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".

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

Do you think there are gramarians out there who believe "Due to"
should never be used at all?

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?


>
>
>
> > 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!
>
> 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.

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.

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

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:



 . . .snip, snip . . . 

> > > Its not just government and labour who use "Due to" as a preposition
> > > but the conservatives as well.
> >
> > Who said the conservatives were literate?
> >
> 
> So what about people who type "bast majority" ,  "dicitionaraies" and
> "cantauries".  I doubt event he apparently illiterate conservative
> party would make those mistakes. Considering the leader of the
> conservative party was educated at Eton, as where most modern Royals.
> Of course not just the British royals either.

Silly stuff, this. You can (perhaps) do better. 

> 
> Again you show a lack of decency to even admit you where wrong in your
> claim. "'Due to' is really not correct in any context in which it
> cannot be replaced by 'caused by'".  What sort of clown tries to
> correct grammar with a claim that is simply wrong and then has the
> lack of integrity to admit he was wrong.

I have given you the precise definition and examples of correct and 
incorrect usage for "due to". You carefully avoid these while blathering 
on about something dead seven days ago. But, whatever.
> 

 . . .snip, snip . . 

> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> Its who you apply to for public funding for research in a university
> in England. You know a doctorate for example.

No, I don't. You are even more dense than I thought.

> 
 . . , snip, snip . . 

> >
> > > 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.
> >
> 
> It is exactly from the Queen when she addressed the National Assembly
> for Wales, 13 June 2002 as the link clearly shows. Don't worry this is
> not the only example.  The fact is the Queen uses "Due to" as a
> preposition.
> 
> You know there are reasons its called the Queens English.

Actually it should be called the "Queen's" English, and she doesn't seem 
to be employing people very good at preserving it. Maybe you are one of 
them? It would explain a lot.
> 
> 

> > > > > > 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.
> >
> 
> The BBC is one of the worldsmost respected organisations in the world
> with a proven track record. Who are you to question the BBC's use of
> grammar when you come up with "bast majority" ,  "dicitionaraies" and
> "cantauries". Clearly you have
> surrendered its role as an authoritative reference for English. Not
> that you ever were mind you.

Silly, silly, silly. You have to judge on performance, not historical 
reputation. The BBC "was" a respected repository of correct English, but 
not any more. That has long gone with the need to "regionalize".
> 
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> 
> Ok its incorrect because its out of date!
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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"?
> >
> 
> Again this is complete and utter irrelevant nonsense. English is
> evolutionary and always has been. Most languages are. If we didn't
> evolve it could be argued we would still be apes, though I suppose for
> you thats another part of evolution you missed.
> 
> The British and American education system, the governments (both
> British and American),  British legislators, journalists, authors and
> even the Royal family use "due to" as a preposition.
> 
> There is no English version of the Acad?mie fran?aise and you
> certainly do not have any authority to determine what is or is not
> good or bad grammar. Especially since your prone to making a few
> errors in that department yourself.

But nowhere near as many as you or the Queen, apparently. And it strikes 
me as being very ironic that someone who parades themselves under the 
moniker "freeireland" has become so dependent on the Queen of England. 
Perhaps you are really a mole, planted by MI5.
> 
> > > > > > 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.
> 
> Well its certainly being viewed and have you not viewed "99 percent of
> posts to SCI are about typos".

Gosh, there's one. It makes a welcome diversion from all the wingnut 
drivel that Ray posts.
> 
> >
> > 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
> 
> lol, this is a rant. I predicted a fair few posts back you would bring
> my mother into it at some stage.

Well, I'm glad to hear you have one. I was beginning to wonder.
> 
> As evidence I will require, your original driving license, passport, a
> utility bill, meet you in person, original copy of all your education
> certificates and especially the doctorate from Oxford University,
> England. Photographs of you over at least a two year period at on
> Oxford university campus verified by the dean of the university. An
> original letter from the dean with similar credentials from him, eg
> driving license, passport etc.
> 
> Ps I need them by Monday as I will be out of the country from Tuesday
> for a few weeks.

Oh, nice try. Let's start with the obvious - The University of Oxford 
doesn't have a "dean". I would have thought someone who parades 
themselves as such an expert on things educational would know that. 
Secondly, you don't "require" anything by any date, especially when it 
is just one more attempt to weasel out of your bluster. Pathetic, simply 
pathetic, and the hallmark of a loser.

Actually, the concern about "getting the money" should come from me, not 
you. How can I guarantee payment from you when you wriggle out of every 
effort to complete the wager?
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Theres nothing stopping you from doing so, you see the evidence I
> require.

Tell you what, pick a third party arbitrator independent of both of us, 
and let he or she be the judge. Otherwise just withdraw the insinuation 
and apologize for it.

Let's do it.

William CLark