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).

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 22 Oct, 14:18, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >
> >

 . . .Please learn to snip . . . 


> >
> > > 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.
> 
> Well my post is on the web I am sure the rest of the apparent less
> educated (lol) will be able to understand it. If this is the depth of
> imagination you have I doubt you ever attended Oxford.

Care to make a wager on that?

> 
> Spelling or grammatical flames rather ironically at some point or
> another contain spelling or grammatical errors. This is why it is
> recommended grammar and spelling flames are avoided. If you claim I am
> uneducated due to my use of grammar and spelling then how uneducated
> do you look when you post something like "cantauries?"

"Due to" is really not correct in any context in which it cannot be 
replaced by "caused by". It does not mean "because of", and so should 
not be substituted for it. Hey, ho.
> 
> Centauries is a great word for baiting. Of course your predictible
> response will be "yeah right, I don't believe you," (lack of
> imagination, why not mention my mother or something to make it more
> interesting) fair enough though you have been baited so often in this
> thread I can't believe you keep falling for it!

You might make a more credible case for "baiting" if the rest of your 
posts were not such a wholesale affront to the English language. With a 
track record like yours, none of the above rings remotely true.

Now, how about the wager?

William Clark