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=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".

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.


"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.

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."



>
> 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.




>
> - Show quoted text -

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 22 Oct, 21:58, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > In article ,

 . . snip, snip . . 

> >
> > > 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.
> 
> 
> Though you clearly said and I quote "'Due to' is really not correct in
> any context in which it cannot be replaced by 'caused by'"

No, I didn't. What I said was that "due to" should not be used in any 
context as a replacement for "because of".
> 
> You did not specify a context you said "in ANY context in which it
> cannot be replaced by 'caused by'",  Cleary this is not correct is
> it?

No, it isn't, because I said "because of", not "caused by".
> 
> Clearly "Due to" can be replaced by "Payable to", "Likely to",
> "Properly owed to" or "to be". Is this not correct?

This is the correct usage of "due to", in which you will note that it 
takes a noun, and means something payable to another party.
> 
> 
> For example
> 
> "Payment of all fees due to OUDCE is required in full before the first
> day of the course."

Indeed, and "due to" certainly does not substitute for "because of" in 
this (correct) usage. 
> 
> http://cpd.conted.ox.ac.uk/electronics/register.asp
> 
> Clearly "due to" in this context cannot be replaced by "caused by" can
> it?

You are clearly trying (at least I hope so) to be dumber than paint. If 
you had used "due to" in this correct manner, as an adjective qualifying 
a noun or pronoun, there would not have been an issue in the first 
place. It is when you use it instead as a compound preposition that it 
becomes wrong.

> 
> 
> I have at not point claimed my grammar or spelling was correct though
> clearly your explanation of the use of "due to" is incorrect!
> 
Not based on anything you have some up with! You still seem to be unable 
to sort out the difference between the (incorrect) compound preposition, 
and an adjective. Please try harder.
 > >
> >
> > > 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)
> 
> None the less it can be replaced by "Payable to", "Likely to",
> "Properly owed to" or "to be" can it not?

Totally different form - again figure out the difference between and 
adjective and a compound preposition.

> 
> Fowler's objection was as far back as 1926. So again I ask when did
> the English language for you stop evolving?
> 
> "due to, as prepositional phr. = owing to.
>   Described as 'erroneous' by W. A. Craigie in the Dict. of Amer.
> Eng., and said by H. W. Fowler in Mod. Eng. Usage (1926) to be 'often
> used by the illiterate as though it had passed, like owing to, into a
> mere compound preposition', this use is now widely current though
> still firmly rejected by many grammarians. "

Thank you.
> 
> It gives an example from the Times
> 
> "1955 Times 25 July, Largely due to the defence efforts of the Western
> Powers, Europe was in a state of stalemate."
> 
> Oxford English Dictionary
> 
> Due to and owing to mean just what because of means. All three are
> prepositions. Owing to fought and won its way to respectability a good
> while ago, and now due to has almost won its battle, although there is
> a residue of conservative unhappiness over it when it does not follow
> a linking verb, as in He arrived late, due to a flat tire. Some Edited
> English and Oratorical speech will still avoid such uses, but at all
> other levels all three locutions are Standard: Because of [owing to,
> due to] his having sprained his ankle, he walked with a cane. Because
> of [owing to, due to] his sprained ankle, he walked with a cane.
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/68/75/2075.html
> 
> "Due to has been widely used for many years as a compound preposition
> like owing to, but some critics have insisted that due should be used
> only as an adjective. According to this view, it is incorrect to say
> The concert was canceled due to the rain, but acceptable to say The
> cancellation of the concert was due to the rain, where due continues
> to function as an adjective modifying cancellation. This seems a fine
> point, however, and since due to is widely used and understood, there
> seems little reason to avoid using it as a preposition. "

Better to say "the concert was cancelled because of the rain". There, 
that didn't hurt, did it?
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary
> 
> "Due to as a prepositional phrase meaning "because of, owing to" has
> been in use since the 14th century: Due to the sudden rainstorm, the
> picnic was moved indoors. Some object to this use on the grounds that
> due is historically an adjective and thus should be used only
> predicatively in constructions like The delay was due to electrical
> failure. Despite such objections, due to occurs commonly as a compound
> preposition and is standard in all varieties of speech and writing."
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/due%20to
> 
> "Main Entry: due to
> Function: preposition
> Date: 1897
> : as a result of : because of <due to the complaints of uptight
> parents...he lost his job - Herbert Gold>
> usage The objection to due to as a preposition is only a continuation
> of disagreements that began in the 18th century over the proper uses
> of owing and due. Due to is as grammatically sound as owing to, which
> is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by
> reputable writers and has been recognized as standard for decades.
> There is no solid reason to avoid due to."

The language is still "English".
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20to
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA375&lpg=RA3-PA375&dq=%2
> 2due+to%22+%22compound+preposition%22&source=web&ots=nXyShmw3Y3&sig=b9-t61BJbv
> uGPt-V-UvbFDZfEAo
> 
> >
> > > Do you think there are gramarians out there who believe "Due to"
> > > should never be used at all?

No, it should be used as an adjective. Simple.

> >
> > 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 too must join that club as you clearly believed it could
> only be replaced by "caused by" in any context.  Grammar police
> sacking offence!

You are nuts. Completely nuts. You have not understood one word of this 
exchange, and you insist on contradicting yourself right, left, and 
center. Sucks to be you.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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".
> >
> 
> Come on you certainly spotted those ones. Its in the word Blatant how
> could you miss it?
> 
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> 
> lol, is this a school playground, was it oxford primary school you
> attended, and playing doctors and nurses is something different
> altogether.

OK, put your money where your mouth is, and we will find out, won't we? 
How about $100 says I have a degree from Oxford? Want to call my bluff? 
If not, then you unreservedly withdraw your childish insult.
> 
Well, do you have the cojones?

William Clark