If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:48:21 +1100, "DRS" wrote: "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. So, why are you so surprised that the State now wants to chip away at your freedoms one by one? Your country has never had a formal consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. The fix? Vote the Socialists clowns out of office, elect some representatives that will do what the people want them to do and NOT do what the people don't want them to do, write a formal document defining your rights, and take back your country from the Socialists. You first. Get rid of the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretapping and all the rest and then you can talk. We have, at least, finally gotten rid of the worst of the clueless goobers who foisted those outrages on us (which, I guess, is one of the things that has made Jerry so apoplectic). So please cut us some slack while the new guys try to shovel the place out. Obama has made it clear there will be no investigation, much less prosecution, of Bush Administration officials who broke both domestic and international laws on things like torture because he is focused on "moving forward", as if crimes are not always prosecuted after the fact. So much for his promise to restore the rule of law in America. He's made some symbolic gestures (ie, closing Gitmo down was easy because it had become a huge embarrasment anyway) but I'm not seeing substantive change. Hardly surprising, really, since half his administration consists of Republicans who help create the various messes he inherited in the first place. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
tony cooper wrote: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:55:21 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote: [...] It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same, what's the difference? Sigh. You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas. I usually use too many commas. Did you find it hard to understand? Comma rules are a bit 'fuzzy', and greatly different than they were 55 years or so, when I learned English. The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
N wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... There are so many people who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're" that I have just about given up on it, except for trying to teach it to my students... One of the errors that seems to be more frequent than it used to be is "then" and "than" being misused, as well as "do" and "due". It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same, what's the difference? Sigh. You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas. Please explain the errors. My only comment on the paragraph, is that there are too few commas. Actually, I should have put a comma after 'degrees'. But then, this isn't really 'formal writing', is it? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:57:04 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote: tony cooper wrote: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:55:21 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote: jaf wrote: Hence the proliferation of spell checkers. Now if I could only get the grandma checker to kick in. 8) John "Twibil" wrote in message ... On Feb 20, 10:44 am, "jaf" wrote: So your stating that the democratic controlled congress during the Bush administration never passed an intelligent bill? I have no problem believing that! And we have no problem believing that you never learned in grade school what the contraction "you're" means (it means "you are") as opposed to "your", meaning "belonging to you". BTW: while you're looking things up, check out procedural stalling tactics and Presidential veto powers. There are so many people who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're" that I have just about given up on it, except for trying to teach it to my students... One of the errors that seems to be more frequent than it used to be is "then" and "than" being misused, as well as "do" and "due". It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same, what's the difference? Sigh. You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas. I usually use too many commas. Did you find it hard to understand? Comma rules are a bit 'fuzzy', and greatly different than they were 55 years or so, when I learned English. It's not the number; it's the placement. I would not normally point something like this out in this newsgroup, but you did open the door with your comments about usage. Personally, I attribute the incorrect usage of "you're" and "your" to be a result of fingers flying on autopilot. The writer probably knows the difference, but an errant twitch of the finger sticks the apostrophe in there. The one that bugs me is "loose" and "looser" for "lose" and "loser". I don't think those writers know the difference. Maybe. I am still trying to pin that one down. I seem to see it quite often in UK writer's work. Maybe the usage is different there, or maybe it is another case of "If it sounds the same, it's the same." |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
DRS wrote:
"Robert Coe" wrote in message On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:48:21 +1100, "DRS" wrote: "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. So, why are you so surprised that the State now wants to chip away at your freedoms one by one? Your country has never had a formal consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. The fix? Vote the Socialists clowns out of office, elect some representatives that will do what the people want them to do and NOT do what the people don't want them to do, write a formal document defining your rights, and take back your country from the Socialists. You first. Get rid of the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretapping and all the rest and then you can talk. We have, at least, finally gotten rid of the worst of the clueless goobers who foisted those outrages on us (which, I guess, is one of the things that has made Jerry so apoplectic). So please cut us some slack while the new guys try to shovel the place out. Obama has made it clear there will be no investigation, much less prosecution, of Bush Administration officials who broke both domestic and international laws on things like torture because he is focused on "moving forward", as if crimes are not always prosecuted after the fact. So much for his promise to restore the rule of law in America. He's made some symbolic gestures (ie, closing Gitmo down was easy because it had become a huge embarrasment anyway) but I'm not seeing substantive change. Hardly surprising, really, since half his administration consists of Republicans who help create the various messes he inherited in the first place. You have a very interesting POV. In reality, government in the US (and I suspect every country) is driven of things other than laws, and international agreements. I suspect than when Obama found out just how things REALLY are at his National Security and other classified briefings, his reaction was "What have I gotten myself into?" I suspect it is the same for each president. It's a job no sane person would ever willingly take, which tells you a lot about presidents in general. Bush had his 9-11, and Obama has an economic meltdown. I only hope that Obama does as well with his crisis as Bush did with his. If so, then by the end of his first year, we will all be safe from any further economic woes. Somehow I suspect that will NOT happen because Democrats just don't understand economics. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
DRS wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message tony cooper wrote: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:55:21 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote: [...] It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same, what's the difference? Sigh. You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas. I usually use too many commas. Did you find it hard to understand? Comma rules are a bit 'fuzzy', and greatly different than they were 55 years or so, when I learned English. The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" You are correct, as I mentioned in an earlier message. Thanks for the reminder to police my comma usage. Can I blame it on bad typing? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
On 2009-02-22, DRS wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message tony cooper wrote: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:55:21 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote: It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same, what's the difference? Sigh. You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas. I usually use too many commas. Did you find it hard to understand? Comma rules are a bit 'fuzzy', and greatly different than they were 55 years or so, when I learned English. The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same, what's the difference?"' You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original sentence wasn't particularly unreadable, and writing for usenet doesn't need to be taken as seriously as professional writing. An occasional lapse in grammar or spelling is quite forgivable. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Paul Arthur" wrote in message
om On 2009-02-22, DRS wrote: [...] The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same, what's the difference?"' You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original I disagree that the one I removed was necessary, but adding the one to properly delineate the subordinate clause was. sentence wasn't particularly unreadable, and writing for usenet doesn't need to be taken as seriously as professional writing. An occasional lapse in grammar or spelling is quite forgivable. I ordinarily don't comment on grammar or punctuation errors in Usenet but in this instance it was relevant. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Paul Arthur" wrote in message
om On 2009-02-22, DRS wrote: "Paul Arthur" wrote in message om On 2009-02-22, DRS wrote: [...] The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same, what's the difference?"' You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original I disagree that the one I removed was necessary Then you have no business correcting anyone's comma use. Except for the fact that I am right. Take your attitude to someone who gives a damn. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"N" wrote in message ... "tony cooper" wrote in message ... There are so many people who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're" that I have just about given up on it, except for trying to teach it to my students... One of the errors that seems to be more frequent than it used to be is "then" and "than" being misused, as well as "do" and "due". It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same, what's the difference? Sigh. You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas. Please explain the errors. My only comment on the paragraph, is that there are too few commas. Well, perhaps being overly picky, I'd say you had one too many in that last sentence. "My only comment on the paragraph is that there are too few commas. " See? Works better, doesn't it? Deep. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 872 | January 30th 05 12:45 AM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 234 | January 7th 05 12:13 PM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 10:02 PM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 01:34 AM |