Tony Cooper wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:30:01 +0100, sid wrote:

Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

No wait, that would be YOU!

Ironic.

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.

I rarely, if ever, make spelling or grammar flames. I don't care much
about it.

Neither do I, I only comment on others that comment on mine or decide
that because I type teh rather than the, I'm drunk.

Yeah, because "teh" is the only mistake you make, Dave

So what is yuor excuse for gramma and spelling mistakes drunkeness or
imcompedence. or are you not bright enough to tell.

My spelling mistakes are obvious oversights, my grammar mistakes are
lack of knowledge at points, or just brain farts in other cases.

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.


Mind boggling is an understatement. He keeps adding mistake to
mistake. The last one of his posts I read referred to Dave's comment
as a "catchphrase". It's not. A "Catchphrase" is a repeated usage
used as a signature for one person or radio or television show.
Americans probably all know Rodney Dangerfield's "I don't get no
respect" (he used variations of that, but the "no respect" was always
included) catchphrase and UK readers will recognize "I didn't get to
where I am today..." for "Reginald Perrin" (Leonard Rossiter).

Jonas might recognize Victor Borge's catchphrase-style of
incrementally increasing word numbers in his "Inflationary Language"
routines: "fivehead" for "forehead" and "and so fifth".

Dave's comment was more of a generic riff on ungrammatical English in
a Brit style, but not a Morecambe and Wise catchphrase. M&W were
known for bits employing bad grammar and twisted syntax, but this
wasn't a catchphrase of theirs.

Nor was it a "cultural reference" despite an allusion to the "queen"
It was a parody of the Queen's English, but the Queen's English is not
culture-specific.

That's it in a nutshell, as straight forward as that.

Jonas compounds his error trying to convince us Dave made an error in
mixing tenses as if a sentence bollixed up grammatically couldn't have
a mixed tense error.

When Jonas writes "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." it boggles the boggled mind.

He is *determined* not to "get it". If you make it any clearer that
he's completely off-base, his refuge is to killfile you. It's the
newsgroup equivalent to holding his hands over his ears and loudly
going "la-la-la-la" to drown out the opposing voice.

He won't see this, though, and will remain - happily, I'm sure - in
ignorance.

I'm sure he has already!

--
sid