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.

"Welfare Reform Bill - delayed due to cabinet in-fighting."

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:0CZ7pSER6tUJ:www.conservatives.com/pdf/Ofspin4.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.

"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?


>
>
> > > 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 . . >


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.

Who are you to question the Queen on the use of her own language?

>
>
>
> > > 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. Considering you typed
"bast majority" ,  "dicitionaraies" and "cantauries" under your own
assertions you must be uneducated.

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.


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

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 29 Oct, 01:04, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >
> > > Well I have told you the name of the site and its "Student Review" and
> > > thats only a sample. You mean he has the same problems with literacy
> > > as you, is that what you mean to say? Or are you still claiming you
> > > know more about the English language than the just about everyone else
> > > still. I am still waiting for you to produce the definitive rules to
> > > the English language or what gives you the authority to determine what
> > > is or is not good or bad grammar?
> >
> > You have? All I have seen is someone who cannot separate Ohio University
> > from The Ohio State University, or ME from MSE. Now, produce a URL or we
> > are forced to conclude that this is yet another figment of your
> > imagination.
> >
> 
> What can't you goole "Student Review" or is that ability above you? Is
> it true Ohio state university is now nickname "camp death" after a
> student was killed in a lift.

I can't "goole" anything - that's for Halloween. However, I know that if 
you actually had a URL you'd post it, so I'm not going to waste time 
looking for fictional "quotes".

Your sick attempt at laughing at a genuine tragedy is disgusting. I'm 
sure you laughed like a drain, too, when some of your "heroes" got blown 
up while making bombs to kill others.
> 
> >
> > > Your in no position to comment on anyones literacy with your spelling
> > > or wild untrue accusations.
> >
> > "Your" not in any position to make accusations on this score.
> >
> >
> > Oh, you're a busy little boy, aren't you? I have no recollection of
> > this, but if I did it in a rush to move on from replying to the kind of
> > drivel you post, then I was clearly wrong. At least I admit it.
> >
> 
> lol, don't worry there are a good few of them. Do you think TMS have a
> few.

TMS? Do you even know what that is? I thought not, seeing as it is a 
"professional" society with strict admission standards.
> 
> Though using your own powers of deduction this must mean you have the
> same level of education as me and are illiterate does it not?
> 
> Its fair to assume you are illiterate and uneducated. Though again
> clearly its not a mistake though I have without doubt proved my
> point.
> 
In your dreams. You know, just standing on a street corner shouting  
something does not eventually make it true. Lesson one.

> > > > Number one, please remember that is it "The" Ohio State University.
> > > > Number two, I give you an address to send the $100 check to. I don't
> > > > need your money, so I would like you to send it in my name to:
> >
> > > > The Muscular Dystrophy Association
> > > > 960 Kingsmill Parkway
> > > > Columbus, OH 43229
> >
> > > > (614) 436-7744
> >
> > > > Let me know when you have sent it, and I will put them on alert to
> > > > expect it. At least this way some good will come out of this nonsense.
> >
> > > > End of story.
> >
> > > lol, what a knob and just how have you proved your identity?  What
> > > after several request you have actually not even made an attempt. How
> > > could you expect me to believe an associate Dean could be illiterate.
> >
> > Oh, tiresome little man, go find Seimi and chat with him. He'll do for
> > an independent third party, and I'll provide him with evidence. However,
> > I suspect you'll find more lies to wriggle your way out with.  Of
> > course, you could simply apologize.
> 
> So you think a post from an anonymous person is proof of your
> identity. Clearly you have noway of proving you identidy to me or
> anyone else unless you physically meet them. As for taking you at your
> word well its clear you full of shit and lack the literacy skills you
> expect everyone else to display on an informal forum.
> 
> You have had ample time to prove your identidy and you have not.
> 

Well, unlike you, I don't really feel the need to hide like a schoolboy 
behind some phony moniker. It's there for all to see. You are simply 
wiggling again. But I can see why you would want to.
> 
> >
> > Well, at least we have established that you are a welsher, pure and
> > simple.- Hide quoted text -
> 
> The term welsher I think is pretty derogatory and many welsh people
> would be severally insulted by it. Maybe you should appolgise to all
> the Welsh people though I doubt to have any moral courage for that
> either.

Oh, dear, you seem to have run into an etymological problem again. Let 
me help you with the OED:

"welsh, welch, v.i. & t. (Of loser of bet, esp. bookmaker) decamp 
without paying; hence ~ER n. [19th. c.; orig. unkn]

Nothing to do with Wales or the Welsh. Sorry.
> 
> Clearly you cannot prove your identidy to me, I named my terms of the
> wager and you failed to meet them. Now just pay up.

Bluster, bluster, bluster. Like I say, set up any independent third 
party to verify identity (seeing as you are so determined to welsh on 
the bet). Loser to pay his/her costs.

The MDA is really looking forward to your donation.

William Clark