claim (the rule has changed, there is a new rule) somehow enhance its credibility?

108: I didn't cite it, I referenced a link. I don't know what you do in your free time, but I'm assuming that someone who takes the time to post about the history of the use of "none is" and "none are" has some expertise in the matter. Either way, I simply provided the information for reference. Way to be a dick about it though.

-105

106 = the starter wife

I'm w/ 106, don't even live in NY but wouldn't do my boyfriend's laundry (or cook dinner, for that matter) in a million years

Most women I know who work full time (including myself) do the family's laundry. Hubby does other chores. I've not experienced rust stains, but I have heard they are a pain. Certainly its something I would consider when buying a new dryer.

95 - read the link. "none" can be singular or plural.

-90

The only thing worse than an arrogant ATL commentator is an arrogant ATL commentator who is subsequently proven wrong. 15, I think 12 and 13 deserve an apology.

106 has a boyfriend (thanks anyway 107) and is looking forward to her first divorce (110) so she can start dating younger men!

Comment 21 was dead-on. Elie rewrote the post and coveniently failed to mention that he significantly changed its content. The original version incorrectly claimed that there were no women on the entire circuit court. Elie then went on to use this "fact" to support his demand for gender equity, or some other such buzzwords.

BTW, it is bush league to rewrite a post in order to cover your (politically motivated?) mistakes, while the person who pointed out your mistakes gets bludgeoned in the comments.

73, it was you who got it wrong. Judge Posner never said no one would be bothered by the presence of a non-stainless metal in the dryer. But a putative class involving some who relied on the representation (an element of the tort) and some who did not, should not be certified. That's what this case was about.

106 - no, but you will.

111 is a shrew. A contemptible harpy.

If you want to avoid rust stains don't buy a TTT dryer and only go to T-14 laundromats.

From Strunk and White, "The Elements of Style," 3rd Edition, page 10:

A plural verb is commonly used when "none" suggests more than one thing or person: "None are so fallible as those who are sure they're right"

Identity politics, a smug self-congratulatory sense of enlightenment, and a tenuous grasp on the English language? Must be Mystal in the morning!

As between Elie and Kash, why is Elie in charge of this blog? Anyone? LAT??

Seventh Circuit actually isn't that right wing, it's pretty evenly balanced. Has more Republican appointees, but several of them are very centrist...

None "is" if the partner says it is "is".

91 FTW

NONE = "NOT ONE"

none is SINGULAR, b/c it is a shorthand for not one.

The confusion is b/c none is often treated as a plural when people speak it. Blue bloods like posner know the difference.

GALLUP POLL (April 2008): 68% of married adults say the wife does the laundry, and 57% say the husband does the yard work.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106249/Wives-Still-Laundry-Men-Yard-Work.aspx

POSNER IS LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD!

THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY IS RIGHT!

100 - Getting a "don't you dare cum in my mouth" BJ on yer birthday is not freaky sh*t.

But what she does with the pool boy is pretty freaky.

Now get back to billing.

100 - Getting a "don't you dare cum in my mouth" BJ on yer birthday is not freaky sh*t.

But what she does with the pool boy is pretty freaky.

Now get back to billing.

1. Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case
§ 39. none

“… and then there were none.” The closing words of this well-known nursery rhyme should dispel the notion that none can only take a singular verb. People opposing the plural use base their argument on the fact that none comes from the Old English word an, meaning “one.” But the citational evidence against restricting none is overwhelming. None has been used as both a singular and plural pronoun since the ninth century. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respected writers today. 1
Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. Whether you should choose a singular or plural verb depends on the effect you want. You can use either a singular or a plural verb in a sentence such as None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial. However, none can only be plural when used in sentences such as None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story.

- The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/039.html

Both can be correct. Posner was using the singular for effect. It worked.

12 & 13 are idiots, as is 23. 25's link notwithstanding, they have no idea what the debate is even about, and that is sad.

36: exactly.

45: 36, got it from 25.

44: don't blame 25. If we are to believe 25's link, then the powers that be have spoken. Its up to the rest of us to get on board.

See 36.

