On 22 Oct, 14:18, "William A. T. Clark" 
wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
>
>
>  freeireland  wrote:
> > 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!
>
> No sign of it so far.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > 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?
>
> OK, so you don't have one. It figures.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > "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!
>
> The original post was such a pastiche of re-warmed sound bites, that the
> spelling and grammatical mistakes were far more interesting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > "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.
>
> 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.

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?"

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!


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

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 24 Oct, 21:11, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Well thats the wonderful thing about these forums, they record
> everything. This is a direct quote from you, its easy to find if not I
> can post a link.  Again this is merely avoiding the fact that the
> statement you made was incorrect.
> 
> Its not just government and labour who use "Due to" as a preposition
> but the conservatives as well.

Who said the conservatives were literate?
> 
> "Welfare Reform Bill - delayed due to cabinet in-fighting."
> 
> http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:0CZ7pSER6tUJ:www.conservatives.com/pdf/Of
> spin4.pdf+%22queen%22+%22due+to%22+speech&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=uk
> 
> 
> Heres one from Oxford the unviversity you claimed to attend.
> 
> "Weather forecasts misleading due to atmospheric fluctuations?"
> 
> http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/040317.shtml
> 
> Heres one from the Northern Ireland Education board
> 
> "ABSENCES DUE TO INJURY CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE
> OF A THIRD PARTY"
> 
> http://www.deni.gov.uk/absences_due_to_injury_caused_by_negligence_of_a_third_
> party_-_tnc_1998_2-2.pdf
> 
> Heres one from hefce who you should know as they distibute public
> funding for research in universities in England.

Why would I know about university funding in England? Your level of 
ignorance is reaching epidemic proportions.
> 
> "Some totals in the tables may not sum correctly due to rounding".
> 
> http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2000/cl14_00a.htm
> 
> "The Regulations Sub-Group of QEC met once during 2001-02 to consider
> programme regulations that were not, due to pressure on the approval
> process, considered by the Faculty Boards or Education Board as part
> of the Part 2 proposals."
> 
> 
> Even on the royal families website on the contact us page uses "Due
> to" as a preposition.
> 
> "Please note that, due to the volume of messages received by e-mail,
> it is impossible to provide individual replies."
> 
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page249.asp
> 
> Again from a Buckingham Palace spokesman
> 
> "The Queen was disappointed about not being able to officially open
> the new Arsenal stadium due to her back strain".
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6363911.stm
> 
> And again on the royal web site
> 
> "Anne Boleyn could not have been crowned Queen Regnant as she was only
> Queen due to her marriage to a King. "
> 
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page2302.asp
> 
> And heres one directly from the Queen herself
> 
> "The rise and fall of businesses due to the vagaries of supply and
> demand, and to changes in the use of raw materials or in technology,
> are never easy."
> 
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4153.asp
> 
> Is it not the Queens English?

Not exactly form the Queen, but certainly not the Queen's English.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > > > 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.

The BBC has long since surrendered its role as an authoritative 
reference for English. Nowadays you have to talk like an oik to even get 
on the air.
> >
> > 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 . . >
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than avoidance. Again your concept of "Due to" is
> out of date. The reality is as I have quoted and referenced, major
> dictionaries, the government, British legislation and regulations, the
> conservative party, major newspapers including the Times, all the
> universities I have looked at (I quoted some), the BBC, several
> education institutions such as hefce and even the Queen herself.

"Out of date" and "incorrect" are not the same thing. See below.
> 
> Who are you to question the Queen on the use of her own language?

Ok, so we all decide to drive on the left hand side of the road (in the 
US), because driving on the right is out of date. After a while it will 
become the norm. Does that make it a) smart or b) wise to do? No, it's 
dumb and stupid. Likewise letting the language degenerate into slang. Or 
do you "network" and "conference"?
> 
> > > > 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?
> 
> yada yada yada, this is trying to avoid the real issue. that this
> whole grammar police thing has severely backfired. Its also clear this
> thread is getting quite a bit of interest and I think a lot of it will
> be thrown back in your face in future when you try to claim someone is
> uneducated due to typos or grammar mistakes.

No one else is interested in this thread. That's why there are 
essentially no other posters contributing. You have an inflated idea of 
your own importance.

OK, so we have established once and for all that you don't have the 
nerve to follow through on your childish, empty. bluster. I thought not 
- talk is cheap on the Usenet, but it is too bad you can't stand by it. 
You are gratuitously offensive, but then when called on it, you 
can't/won't back it up, and you take your ball and run home to Mummy. 
You simply don't have the balls to stand by what you said, do you?

William Clark
> 
> Its bananas you expect me to take a wager where I would never get
> paid. Besides I doubt you could ever prove it to my satisfaction.

I could certainly prove it one way or the other. Am I bluffing? Are you 
brave enough to find out? I doubt it.

William Clark