🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:44:28 +0100, Lemming wrote:

> "John Burns" <joobs@grizo.free-onlineNOJUNK.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:42:44 +0100, Lemming wrote:
> >
> >> "John Burns" <joobs@grizo.free-onlineNOJUNK.co.uk> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:23:29 +0100, Lemming wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "John Burns" <joobs@grizo.free-onlineNOJUNK.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> [snippage throughout]
> >> >> 
> >> >> >On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:25:51 +0100, Lemming wrote:
> >> >> >
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >Of course, the only way I see it being used would be to say "I'm too lazy to pay
> >for a game", which is hardly a credible argument. 
> 
> I am sincerely glad we agree, although I am still a little bemused that you
> feel there is a difference between software piracy and failing to register
> shareware which you continue to use.  I trust you recall that I did note
> your assertion that you will now pay for the software which you have been
> using for free for so long.

Well once I have a keyfile and it is registered I'll send you a mail with Thor
to show that I have. (Be a week or so though as I've registered snail mail)
> 

[SNIP]

> I can see why you felt my later responses to you was a form of trolling, but
> my first was intended as humour.  Those who know me know that I never use
> smileys[1], this was a discipline I imposed upon myself when I realised that
> I was using smileys as a substitute for clarity.

Fair enough
> 
> >>  My issue was with your hypocrisy, in attacking others for things
> >> you do yourself.  Shall we recap?
> >> 
> >
> >Yes let's, but in so doing don't lie. I didn't complain per se about these items
> > but did, in reply to his accusation that swearing didn't make another poster
> >look  clever, point out that his terrible spelling, bad grammar and lack of
> >netiquette  didn't make him look clever either (to which I note he never
> >replied).
> 
> Granted - it is as you say.  It was clear from your reaction to my post that
> you failed to see the humour in my remarks.  That is my fault, I should have
> expressed myself more clearly.
> 

No probs, I fear we are all guilty of this on occasion.

[SNIP]

> >You make the claim but I note you do not say which _actual_ grammatical rules I
> >have broken? List them.
> 
> No, I won't list them, chiefly because my own technical knowledge of grammar
> is not equal to the task.  However, I can tell you that as far as I am
> concerned the most obvious fault in your writing is that you frequently use
> a period where a comma should be used.  In other words you end the sentence.
>  Then begin a new one.  Like this.  Do you see?
> 
Okay, in writing to newsgroups I take the view that although written the style 
is more akin to a conversation rather than say if I were writing an essay. I'm 
sorry if you do not like this style of writing here but I doubt I'll change it.
:) 

> If you are genuinely interested in improving your prose, I recommend "Mind
> the gaffe", published by Penguin.  It's a very entertaining book, from which
> I learned a great deal.  Since I am not at home, I cannot provide you with
> the author or the book's ISBN, but I am sure any good bookshop will be able
> to find it for you.
> 
So this is more about phrasing of sentences than actual grammar.

> >Given your own criteria on hypocrisy, since you have chosen to attack my 
> >grammar, let's test yours, shall we.
> >
> >Do tell what, if anything, is wrong with the following sentence and if so  how
> >you would correct it. (Note: You cannot substitute any of the words but you can,
> >if you wish, change their order though the meaning must remain the  same.
> >
> >"The Commission has been feeling its way to modifications intended to better 
> >equip successful candidates for careers."
> 
> The "split infinitive" rule is rather tiresome, don't you think?  Of all the
> grammatical rules, this has to be the silliest.  Provided your prose reads
> well, then it is fine to bloldly split the odd infinitive. However, if you
> insist on a rewording:
> 
No, I didn't insist, I left the decision to you. Actually there is nothing
grammatically wrong with that sentence. Split infinitives have nothing to do
with grammar but are more "style" or "rhetoric". It is a common misconception
that you cannot use split infinitives or that they are bad grammar.

