On 22 Oct, 21:58, "William A. T. Clark" 
wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
>
>
>  freeireland  wrote:
> > 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".
>
> 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'"

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?

Clearly "Due to" can be replaced by "Payable to", "Likely to",
"Properly owed to" or "to be". Is this not correct?


For example

"Payment of all fees due to OUDCE is required in full before the first
day of the course."

http://cpd.conted.ox.ac.uk/electronics/register.asp

Clearly "due to" in this context cannot be replaced by "caused by" can
it?


I have at not point claimed my grammar or spelling was correct though
clearly your explanation of the use of "due to" is incorrect!

>
>
>
> > 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?

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. "

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. "

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."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20to

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA375&lpg=RA3-PA375&dq=%22due+to%22+%22compound+preposition%22&source=web&ots=nXyShmw3Y3&sig=b9-t61BJbvuGPt-V-UvbFDZfEAo

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

>
>
>
> > 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.


>
> On the other twaddle in that paragraph, which contains so many double
> negatives as to disappear up its own rear end, please see the quote from
> Modern English Usage and the Concise Oxford Dictionary given earlier in
> the post. End of story.


yada yada yada,  how did you come up with "Cantauries".


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

lol, more demented ramblings,

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> 
> Your just predictable.
> 
> >
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> 
> Just prove it then? You will never prove it to my satisfaction and you
> will never pay up! thats a reality!

In other words, you will simply refuse to pay. I thought so.
> 
> Well you have yet to say how payment could happen?

You can send me a check - I will be happy to give you an address to send 
it to.

> >
> > > > > 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
> >
> 
> How could you prove it and how could you pay me?

So you want me to give you the answer BEFORE you commit to seeing your 
wager through? Very clever - once I do you will simply welsh on the bet 
yet again. No, you made the claim, now be prepared to stand by it, or 
else retract and apologize.

William Clark