Canadian Error Coin

I have a canadian coin, that is the size of a quarter, has canada in the shape of maple leaves on one side, and the emblem of the royal canadian mint, repeated endlessly, with "2000" in the center, on the other side. I belevie this is an incredibly valuable and rare quarter, though i do not know how much it is worth. It is very rare, and an error coin, due to the fact that it is missing the queen of Britain's head. I'm a coin collector, and the best answer obviously receives 10 x-tra points. Thank you very much

It sounds like a multiple wrong planchet strike.
Check here: http://www.coinscan.com/err/error.html

2009-03-30 19:36:47 by the atomic bomb

All the coins Came from Iowa. Sorry for the Quality of the video. In this video you see: 1807 British Penny 1863 copper-nickel indian head cent ...

I found this strangely marked $2 coin in my change and I'm wondering if this was a mint error or if someone has defaced this coin... here is an image of it:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/y arcofin/coinerror.jpg

On the back there is also a little bit of a curved clip on the core, but it doesn't seem to be visible in this picture.

I've already checked this website http://members.allstream.net/~err/ but it doesn't seem to be listed as a known error.
I know what a Toonie is, I'm Canadian.... I mean the perfectly round giant scratch on the front side.

It is not an error coin but one that has coin counter damage or someone did it. The damage was done outside the mint. There is a difference between an error coin and a damaged one, even if it was done at the mint, yours however was not. Damaged coins most of the time have no added value. A coin stuck in the chamber and struck a few times does have a little more value. Scratches and gouges as well as a few blocked letters from grease on the dies have no added value. I am not Canadian but collect Canadian colonial tokens. The U.S. and Canadian collectors use the same guide lines when it comes to coins.

2008-11-16 17:27:07 by Yarcofin

In the following article, what meanind does holistic approach have??? also, how does holistic approach related to students?