> "The Commission has been feeling its way to modifications intended better to
> equip successful candidates for careers."
> 
> I freely admit that is the best I can do with it.  I really don't feel it
> flows as well as the original and I look forward to reading the "model
> answer".
> 
Fair attempt, but in actuality there is nowhere that you can actually move the
adverb in the original sentence without introducing some level of ambiguity.
Even the split infinitive purists would have to agree that "to better equip"
would have to remain as it was despite their hatred of such devices. The model
answer is that the sentence is correct "as is".

> Please don't misunderstand me; there is a place for "the rule" but I don't
> feel it's necessary or even sensible to apply it too rigidly in every case. 
> As it happens, "Mind the gaffe" contains some very entertaining and
> illuminating remarks on this subject.

I quite agree, as I intimated in another earlier post I'm not that fussed if 
someone uses bad(ish) spelling or grammar as long as I can reasonably get the 
"gist" of what they are saying. However, when they are native English speakers 
and my eyes start to water whilst reading a post...

As do many of these:

Words Confused and Misused (The Thomas Y Cromwell Co)
Words and their Way in English Speech (The Macmillan Co)
An Index to English (Scott, Foresman and Company)
A Comprehensive Guide to Good English (Rand McNally & Co)
An Advanced English Syntax (Messrs Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co Ltd)
Usage and Abusage (Penguin Books)

> 
> >Of course should you fail in the above... H...
> 
> I don't know what you mean by 'H...'.  Can you elucidate? 

It was a reference to hypocrisy.
> 
> >> You complain about another's netiquette, yet fail to attribute attribute
> >> your quotes.
> >
> >(Oh my! a double word, is this a mistake by Mr Perfect. Don't you read what you
> >write?) 
> 
> I always read what I write but double-words are notoriously difficult to
> spot.  Consider the following, rather contrived, example.  The standard
> practice is to show the text to someone and have them read it aloud.  Then
> have them read it again, and again, and again, until they either spot the
> error or stomp off in a huff.  Try it on someone you know:
> 
>      Paris
>     in  the
>    the spring
> 
> You probably need a proportional font to get the full effect, and since I
> have hinted at the problem, you will no doubt spot it straight away.
> 
I quite understand I too sometimes miss mistakes I've made when I re=read it.

> >Which, as you yourself posted, appears to be a fault of the software rather 
> >than my deliberate doing. Bad memory, have we?
> 
> No, I do not have a bad memory; I remember your explanation.  It appears
> that you have a bad memory, since you said you could correct the problem but
> consistently forgot to do so.
> 
Sorry you misunderstand, I knew it occurred from time to time but I was not
aware  of it happening until the post was done. I think it may be to do with the
systems  others are using which meant Thor was unable to get the last attribute.
I did know  one way it always seemed to happen was when I snipped the first few
comments out.

