In article ,
sid wrote:

Why are you saying conversations personalities and characters can't be
present across threads.

I can't decode the above sentence to a coherent question.

That's not really a surprise considering the current and previous threads
involving you and the question of the English language.

Nice comment there sid. So, can you decode it? Wouldn't your sarcastic
comment been a bit more humiliating for me had you actually decoded it
and explained it to me - clearly exposing how inept I am at English?

Lots of hot air there, sid.

I make plenty of those errors myself, so there would be no point of
me trying to sit on high horses pointing out errors

The mind boggles! If you can't see that that is exactly what you're doing
there is exactly no hope at all.

Huh? You have obviously not been following along, Sid. You are in a
thread which I started. The very first post contained links to photos
I've taken. It was quite on topic, but contained a spelling (or rather,
a grammar) mistake.

Drunk Dave joined the thread for one purpose only - to make a grammar
flame. I didn't attack his grammar or spelling, he attacked mine.

Now, I don't mind that at all. I *know* I make mistakes and I know I
made a mistake in this very thread. But then Dave ironically enough also
had a grammar mistake in his grammar flame, something too ironic to pass
up on. I made fun of this just as he had made fun of me and all would
have been well and nice if not the Illiterati had joined and claimed
that no no no, they had read Dave's mind and Dave's sentence was
*supposed* to be grammatically incorrect, mixing tenses, having
incorrect punctuation and capitalisation - it's a *cultural reference*!

So yes, I *did* miss the cultural reference. I admitted to that, and
that did lessen the "fun" I had previously made of Dave, but not the
point - because everyone citing the actual cultural reference curiously
left out the grammatical mistakes that I had pointed to the entire time.

Rinse and repeat over and over again, with me supporting,
substantiating, making examples and you guys that just go "nuhnuhnuh you
don't get it, end of story" without you know... doing anything of the
above.

The problem, as I'm sure you're aware of by now, was that Dave
mistakenly wrote "like what me and the queen do" where he should have
used "like what me and the queen DOES". And that's ignoring the other
mistakes.

Dave himself has even confirmed this in a followup where he even told me
from where the reference came and wrote a quote of it. Where,
ironically, the correct tense was used.

I'll reiterate another example I've used. Daves use of the catchphrase
is akin to me writing this:

"I've lose me marbles"

The original phrase has bad grammar, fine. The use of the phrase has
even more bad grammar and mixing of tense. It's either "have lost" or
"will lose" (or "can lose" or whatever), not "have lose". That's mixing
tenses in the quote and that is ironic to do in a grammar flame.

I know this is a lot of text and you'll probably just reply to it with a
"nuhnuhnuh you don't get it, end of story" but that's kind of
illustrating my entire point

because it went straight over your head, that isn't our fault.

Is that why you confirmed in your post that you had mistakenly mixed the
tense, and I was correct from the beginning? Yeah, that must be it.

You're off your ****ing rocker with the desire to prove yourself correct
aren't you.

No.

They have fallen strangely silent now that you have confirmed that
the grammar in your initial grammar flame was incorrectly used,
even for the reference you made.

The only reasons people may have fallen silent is 'cus you've killfiled 'em
or they're so fed up with you being an obstinate prick that they just can't
be bothered to reply any more

I've only killfiled two trolls in this group. Either way, they all fell
silent long before they ever found the strength to support their opinion
on the subject with anything but hot air.

If they want to blame me for supporting and arguing my case in light of
*no* support for the opposing view, then I'm fine with that. It's better
to be silent than continue to argue when you have no support.

Yeah, that's some song and dance, Drunk Dave! All I did was post
pictures of a train.

If you are persistently rude to people in public then the same thing is
going to happen to you, a man of your intellect must surely realise this?

Huh? This is coming from the guy that just wrote "You're off your
****ing rocker", right?

Tell me, Sid, when was I ever rude to you without you being rude to me
first? I really like a Message ID here to verify that I was persistently
rude to you that prompted your arrogance and sarcasm towards me. I'll
obviously apologize since that rarely is my style. I can be pretty
hostile towards people that are hostile towards me, but I try to not
start the hostilities. Obviously, I may have done so at some point, so
please point me in the right direction and a sincere apology will be
forthcoming.

Pictures of a train, sorry I don't remmeber those pictures.

I know, you got busy quickly with grammar flames instead.

You've set yourself up for that though haven't you.

Where did i set myself up for that, Sid? In what way? You just made a
claim and I bet you won't bother to support it.

"set myself up" surely suggest that in the past, I make lots of grammar
flames towards people (or just Dave). I know I have alerted him in the
past when I have been unable to understand a given sentence, but please
point me to where I have "set myself up" for this, Sid.

Thank you in advance.


--
Sandman[.net]