andy t wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
> news:upasmPpFKHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> "Mark Conrad" <none-of@your-business.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:050820091507593898%none-of@your-business.invalid...[color=darkred]
>>> In article <#gP4HVfFKHA.4608@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Eric
>>> <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you call someone mental, I assume you normally mean definition 2a,
>>>> which describes half the posters in this forum.
>>>> [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mental[/url]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, screwy English language, multiple conflicting definitions
>>> of the same word.
>>>
>>> I have heard some take offense at the mildest words, when
>>> no offense was intended by the original poster.
>>>
>>> Mark-[/color]
>>
>> Since English has far more words than any other language, I suspect it
>> has far fewer conflicting definitions.
>> The original languages ie ancient Egyptian used symbols with many
>> meanings.
>> Regardless of the language, surely the intent of many written messages
>> has been lost.
>> The more text is written, the easier it should be to identify the
>> intended meaning of any particular section from context.
>> Sarcasm is frequently lost. Calling someone an Einstein could mean
>> they're brilliant, or they're dumber than average.
>>[/color]
>
>
> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
> news:upasmPpFKHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> "Mark Conrad" <none-of@your-business.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:050820091507593898%none-of@your-business.invalid...[color=darkred]
>>> In article <#gP4HVfFKHA.4608@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Eric
>>> <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you call someone mental, I assume you normally mean definition 2a,
>>>> which describes half the posters in this forum.
>>>> [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mental[/url]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, screwy English language, multiple conflicting definitions
>>> of the same word.
>>>
>>> I have heard some take offense at the mildest words, when
>>> no offense was intended by the original poster.
>>>
>>> Mark-[/color]
>>
>> Since English has far more words than any other language, I suspect it
>> has far fewer conflicting definitions.
>> The original languages ie ancient Egyptian used symbols with many
>> meanings.
>> Regardless of the language, surely the intent of many written messages
>> has been lost.
>> The more text is written, the easier it should be to identify the
>> intended meaning of any particular section from context.
>> Sarcasm is frequently lost. Calling someone an Einstein could mean
>> they're brilliant, or they're dumber than average.[/color]
>
> I totally agree with you Eric.
>
> The English language, UK in particular, is among the most complex and
> diverse of them all, so it is hardly surprising that some individuals,
> this one for example is a prize candidate, obviously does not have the
> intelligence to grasp the complexities of the English language.
>
> BTW
>
> His French is not much better.
>
> andy t
>
>
>[/color]

Your grammar is atrocious.

Alias

"Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
news:h5h656$si5$2@news.eternal-september.org...[color=blue]
> andy t wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:upasmPpFKHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Mark Conrad" <none-of@your-business.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:050820091507593898%none-of@your-business.invalid...
>>>> In article <#gP4HVfFKHA.4608@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Eric
>>>> <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you call someone mental, I assume you normally mean definition
>>>>> 2a,
>>>>> which describes half the posters in this forum.
>>>>> [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mental[/url]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, screwy English language, multiple conflicting definitions
>>>> of the same word.
>>>>
>>>> I have heard some take offense at the mildest words, when
>>>> no offense was intended by the original poster.
>>>>
>>>> Mark-
>>>
>>> Since English has far more words than any other language, I suspect it
>>> has far fewer conflicting definitions.
>>> The original languages ie ancient Egyptian used symbols with many
>>> meanings.
>>> Regardless of the language, surely the intent of many written messages
>>> has been lost.
>>> The more text is written, the easier it should be to identify the
>>> intended meaning of any particular section from context.
>>> Sarcasm is frequently lost. Calling someone an Einstein could mean
>>> they're brilliant, or they're dumber than average.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:upasmPpFKHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Mark Conrad" <none-of@your-business.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:050820091507593898%none-of@your-business.invalid...
>>>> In article <#gP4HVfFKHA.4608@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Eric
>>>> <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you call someone mental, I assume you normally mean definition
>>>>> 2a,
>>>>> which describes half the posters in this forum.
>>>>> [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mental[/url]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, screwy English language, multiple conflicting definitions
>>>> of the same word.
>>>>
>>>> I have heard some take offense at the mildest words, when
>>>> no offense was intended by the original poster.
>>>>
>>>> Mark-
>>>
>>> Since English has far more words than any other language, I suspect it
>>> has far fewer conflicting definitions.
>>> The original languages ie ancient Egyptian used symbols with many
>>> meanings.
>>> Regardless of the language, surely the intent of many written messages
>>> has been lost.
>>> The more text is written, the easier it should be to identify the
>>> intended meaning of any particular section from context.
>>> Sarcasm is frequently lost. Calling someone an Einstein could mean
>>> they're brilliant, or they're dumber than average.[/color]
>>
>> I totally agree with you Eric.
>>
>> The English language, UK in particular, is among the most complex and
>> diverse of them all, so it is hardly surprising that some individuals
>> obviously do not have the intelligence to grasp the complexities of the
>> English language.
>> This one for example is a prize candidate.
>>
>>
>> BTW, his French is not much better.
>>
>> andy t
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Your grammar is atrocious.
>
> Alias[/color]

