On 18 Oct, 02:12, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
>  freeireland  wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > > freeireland wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you even
> > > > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the tyops
> > > > Falcon!
>
> > > I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, even a little
> > > self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of "were" isn't an
> > > example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. I'm afraid
> > > you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are the weakest
> > > link. Goodbye.
>
> > > --
> > > Falcon:
> > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > > Police could not have prevented
> > > Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=detail
> > > &y...
>
> > lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
> > position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see anything
> > I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar or
> > spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the self
> > appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
> > illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You see if I
> > was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I would be
> > very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am making.
> > You see does
> > "little self-deprication, but" actually form a single adjective before
> > a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of letters, a
> > prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. I don't
> > think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a spelling
> > mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you think this
> > makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing on
> > someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
> > grammatical errors?
>
> > As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the thread and so
> > who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm, nothing
> > new from you though is it.
>
> "Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?
>
> You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?
>
> William Clark

Yeah well spooted, haven't you spotted the planted grammatical errors
either?

Is that your GW Bush moment!

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 18 Oct, 02:12, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > > > freeireland wrote:
> >
> > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you even
> > > > > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the tyops
> > > > > Falcon!
> >
> > > > I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, even a 
> > > > little
> > > > self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of "were" isn't 
> > > > an
> > > > example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. I'm 
> > > > afraid
> > > > you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are the 
> > > > weakest
> > > > link. Goodbye.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Falcon:
> > > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > > > Police could not have prevented
> > > > Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=de
> > > > tail
> > > > &y...
> >
> > > lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
> > > position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see anything
> > > I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar or
> > > spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the self
> > > appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
> > > illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You see if I
> > > was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I would be
> > > very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am making.
> > > You see does
> > > "little self-deprication, but" actually form a single adjective before
> > > a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of letters, a
> > > prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. I don't
> > > think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a spelling
> > > mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you think this
> > > makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing on
> > > someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
> > > grammatical errors?
> >
> > > As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the thread and so
> > > who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm, nothing
> > > new from you though is it.
> >
> > "Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?
> >
> > You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?
> >
> > William Clark
> 
> Yeah well spooted, haven't you spotted the planted grammatical errors
> either?
> 
> Is that your GW Bush moment!

So we're supposed to believe that these are all deliberate spoofs 
planted by a Mensa genius.

Yeah, right.

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 18 Oct, 13:10, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On 18 Oct, 02:12, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > In article ,
> >
> > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > > > > > freeireland wrote:
> >
> > > > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you 
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the 
> > > > > > > tyops
> > > > > > > Falcon!
> >
> > > > > > I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, even a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of "were" 
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. I'm
> > > > > > afraid
> > > > > > you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are the
> > > > > > weakest
> > > > > > link. Goodbye.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Falcon:
> > > > > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > > > > > Police could not have prevented
> > > > > > Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&actio
> > > > > > n=de
> > > > > > tail
> > > > > > &y...
> >
> > > > > lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
> > > > > position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see 
> > > > > anything
> > > > > I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar or
> > > > > spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the self
> > > > > appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
> > > > > illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You see if 
> > > > > I
> > > > > was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I would be
> > > > > very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am making.
> > > > > You see does
> > > > > "little self-deprication, but" actually form a single adjective 
> > > > > before
> > > > > a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of letters, 
> > > > > a
> > > > > prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. I don't
> > > > > think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a spelling
> > > > > mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you think this
> > > > > makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing on
> > > > > someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
> > > > > grammatical errors?
> >
> > > > > As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the thread and 
> > > > > so
> > > > > who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm, nothing
> > > > > new from you though is it.
> >
> > > > "Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?
> >
> > > > You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?
> >
> > > > William Clark
> >
> > > Yeah well spooted, haven't you spotted the planted grammatical errors
> > > either?
> >
> > > Is that your GW Bush moment!
> >
> > So we're supposed to believe that these are all deliberate spoofs
> > planted by a Mensa genius.
> >
> > Yeah, right.
> >
> > William Clark- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> Maybe you should read the thread where its quite clear I am putting in
> plants! I thought the speeling one would really give it away though, I
> thought it was obvious, though I also noticed you didn't pick up on
> the less obvious grammar errors(oh is that a grammatical error). Yet
> another from the self proclaimed grammer, spelling or typo brigade
> sorry we bow to your superior intelect. (you think maybe thats to
> obvious).

So you take pride in deliberately trying to appear thick? I have a 
bridge for sale you might be interested in . . . . 

