Nora

On 2013-08-21 13:32:51 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

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.

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.

What truly boggles the mind is, Jonas getting so twisted out of shape
with Dave (not known for his typing and spelling skills) for a humorous
jibe. One which was obviously self-deprecating and without malice.
The degree to which Dave's grammar was mangled in the "joke" is
unimportant. All that mattered for the "joke" to work was the writer,
or speaker comparing his/her exaggerated poor English usage to, and
placing it on an equal footing to the Queen's impeccable grammar. It is
comedy of the absurd.

I suspect that Jonas took offense, because the individual pointing out
his grammatical error was Dave. Jonas, seems to take offense with Dave
period, as he believes him unworthy of any sort of "intellectual"
Usenet discussion, and believes Dave to be in a constant state of
inebriation. As we all know Dave irritates most of us with his
ham-handed typing and spelling, and his responses fractured by using
Google Groups and G1/1.0, but he has an undeniable english sense of
wit. I suspect he is probably smarter than Jonas is prepared to
acknowledge.

We have yet to hear from anybody who is in agreement with Jonas on this one.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:09:13 +0200, Sandman wrote:

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.

Your mistake, which you make over and over again, is to regard a
helpful correction as an attack.

I don't know whether or not you are too sensitive or misunderstand the
nuances of the English language. A bit of both I suspect.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-08-21 15:00:19 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:09:13 +0200, Sandman wrote:

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.

Your mistake, which you make over and over again, is to regard a
helpful correction as an attack.

I don't know whether or not you are too sensitive or misunderstand the
nuances of the English language. A bit of both I suspect.

Well, at least this isn't a case of, "My hovercraft is filled with eels".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Hungarian_Phrasebook

That is usually the sort of thing which happened with Joel (who I
believe is from Eastern Europe/Balkans and is, I believe, self taught
in English) trying to give PS, or any advice.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Sandman wrote:

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

Waste of time trying to humiliate you any further, you're doing a fine job
of that all by yourself.

had you actually decoded it
and explained it to me - clearly exposing how inept I am at English?

You've exposed yourself as being inept by saying, and I quote

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

Lots of hot air there, sid.

2 commas and a question mark, like this:

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


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.

Well, no. He actually joined the thread to say you'd taken some nice pics.
He followed that up with a humorous retort that referenced previous threads
that you had been involved in that discussed correct usage of the English
language.

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*!

It was supposed to be written that way.

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.

http://stumac27.wordpress.com/2012/0...ke-wot-i-do-6/
http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/0...ike-wot-we-do/
http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-b...-wot-i-do.html

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.

You really are being stupidly stubborn.


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"

That is absolutely nothing like it at all. There is no inference to correct
speech there at all. That's the whole point you seem to be missing.

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.

You're getting yourself very confused over this, it's not as complicated as
you seem to think.


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

No.

Kinda proving my point with every post you make


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.

I wasn't referring to anything you have said to me, you are however
obsessively rude to Dave. I assumed that because you have adopted that sort
of attitude towards others that you would welcome the same sort of behaviour
towards yourself.


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.

You don't remember the previous threads recently in this group that you have
argued over the correct usage of English words or phrases?

Thank you in advance.

your wellcom

--
sid

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:13:18 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-21 15:00:19 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:09:13 +0200, Sandman wrote:

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.

Your mistake, which you make over and over again, is to regard a
helpful correction as an attack.

I don't know whether or not you are too sensitive or misunderstand the
nuances of the English language. A bit of both I suspect.

Well, at least this isn't a case of, "My hovercraft is filled with eels".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Hungarian_Phrasebook

That is usually the sort of thing which happened with Joel (who I
believe is from Eastern Europe/Balkans and is, I believe, self taught
in English) trying to give PS, or any advice.

Then there is "Dear me! My postilion has been struck by lighning!"
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:42:50 +0100, sid wrote:

your wellcom

Ugh!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens.


There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class

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

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 23:13:18 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

Well, at least this isn't a case of, "My hovercraft is filled with eels".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Hungarian_Phrasebook


Min kamera är full av sill.