> >> You complain about piracy, yet cannot see that using shareware beyond the
> >> registration period is piracy (18 months compared to 30 days).
> >> 
> >Not quite correct but...
> >
> >As I accepted, I did overuse the software in excess of the shareware licence and
> >I have already made my intentions in this regard clear. Show me a pirate who
> >when advised of his wrongdoing has then said he will buy the software. (I feel 
> >your google search may prove fruitless on this one). Anyway, it is a question of
> > intent, I did not intend at any point to deprive the authors of their dues. 
> >However, when one downloads or buys a game from an illegal source then the
> >intent  is clear.
> 
> I agree.  I am sure you can see why I made the remarks I did; you were
> accusing others of piracy (quite correctly, in my view) but were yourself
> apparently guilty of a related offence, that of failing to register
> shareware whilst using it 18 months past the registration period.
> 
> >> >Anyway, read the header and weep you sad little man. (I actually removed the
> >> >keyfile prior to posting last night just to see your reaction).
> >> 
> >> I am inconsolable.  How will I get through the day?
> >> 
> >With a noose? :)
> 
> I wish I had read your post earlier.  I will try that tomorrow.
> 
> >> >> BTW, I'm still waiting for those legal references you promised us.
> >> >> 
> >> >And you will continue to wait until I can be bothered to dig them out. I am
> >> >certainly not going to drop everything else just to satisfy your knowledge gaps.
> >> 
> >> Let me make sure I understand correctly.  Are you now telling us that in
> >> addition to the list above, you make claims you cannot back up, and promises
> >> you do not intend to keep?
> >> 
> >Please don't try to mis-represent what I said with conjecture. Where did I say I
> >would not provide them?  I merely said that you would have to wait until I had
> >the time available to dig them out.
> 
> I hope you also note that I was asking you to clarify what you meant. There
> was no misrepresentation in my request for clarification.
> 
> >In the meantime, I would point you to the following definitions, (or similar),
> >which 
> >you should find in any decent UK legal dictionary. As you will see these
> >definitions are consistent with my previous statements as to innocence being 
> >presumed. Furthermore the definition for "presumption of law" shows that there
> >was no dichotomy in being presumed innocent then seen to be guilty. The only
> >problem seems to be in your failure to grasp these, none too intellectual, 
> >concepts.
> >
> >*presumption of innocence*: 
> >
> >a rebuttable presumption (q.v.) in the favour of the defendant in a criminal
> >action imposing on the prosecution the burden of proving guilt beyond a
> >reasonable doubt
> 
> Don't the new[2] PACE rules rather fly in the face of that presumption?  I
> cannot remember the exact phrasing of the new short and formal cautions, but
> they effectively say that if you do not say something now, then you may not
> be able to rely on it in court.  Also, the new rules the Mr. Blunkett is
> threatening to introduce also seem to undermine that presumption. 
> Otherwise, the point is taken.

Well technically the presumptions are still the same but I agree as I likewise
have reservations on these pieces of legislation.

[SNIP]

> There is an alternative: remember what you learn.
> 
Ah, if only, easier said than done at times (age does that).  ;)

> >Unless, of course, you have found a way to forget that to which you have no 
> >knowledge yet? 
> 
> Yes, it was rather infantile, wasn't it?  Quite unlike your very mature quip
> that I should "read the header and weep", or your suggestion of suicide as a
> means of getting through the day, or your questioning my intellect, or ... 

Arguably the first was reciprocation the second had a smiley to indicate it was
only  meant as a joke. Intellect nah, I was merely, given your hypocrisy
argument, trying to  establish your knowledge on the subject. Bad spelling and
poor grammar are not of  course indicators of a lack of intelligence. 
> 
> This is usenet.  Get over yourself.
> 
I have, in truth I don't take myself very seriously at all (despite how it may
appear).

> BTW, there are a number of gramatical errors in the paragraph quoted above. 
> 'learnt' should be 'learned'.  The period after 'learnt'[sic] should be a comma.
>
I'd disagree "Learnt" is the past participle of "Learn" although I will grant 
that it is disappearing from general use in favour of "Learned" which is in fact
 the preterite and therefore not quite correct. There are a few words such as
this  Leap (leapt, leaped)  being another. I fear it is due to the
"Americanisation" of  English more than anything else.

>It is never correct to use commas and parentheses together: "...

Mea culpa, a mistake which I always do though I know it is incorrect.

> point out, (the rather obvious), that ...".  The phrase "the rather obvious"
> is incomplete: the rather obvious /what/?

Meant as an aside for what followed, constraints of the medium cause the 
ambiguity. I should on re-reading have left it out.

[SNIP]

> You have twice accused me of trolling.  That's fine, you are entitled to

[SNIP]

Fair enough I obviously misconstrued your motivation for which I apologise. I 
agree the argument has been done to death just about everywhere but no doubt 
it'll spring up again in another couple of weeks

> >This perceived deliberate trolling is partly the reason why I am loathe to
> >devote the couple of hours necessary to dig out references, which I doubt you
> >would even look at.
> 
> That should be: "... dig out references at which I doubt you would even
> look."  Please note the comma is redundant.  Ghastly, isn't it? Yours was
> much better, even though it was grammatically incorrect. Rather like:
> 
> "Up with which we will not put."
>   -- Winston Churchill

:)

One thing about Winston, he's a good chap for quotes.