🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello again, I'm still here. Sorry I take so long to reply.

Heather, thanks for your attempt at defending me and I'm glad we are still managing to be a source of amusement.

      As I've already asked this twice and you haven't answered, I doubt you'll
      answer it this time, but where have I deliberately used incorrect grammar?
      Either show me or retract your statement.




Cripes, steady on old chap! I retract I retract. But wait a minute, haven't I already retracted? I tried to answer first time, and then the second time I retracted in this statement in post 52:-

"I think all this discussion about missing out the word 'most' and tending to imply that you actually *have* used bad grammar as opposed to *advocating* it is really 'red herrings'."

Have I not admitted there that I should have implied you are 'advocating' bad grammar, rather than having actually used it? Incidentally, I still fail to see the connection between my accidental bad spelling on this forum and the deliberate use of incorrect grammar in a finished work of art.

In answer to my question "... don't you think that is being rather pedantic?" you answer:-

      No, especially when the whole discussion is essentially about pedantry.




There you go again. You are trying to counter my argument about boundaries i.e. going too far, by stating that I am therefore advocating strictness to the rules. This thread is not about pedantry, it's about knowing how far to go with rule bending for art's sake. It's about not being caught with your pants down, like the Emporer and his new clothes, and knowing when to follow the fashion and when not to. I presume you do know the story of the Emporer's new clothes made famous by Danny Kay's song. A bit extreme perhaps but sometimes you have to go to the extreme in order to make a point.

My views on 'iPod' and 'InDesign' are bending the rules of course, as I've stated above, this is not about pedantry, but I'm arguing that it is not bending them as far as 'london' by the reasoning that the two former examples still look like proper names, the latter does not. Quite a significant difference I think.

Incidentally, I'd love to know how art teachers teach these days. I mean, if there are no boundaries, if anything goes, how do teachers mark pupil's work. How can they critisise? How can they say anything their pupils do is wrong or bad?