More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:12:05 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 3:00 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:04:28 +1300, Eric Stevens

Please not lets argue about this.

You argue and then ask not to argue? Interesting tactic. I think
there's a word for that, but it escapes me.

Hmmmm.

I am looking not for an argument so much as Eric supporting his
statement that he's overlooked (numerous?) spelling errors. "Just the
facts, Ma'am."

I never said 'numerous' but I had already overlooked (ignored) the
'misteak' and 'puctuation' which latter turns out to be a
cut-and-paste quote of one of my own typos. These things are to be
expected.

On reading through the thread on lookout for spelling errors I was
interested to reread the opening sentence of the the paragraph of
John.A's message dated
31/10/2011:

"For example, in the paragraph above you used the singular "works"
where you should have used the plural "work", but I, and I'm sure
almost every other reader, correctly inferred you meant to refer
to all the items listed before and not just an unspecified one of
them, and so I was not confused by it."

John.A clearly understood that there are two ways of interpreting what
I wrote and decided to reject one of them. Yet its the only one which
makes grammatical sense. You two have been pounding down the wrong
track ever since.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/3/11 PDT 1:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:12:05 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 3:00 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:04:28 +1300, Eric Stevens

Please not lets argue about this.

You argue and then ask not to argue? Interesting tactic. I think
there's a word for that, but it escapes me.

Hmmmm.

I am looking not for an argument so much as Eric supporting his
statement that he's overlooked (numerous?) spelling errors. "Just the
facts, Ma'am."

I never said 'numerous' but I had already overlooked (ignored) the
'misteak' and 'puctuation' which latter turns out to be a
cut-and-paste quote of one of my own typos. These things are to be
expected.

In other words, Eric, your brief contention that I've made speling erors
thet yuv ignord is *completely baseless*. Do you concede that I might
possibly have mispelt "mistaeks" on porpoise? Just for the halibut?

On 11/3/11 PDT 12:22 PM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:03:26 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/2/11 PDT 8:21 AM, John A. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:14:16 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/30/11 PDT 7:02 PM, John A. wrote:

No, what you wrote was "spelling, puctuation [sic] and grammar works against
...", which lacks subject-verb agreement. Two or more subjects joined
with "and" makes a plural subject and calls for a plural verb. So it
should be "spelling, punctuation, and grammar work".

Quite right. Now, Eric, can you just admit the misteak and move on?
Or punctuate the silence with more of the same?

He'll probably just jump on your spelling error, if anything.

I'm just going to assume you were hungry so your subconscious brain
was tricked into seeing absolutely nothing wrong.

Er, you're not allowing my use of intentional irony? That one might seem
to produce a mistake accidentally, which was quite on purpose?

A possibility, but once explained by the author it becomes, for all
practical purposes, indistinguishable from the common "uhhh... I meant
to do that" defense.

Not at all. Prior art, and all that. In other words, in kerrectin' those
who are correcting others, I have written "misteak" before. Also, put in
the context that I seldom make speling errors: Believe it or not......
You're not the first to not have gotten it

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:45:04 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 1:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:12:05 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 3:00 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:04:28 +1300, Eric Stevens

Please not lets argue about this.

You argue and then ask not to argue? Interesting tactic. I think
there's a word for that, but it escapes me.

Hmmmm.

I am looking not for an argument so much as Eric supporting his
statement that he's overlooked (numerous?) spelling errors. "Just the
facts, Ma'am."

I never said 'numerous' but I had already overlooked (ignored) the
'misteak' and 'puctuation' which latter turns out to be a
cut-and-paste quote of one of my own typos. These things are to be
expected.

In other words, Eric, your brief contention that I've made speling erors
thet yuv ignord is *completely baseless*. Do you concede that I might
possibly have mispelt "mistaeks" on porpoise? Just for the halibut?

"He's already made spelling errors which I have ignored."

You did make them and I did ignore them. What's wrong with that?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/3/11 PDT 4:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:45:04 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 1:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:12:05 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 3:00 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:04:28 +1300, Eric Stevens

Please not lets argue about this.

You argue and then ask not to argue? Interesting tactic. I think
there's a word for that, but it escapes me.

Hmmmm.

I am looking not for an argument so much as Eric supporting his
statement that he's overlooked (numerous?) spelling errors. "Just the
facts, Ma'am."