On 2013-08-21 19:00:45 -0700, pensive hamster
said:

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 23:13:18 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

Well, at least this isn't a case of, "My hovercraft is filled with eels".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Hungarian_Phrasebook


Min kamera är full av sill.

You do, and you can clean it up!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
sid wrote:

Nice comment there sid. So, can you decode it? Wouldn't your sarcastic
comment been a bit more humiliating for me

Waste of time trying to humiliate you any further, you're doing a fine job
of that all by yourself.

Insults. How unexpected!

Lots of hot air there, sid.

2 commas and a question mark, like this:

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

Yeah, I also figured as much. What would he mean by that? What kind of
"presence" would personalities and characters have across threads?

But thanks anyway, the first time you actually put up something other
than mere hot air! Very good!

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.

Well, no. He actually joined the thread to say you'd taken some nice pics.

I obviously disagree. The very first sentence in his post was a grammar
flame:

"Surely it should be, My family and I................."

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*!

It was supposed to be written that way.

You keep *saying* that.

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.

http://stumac27.wordpress.com/2012/0...-like-wot-i-do
-6/

Great example to prove my point. The lack of a third person justifies
the "do" tense of the word. Compa

"Speak English the way I do it"
"Speak English the way the Queen does it"

"Does" is used with third person singular pronouns. In your example, the
"do" is not en example of a mixed tense.

http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/0...k-proper-like-
wot-we-do/

Same here. "we" is a first person plural pronoun, and "do" is proper
usage. So another example of a grammatically, but one that does not also
use the wrong tense of the word "do".

http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-b...can-we-get-bri
ts-talk-proper-like-wot-i-do.html

And yet another one to prove my point. First person singular pronoun;
"do".

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.

You really are being stupidly stubborn.

Also grammatically correct, and your three links supported me just fine.
Thank you again, Sid.

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

"I've lose me marbles"

That is absolutely nothing like it at all. There is no inference to correct
speech there at all. That's the whole point you seem to be missing.

My example above is to illustrate a phrase that has inherent grammatical
errors, yet also contains an error not inherent in the phrase itself.

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.

You're getting yourself very confused over this, it's not as complicated as
you seem to think.

I don't think it's complicated at all. It's really really easy. Your
references, Dave himself and Pensive Hamster have no problem
understanding that mixing tenses isn't common for this phrase.

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

No.

Kinda proving my point with every post you make

Well, to be fair, in this post of yours - you're the one with a desire
to prove me correct.

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.

I wasn't referring to anything you have said to me

Ah, so you're just rude to me after rolling a dice?

you are however obsessively rude to Dave.

Huh? Do you have any support for this claim, i.e. that I have been rude
to him prior to him being rude to me? I may have. I know I've called him
"Drunk Dave" based on his constant mangling of letters, and that's a
play on his nickname. It was never meant rudely, but I guess it could be
interpreted as such.

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.

You don't remember the previous threads recently in this group that you have
argued over the correct usage of English words or phrases?

Absolutely! How does arguing about definitions of English words "set me
up" for grammar flames from Dave? I can't remember ever arguing about
definitions of words with Dave. The only people I can remember "arguing"
with are Tony, Eric and Peter. Tony and Eric are trolls so they will
argue anything just to argue, and with Peter I only argued about the
definition of the word "pejorative" which he thought was a synonym for
"vulgar".

I may have missed some, but neither of those "set me up" for *grammar*
flames, as far as I know. Maybe Dave saw me talk about the definition of
a word and assumed that since I talked about word definitions, my posts
must be grammatically impeccable? But that's hardly my fault. I haven't
claimed to be grammatically correct at all times (lord knows I aint not
that!) and I don't do grammar flames myself. I really don't do spelling
flames either, but I do admit that I have called out Daves "erratic"
spelling (or what you would call it) earlier.

Thank you in advance.

your wellcom

That's not my wellcom!



--
Sandman[.net]