William Clark

freeireland wrote:
> On 18 Oct, 13:10, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> 
>>In article ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> freeireland  wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Oct, 02:12, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
>>>state.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>
>>>> freeireland  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>
>>>>>>>What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you even
>>>>>>>admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the tyops
>>>>>>>Falcon!
>>
>>>>>>I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, even a
>>>>>>little
>>>>>>self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of "were" isn't
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. I'm
>>>>>>afraid
>>>>>>you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are the
>>>>>>weakest
>>>>>>link. Goodbye.
>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Falcon:
>>>>>>fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>>>>>>Police could not have prevented
>>>>>>Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=de
>>>>>>tail
>>>>>>&y...
>>
>>>>>lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
>>>>>position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see anything
>>>>>I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar or
>>>>>spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the self
>>>>>appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
>>>>>illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You see if I
>>>>>was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I would be
>>>>>very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am making.
>>>>>You see does
>>>>>"little self-deprication, but" actually form a single adjective before
>>>>>a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of letters, a
>>>>>prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. I don't
>>>>>think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a spelling
>>>>>mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you think this
>>>>>makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing on
>>>>>someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
>>>>>grammatical errors?
>>
>>>>>As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the thread and so
>>>>>who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm, nothing
>>>>>new from you though is it.
>>
>>>>"Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?
>>
>>>>You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?
>>
>>>>William Clark
>>
>>>Yeah well spooted, haven't you spotted the planted grammatical errors
>>>either?
>>
>>>Is that your GW Bush moment!
>>
>>So we're supposed to believe that these are all deliberate spoofs
>>planted by a Mensa genius.
>>
>>Yeah, right.
>>
>>William Clark- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read the thread where its quite clear I am putting in
> plants! I thought the speeling one would really give it away though, I
> thought it was obvious, though I also noticed you didn't pick up on
> the less obvious grammar errors(oh is that a grammatical error). Yet
> another from the self proclaimed grammer, spelling or typo brigade
> sorry we bow to your superior intelect. (you think maybe thats to
> obvious).
> 


The 'too' or the 'intellect' part? The royal 'we' you can have as a 
freebie as you can the 'it's' because we all do it.

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On Oct 18, 8:55 pm, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On 18 Oct, 13:10, "William A. T. Clark" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article ,
> >
> > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > On 18 Oct, 02:12, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> > > > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > In article ,
> >
> > > > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > > > On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > > > > > > > freeireland wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > > > What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't 
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot 
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > tyops
> > > > > > > > > Falcon!
> >
> > > > > > > > I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, 
> > > > > > > > even a
> > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of 
> > > > > > > > "were"
> > > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. 
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > afraid
> > > > > > > > you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are 
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > weakest
> > > > > > > > link. Goodbye.
> >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Falcon:
> > > > > > > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > > > > > > > Police could not have prevented
> > > > > > > > Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&a
> > > > > > > > ctio
> > > > > > > > n=de
> > > > > > > > tail
> > > > > > > > &y...
> >
> > > > > > > lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
> > > > > > > position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar 
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the self
> > > > > > > appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
> > > > > > > illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You see 
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I would 
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am 
> > > > > > > making.
> > > > > > > You see does
> > > > > > > "little self-deprication, but" actually form a single adjective
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of 
> > > > > > > letters,
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. I 
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a spelling
> > > > > > > mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you think 
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing on
> > > > > > > someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
> > > > > > > grammatical errors?
> >
> > > > > > > As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the thread 
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm, 
> > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > new from you though is it.
> >
> > > > > > "Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?
> >
> > > > > > You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?
> >
> > > > > > William Clark
> >
> > > > > Yeah well spooted, haven't you spotted the planted grammatical errors
> > > > > either?
> >
> > > > > Is that your GW Bush moment!
> >
> > > > So we're supposed to believe that these are all deliberate spoofs
> > > > planted by a Mensa genius.
> >
> > > > Yeah, right.
> >
> > > > William Clark- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Maybe you should read the thread where its quite clear I am putting in
> > > plants! I thought the speeling one would really give it away though, I
> > > thought it was obvious, though I also noticed you didn't pick up on
> > > the less obvious grammar errors(oh is that a grammatical error). Yet
> > > another from the self proclaimed grammer, spelling or typo brigade
> > > sorry we bow to your superior intelect. (you think maybe thats to
> > > obvious).
> >
> > So you take pride in deliberately trying to appear thick? I have a
> > bridge for sale you might be interested in . . . .
> >
> > William Clark
> 
> you see I think you have a problem with equating formal grammar with
> intelligence so maybe you should jump of the bridge you have for sale!

John Milton said "the chid is the window to the man". I would paraphrase 
that to "literacy is the window to the intellect".

You are, therefore, clearly coming up way short.

William Clark

PS: Grammar aside, your content also confirms the preceding diagnosis

freeireland wrote:
[...]
> First things first - remembering facts and trivia is a test of memory,
> not intellect. Literacy can't be a judge of intelligence either, for
> this is a skill and not an 'innate' element, which intelligence is. In
> fact 'intelligence' is notoriously difficult to define - although one
> could argue that it consists of two major interacting facets - the
> ability to understand new concepts and the ability to link these
> concepts into the pre-existing mesh of older ones.
>
> Another word for the first of these facets might be 'understanding'.
> Memory need not play a part here. One can imagine a person with brain
> damage, or some mental defect who unable to remember anything beyond
> the short term. He may not remember anything about grammar at all.  If
> such a person can pick up a book, look through it and understand it,
> this surely this is evidence of intelligence, even if the concepts
> contained are forgotten in a matter of moments. It is the ease of
> understanding that shows the level of intellect not some meaningless
> grammar.
>
> A government-funded study at the University of York claims "Formal
> grammar is not an effective way of teaching children to write."