132, you have too much time on your hands. Still, pretty good though.

referred by a friend to this blog and the comments, I thought I, as the attorney for the plaintiff who actually did the argument, might fill in some uncertainties and correct some misunderstandings among the posters above. Those who wish to can actually listen to the arguments by going to the 7th circuit's website and replay the oral argument, and make up their own mind about who said what and why. The essence of our claim, and the reason it got certified, was that Sears charges a premium for dryers that have a stainless steel drum, presents stainless steel drum dryers as the attributes of its "best" dryers, contrasted with those that are merely "good" (coated mild steel) or "better" (partially stainless drum). As I pointed out at the end of the argument, we needn't look at why consumers favor stainless steel drum dryers, only that Sears has charged them a premium for this desirable attribute, which was in fact a mistatement. Although Judge Posner seemed to understand this, he found reliance impossible to show asserting that we must rather prove uniformity in the consumers' motivations for valuing that misrepresented attribute. In other words, our case rests on Sears' misrepresenting the goods being sold, while Judge Posner's opinion precludes certification unless the motivations for desiring that item are uniform. Think about this. No uniform misrepresentation would be certifiable. Pick any goods that come to mind.
More troubling to me is the idea that my comments were sexist or suggested that only women do laundry. If you listen to the argument, I think you will conclude rather that I was suggesting that none of the three judges on this panel probably has any experience doing laundry, and that asking their wives or having an en banc hearing might .show that people who do laundry might be troubled by rust stains. Judge Evans joked but acknowledged that it was not him who does the laundry in his household. Perhaps I should have just said, "ask the person who does laundry in the household"--hopefully those who see me as sexist will excuse my response as a frustrated answer to Judge Posner's declaration that the reason people buy a stainless steel drum dryer is to bring the neighbors over, open the door, and impress them. This, it seemed to me, has not been something we and our friends do. But, I'd be happy to hear from those who have actually entertain their friends and neighbors in this fashion.
A bit more annoying is the implication that the rust problem is not real. This is something Sears never disputed. Mr. Thorogood is a metallurgical engineer, and was able to figure out the problem when his clothes were stained, and he, like an inquisitive engineer in the manner that the manufacturer's internal memo described as the only way anyone would discover the substitution of the cheaper part without disclosing it to consumers, by sticking his head in the dryer and craning his neck to look back out the front. try this at home yourself.
For those who figured it out, a dryer's drum is only inside, and a drum that is only partially stainless steel will eventually rust. All dryers will eventually wear out, bad ones might catch fire or burn your clothes or do a host of things, but stainless steel will never rust, because it is an alloy, not a coating, and commands a premium in the market. Indeed, Sears' uniform manner of selling its products, with a host of in-store advertising material seemed to us, and the district court, to strongly support certification. Rather than give abuse-of-discretion deference to the district court's factual findings, the 7th cir. panel just seems to have made up its own mind about consumer motivation, and determined it to be entirely aesthetic tastes. whatever. if it's presented as stainless steel, it should be.
we think the opinion is troubling, and you should too. When leadfree only means the part that isn't lead, wool is just the advertised part of wool blended polyester, what protection does the consumer have to hold a seller to the promised content representations. If a product is represented as stainless steel, it ought to be.

One final item. the plaintiff's lawyer's name is Krislov, Clint Krislov.
feel free to write me directly if you like:
clint@krislovlaw.com
P.S. we intend to seek full court review.
happy blogging and flogging!

One final item. the plaintiff's lawyer's name is Krislov, Clint Krislov.
feel free to write me directly if you like:
clint@krislovlaw.com
P.S. we intend to seek full court review.
happy blogging and flogging!

One final item. the plaintiff's lawyer's name is Krislov, Clint Krislov.
feel free to write me directly if you like:
clint@krislovlaw.com
P.S. we intend to seek full court review.
happy blogging and flogging!

Good grief!
The way it was taught to me "none is" is grammatically correct; the implied statement is,
"none [of the wives] is." Here, wives are ONE group, so the sentence is about ONE group. In that case,
"None is." is correct--strange as it sounds, even to me!
(I tried to explain that to an English high-school and a college English teacher, but was still marked down every time on my papers!)