Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
no, not joking, just pointing out that you just made one helluva racist assumption about large black men.
I did not. You made the same mistake again. I said they are not the authority on the English language (because they are just one person. No one person is the authority on that). You did not understand my point and assumed it was aimed at their race. Lots of the problems you have with people on here come from your inability to understand what is said. Your assumptions are annoying and, frankly, generally wrong.
Originally posted by lord xyz
It did.After 'replies'.
Incorrect. Not required.
Originally posted by Bardock42Is required.
I did not. You made the same mistake again. I said they are not the authority on the English language (because they are just one person. No one person is the authority on that). You did not understand my point and assumed it was aimed at their race. Lots of the problems you have with people on here come from your inability to understand what is said. Your assumptions are annoying and, frankly, generally wrong.Incorrect. Not required.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Not required, it just makes it look better. I usually post like the way you did, pointed out by that guy who has 'Starfox' as his avatar.
Sorry, but if you are writing a post advising on the proper use of grammar, it's only decent of you, to use correct grammar yourself. Otherwise, you just look like a bit of a fool.
Originally posted by Bardock42and when did I accuse you of remarking about an entire race? I never made such accusations. who is assuming now?
I did not. You made the same mistake again. I said they are not the authority on the English language (because they are just one person. No one person is the authority on that). You did not understand my point and assumed it was aimed at their race. Lots of the problems you have with people on here come from your inability to understand what is said. Your assumptions are annoying and, frankly, generally wrong.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Sorry, but if you are writing a post advising on the proper use of grammar, it's only decent of you, to use correct grammar yourself. Otherwise, you just look like a bit of a fool.
I am a bit of a fool. I'm not advising, either, I'm just pointing out. It's not a necessary must to do a huge grammar check after every post.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and when did I accuse you of remarking about an entire race? I never made such accusations. who is assuming now?
You again. I never claimed you accused me of remarking on an entire race.
You can be such a moronic ****. Do you not realize how you debate like a 5 year old?
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I am a bit of a fool. I'm not advising, either, I'm just pointing out. It's not a necessary must to do a huge grammar check after every post.
No, of course it's not, you shouldn't have to.
But, if you are a person who needs to constantly check their grammar, you should probably check it on the posts where you're 'pointing out', what's wrong with other people's.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No, of course it's not, you shouldn't have to.
But, if you are a person who needs to constantly check their grammar, you should probably check it on the posts where you're 'pointing out', what's wrong with other people's.
That's a good point to be sure. I don't usually have to check my grammar while writing, but I have certain habits that stick.
Originally posted by Bardock42Because without it, the sentence would all be a subordinate clause. "Reading his replies that is in no way what he says." is a subordinate clause. With it, it makes the "Reading his replies" part a subordinate clause, and the "that is in no way what he says." part a main clause (which is what you meant them to be).
N-no.Because of what grammatical rule?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Because without it, the sentence would all be a subordinate clause. "Reading his replies that is in no way what he says." is a subordinate clause. With it, it makes the "Reading his replies" part a subordinate clause, and the "that is in no way what he says." part a main clause (which is what you meant them to be).
Sorta know what you mean there, but he could just reword it and leave out the comma. The sentance even with the comma is a bit confusing to understand.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Because without it, the sentence would all be a subordinate clause. "Reading his replies that is in no way what he says." is a subordinate clause. With it, it makes the "Reading his replies" part a subordinate clause, and the "that is in no way what he says." part a main clause (which is what you meant them to be).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinate_clause
You can phrase the sentence like I did. A comma is not required.
Originally posted by The Grey FoxN-No. With the comma, it makes perfect sence. Rewording it would be: That is in no way what he says, after reading his replies. Or you could say That is in no way, after reading his replies, what he says. Yes I know I added "after", but that is another error he missed out. However, missing out certain words at the beginning of a sentence has been worldly accepted.
Sorta know what you mean there, but he could just reword it and leave out the comma. The sentance even with the comma is a bit confusing to understand.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yes it is. Wikipedia confirms that, AND it's the source I used aswell.
Haha, that does sound very academic, but it is not true.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinate_clause
You can phrase the sentence like I did. A comma is not required.