Nor is plagiarism. J'accuse.
http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/articles/00000016.shtml

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Falcon wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>First things first - remembering facts and trivia is a test of memory,
>>not intellect. Literacy can't be a judge of intelligence either, for
>>this is a skill and not an 'innate' element, which intelligence is. In
>>fact 'intelligence' is notoriously difficult to define - although one
>>could argue that it consists of two major interacting facets - the
>>ability to understand new concepts and the ability to link these
>>concepts into the pre-existing mesh of older ones.
>>
>>Another word for the first of these facets might be 'understanding'.
>>Memory need not play a part here. One can imagine a person with brain
>>damage, or some mental defect who unable to remember anything beyond
>>the short term. He may not remember anything about grammar at all.  If
>>such a person can pick up a book, look through it and understand it,
>>this surely this is evidence of intelligence, even if the concepts
>>contained are forgotten in a matter of moments. It is the ease of
>>understanding that shows the level of intellect not some meaningless
>>grammar.
>>
>>A government-funded study at the University of York claims "Formal
>>grammar is not an effective way of teaching children to write."
> 
> 
> Nor is plagiarism. J'accuse.
> http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/articles/00000016.shtml
> 


If intelligence was entirely inate.

I would have looked out my window, & seen the local community grouups 
complaining about my tree and went back to bed.

I must be the only person in Western Europe who folks arguing outside 
his home to cut down trees.


G.

freeireland wrote:

> On 19 Oct, 23:51, "Falcon"  wrote:
[...]
>> Nor is plagiarism.
>> J'accuse.http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/articles/00000016.shtml
>
> Thanks for that just forgot a citation nothing more, [...]

> Take a look at one of your posts, and I quote directly from it, [...]

In the context of the discussion there was no attempt to impress or deceive 
anyone. I don't think the same can be said of your more substantial 
contribution. As for one trying to discredit the other, I think your track 
record is a least as good as mine.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On Oct 18, 8:55 pm, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On 18 Oct, 13:10, "William A. T. Clark" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article ,
> >
> > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > On 18 Oct, 02:12, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> > > > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > In article ,
> >
> > > > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > > > On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > > > > > > > freeireland wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > > > What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't 
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot 
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > tyops
> > > > > > > > > Falcon!
> >
> > > > > > > > I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, 
> > > > > > > > even a
> > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of 
> > > > > > > > "were"
> > > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. 
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > afraid
> > > > > > > > you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are 
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > weakest
> > > > > > > > link. Goodbye.
> >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Falcon:
> > > > > > > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > > > > > > > Police could not have prevented
> > > > > > > > Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&a
> > > > > > > > ctio
> > > > > > > > n=de
> > > > > > > > tail
> > > > > > > > &y...
> >
> > > > > > > lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
> > > > > > > position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar 
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the self
> > > > > > > appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
> > > > > > > illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You see 
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I would 
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am 
> > > > > > > making.
> > > > > > > You see does
> > > > > > > "little self-deprication, but" actually form a single adjective
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of 
> > > > > > > letters,
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. I 
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a spelling
> > > > > > > mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you think 
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing on
> > > > > > > someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
> > > > > > > grammatical errors?
> >
> > > > > > > As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the thread 
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm, 
> > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > new from you though is it.
> >
> > > > > > "Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?
> >
> > > > > > You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?
> >
> > > > > > William Clark
> >
> > > > > Yeah well spooted, haven't you spotted the planted grammatical errors
> > > > > either?
> >
> > > > > Is that your GW Bush moment!
> >
> > > > So we're supposed to believe that these are all deliberate spoofs
> > > > planted by a Mensa genius.
> >
> > > > Yeah, right.
> >
> > > > William Clark- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Maybe you should read the thread where its quite clear I am putting in
> > > plants! I thought the speeling one would really give it away though, I
> > > thought it was obvious, though I also noticed you didn't pick up on
> > > the less obvious grammar errors(oh is that a grammatical error). Yet
> > > another from the self proclaimed grammer, spelling or typo brigade
> > > sorry we bow to your superior intelect. (you think maybe thats to
> > > obvious).
> >
> > So you take pride in deliberately trying to appear thick? I have a
> > bridge for sale you might be interested in . . . .
> >
> > William Clark
> 
> you see I think you have a problem with equating formal grammar with
> intelligence so maybe you should jump of the bridge you have for sale!

Or jump "off" it, perhaps?