We all know the most famous line in movies
when Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O’Hara,
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” but
another Butlerian comment to that same
southern belle carries a lot more meaning:
“What most people don’t seem to realize is
that there is just as much money to be made
out of the wreckage of a civilization as
from the upbuilding of one...I’m making
my fortune out of the wreckage.”
Today, as we close out the millennium
in a time of prosperity, it’s clear that the
wreckage of society is coming in many
forms, among them the continual erosion of
language. Indeed, language skills are at their
lowest ebb ever. For the past 30 years, edu-
cators have come up with every reason why
not to teach spelling, grammar, and punctu-
ation in favour of a “holistic” approach to
learning. The result is an entire generation
of people who aren’t up to snuff on basics.
Item. Earlier last year, an American televi-
sion news announcer—whose name I didn’t
catch—was commenting on the Senate
impeachment hearings, and what she said
still boggles my mind. “It’s just getting inter-
esting-er and interesting-er.”
Now she was young and pretty and if
those were the only requirements for a tele-
vision news announcer in the ’90s, terrific,
but it would be nice if they know some-
thing about words too. With her hair neatly
coiffed and her colours perfectly coordinat-
ed for the camera, she had the temerity to
coin a comparative right up there with fasci-
natinger, remarkabler, and tremendouser
and if we made these words superlatives,
we’d have fascinatingest, remarkablest, and
tremendousest.
She’s not alone. Spelling errors and bad
grammar are increasingly common in ads
and newspapers, never mind the Internet,
which is the best place to learn how not to
spell. Author Tom Wolfe calls the Internet
a “great time waster,” but he’s 68 and what
does he know? Maybe more than we think.
His colleague, Gore Vidal, once said:
“Fewer and fewer young people are addict-
ed to reading. If they don’t get into it from
the time they are 10 or 12 years old, they’ll
never enjoy reading, and if you don’t enjoy
reading, there goes literature. Literature is
still the most profound of arts, but its prog-
nosis is very bad.” Vidal said this six years
ago when the Internet was just coming out
of the embryo and now that it’s a child, our
young read even less than they did back in
’94, opting to surf instead.
In the middle of the last century, Alexis
de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America
that the future would result in an egalitarian
dismissal of excellence. Well, guess what?
The future is here! While companies like
Microsoft and IBM keep telling us about
the benefits of the Internet, who stops to
think that maybe no one is really benefit-
ing—except Microsoft and IBM?
Any parent with kids in high school
knows that standards aren’t what they used
to be. I teach writing to public relations stu-
dents in college, some of them with univer-
sity degrees and many from other countries.
Without fail, the ones with the worst profi-
ciency in English are those who were edu-
cated in Canada. Not Jamaica, Algeria, or
Russia. Canada.
A Canadian-educated student up on
grammar is a diamond in the rough; it’s usu-
ally due to a grade 9 English teacher who
went against the grain and stressed what the
curriculum abandoned.
What do you do with 20-year-olds who
are just learning the basics? I give them
some standard punctuation and the parts of
speech, tell them to toss “spellcheck” and
“grammarcheck” out the window, and take a
look at George Orwell’s “Six Rules of Good
Writing.” (Some of them have actually heard
of Orwell.) (See sidebar.) Come to think of
it, professionals could use these rules too.
Rules aside, it is also a good idea to
study both good and bad communicators.
Former US Secretary of State Alexander
Haig (“a dialectic fashion at one end of the
spectrum”), aspiring presidential candidate
Dan Quayle (“We Republicans understand
the importance of bondage between a
mother and child”), and many of our lead-
ers in Canada (anything Jean Chrétien says)
are all poor communicators. Winston
Churchill and Martin Luther King, on the
other hand, were wonderful. Unfortunately,
male cadavers are unyielding of testimony.
Huh? Sorry. I mean, “Dead men don’t talk.”
But that’s not really true. Their speeches
survive. Why not have a look?
Jerry Amernic of Wordcraft Communications is a
writer and public relations professional. This article
is reproduced with permission from the Readers
Showcase, Vol. VII, Issue 4.
Language Out, Style In
JERRY AMERNIC
Six Rules of Good
Writing
GEORGE ORWELL (with addition-
al comments by JERRY AMERNIC)
1.
Never use a figure of
speech which you are not used
to seeing in print. This brings to
mind techies who use “connec-
tivity,” “multi-tasking,” and
“design methodology” when
they should just try to speak
plain English.
2.
Never use a long word
where a short one will do. A
popular phrase like “home
sweet home” would never have
lasted if the original was “resi-
dence sweet residence.”
3.
If it’s possible to cut out a
word, always cut it out. Lawyers
are especially guilty of breaking
this rule. Example. “If the com-
pany revises this policy form
with respect to policy revisions,
endorsements or rules by which
the insurance hereunder could
be extended or broadened with-
out additional premium charge,
such insurance as is afforded
hereunder shall be extended or
broadened effective immediate-
ly upon approval or acceptance
of such revision during the poli-
cy by the appropriate insurance
supervisory authority.” Doesn’t
it work better this way? “We
will automatically give you the
benefits of any extension of this
policy if the change doesn’t
require additional cost.” By the
way, the word count dropped
from 59 to 20, so a pox on all
those history and English
majors who think it’s better to
use more words.
4.
Never use the passive
where you can use the active.
This is any politician’s pet
peeve; be vague and don’t take
responsibility for anything (and
your writing will be as exciting
as a Hansard debate).
5.
Never use a foreign phrase,
a scientific word or jargon word
if you can think of an everyday
English equivalent. (See lawyer
example in No. 3).
6.
Break any of these rules
sooner than say anything out-
right barbarous. In other words,
a good lead with 18 words is
still better than a bad one with
15, but we should still strive to
say more with less.

The holistic approach is the "overall" content of the essay. When you judge an essay with the holistic approach you are trying to decide if this essay is on topic, worded well, has a few errors (possibly) but does not detract from the meaning. Is there a topic sentence? Is there enough commentary and details? Is the voice correct for the audience? and so on. The spelling, grammar and punctuation are only a small part of the whole assignment.

The student is not learning how to spell words correctly, how to use correct grammar and punctuation or possibly making paragraphs correctly. The emphasis is on the whole, not on the basics.

2007-10-16 22:02:47 by sharon j

okay I just have a couple of questions on the following article. It's a funny article about language nowadays. you should read it. Anyways, my questions are: What does the wreckage of society part mean? Also, what importance does the introduction play and I am still counting but if you do note down how many examples he uses to prove the main points and in how many paragraphs please do tell me. thanks so much! thsi is not my homework. its from a practice sheet in my improving your english guide. there are no answers so I just want some opinions. thanks.here is the article.