I never said 'numerous' but I had already overlooked (ignored) the
'misteak' and 'puctuation' which latter turns out to be a
cut-and-paste quote of one of my own typos. These things are to be
expected.

In other words, Eric, your brief contention that I've made speling erors
thet yuv ignord is *completely baseless*. Do you concede that I might
possibly have mispelt "mistaeks" on porpoise? Just for the halibut?

"He's already made spelling errors which I have ignored."

You did make them and I did ignore them. What's wrong with that?

You can't duck forever. Show me the misteaks!
Don't let your ignore-ance become ignorance.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:31:02 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 4:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:45:04 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 1:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:12:05 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 3:00 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:04:28 +1300, Eric Stevens

Please not lets argue about this.

You argue and then ask not to argue? Interesting tactic. I think
there's a word for that, but it escapes me.

Hmmmm.

I am looking not for an argument so much as Eric supporting his
statement that he's overlooked (numerous?) spelling errors. "Just the
facts, Ma'am."

I never said 'numerous' but I had already overlooked (ignored) the
'misteak' and 'puctuation' which latter turns out to be a
cut-and-paste quote of one of my own typos. These things are to be
expected.

In other words, Eric, your brief contention that I've made speling erors
thet yuv ignord is *completely baseless*. Do you concede that I might
possibly have mispelt "mistaeks" on porpoise? Just for the halibut?

"He's already made spelling errors which I have ignored."

You did make them and I did ignore them. What's wrong with that?

You can't duck forever. Show me the misteaks!
Don't let your ignore-ance become ignorance.

Learn to ried!

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/4/11 PDT 1:53 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:31:02 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 4:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:45:04 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 1:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:12:05 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 3:00 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:04:28 +1300, Eric Stevens

Please not lets argue about this.

You argue and then ask not to argue? Interesting tactic. I think
there's a word for that, but it escapes me.

Hmmmm.

I am looking not for an argument so much as Eric supporting his
statement that he's overlooked (numerous?) spelling errors. "Just the
facts, Ma'am."

I never said 'numerous' but I had already overlooked (ignored) the
'misteak' and 'puctuation' which latter turns out to be a
cut-and-paste quote of one of my own typos. These things are to be
expected.

In other words, Eric, your brief contention that I've made speling erors
thet yuv ignord is *completely baseless*. Do you concede that I might
possibly have mispelt "mistaeks" on porpoise? Just for the halibut?

"He's already made spelling errors which I have ignored."

You did make them and I did ignore them. What's wrong with that?

You can't duck forever. Show me the misteaks!
Don't let your ignore-ance become ignorance.

Learn to ried!

C'mon, Eric, we can have fun and pun and all, but will you please either:
Admit you're wrong, or quote some posts with those spelling errors of
mine you noticed but subsequently "ignored".

On 11/4/11 PDT 2:24 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:49:00 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 12:22 PM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:03:26 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/2/11 PDT 8:21 AM, John A. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:14:16 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/30/11 PDT 7:02 PM, John A. wrote:

No, what you wrote was "spelling, puctuation [sic] and grammar works against
...", which lacks subject-verb agreement. Two or more subjects joined
with "and" makes a plural subject and calls for a plural verb. So it
should be "spelling, punctuation, and grammar work".

Quite right. Now, Eric, can you just admit the misteak and move on?
Or punctuate the silence with more of the same?

He'll probably just jump on your spelling error, if anything.

I'm just going to assume you were hungry so your subconscious brain
was tricked into seeing absolutely nothing wrong.

Er, you're not allowing my use of intentional irony? That one might seem
to produce a mistake accidentally, which was quite on purpose?

A possibility, but once explained by the author it becomes, for all
practical purposes, indistinguishable from the common "uhhh... I meant
to do that" defense.

Not at all. Prior art, and all that. In other words, in kerrectin' those
who are correcting others, I have written "misteak" before. Also, put in
the context that I seldom make speling errors: Believe it or not......
You're not the first to not have gotten it

Sorry. Your past spelling habits simply didn't register as something I
should bother remembering. I'll try to do better in future.

(Note to self: when John McWilliams makes a goofy spelling error it is
probably in jest.)