Just because the response was one run-on sentence?
Better?

Eric wrote:[color=blue]
> "Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h5h656$si5$2@news.eternal-september.org...[color=green]
>> andy t wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:upasmPpFKHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Mark Conrad" <none-of@your-business.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:050820091507593898%none-of@your-business.invalid...
>>>>> In article <#gP4HVfFKHA.4608@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Eric
>>>>> <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you call someone mental, I assume you normally mean definition
>>>>>> 2a,
>>>>>> which describes half the posters in this forum.
>>>>>> [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mental[/url]
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, screwy English language, multiple conflicting definitions
>>>>> of the same word.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have heard some take offense at the mildest words, when
>>>>> no offense was intended by the original poster.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark-
>>>> Since English has far more words than any other language, I suspect it
>>>> has far fewer conflicting definitions.
>>>> The original languages ie ancient Egyptian used symbols with many
>>>> meanings.
>>>> Regardless of the language, surely the intent of many written messages
>>>> has been lost.
>>>> The more text is written, the easier it should be to identify the
>>>> intended meaning of any particular section from context.
>>>> Sarcasm is frequently lost. Calling someone an Einstein could mean
>>>> they're brilliant, or they're dumber than average.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:upasmPpFKHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Mark Conrad" <none-of@your-business.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:050820091507593898%none-of@your-business.invalid...
>>>>> In article <#gP4HVfFKHA.4608@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Eric
>>>>> <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you call someone mental, I assume you normally mean definition
>>>>>> 2a,
>>>>>> which describes half the posters in this forum.
>>>>>> [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mental[/url]
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, screwy English language, multiple conflicting definitions
>>>>> of the same word.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have heard some take offense at the mildest words, when
>>>>> no offense was intended by the original poster.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark-
>>>> Since English has far more words than any other language, I suspect it
>>>> has far fewer conflicting definitions.
>>>> The original languages ie ancient Egyptian used symbols with many
>>>> meanings.
>>>> Regardless of the language, surely the intent of many written messages
>>>> has been lost.
>>>> The more text is written, the easier it should be to identify the
>>>> intended meaning of any particular section from context.
>>>> Sarcasm is frequently lost. Calling someone an Einstein could mean
>>>> they're brilliant, or they're dumber than average.
>>> I totally agree with you Eric.
>>>
>>> The English language, UK in particular, is among the most complex and
>>> diverse of them all, so it is hardly surprising that some individuals
>>> obviously do not have the intelligence to grasp the complexities of the
>>> English language.
>>> This one for example is a prize candidate.
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, his French is not much better.
>>>
>>> andy t
>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Your grammar is atrocious.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
> Just because the response was one run-on sentence?
> Better?
>
>[/color]

What you corrected was wrong as well as missing commas. If you are going
to criticize someone else's English, at least write it properly yourself.