We all know the most famous line in movies
when Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O’Hara,
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” but
another Butlerian comment to that same
southern belle carries a lot more meaning:
“What most people don’t seem to realize is
that there is just as much money to be made
out of the wreckage of a civilization as
from the upbuilding of one...I’m making
my fortune out of the wreckage.”
Today, as we close out the millennium
in a time of prosperity, it’s clear that the
wreckage of society is coming in many
forms, among them the continual erosion of
language. Indeed, language skills are at their
lowest ebb ever. For the past 30 years, edu-
cators have come up with every reason why
not to teach spelling, grammar, and punctu-
ation in favour of a “holistic” approach to
learning. The result is an entire generation
of people who aren’t up to snuff on basics.
Item. Earlier last year, an American televi-
sion news announcer—whose name I didn’t
catch—was commenting on the Senate
impeachment hearings, and what she said
still boggles my mind. “It’s just getting inter-
esting-er and interesting-er.”
Now she was young and pretty and if
those were the only requirements for a tele-
vision news announcer in the ’90s, terrific,
but it would be nice if they know some-
thing about words too. With her hair neatly
coiffed and her colours perfectly coordinat-
ed for the camera, she had the temerity to
coin a comparative right up there with fasci-
natinger, remarkabler, and tremendouser
and if we made these words superlatives,
we’d have fascinatingest, remarkablest, and
tremendousest.
She’s not alone. Spelling errors and bad
grammar are increasingly common in ads
and newspapers, never mind the Internet,
which is the best place to learn how not to
spell. Author Tom Wolfe calls the Internet
a “great time waster,” but he’s 68 and what
does he know? Maybe more than we think.
His colleague, Gore Vidal, once said:
“Fewer and fewer young people are addict-
ed to reading. If they don’t get into it from
the time they are 10 or 12 years old, they’ll
never enjoy reading, and if you don’t enjoy
reading, there goes literature. Literature is
still the most profound of arts, but its prog-
nosis is very bad.” Vidal said this six years
ago when the Internet was just coming out
of the embryo and now that it’s a child, our
young read even less than they did back in
’94, opting to surf instead.
In the middle of the last century, Alexis
de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America
that the future would result in an egalitarian
dismissal of excellence. Well, guess what?
The future is here! While companies like
Microsoft and IBM keep telling us about
the benefits of the Internet, who stops to
think that maybe no one is really benefit-
ing—except Microsoft and IBM?
Any parent with kids in high school
knows that standards aren’t what they used
to be. I teach writing to public relations stu-
dents in college, some of them with univer-
sity degrees and many from other countries.
Without fail, the ones with the worst profi-
ciency in English are those who were edu-
cated in Canada. Not Jamaica, Algeria, or
Russia. Canada.
A Canadian-educated student up on
grammar is a diamond in the rough; it’s usu-
ally due to a grade 9 English teacher who
went against the grain and stressed what the
curriculum abandoned.
What do you do with 20-year-olds who
are just learning the basics? I give them
some standard punctuation and the parts of
speech, tell them to toss “spellcheck” and
“grammarcheck” out the window, and take a
look at George Orwell’s “Six Rules of Good
Writing.” (Some of them have actually heard
of Orwell.) (See sidebar.) Come to think of
it, professionals could use these rules too.
Rules aside, it is also a good idea to
study both good and bad communicators.
Former US Secretary of State Alexander
Haig (“a dialectic fashion at one end of the
spectrum”), aspiring presidential candidate
Dan Quayle (“We Republicans understand
the importance of bondage between a
mother and child”), and many of our lead-
ers in Canada (anything Jean Chrétien says)
are all poor communicators. Winston
Churchill and Martin Luther King, on the
other hand, were wonderful. Unfortunately,
male cadavers are unyielding of testimony.
Huh? Sorry. I mean, “Dead men don’t talk.”
But that’s not really true. Their speeches
survive. Why not have a look?
Jerry Amernic of Wordcraft Communications is a
writer and public relations professional. This article
is reproduced with permission from the Readers
Showcase, Vol. VII, Issue 4.
Language Out, Style In
JERRY AMERNIC
Six Rules of Good
Writing
GEORGE ORWELL (with addition-
al comments by JERRY AMERNIC)
1.
Never use a figure of
speech which you are not used
to seeing in print. This brings to
mind techies who use “connec-
tivity,” “multi-tasking,” and
“design methodology” when
they should just try to speak
plain English.
2.
Never use a long word
where a short one will do. A
popular phrase like “home
sweet home” would never have
lasted if the original was “resi-
dence sweet residence.”
3.
If it’s possible to cut out a
word, always cut it out. Lawyers
are especially guilty of breaking
this rule. Example. “If the com-
pany revises this policy form
with respect to policy revisions,
endorsements or rules by which
the insurance hereunder could
be extended or broadened with-
out additional premium charge,
such insurance as is afforded
hereunder shall be extended or
broadened effective immediate-
ly upon approval or acceptance
of such revision during the poli-
cy by the appropriate insurance
supervisory authority.” Doesn’t
it work better this way? “We
will automatically give you the
benefits of any extension of this
policy if the change doesn’t
require additional cost.” By the
way, the word count dropped
from 59 to 20, so a pox on all
those history and English
majors who think it’s better to
use more words.
4.
Never use the passive
where you can use the active.
This is any politician’s pet
peeve; be vague and don’t take
responsibility for anything (and
your writing will be as exciting
as a Hansard debate).
5.
Never use a foreign phrase,
a scientific word or jargon word
if you can think of an everyday
English equivalent. (See lawyer
example in No. 3).
6.
Break any of these rules
sooner than say anything out-
right barbarous. In other words,
a good lead with 18 words is
still better than a bad one with
15, but we should still strive to
say more with less.