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 19 Oct, 16:03, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On Oct 18, 8:55 pm, "William A. T. Clark" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article ,
> >
> > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > On 18 Oct, 13:10, "William A. T. Clark" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > In article ,
> >
> > > > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > > > On 18 Oct, 02:12, "William A. T. Clark" 
> > > > > > > <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> > > > > > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article 
> > > > > > > > ,
> >
> > > > > > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > freeireland wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > What case? Have you made it on another thread again! 
> > > > > > > > > > > Can't
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you 
> > > > > > > > > > > spot
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > tyops
> > > > > > > > > > > Falcon!
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted 
> > > > > > > > > > obfuscation,
> > > > > > > > > > even a
> > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of
> > > > > > > > > > "were"
> > > > > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad 
> > > > > > > > > > education.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > afraid
> > > > > > > > > > you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You 
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > weakest
> > > > > > > > > > link. Goodbye.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Falcon:
> > > > > > > > > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > > > > > > > > > Police could not have prevented
> > > > > > > > > > Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=1
> > > > > > > > > > 69&a
> > > > > > > > > > ctio
> > > > > > > > > > n=de
> > > > > > > > > > tail
> > > > > > > > > > &y...
> >
> > > > > > > > > lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in 
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see
> > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no 
> > > > > > > > > grammar
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the 
> > > > > > > > > self
> > > > > > > > > appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
> > > > > > > > > illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You 
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I 
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am
> > > > > > > > > making.
> > > > > > > > > You see does
> > > > > > > > > "little self-deprication, but" actually form a single 
> > > > > > > > > adjective
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of
> > > > > > > > > letters,
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. 
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a 
> > > > > > > > > spelling
> > > > > > > > > mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you 
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing 
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
> > > > > > > > > grammatical errors?
> >
> > > > > > > > > As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the 
> > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm,
> > > > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > > new from you though is it.
> >
> > > > > > > > "Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?
> >
> > > > > > > > You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?
> >
> > > > > > > > William Clark
> >
> > > > > > > Yeah well spooted, haven't you spotted the planted grammatical 
> > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > either?
> >
> > > > > > > Is that your GW Bush moment!
> >
> > > > > > So we're supposed to believe that these are all deliberate spoofs
> > > > > > planted by a Mensa genius.
> >
> > > > > > Yeah, right.
> >
> > > > > > William Clark- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > Maybe you should read the thread where its quite clear I am putting 
> > > > > in
> > > > > plants! I thought the speeling one would really give it away though, 
> > > > > I
> > > > > thought it was obvious, though I also noticed you didn't pick up on
> > > > > the less obvious grammar errors(oh is that a grammatical error). Yet
> > > > > another from the self proclaimed grammer, spelling or typo brigade
> > > > > sorry we bow to your superior intelect. (you think maybe thats to
> > > > > obvious).
> >
> > > > So you take pride in deliberately trying to appear thick? I have a
> > > > bridge for sale you might be interested in . . . .
> >
> > > > William Clark
> >
> > > you see I think you have a problem with equating formal grammar with
> > > intelligence so maybe you should jump of the bridge you have for sale!
> >
> > John Milton said "the chid is the window to the man". I would paraphrase
> > that to "literacy is the window to the intellect".
> 
> Was it John Milton who put the spelling mistake two grammatical errors
> in "The child is the window to the man." Or was that just you showing
> us your apparent intelligence? Don't you feel foolish making not only
> a spelling error but several grammatical errors while quoting John
> Milton as evidence of a link of literacy and intelligence. For example
> should that be a capital T? Should the full stop be inside quotes or
> is that an american english grammar you are using? Its almost as
> foolish as Wigan MP Neil Turner in 2001 returned a letter to a
> constituent having added his own handwritten corrections of the
> correspondent's mistakes. The man he was hectoring, psychiatric nurse
> Stephen Halsall, turned out to be dyslexic. So much for the self
> imposed grammar police.

Not at all - one typo, but the capitalisation is quite optional in this 
context. So not "several grammatical errors". However at least you admit 
you are in a class with a dyslexic - but we had all worked that out for 
ourselves.
> 
> 
> "Deep-versed in books and shallow in himself."
> To quote your very own John Milton.
> 
> How would you paraphrase Milton in this regard?
> 
> First things first - remembering facts and trivia is a test of memory,
> not intellect. Literacy can't be a judge of intelligence either, for
> this is a skill and not an 'innate' element, which intelligence is. In
> fact 'intelligence' is notoriously difficult to define - although one
> could argue that it consists of two major interacting facets - the
> ability to understand new concepts and the ability to link these
> concepts into the pre-existing mesh of older ones.

Nice job - which psychobabble manual did you cut and paste this out of?
> 
> Another word for the first of these facets might be 'understanding'.
> Memory need not play a part here. One can imagine a person with brain
> damage, or some mental defect who unable to remember anything beyond
> the short term. He may not remember anything about grammar at all.  If
> such a person can pick up a book, look through it and understand it,
> this surely this is evidence of intelligence, even if the concepts
> contained are forgotten in a matter of moments. It is the ease of
> understanding that shows the level of intellect not some meaningless
> grammar.
> 
> A government-funded study at the University of York claims "Formal
> grammar is not an effective way of teaching children to write."

Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with how they express 
themselves later in life. If you want to appear uneducated, go right 
ahead. You can join the ebonics revolution as an effective way of 
identifying yourself as being only partially articulate.
> 
> >
> > You are, therefore, clearly coming up way short.
> >
> > William Clark
> >
> > PS: Grammar aside, your content also confirms the preceding diagnosis- Hide 
> > quoted text -
> 
> For someone who cares so much for grammar it seams you have come up
> well short. As for my content in previous posts well since you have
> resolved to flaming on a basis of grammer as a sole point I won't lose
> any sleep over it.

Report card: "Has difficulty with self expression. He must try harder in 
future".

William Clark

In article <ffbcj9$5tq$1@aioe.org>, "Falcon"  
wrote:

> freeireland wrote:
> [...]
> > First things first - remembering facts and trivia is a test of memory,
> > not intellect. Literacy can't be a judge of intelligence either, for
> > this is a skill and not an 'innate' element, which intelligence is. In
> > fact 'intelligence' is notoriously difficult to define - although one
> > could argue that it consists of two major interacting facets - the
> > ability to understand new concepts and the ability to link these
> > concepts into the pre-existing mesh of older ones.
> >
> > Another word for the first of these facets might be 'understanding'.
> > Memory need not play a part here. One can imagine a person with brain
> > damage, or some mental defect who unable to remember anything beyond
> > the short term. He may not remember anything about grammar at all.  If
> > such a person can pick up a book, look through it and understand it,
> > this surely this is evidence of intelligence, even if the concepts
> > contained are forgotten in a matter of moments. It is the ease of
> > understanding that shows the level of intellect not some meaningless
> > grammar.
> >
> > A government-funded study at the University of York claims "Formal
> > grammar is not an effective way of teaching children to write."
> 
> Nor is plagiarism. J'accuse.
> http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/articles/00000016.shtml

Indeed, it wasn't hard to spot a "cut and paste" job. What a credible 
source he chose, too. I'm sure we all believe that newspeak.

