 | | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) LOL! :) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) put"... (...) an (...) German has (...) and all (...) about "no (...) to (...) infinitive (...) before you know (...) started on (...) write them. (...) correctness--it's (...) and it's (...) that created (...) "split (...) have you (...) two (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) "We" (who?) already are saying those things, statistically. We just shouldn't write them. What do you mean, "giving in?" This isn't even an issue of grammatical correctness--it's an issue of style. There is no rule in English that prohibits (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) What part of speech would it be then, exactly? (...) That's not really a strong argument, because why should the "literate" minority hold sway over the masses? Seems kind of elitist to me. Further, that slippery-slope reasoning is inherently (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) While that is technically the generally accepted spelling, if I had suggested that correction, would Craigo have been able to riff on it, enabling my cliff-hanger of a riposte?? I think NOT. You mortals just don't think far enough ahead. :-) (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