The wreckage of society means how society is falling apart; in this case, how the language is going downhill.

The introduction is about things getting wrecked, leading into the article's idea of language getting wrecked.

He gives six examples.

There are seven paragraphs.

2007-10-16 22:24:33 by x98_sceptre

okay I just have a couple of questions on the following article. It's a funny article about language nowadays. you should read it. Anyways, my questions are: What does the wreckage of society part mean? Also, what importance does the introduction play and I am still counting but if you do note down how many examples he uses to prove the main points and in how many paragraphs please do tell me. thanks so much! thsi is not my homework. its from a practice sheet in my improving your english guide. there are no answers so I just want some opinions. thanks.here is the article.

We all know the most famous line in movies
when Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O’Hara,
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” but
another Butlerian comment to that same
southern belle carries a lot more meaning:
“What most people don’t seem to realize is
that there is just as much money to be made
out of the wreckage of a civilization as
from the upbuilding of one...I’m making
my fortune out of the wreckage.”
Today, as we close out the millennium
in a time of prosperity, it’s clear that the
wreckage of society is coming in many
forms, among them the continual erosion of
language. Indeed, language skills are at their
lowest ebb ever. For the past 30 years, edu-
cators have come up with every reason why
not to teach spelling, grammar, and punctu-
ation in favour of a “holistic” approach to
learning. The result is an entire generation
of people who aren’t up to snuff on basics.
Item. Earlier last year, an American televi-
sion news announcer—whose name I didn’t
catch—was commenting on the Senate
impeachment hearings, and what she said
still boggles my mind. “It’s just getting inter-
esting-er and interesting-er.”
Now she was young and pretty and if
those were the only requirements for a tele-
vision news announcer in the ’90s, terrific,
but it would be nice if they know some-
thing about words too. With her hair neatly
coiffed and her colours perfectly coordinat-
ed for the camera, she had the temerity to
coin a comparative right up there with fasci-
natinger, remarkabler, and tremendouser
and if we made these words superlatives,
we’d have fascinatingest, remarkablest, and
tremendousest.
She’s not alone. Spelling errors and bad
grammar are increasingly common in ads
and newspapers, never mind the Internet,
which is the best place to learn how not to
spell. Author Tom Wolfe calls the Internet
a “great time waster,” but he’s 68 and what
does he know? Maybe more than we think.
His colleague, Gore Vidal, once said:
“Fewer and fewer young people are addict-
ed to reading. If they don’t get into it from
the time they are 10 or 12 years old, they’ll
never enjoy reading, and if you don’t enjoy
reading, there goes literature. Literature is
still the most profound of arts, but its prog-
nosis is very bad.” Vidal said this six years
ago when the Internet was just coming out
of the embryo and now that it’s a child, our
young read even less than they did back in
’94, opting to surf instead.
In the middle of the last century, Alexis
de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America
that the future would result in an egalitarian
dismissal of excellence. Well, guess what?
The future is here! While companies like
Microsoft and IBM keep telling us about
the benefits of the Internet, who stops to
think that maybe no one is really benefit-
ing—except Microsoft and IBM?
Any parent with kids in high school
knows that standards aren’t what they used
to be. I teach writing to public relations stu-
dents in college, some of them with univer-
sity degrees and many from other countries.
Without fail, the ones with the worst profi-
ciency in English are those who were edu-
cated in Canada. Not Jamaica, Algeria, or
Russia. Canada.
A Canadian-educated student up on
grammar is a diamond in the rough; it’s usu-
ally due to a grade 9 English teacher who
went against the grain and stressed what the
curriculum abandoned.
What do you do with 20-year-olds who