Alias

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Your grammar is atrocious.[/color][/color][/color]

Nothing wrong with my English. You understood didn't you? Yours is not
great.
[color=blue]
> What you corrected was wrong as well as missing commas. If you are going
> to criticize someone else's English, at least write it properly yourself.
>
> Alias[/color]

andy t wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> Your grammar is atrocious.[/color][/color]
>
> Nothing wrong with my English. You understood didn't you?[/color]

"Me Tarzan, you Jane" is understandable but not correct. My favorite
from Americans is when asked how they are, they reply "I'm good". Good
at what, pray tell?
[color=blue]
> Yours is not
> great.[/color]

Really? What mistakes did I make?

Alias[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> What you corrected was wrong as well as missing commas. If you are
>> going to criticize someone else's English, at least write it properly
>> yourself.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>[/color]

Alias wrote:[color=blue]
> andy t wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>> Your grammar is atrocious.[/color]
>>
>> Nothing wrong with my English. You understood didn't you?[/color]
>
> "Me Tarzan, you Jane" is understandable but not correct. My favorite
> from Americans is when asked how they are, they reply "I'm good". Good
> at what, pray tell?
>[color=green]
>> Yours is not great.[/color]
>
> Really? What mistakes did I make?[/color]

You lied![color=blue]
>
> Alias[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> What you corrected was wrong as well as missing commas. If you are
>>> going to criticize someone else's English, at least write it properly
>>> yourself.
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>>[/color][/color]

"Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
news:h5hhk9$gkn$1@news.eternal-september.org...

You have hardly written anything in this thread apart from borrowing a
couple of quotations from books, so you have hardly written an epic.
However, looking at your more long-winded posts in here, there are plenty of
grammar errors in your writings. I have picked out two already and that is
without looking at the many others you have posted while you troll here.

Alias, IF you ARE the real Alias and not some spoofer in here, (and I know
who that could be :-)), you are well known in these newsgroups as the
biggest troll in here. I have read several of your posts, especially the
ones where you try to face off with people such as Frank. Some of them show
that you actually believe Microsoft will be out of business by the time
Windows 8 will be on the shelves. Please, give me strength. Your
credibility went out of the window years ago.

As I have said, in reading those posts of yours, I have noticed your grammar
is not great. If I wanted to, I could pick them apart and show you how bad
some of them are but my time is precious and I have not the time or
inclination to waste my time on somebody who believes Microsoft will be out
of business in three years.
[color=blue]
> "Me Tarzan, you Jane"[/color]

Therefore, you are Alias Tarzan then.

Do you really need to camouflage yourself behind the name you use in here?
Maybe you have something to hide. I wonder what that could be.
[color=blue]
> Really? What mistakes did I make?[/color]

Being born is probably the biggest one.

Having said that, seeing as we are only posting in here and not writing
books, most people get the gist of what I am trying to convey, even you.


andy t

andy t wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> "Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h5hhk9$gkn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> You have hardly written anything in this thread apart from borrowing a
> couple of quotations from books, so you have hardly written an epic.
> However, looking at your more long-winded posts in here, there are
> plenty of grammar errors in your writings. I have picked out two
> already and that is without looking at the many others you have posted
> while you troll here.
>
> Alias, IF you ARE the real Alias and not some spoofer in here, (and I
> know who that could be :-)), you are well known in these newsgroups as
> the biggest troll in here. I have read several of your posts,
> especially the ones where you try to face off with people such as
> Frank. Some of them show that you actually believe Microsoft will be
> out of business by the time Windows 8 will be on the shelves. Please,
> give me strength. Your credibility went out of the window years ago.
>
> As I have said, in reading those posts of yours, I have noticed your
> grammar is not great. If I wanted to, I could pick them apart and show
> you how bad some of them are but my time is precious and I have not the
> time or inclination to waste my time on somebody who believes Microsoft
> will be out of business in three years.[/color]