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 20 Oct, 09:50, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
> > > On 19 Oct, 23:51, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> Nor is plagiarism.
> > >> J'accuse.http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/articles/00000016.shtml
> >
> > > Thanks for that just forgot a citation nothing more, [...]
> > > Take a look at one of your posts, and I quote directly from it, [...]
> >
> > In the context of the discussion there was no attempt to impress or deceive
> > anyone. I don't think the same can be said of your more substantial
> > contribution. As for one trying to discredit the other, I think your track
> > record is a least as good as mine.
> >
> > --
> > Falcon:
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> 
> Really you know nothing about me and can have no idea about what my
> intentions are. You clearly cut and paste from a web site without
> citation and I do believe thats plagerism. You even altered a few
> words here and there? You are right I have a record of discreditation
> as this plagiarism fiasco shows, after all you where baited, however I
> normally only reserve it for people who try to discredit me through
> the use of typos, grammar, name calling and association. The only
> reason to post another thread calling someone a liar or bastard is so
> they have no chance of rebuttal. I have never commented or even
> attempted to mention anything about another posters ip address as I
> believe it is an attempt of intimidation. However I have always posted
> in a manner to allow the author of an post I am responding to a chance
> of rebuttal. That is something you are guilty of and in my opinion
> deeply dishonest, after all typos, grammatical errors posting without
> citiation is quite common throughout all these use-groups and 99% are
> honest mistakes and nothing of any concern. These mistakes apply to
> all who post here and that include you and I!

No, it isn't "plagerism", it's "plagiarism", and it will get you thrown 
out of many educational institutions these days, not to mention 
prosecuted by the federal government if you do it in a grant proposal. 
It is not a trivial matter.

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 21 Oct, 17:34, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On 20 Oct, 09:50, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > > > freeireland wrote:
> > > > > On 19 Oct, 23:51, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >> Nor is plagiarism.
> > > > >> J'accuse.http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/articles/00000016.shtml
> >
> > > > > Thanks for that just forgot a citation nothing more, [...]
> > > > > Take a look at one of your posts, and I quote directly from it, [...]
> >
> > > > In the context of the discussion there was no attempt to impress or 
> > > > deceive
> > > > anyone. I don't think the same can be said of your more substantial
> > > > contribution. As for one trying to discredit the other, I think your 
> > > > track
> > > > record is a least as good as mine.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Falcon:
> > > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> >
> > > Really you know nothing about me and can have no idea about what my
> > > intentions are. You clearly cut and paste from a web site without
> > > citation and I do believe thats plagerism. You even altered a few
> > > words here and there? You are right I have a record of discreditation
> > > as this plagiarism fiasco shows, after all you where baited, however I
> > > normally only reserve it for people who try to discredit me through
> > > the use of typos, grammar, name calling and association. The only
> > > reason to post another thread calling someone a liar or bastard is so
> > > they have no chance of rebuttal. I have never commented or even
> > > attempted to mention anything about another posters ip address as I
> > > believe it is an attempt of intimidation. However I have always posted
> > > in a manner to allow the author of an post I am responding to a chance
> > > of rebuttal. That is something you are guilty of and in my opinion
> > > deeply dishonest, after all typos, grammatical errors posting without
> > > citiation is quite common throughout all these use-groups and 99% are
> > > honest mistakes and nothing of any concern. These mistakes apply to
> > > all who post here and that include you and I!
> >
> > No, it isn't "plagerism", it's "plagiarism", and it will get you thrown
> > out of many educational institutions these days, not to mention
> > prosecuted by the federal government if you do it in a grant proposal.
> > It is not a trivial matter.
> 
> I am not in the US so cannot be prosecuted by the federal government
> and I have not applied for any grant proposal. So clearly I have
> nothing to worry about.

That same would happen to you in the UK or Ireland. It's an ethical 
thing.
> 
> "Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
> very remarkable felicities of expression." - Bronson Alcott
> 
> "Correct spelling, indeed, is one of the arts that are far more
> esteemed by schoolma'ams than by practical men, neck-deep in the heat
> and agony of the world."  -Henry Louis Mencken in his book ironically
> enough the The American Language
> 
> "Ignorant people think it is the noise which fighting cats make that
> is so aggravating, but it ain't so; it is the sickening grammar that
> they use."
> -Mark Twain
> 
> Clearly while your being a school ma'am giving out report cards and
> all, I will carry on being neck-deep in the world. So while wou will
> never make "any very remarkable felicities of expression." at least I
> have a chance. Though clearly if this is as strong your flaming gets
> well I don't have much to worry about.
> 

Dear, dear, dear, "your" clearly neck-deep in something, but from the 
look of what you have to say, it is something none of us would very much 
care to tread in. Tossing out a few antiquated epithets does not mark 
you out as a captain of industry or achievement. However, at least you 
referenced the original authors this time, so that is some sort of 
progress.

For someone who doesn't "have much to worry about", you certainly spend 
a lot of time and effort trying to show why.