are just learning the basics? I give them
some standard punctuation and the parts of
speech, tell them to toss “spellcheck” and
“grammarcheck” out the window, and take a
look at George Orwell’s “Six Rules of Good
Writing.” (Some of them have actually heard
of Orwell.) (See sidebar.) Come to think of
it, professionals could use these rules too.
Rules aside, it is also a good idea to
study both good and bad communicators.
Former US Secretary of State Alexander
Haig (“a dialectic fashion at one end of the
spectrum”), aspiring presidential candidate
Dan Quayle (“We Republicans understand
the importance of bondage between a
mother and child”), and many of our lead-
ers in Canada (anything Jean Chrétien says)
are all poor communicators. Winston
Churchill and Martin Luther King, on the
other hand, were wonderful. Unfortunately,
male cadavers are unyielding of testimony.
Huh? Sorry. I mean, “Dead men don’t talk.”
But that’s not really true. Their speeches
survive. Why not have a look?
Jerry Amernic of Wordcraft Communications is a
writer and public relations professional. This article
is reproduced with permission from the Readers
Showcase, Vol. VII, Issue 4.
Language Out, Style In
JERRY AMERNIC
Six Rules of Good
Writing
GEORGE ORWELL (with addition-
al comments by JERRY AMERNIC)
1.
Never use a figure of
speech which you are not used
to seeing in print. This brings to
mind techies who use “connec-
tivity,” “multi-tasking,” and
“design methodology” when
they should just try to speak
plain English.
2.
Never use a long word
where a short one will do. A
popular phrase like “home
sweet home” would never have
lasted if the original was “resi-
dence sweet residence.”
3.
If it’s possible to cut out a
word, always cut it out. Lawyers
are especially guilty of breaking
this rule. Example. “If the com-
pany revises this policy form
with respect to policy revisions,
endorsements or rules by which
the insurance hereunder could
be extended or broadened with-
out additional premium charge,
such insurance as is afforded
hereunder shall be extended or
broadened effective immediate-
ly upon approval or acceptance
of such revision during the poli-
cy by the appropriate insurance
supervisory authority.” Doesn’t
it work better this way? “We
will automatically give you the
benefits of any extension of this
policy if the change doesn’t
require additional cost.” By the
way, the word count dropped
from 59 to 20, so a pox on all
those history and English
majors who think it’s better to
use more words.
4.
Never use the passive
where you can use the active.
This is any politician’s pet
peeve; be vague and don’t take
responsibility for anything (and
your writing will be as exciting
as a Hansard debate).
5.
Never use a foreign phrase,
a scientific word or jargon word
if you can think of an everyday
English equivalent. (See lawyer
example in No. 3).
6.
Break any of these rules
sooner than say anything out-
right barbarous. In other words,
a good lead with 18 words is
still better than a bad one with
15, but we should still strive to
say more with less.

First, the wreckage of society means the downfall of society. In this case, as the previous poster mentions, it means the increasing incoherency in grammar usage.

The introduction uses a quote from Gone With the Wind to draw a analogy to a similar dynamic between grammar and the Internet. In this case, those profiting from the Internet (Microsoft and IBM, according the the author) are profiting from the "wreckage of society," or the downfall of the English language.

As for number of examples, it depends on examples of what. If you mean examples of bad grammar, there are four:

Earlier last year, an American televi-
sion news announcer—whose name I didn’t
catch—was commenting on the Senate
impeachment hearings, and what she said
still boggles my mind. “It’s just getting inter-
esting-er and interesting-er.”

former US Secretary of State Alexander
Haig (“a dialectic fashion at one end of the
spectrum”),

aspiring presidential candidate
Dan Quayle (“We Republicans understand
the importance of bondage between a
mother and child”),

and many of our lead-
ers in Canada (anything Jean Chrétien says)
are all poor communicators

I'm not sure about the paragraphs because the format of the article didn't convert very well.

Good luck!

2007-10-16 23:11:57 by Benjamin L