Translation: you can find no such errors. All you'll be able to find is
a typo or two.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> "Me Tarzan, you Jane"[/color]
>
> Therefore, you are Alias Tarzan then.
>
> Do you really need to camouflage yourself behind the name you use in
> here? Maybe you have something to hide. I wonder what that could be.[/color]

How do we know your name is Andy? And do you really think that you're
the only Andy in the world?
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Really? What mistakes did I make?[/color]
>
> Being born is probably the biggest one.[/color]

Not grammar, sorry.
[color=blue]
>
> Having said that, seeing as we are only posting in here and not writing
> books, most people get the gist of what I am trying to convey, even you.
>
>
> andy t[/color]

Um, you were criticizing another poster's English. End of story. Had you
just used improper English, I wouldn't have said a thing.

It's interesting how you fall back on ad hominems like Frank does when
you're totally and irrevocably refuted and shown to be the fool.

Alias[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

[color=blue]
>
> "Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h5hhk9$gkn$1@news.eternal-september.org...[/color]

[color=blue]
> Translation: you can find no such errors. All you'll be able to find is a
> typo or two.[/color]

These are not typos; do not flatter yourself.

you will be able to find...< That is the correct way to present your wording
above if you really wanted to be pedantic about it.

Contraction use although acceptable is not credible and is a lazy way to use
grammar and you would not receive any Hugo awards if you were writing a book
that way. Look back on your past posts; I think you will find the
'contraction' use of your words is abundant.

Here is an example from one of your old antagonistic posts with Frank -
[color=blue]
> You said you would find me and make me pay. You didn't, can't and
> won't. You can beg me to go to Paris but that ain't happening. Try
> carrying out your first threat. Oh, you can't, can you?[/color]

The use of didn't, 'can't' and won't all in the same sentence is atrocious
grammar. That sentence should have been worded thus so -

You said you would find me and make me pay. You did not, cannot and will
not find me at all.

Secondly, the second line down -

Although the use of 'ain't' is used in American English in certain
junctures, it is widely disapproved as non-standard and more common in the
habitual speech of the less educated.

Although we know it to be a contraction of "am not", "is not", "are not",
"have not" or "has not", it is still considered non-standard and bad grammar
unless you are using it in the context of somebody actually saying it or
emphasizing the word as an example or expression in inverted commas.

In the one sentence you produced above, you have used five contractions and
one of them you should have not used at all. That is just one sentence in
one post of yours. That is appalling grammar.

[url]http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/Ain%2527t.html[/url]

[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ain%27t[/url]

[url]http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=Ain't&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact[/url]
[color=blue]
> Really? What mistakes did I make?
> "Me Tarzan, you Jane" is understandable but not correct. My favorite from
> Americans is when asked how they are, they reply "I'm good".[/color]

Although the full stop is acceptable outside of quotation marks like those
you have above, it is generally well known and preferred by authors that all
punctuation should be inside quotation marks. Publishers prefer this also.
I maybe being pedantic here but it is a fact.

How do we know your name is Andy? And do you really think that you're
the only Andy in the world?

Above, you have used the word 'And' at the beginning of a sentence. You
really did not need that word at all.

This is true, I am not the only Andy in the world but my name is Andy
nonetheless because I have no reason to lie or hide from it. Now if your
name was John, I could relate to that. If your name was Peter, I could
relate to that also but by using the name Alias, by the very nature of the
name, does sound a bit suspect and childish do you not think?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Really? What mistakes did I make?[/color]
>
> Being born is probably the biggest one.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Not grammar, sorry.[/color]

I know but quick witted you have to admit
[color=blue]
> Um, you were criticizing another poster's English. End of story. Had you
> just used improper English, I wouldn't have said a thing.[/color]

Do I look like I really care what you say or think? Who the hell are you,
Oscar Wilde? The beef was between me and another poster so who made you the
authority to butt in?