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 21 Oct, 17:30, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On 19 Oct, 16:03, "William A. T. Clark" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article ,
> >
> > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 18, 8:55 pm, "William A. T. Clark" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > In article ,
> >
> > > > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > > > On 18 Oct, 13:10, "William A. T. Clark" 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article 
> > > > > > > > ,
> >
> > > > > > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 18 Oct, 02:12, "William A. T. Clark"
> > > > > > > > > <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> > > > > > > > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > ,
> >
> > > > > > > > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > freeireland wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What case? Have you made it on another thread again!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > spot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tyops
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Falcon!
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted
> > > > > > > > > > > > obfuscation,
> > > > > > > > > > > > even a
> > > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead 
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > "were"
> > > > > > > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad
> > > > > > > > > > > > education.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > afraid
> > > > > > > > > > > > you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > weakest
> > > > > > > > > > > > link. Goodbye.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Falcon:
> > > > > > > > > > > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > > > > > > > > > > > Police could not have prevented
> > > > > > > > > > > > Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_
> > > > > > > > > > > > ID=1
> > > > > > > > > > > > 69&a
> > > > > > > > > > > > ctio
> > > > > > > > > > > > n=de
> > > > > > > > > > > > tail
> > > > > > > > > > > > &y...
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though 
> > > > > > > > > > > your in
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You 
> > > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > > I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no
> > > > > > > > > > > grammar
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the
> > > > > > > > > > > self
> > > > > > > > > > > appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you 
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. 
> > > > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos 
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I 
> > > > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > making.
> > > > > > > > > > > You see does
> > > > > > > > > > > "little self-deprication, but" actually form a single
> > > > > > > > > > > adjective
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination 
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > letters,
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a 
> > > > > > > > > > > hypen.
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a
> > > > > > > > > > > spelling
> > > > > > > > > > > mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when 
> > > > > > > > > > > pouncing
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > someones grammar you should at least not have any 
> > > > > > > > > > > speeling or
> > > > > > > > > > > grammatical errors?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. 
> > > > > > > > > > > hmmm,
> > > > > > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > new from you though is it.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > "Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > William Clark
> >
> > > > > > > > > Yeah well spooted, haven't you spotted the planted 
> > > > > > > > > grammatical
> > > > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > either?
> >
> > > > > > > > > Is that your GW Bush moment!
> >
> > > > > > > > So we're supposed to believe that these are all deliberate 
> > > > > > > > spoofs
> > > > > > > > planted by a Mensa genius.
> >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, right.
> >
> > > > > > > > William Clark- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > Maybe you should read the thread where its quite clear I am 
> > > > > > > putting
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > plants! I thought the speeling one would really give it away 
> > > > > > > though,
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > thought it was obvious, though I also noticed you didn't pick up 
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > the less obvious grammar errors(oh is that a grammatical error). 
> > > > > > > Yet
> > > > > > > another from the self proclaimed grammer, spelling or typo 
> > > > > > > brigade
> > > > > > > sorry we bow to your superior intelect. (you think maybe thats to
> > > > > > > obvious).
> >
> > > > > > So you take pride in deliberately trying to appear thick? I have a
> > > > > > bridge for sale you might be interested in . . . .
> >
> > > > > > William Clark
> >
> > > > > you see I think you have a problem with equating formal grammar with
> > > > > intelligence so maybe you should jump of the bridge you have for 
> > > > > sale!
> >
> > > > John Milton said "the chid is the window to the man". I would 
> > > > paraphrase
> > > > that to "literacy is the window to the intellect".
> >
> > > Was it John Milton who put the spelling mistake two grammatical errors
> > > in "The child is the window to the man." Or was that just you showing
> > > us your apparent intelligence? Don't you feel foolish making not only
> > > a spelling error but several grammatical errors while quoting John
> > > Milton as evidence of a link of literacy and intelligence. For example
> > > should that be a capital T? Should the full stop be inside quotes or
> > > is that an american english grammar you are using? Its almost as
> > > foolish as Wigan MP Neil Turner in 2001 returned a letter to a
> > > constituent having added his own handwritten corrections of the
> > > correspondent's mistakes. The man he was hectoring, psychiatric nurse
> > > Stephen Halsall, turned out to be dyslexic. So much for the self
> > > imposed grammar police.
> >
> > Not at all - one typo, but the capitalisation is quite optional in this
> > context. So not "several grammatical errors". However at least you admit
> > you are in a class with a dyslexic - but we had all worked that out for
> > ourselves.
> 
> Really and what is the context of this quotation? Do you even know if
> Milton wrote or said it? Do you know if this is actually a title of
> one of Miltons poems? Do you know if it was direct quotation of a full
> sentence or partial? Though hey even us dyslexics know these things
> after all Milton is regard as one of the 17th centauries greatest
> poets. lol. Though you never mentioned the missing comma or colon
> after said. John Milton said "the chid is the window to the man".

Aren't "cantauries" those half horse, half man, things that run around 
in the forest, scaring young virgins? 
> 
> Not to do so would result in a failure at Oxford I won't mention the
> course though clearly you would fail. Direct quotion from my style
> guide. Though it has been a while.

Oh, dear, I must have slipped through Oxford's net, since they gave me a 
doctorate. Too bad for you.
> 
> "So a quotation from inside a sentence reads:
>       According to Smith 'comparative legal studies is a field which
> needs radical reform'.
> 
> And a quotation which starts with the beginning of a sentence reads:
>       According to Smith 'There are numerous ways of approaching
> comparative law methodology.' "

Your point being?

