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".

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.

"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.' "


>
>
>
> > "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?

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!

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

Report card: "Failed!"

>
> William Clark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 23 Oct, 03:37, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > 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".
> 
> "'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. "
> 
> Thats exactly what you said and in context. Are you schizophrenic as
> it  clearly looks like your correcting yourself now.

No, I am correcting you, which seems to be a full time occupation. It is 
perfectly true that "due to" is not a substitute for "because of".
> 

> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> 
> 
> More back tracking.

No, more explaining over and over again something that should be obvious 
to anyone with one neurone firing.
> 
> 
> >  > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> 
> I never claimed otherwise, what I did said was your claim "'Due to' is
> really not correct in any context in which it cannot be
> replaced by "caused by'", is simply inccorrect is it not?
> 
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > > "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?
> >
> 
> Though clearly you miss this point, "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."
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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".
> >
>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> 
> Sorry I have quoted several dictionaries claiming it can be used as a
> preposition.

It still remains a grammatically incorrect usage. 
> 
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> Complete and utter nonsense, I have don't nothing other than directly
> quote dicitionaries on the meaning of "Due to", the bast majority of
> which believe it is completely acceptable in modern English to use as
> a preposition.
> 

> > > > > > 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.
> 
> Really how would you transfer the cash to me? Do you think its likely
> I will give you my bank account number, address or anything that could
> be used to identify me. The email address for this google account is a
> hotmail account I never use. I open it once a week and close it just
> to keep it active. How much commonsense do you have. Con-men have a
> saying there is one born every minute.
> 
> If you want to prove me wrong then do it?

I will write you a check and mail it if I cannot prove my claim. Are we 
on?
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Well, do you have the cojones?
> 
> Ok give me your bank account number and I will transfer the money now!

OK, so you are a welsher. At least everyone can see it now.

William Clark