tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25077391.post8590183791126791818..comments2009-11-07T14:40:18.242-08:00Martha Brockenbroughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00921299935406060841noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25077391.post-90531739214750505422009-11-07T14:40:18.242-08:002009-11-07T14:40:18.242-08:00Mark and Barry- That&#39;s exactly as her example instructs: &quot;late &#39;90s&quot;Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12827042713994330243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25077391.post-78191232037392068302009-11-03T14:32:56.032-08:002009-11-03T14:32:56.032-08:00Love the flow chart! I&#39;m going to send my students to your blog to check it out...Jessie Samshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11756322311215232859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25077391.post-54491022475006184902009-11-03T12:20:49.707-08:002009-11-03T12:20:49.707-08:00I&#39;m with Barry on the date thing: Skip the apostrophe after years but put it before decades to show omission: &#39;00s.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02843937622990037343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25077391.post-23320217286666153152009-11-03T12:15:12.095-08:002009-11-03T12:15:12.095-08:00<i>«I attended college in the late 90s and early 2000s.»</i><br /><br />Notwithstanding that the writer is a baby,[1] I actually prefer an<br />apostrophe in the first number, in a different spot, indicating<br />omission: “ the late ’90s ”.<br /><br />——<br />[1] Damn! The writer could well be 30 now. Time flies like an arrow.Barry Leibahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14205294935881991457noreply@blogger.com