> >
> >
> > > "Deep-versed in books and shallow in himself."
> > > To quote your very own John Milton.
> >
> > > How would you paraphrase Milton in this regard?

This has nothing whatever to do with grammar and literacy. It's that 
simple!

> >
> > > First things first - remembering facts and trivia is a test of memory,
> > > not intellect. Literacy can't be a judge of intelligence either, for
> > > this is a skill and not an 'innate' element, which intelligence is. In
> > > fact 'intelligence' is notoriously difficult to define - although one
> > > could argue that it consists of two major interacting facets - the
> > > ability to understand new concepts and the ability to link these
> > > concepts into the pre-existing mesh of older ones.
> >
> > Nice job - which psychobabble manual did you cut and paste this out of?
> 
> Thats the best you can come up with. Nothing more inventive colourful
> or imaginative.  Is this because of your education though lack or
> intelligence do you think?
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > Another word for the first of these facets might be 'understanding'.
> > > Memory need not play a part here. One can imagine a person with brain
> > > damage, or some mental defect who unable to remember anything beyond
> > > the short term. He may not remember anything about grammar at all.  If
> > > such a person can pick up a book, look through it and understand it,
> > > this surely this is evidence of intelligence, even if the concepts
> > > contained are forgotten in a matter of moments. It is the ease of
> > > understanding that shows the level of intellect not some meaningless
> > > grammar.
> >
> > > A government-funded study at the University of York claims "Formal
> > > grammar is not an effective way of teaching children to write."
> >
> > Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with how they express
> > themselves later in life. If you want to appear uneducated, go right
> > ahead. You can join the ebonics revolution as an effective way of
> > identifying yourself as being only partially articulate.
> >
> 
> Grammar has nothing to do with expressing yourself infact its a set of
> formal rules to do the exact opposite. Though as for the edonics
> revolution I would like to know when English as a language for you
> stopped evoling. Do I know evoling is missing a v yes, do I care no.
> Do I care that you care agin no. Sorry though grammar is a very small
> illrelevant part of education. If writers, poets and teachers of high
> regard think this then who am I to disagree!

I, too, would like to know what "edonics" is, and how it is connected to 
my "evoling", although I suggest it is a great deal less "illrelevant" 
than you try to make out.
> 
> "Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
> very remarkable felicities of expression." - Bronson Alcott
> 
> 
> "Correct spelling, indeed, is one of the arts that are far more
> esteemed by schoolma'ams than by practical men, neck-deep in the heat
> and agony of the world."  -Henry Louis Mencken in his book ironically
> enough the The American Language
> 
> 
> "Ignorant people think it is the noise which fighting cats make that
> is so aggravating, but it ain't so; it is the sickening grammar that
> they use."
> -Mark Twain
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > > > You are, therefore, clearly coming up way short.
> >
> > > > William Clark
> >
> > > > PS: Grammar aside, your content also confirms the preceding diagnosis- 
> > > > Hide
> > > > quoted text -
> >
> > > For someone who cares so much for grammar it seams you have come up
> > > well short. As for my content in previous posts well since you have
> > > resolved to flaming on a basis of grammer as a sole point I won't lose
> > > any sleep over it.

Thank you, but all my "shorts" have "seams", and they come up very well.

> >
> > Report card: "Has difficulty with self expression. He must try harder in
> > future".
> 
> Report card: "Failed!"

Wow - what a comeback!!! ;-} I'm crushed.

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 22 Oct, 00:04, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >

> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On 21 Oct, 17:30, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> > > state.edu> wrote:

. . . snip semi-literate drivel . . 

> > > Really and what is the context of this quotation? Do you even know if
> > > Milton wrote or said it? Do you know if this is actually a title of
> > > one of Miltons poems? Do you know if it was direct quotation of a full
> > > sentence or partial? Though hey even us dyslexics know these things
> > > after all Milton is regard as one of the 17th centauries greatest
> > > poets. lol. Though you never mentioned the missing comma or colon
> > > after said. John Milton said "the chid is the window to the man".
> >
> > Aren't "cantauries" those half horse, half man, things that run around
> > in the forest, scaring young virgins?
> 
> I couldn't resist that plant, I even put an lol at the end of the line
> to mark it. Even then though you got it wrong. I typed "centauries "
> not "cantauries" you know with your doctorate I would expect you to be
> able to quote a single word correctly. Have Oxford really become so
> slack. Centauries is a type of plant your thinking of Centaurs.

"Your" on the right track - it's just so hard to decipher one spelling 
mistake from another. But as you say, these are all "deliberate plants" 
from a master of self expression.

Right.

> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > Not to do so would result in a failure at Oxford I won't mention the
> > > course though clearly you would fail. Direct quotion from my style
> > > guide. Though it has been a while.
> >
> > Oh, dear, I must have slipped through Oxford's net, since they gave me a
> > doctorate. Too bad for you.
> 
> Really with such bad grammar standards must be slipping.  After all
> Oxford is only third.
> 
Oh, no, we're not trying to quote some kind of academic ranking table, 
are we? Given you grasp on the language, statistics are well out of your 
league.

And your degree is from, where? Dr. Seuss College?


> > > "So a quotation from inside a sentence reads:
> > >       According to Smith 'comparative legal studies is a field which
> > > needs radical reform'.
> >
> > > And a quotation which starts with the beginning of a sentence reads:
> > >       According to Smith 'There are numerous ways of approaching
> > > comparative law methodology.' "
> >
> > Your point being?
> 
> Why do you ask what my point is now, I thought you could only respond
> to a grammatical error. Its only a style guide, not an entire
> curriculum. So don't get too wound up about it?