BTW, that should have been worded above 'I would not have said a thing'.
(BTW is an abbreviation. It is used in these posts and is short for 'By The
Way.' I hope that this is acceptable for you.)
[color=blue]
> It's interesting how you fall back on ad hominems like Frank does when
> you're totally and irrevocably refuted and shown to be the fool.[/color]

'It is interesting... not 'it's interesting.' 'You are totally', not
'you're totally' Tut tut. You are a lazy fellow where grammar is concerned.
'like Frank does' should be 'as Frank does.' (Use of the word 'like', not
good.)

I do not need anyone to fight my battles and it is not I that have been
refuted but you. You are another conceited cretin who lives in here and
believes he knows it all but in fact knows very little and before calling me
a fool, take a long hard look at yourself. I am not the one who thinks
Microsoft will be out of business in three years.

BTW, I revisited one of my earlier posts; the one that you said had too many
commas in it. You need to pause for breath in-between each comma and it is
perfectly acceptable. Even though I grant you it is a long sentence as your
compatriot mentioned, it is perfectly acceptable and nothing wrong with it
at all.

andy t

"Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
news:h6151d$t2v$2@news.eternal-september.org...[color=blue]
> andy t wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h5ji4h$kf4$1@news.eternal-september.org...[color=darkred]
>>> andy t wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h5hhk9$gkn$1@news.eternal-september.org...[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Here:
>
> "The English language, UK in particular, is among the most complex and
> diverse of them all, so it is hardly surprising that some individuals,
> this one for example is a prize candidate, obviously does not have the
> intelligence to grasp the complexities of the English language."[/color]

There is nothing wrong with that sentence as I told you before. If you
pause in between each comma as I meant it to be, it makes perfect sense. To
add to that, a sentence can be up to sixty words long if you choose it to be
despite what you and your bum chum says. Can you show me the hard and fast
rule that tells us how long a sentence should be? Just because it is a long
sentence, that does not make it bad grammar, that just makes it a long
sentence.
[color=blue]
> . I have proved this by tearing apart just one sentence[color=green]
>> in just one of your posts as shown in my previous post.[/color]
>
> You proved no such thing. All you revealed is your ignorance of the
> English language.[/color]

Um, can you not read?

Um, denial is a bad thing and is prominent within your very persona.

Um, I pulled apart just ONE SENTENCE in ONE POST of YOURS. It was very easy
to do and there are others.

Um, let me prove this once again with another one of your fabulous posts.
This time another poster pointed it out proving that your appalling grammar
is no fluke.

From: Charles W. Davis
Title of thread: A Good Reason to Buy Windows 7
[color=blue]
> wrote in message[/color]
news:4a7eae5e$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...[color=blue]
> Alias wrote:[color=green]
>> Being as Windows is the Toy Operating System, Windows 7 will with DirectX
>> 11. Games will be really realistic and AMD and nVidia are already working
>> on cards that will handle DirectX 11.
>>
>> Ubuntu for real work.
>> Windows 7 for gaming.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
> You forgot to mention,
>
> Vista if your a total retarded Moron!
>
>
> LOL vista has given all IT people lots of things to laugh about.[/color]

Like most that call others morons, you can't write the English language.
"Vista if your a total retarded Moron!" should have been Vista if you're a
total retarded Moron!"

I suggest that you elevate yourself a bit by reading:
[url]http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your[/url]

Um, I did not write the above, another poster did. Proving I am not the
only one who thinks your grammar is ridiculously appalling.

Um, there are lots more of your schoolchild errors but I have not the time
or the inkling to look over the shoulder of an illiterate cretin such as
you, especially one that thinks Microsoft will be out of business in three
years. LOL!

Um, go back to school you illiterate imbecile.

Um, um, um, um. What a dip stick!


andy t