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!


>
>
>
> > > > 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?


>
> > > > "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!

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > "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.

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 24 Oct, 02:51, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> >  freeireland  wrote:
> >
> > Snip a lot of BS
> >
> > SInce you seem to think that cutting and pasting a lot of barely
> > relevant nonsense is a proper substitute for actually listening to the
> > discussion, let's make it simple.
> >
> > 1) "Due to" is an adjective (or adjectival phrase). Therefore, in the
> > sentence "Payment of all fees due to OUDCE is required in full before
> > the first day of the course", "due to" is an adjective describing
> > "fees". This is correct usage.
> 
> Clearly this is a context in which "Due to" can be used even though it
> cannot be replaced by "caused by" as you claimed.
> 
> "'Due to' is really not correct in any context in which it cannot be
> replaced by 'caused by'".
> 
> Why do you lack the moral courage to simply admit you where wrong when
> you typed this then.

I don't know how/if I typed that, but of course it is incorrect. "Due 
to" is an adjective. Period.
> 
> >
> > 2) "The game was cancelled due to the rain" uses "due to" as a compound
> > preposition whose meaning is "because of". This is not correct.
> >
> > Of course, if you prefer to think that continued incorrect usage then
> > justifies simply abandoning the rules of grammar, go ahead. It is at
> > least consistent with your cavalier attitude to the rest of the language.
> 
> Again nearly all modern day dictionaries (I have already quoted all
> the best known) clearly say its quite acceptable to use "Due to" as a
> preposition. The BBC english tutor again which I quoted from actually
> teaches the use of "Due to" as a prepoistion. "Due to" as a
> preposition again can be found in "The Times" and is widely used by
> the BBC.

You know, I'm going to cut all the cut and pasted blather you follow 
this up with. The abandoning of standards does not constitute correct 
grammar, however much you wish it would. Using "due to" in place of 
"because of" is simply wrong.


. . .snip, snip . . > 
> 
> >
> > Now, are you willing to put your faith in your assertion that I don't
> > have a degree from Oxford to the $100 test? If not, then you can
> > apologize for saying so, since I doubt you are good for the money
> > anyway. Or would you rather just go on weaseling?
> 
> 
> Look first thing first how would you prove it and secondly how would
> you pay me? Considering I will not give you my address, email or
> anything that would give my identity away.

Oh, I can prove it easily (unless I'm bluffing, of course). That's 
secondary - just make a public commitment on this ng that you will pay 
if you are wrong, and we'll go from there. I will do the same.

How about it?

William Clark