OK, as I thought, there is actually no point to be made with this 
completely irrelevant quote. Fine.


> > > > > "Deep-versed in books and shallow in himself."
> > > > > To quote your very own John Milton.
> >
> > > > > How would you paraphrase Milton in this regard?
> >
> > This has nothing whatever to do with grammar and literacy. It's that
> > simple!
> >
> 
> Really, I think a quotation from a dead person especially a poet is
> pretty much open to interpretation. Though how can literacy have
> anything to do with being deep-versed in books I don't know. Though it
> is strange how Americans attribute that quote to Kissinger. Though
> since he won the Nobel Peace prize and is currently and advisor to
> George W Bush I suppose the federal court does not really care about
> plagiarism at all.


Whoosh.

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 22 Oct, 11:58, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > On 22 Oct, 00:04, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > In article ,
> >
> > > >  freeireland  wrote:
> > > > > On 21 Oct, 17:30, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> > > > > state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > . . . snip semi-literate drivel . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Really and what is the context of this quotation? Do you even know if
> > > > > Milton wrote or said it? Do you know if this is actually a title of
> > > > > one of Miltons poems? Do you know if it was direct quotation of a full
> > > > > sentence or partial? Though hey even us dyslexics know these things
> > > > > after all Milton is regard as one of the 17th centauries greatest
> > > > > poets. lol. Though you never mentioned the missing comma or colon
> > > > > after said. John Milton said "the chid is the window to the man".
> >
> > > > Aren't "cantauries" those half horse, half man, things that run around
> > > > in the forest, scaring young virgins?
> >
> > > I couldn't resist that plant, I even put an lol at the end of the line
> > > to mark it. Even then though you got it wrong. I typed "centauries "
> > > not "cantauries" you know with your doctorate I would expect you to be
> > > able to quote a single word correctly. Have Oxford really become so
> > > slack. Centauries is a type of plant your thinking of Centaurs.
> >
> > "Your" on the right track - it's just so hard to decipher one spelling
> > mistake from another. But as you say, these are all "deliberate plants"
> > from a master of self expression.
> >
> > Right.
> 
> Maybe though at least I have something to express!

No sign of it so far.
> 

> > > > > Not to do so would result in a failure at Oxford I won't mention the
> > > > > course though clearly you would fail. Direct quotion from my style
> > > > > guide. Though it has been a while.
> >
> > > > Oh, dear, I must have slipped through Oxford's net, since they gave me a
> > > > doctorate. Too bad for you.
> >
> > > Really with such bad grammar standards must be slipping.  After all
> > > Oxford is only third.
> >
> > Oh, no, we're not trying to quote some kind of academic ranking table,
> > are we? Given you grasp on the language, statistics are well out of your
> > league.
> >
> > And your degree is from, where? Dr. Seuss College?
> 
> What you mean with your intellect you don't know?

OK, so you don't have one. It figures.
> 
> 
> >
> > > > > "So a quotation from inside a sentence reads:
> > > > >       According to Smith 'comparative legal studies is a field which
> > > > > needs radical reform'.
> >
> > > > > And a quotation which starts with the beginning of a sentence reads:
> > > > >       According to Smith 'There are numerous ways of approaching
> > > > > comparative law methodology.' "
> >
> > > > Your point being?
> >
> > > Why do you ask what my point is now, I thought you could only respond
> > > to a grammatical error. Its only a style guide, not an entire
> > > curriculum. So don't get too wound up about it?
> >
> > OK, as I thought, there is actually no point to be made with this
> > completely irrelevant quote. Fine.
> 
> With your education maybe you should read the original post and
> instead of trying to find grammatical errors actually use a brain cell
> or two. Go on work up a sweat!

The original post was such a pastiche of re-warmed sound bites, that the 
spelling and grammatical mistakes were far more interesting.
> 

> > > > > > > "Deep-versed in books and shallow in himself."
> > > > > > > To quote your very own John Milton.
> >
> > > > > > > How would you paraphrase Milton in this regard?
> >
> > > > This has nothing whatever to do with grammar and literacy. It's that
> > > > simple!
> >
> > > Really, I think a quotation from a dead person especially a poet is
> > > pretty much open to interpretation. Though how can literacy have
> > > anything to do with being deep-versed in books I don't know. Though it
> > > is strange how Americans attribute that quote to Kissinger. Though
> > > since he won the Nobel Peace prize and is currently and advisor to
> > > George W Bush I suppose the federal court does not really care about
> > > plagiarism at all.
> >
> > Whoosh.
> >
> > William Clark- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> Of course back to the good old flaming, you must be a genius, though
> somebody who likes to be critical on spelling or grammar using a word
> like "cantauries" even you should find humorous . I think this is why
> I like the grammar police so much, they always make the mistakes they
> are critical off. Surely being a member of the grammar police you
> should really use a spell checker or is that simple skill beyond you!
> Though to avoid getting annoyed by bad grammar or typos etc you could
> just punch yourself in the face and you will instantly forget all
> about it. Though with such intelligence surely you can work out what
> you believe the uneducated are saying.

Well, I can't for the life of me figure out what this paragraph is all 
about, so maybe figuring out what the uneducated are saying is more 
difficult than you think.

William Clark