Well done, that.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 07:25:59 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/4/11 PDT 1:53 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:31:02 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 4:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:45:04 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 1:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:12:05 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/3/11 PDT 3:00 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:04:28 +1300, Eric Stevens

Please not lets argue about this.

You argue and then ask not to argue? Interesting tactic. I think
there's a word for that, but it escapes me.

Hmmmm.

I am looking not for an argument so much as Eric supporting his
statement that he's overlooked (numerous?) spelling errors. "Just the
facts, Ma'am."

I never said 'numerous' but I had already overlooked (ignored) the
'misteak' and 'puctuation' which latter turns out to be a
cut-and-paste quote of one of my own typos. These things are to be
expected.

In other words, Eric, your brief contention that I've made speling erors
thet yuv ignord is *completely baseless*. Do you concede that I might
possibly have mispelt "mistaeks" on porpoise? Just for the halibut?

"He's already made spelling errors which I have ignored."

You did make them and I did ignore them. What's wrong with that?

You can't duck forever. Show me the misteaks!
Don't let your ignore-ance become ignorance.

Learn to ried!

C'mon, Eric, we can have fun and pun and all, but will you please either:
Admit you're wrong, or quote some posts with those spelling errors of
mine you noticed but subsequently "ignored".

I've already done it.

See Message-ID: dated
Fri, 04 Nov 2011 further back up this thread.

In fact the relevant quote starting "I never said ... " is further up
this article.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:20:30 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:57:39 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:00:22 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:04:28 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:36:40 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:21:36 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:14:16 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/30/11 PDT 7:02 PM, John A. wrote:

No, what you wrote was "spelling, puctuation [sic] and grammar works against
...", which lacks subject-verb agreement. Two or more subjects joined
with "and" makes a plural subject and calls for a plural verb. So it
should be "spelling, punctuation, and grammar work".

Quite right. Now, Eric, can you just admit the misteak and move on?
Or punctuate the silence with more of the same?

He'll probably just jump on your spelling error, if anything.

He's already made spelling errors which I have ignored.

I'm just going to assume you were hungry so your subconscious brain
was tricked into seeing absolutely nothing wrong.

Worse than that. It still sees nothing wrong. When I interpret that
sentence my brain sees it as an expanded list:

(spelling + punctuation + grammar) works =

spelling works + punctuation works + grammar works

It is not a collective group of items. That's why I previously wrote
something to the effect that its not a plural but a plurarity.

So the problem is that you're making up your own grammar, while
complaining about others' improper sentence structure.

I was complaining about the (lack of) logic in the wording of RichA's
subject heading. There was nothing subtle about his wording, nor was
there anything subtle about his errors. Yet you seem to not have
noticed any of the problems with what he wrote.

Oh, I noticed, and you even cited my mentioning it. My point is that
while it may be grammatically imperfect, it is still perfectly
understandable by anyone who reads it in a context at all larger than
the sentence itself, which, I'm sorry, is evidently anyone but you.

You keep prattling on about reading it in context. The text under
discussion is the header of the article. Has it not yet struck you
that the job of the header on an article is to establish the context?
I've pointed this out to you at least once before.

Has it not yet struck you that you have just illustrated my statement
about you? It's as if you were specifically trying to do so.

I'll spell it out for you.

At this point everybody and his brother is familiar with the various
claims that have been made about various foods in regards to cancer,
or at least is familiar with the fact that such claims are being made.
*That* is the context. It's common knowledge. It doesn't have to be
spelled out in a preamble to every single statement that requires that
knowledge.

Its the preamble to the thread. Are you saying that threads whose
subject can be described as falling within the scope of common
knowledge don't require an intelligible subject description?

It is not clear from your posts in this thread that you had that
knowledge, however. If you were/are ignorant of the facts that such
claims are commonly made, then you can be forgiven for your error.
Otherwise, I have to conclude that you have some sort of mental
condition that prevents you from putting two and two together in such
cases. Are you perhaps dyslexic?

I've put two and two together and have concluded you are merely
looking for an argument.

Nevertheless you are stumbling over one 's' which you believe to be
misplaced in one of my sentences. You think I am making up my own
grammar but I assure you I am not. The alternative would have been
that I wrote

" ... I'm reacting to junk journalism where spelling works
against understanding what the author is actually getting at and
punctuation works against understanding what the author is
actually getting at and grammar works against understanding what
the author is actually getting at."

