On 25 Oct, 13:33, "William A. T. Clark" 
wrote:
> 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.

Silly stuff maybe though your quite willing to be critical of others.
You go on to say things such as dumb as paint etc ete.  Words like
greenhouse, throw, stones come to mind. Do you think this makes you
appear uneducated, illiterate and dumb as paint?

>
>
>
> > 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.
>

Why cannot you not simply admit the following quote is wrong. "'Due
to' is really not correct in any context in which it cannot be
replaced by 'caused by'".  I have proven it is wrong without a shadow
of a doubt and still you just cannot admit it. Why? It makes you look
foolish correcting a grammar error with a claim that is infact not
correct!

>
>
>  . . .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.
>

Really, its in legislation "The Further and Higher Education Acts
1992".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Funding_Council_for_England

There is a link to the act on the page.

>
>
>  . . , 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.
>
>

Ok then tell me where this rule is written down and who regulates it?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > 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".
>
>

Ok then tell me where this rule is written down and who regulates it?


>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > 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.
>
>

lol, I am a realist, and as an Irish citizen I would in noway try to
say the Queen is wrong in speaking her own language.  Certainly not
when I have yet to say who regulates the language and its usage.

This is nothing more then try to side track again.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > 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.
>

You post plenty of drivel yourself.

>
>
> > > 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!

Well you have yet to say how payment could happen?

>
>
>
> > > > 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?


> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- 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 29 Oct, 18:17, "William A. T. Clark" 
> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Heres another "Be careful when choosing OSU for college. Not only does
> Ohio have the most expensive instate tuition, the teachers are not
> helpful at all. I am transferring to another college after 2 years. I
> felt like I wasted time at OSU. Also this university has a disregard
> for student safety. A student died in an dorm elevator accident. There
> were many complaints about the elevator before the accident. Also,
> other elevators were on campus were found to be unsafe. It's all about
> profit for the university."

Oh, dear, so you dig up the comments of some eighteen year old idiot, 
who cannot even get the facts straight. Find this on "RateMyProf" or 
some such garbage  site, did you? I notice you still refrain from giving 
the URL - perhaps this is about Ohio University, too? Please cite the 
reference - if it exists.

By the way, you are as ignorant about college tuition in Ohio and the US 
as you are about everything else, and as is this genius you quote. I 
suggest you go look up the actual figures before spouting off - it just 
makes you look dumb.
> 
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> lol, you think you where baited again, your like a goldfish swimming
> around a bowl.

I don't think so - no one could even make this stuff up. I think you 
"where" wrong, "your" prone to such idiocy.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> Maybe I will join TMS then. They are an illiterate lot after all.

Why don't you give it a shot? Somehow, I doubt that you are good for the 
annual dues.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> 
> Not too bright are you. Do you think I am doing this dilberetly! So I
> can once again resurrect some of your speeling or grammatical errors.
> Do you think there are any plants in this post. lol

Oh, now we are trying to lay a smokescreen. Come on, no one is dumb 
enough to fall for that, just as no one is fool enough to believe your 
earlier denials.

> > > > > > > > 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 you claim you could prove it. So where is your drivers license or
> passport with a utility bill.  I think we should call you illiterate
> boy from now on.  The grammar flamer who clearly does not even know
> that "Due to" can be used as a preposition. The claims and spelling
> mistakes you have made still crack me up. I really shouldn't keep
> bringing this up though your reaction is just so funny.
> 
Where would you like them to be sent to? Easily done. By the way, lots 
of people use "due to" as a preposition - I don't deny it. While it 
might be acceptable to the less than fully literate, as Gowers would 
say, it just doesn't happen to be grammatically correct, that's all.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > 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.
> 
> tut tut tut, another howler, do you not have any common sense at all.
> Its so easy to bait you its not even a challenge anymore.  Clearly you
> have no idea of the origins of "Welsh rabbit" and just as with grammar
> are in no position to comment. So I would kindly ask you to keep your
> racist slurs to yourself please.

There - my turn to catch you! Done - see "Fowler's Modern English Usage" 
for the correct explanation, under "True and False Etymology". Wasn't 
hard, was it?

> > > > > 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.
> 
> lol,  well terms have to be agreed before they can be excised and
> clearly I will accept a third party arbitrator when he/she gives me
> his drivers license/passport along with a utility bill and of course
> with your  drivers license/passport and a utility bill. This is
> standard proof of identity and proof of address. These are clearly the
> terms I put before you before so why have you as of yet failed to
> prove your identity?
> 
> Are you really so niave to think an anonymous poster here proves
> anything. How can you prove you attented Oxford if you cannot even
> prove your identity.

Again, just tell me the name of the third party arbitrator who will 
examine the proof, and we'll go from there. You pick them - that way you 
can confirm their ID yourself. How many times do I have to say it?

William Clark