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&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

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!

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 22 Oct, 19:08, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I never typed "Due to" I typed "due to".
> 
> As far as its use what about "Payable to", "Likely to", "Properly owed
> to" or "to be".

Completely different contexts. In your usage, "due to" is being used to 
mean "because of", as opposed to its proper meaning, which should take a 
noun, and not a notion extracted from the sentence. 
> 
> Maybe you should read  "The New Fowler's Modern English Usage" edited
> by R.W. Burchfield. Do you think this is published by the Oxford
> University Press. hmmm

Exactly where this description of correct usage comes from. Together 
with a lament that "due to" has incorrectly morphed into a compound 
preposition of late. (FMEU, 2nd edition, p.141)
> 
> Do you think there are gramarians out there who believe "Due to"
> should never be used at all?

The source you refer to quotes the Concise Oxford Dictionary of 1964 as 
describing the use of "due to" for "because of" as "incorrect", and adds 
"it is now as common as can be, though only, if the view taken in this 
article is correct, among the illiterate".

Welcome to the club.
> 
> Clearly you are not the master of grammar you pretend to be? Its one
> thing to just type away without a care for grammar, though its another
> to appoint yourself as grammatical police be critical or others, while
> misspelling words and then making incorrect statements about more
> subtle grammar such as "Due to". Do you have no commonsense at all?

See above. Nice try, though.
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Well its quite obvious I think after all when you look back at it, its
> blatent. Though I was waiting for the mother putdown, I am so
> disappointed! At least I predicted your response quite accurately.

The hard part is really knowing where to start, "its" so "blatent".
> 
> Though you must be uneducated otherwise how could you come up with
> "Cantauries". What an affront to the English language! Or is that part
> of your ebonics revolution.
> 
> 
> >
> > Now, how about the wager?
> 
> Ok I'll wager your claim "'Due to' is really not correct in any
> context in which it cannot be replaced by 'caused by'" is infact
> incorrect.

Another feeble attempt to move the goal posts - the wager was about me 
having a degree from Oxford. Now, can you put your money where your 
mouth is, or are you all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas?

I might be bluffing, you know.

On the other twaddle in that paragraph, which contains so many double 
negatives as to disappear up its own rear end, please see the quote from 
Modern English Usage and the Concise Oxford Dictionary given earlier in 
the post. End of story.

William Clark