On 25 Oct, 04:01, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> 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?
>

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.

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.

>
>
>
>
> > "Welfare Reform Bill - delayed due to cabinet in-fighting."
>
> >http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:0CZ7pSER6tUJ:www.conservatives.c...
> > spin4.pdf%22queen%22%22due%22늗鹲&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...
> > 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.
>
>

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

>
>
>
> > "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.
>

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.


>
>
>
>
> > > > > 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.

>
>
> > > 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 Académie française 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.


"The Licensee and Licensor shall not be responsible to one another for
any failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement due to Acts
of God, war, riot, embargoes, acts of civil or military authorities,
fire, flood, typhoon, wind storm, snow storm, blizzard, hurricane, or
other cause that is outside the control of the party and could not be
avoided by the exercise of due care."

CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY terms and conditions

>
>
>
>
> > > > > 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".

>
> 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.

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.


>
>
>
> > 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.

>
> William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

snip, snip

> >
> > > 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".
> 
> lol, you do crack me up!

Indeed, so we have established that either a) you made that comment up, 
or b) it is from the wrong program at the wrong university. No wonder 
you won't produce it and give us all something to laugh at.
> 
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Again how little you know me, and I certainly never laughed at it, I
> just asked a genuine question. So I will take that as an affirmitive.
> Not good for the old safety record is it.  I have never had a any hero
> make a bomb at all and thats nothing more than a lame discredit by
> association flame. Yawn like thats never been tried before. The one
> thing I will give you credit for is a severe lake of imagination.

Indeed, I have an enormous "lake" of imagination - it positively 
overfloweth. Yours is a miserable trickle by comparison.
> 
> >
> >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> 
> I certainly know what they are. You should goto the TMS web site and
> in the search type "Due to". You should see all the uneducated
> illiterates according to your twisted english that are post there.
> Even scientific papers use "Due to" as a preposition in the title on
> that website.

What "they" are? Or what "it" is? You just don't have a clue.
> 
> > > 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.
> >
> 
> Just like somebody has been saying "Due to" is a preposition.
> 
> All was using your use of grammar to determine that. After all, isn't
> that what you have have been doing not just on this threa but others..
> I thought I warned you of the dangerous of spelling or grammar
> flaming.

Could you repeat this paragraph in actual English, please? As it is now, 
it is incomprehensible.
> 
> >
> >
> > > > > > 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.
> >
> 
> lol, no instead you hide behind a another persons id!.

Really. Is that the best you can do to weasel out of this? Pathetic.
> 
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> 
> tut tut I would have expected you to have at least sought the origins
> of the word. Do you think you where baited again.
> 
> The term comes from a group of English bookmakers who absconded over
> to Wales to avoid having to pay out on a lot of long shots who came
> in. This term became popular later when Edward Prince of Wales refused
> to pay a few outstanding gambling debts.  The english used many terms
> that the Welsh find offensive such as "Welsh Rabbit" etc. Welsh
> language magazine in the early 90s started a campaign in the US to get
> the term "Welsher" banned as racist.

Sorry, but no. Sometimes relying on over hasty Googling can get you in 
trouble. And it is "Welsh Rarebit", not Welsh Rabbit", FYI. Finally, no 
one ever said the Welsh language brigade were particularly smart, or had 
a sense of humour.
> 
> > > 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
> 
> 
> So can you quote me where I agreed to those terms!
> 
> You know its only $100 how can you refuse to pay upto the Foyle
> Hospice. tut tut tut.

Aah, so now you are trying to deny the challenge in the first place. 
Very innovative, but entirely predictable. Oh, and how come you excised 
the bit about the third party arbitrator? Getting a little too warm for 
you, is it? Let's do that - loser pays the abitrator's costs.

William Clark