Do you understand that? Each aspect works individually against what
the author is actually getting at. Its not the collective, it is each
of the individuals. If you were to use 'work' rather than 'works' in
that sense you would be wrong. I'm not making up my own grammar. The
problem is that the subtlety of what I am saying seems to escape you.
No wonder you can find no fault in RichA's subject heading.

Do you understand that what you describe is exactly what constitutes a
list of subjects joined by "and", which is considered to be a plural
subject?

Why is it considered to be a plural subject rather than a plurality of
subjects?

What's the difference? I think you really should explain that, and
provide some sort of reference to a grammatical rule about such
subjects. In my searches I found no such thing other than titles and
such, but that is not what you used your sentence.

Doesn't my use of the word 'works' give you a clue?

It was a big clue to the fact that the word you should have used was
"work" and not "plot" or "lean" or some other word. I had no clue you
would defend it so stubbornly. (On the other hand, I do now seem to
recall reading not long ago about a psychological study that indicates
that people who are confronted with facts countering their errors tend
to persist in defending said errors, so I guess I did have a clue you
would do so.)

You should look in the mirror.

Are you
so set in your own ways that you can't envision parsing a sentence for
meaning in any way other than the incorrect way you seem to insist on
using?

I think the word you are looking for is "unintended" rather than
"incorrect". According to every reference on subject-verb agreement I
have found, my interpretation is in fact correct.

It seems you won't be able to parse a sentence for meaning if you
can't distinguish parsing a sentence for meaning from parsing a
sentence for grammar.

As I've already explained, your grammar is correct only if your
interpretation of the meaning is wrong.

I can certainly envision you attempting to defend your error to the
bitter end. I wonder how long it will take for you to resort to
denying the veracity of every subject-verb agreement reference that I
or anyone else points out to you. You certainly have ignored them in
your replies so far. And you've certainly failed (or not bothered) to
come up with any counter-cites.

Would you have me employ the alternative clumsy repetitive
style I have used as an example above?

No. I would have you simply use the correct "work" instead of the
incorrect "works". It's actually one character shorter, so there's a
small net savings!

But it gives the wrong meaning.

The problem is not my use of
the incorrect style of the verb but your failure to understand the
nouns.

I understand the nouns. I understand that a list of nouns joined by
the conjunction "and" is considered to be plural for the purposes of
subject-verb agreement, except when it is or is part of a title,
quote, etc. The list in your sentence, both from just reading it and
from your subsequent explanations, is obviously a simple list of nouns
joined by the conjunction "and", and is thus considered to be a
plural. If you disagree, please cite any reference you can find online
that agrees with you. I have already cited some that do not, and told
you how to find more. The search used to do so is not biased toward
finding cites that do not agree with you; it is simply 'subject verb
agreement'.

Seriously, google 'subject verb agreement' and see how many
pages of results you go through before you give up on finding an
example of what you claim. And while you're at it, take note of how
many from the first page of results support the '"and" list is plural'
rule.

It's very simple. Spelling works. Punctuation works. Grammar works.
Spelling, punctuation, and grammar work. "Spelling, punctuation, and
grammar" is not a title or a name of a business or any such singular
subject. It's a list of subjectS (emphasis intentional), not a single
subject.

I see you quoted the above but did not comment. I am curious to hear
your thoughts on both the references and the example.

Now, in one of your early contributions to this thread you wrote:

"Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that
he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice
over another lie in prevention."

You should have written:

" ... he means that any cancer-related advantages _of_ one food
choice over another ..."

... unless you mean that the food choice gains some advantage.

You've never heard it said that there are "advantages to" this or
that? It's quite common usage.

There are 'advantages to verb/action' but not 'advantages to
noun', especially when followed by 'over'.

I'm suspect the verbs you are thinking of are gerunds, which are
actually nouns in their usage.

I will admit that my sentence would have been clearer with the
inclusion of the gerund "making" after "to", but it's clear enough to
understand as it is and I am reasonably sure of its grammar.

Please not lets argue about this.

You argue and then ask not to argue? Interesting tactic. I think
there's a word for that, but it escapes me.

Regards,

Eric Stevens