A grammar lesson for Ed

java-programmer, A grammar lesson for Ed Ed wrote:
> Yes, I do! The fact that I got the 5-start ratings on my postings
> explaining how you was rude to me, makes me to kind of trust the
> google ratings!

(To readers of m.e.l.e: this is a perfect example of how NOT to write
English.)

(P.S. I know I shouldn't do this, but it is just too fun to pass up ;-))

Several comments to explain about why this is not proper grammar:

In English, the word `was' indicates the past participle of `to be' in
the third person singular form /only/. The relevant past participle
(here, we need to be in second person, which corresponds as well to all
plural forms) that you are looking for is `were'.

The construction `to make one' is not followed by the word `to'; what
you need to do is drop that word from the following infinitive.

There is no word called `google' (there is a `googol', as in 10^100). If
you are referring to the company with that name, then your
capitalization should reflect that, as a proper noun [*]: `Google'.

Semantically, that classifies all of your sins; however, your choice of
words is not the most appealing in the world.

`To get' is very slangy, and, seeing as Usenet expects a certain level,
of professionalism, the better verb is `to receive'.

I know of no rating that uses `starts'; are you looking for `star'?

`5' should not be written as a digit (as well as other numbers less than
ten), it is better to use `five' in this case.

On forums, the term `posting' should be eschewed in favor of the word
`post' (shorter noun, and I dislike gerunds as well).

Finally, usage of exclamation points is highly disregarded in Usenet
posts, as it places others' impressions of you as roughly equivalent to
a loud-mouthed twelve-year old kid. Your continual usage of vulgar
language and poor grasps on the basic points of politeness also add to
the impression of a brat.

[*] Well, in recent times, companies have fallen in love with the
non-traditional forms of capitalization, preferring such proper nouns as
`iPod'. The best rule of thumb to follow is to use the official
capitalization rules of the company owning the trademark.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed Joshua Cranmer <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> ... explaining how you was rude to me ...
>
> In English, the word `was' indicates the past participle of `to be' in
> the third person singular form /only/.

Damn, I really *was* sure, that this word has more uses than just
for 3rd person...

I think there is some "usenet law", that claims that everyone
correcting another poster's grammer is bound to make some
grammar-related error in his posting, as well.

Aren't I right?

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> ... explaining how you was rude to me ...
>>
>> In English, the word `was' indicates the past participle of `to be' in
>> the third person singular form /only/.
>
>Damn, I really *was* sure, that this word has more uses than just
>for 3rd person...
>
>I think there is some "usenet law", that claims that everyone
>correcting another poster's grammer is bound to make some
>grammar-related error in his posting, as well.
>
>Aren't I right?

<wads>
Pouvons-nous tout le d茅but parlant en fran莽ais
(comme mal traduit par Google) ? Je suis positif
qu'apaisera les corrections mineures incessantes
脿 n'importe qui apr猫s, pr茅sent, ou futur participe.
</wads>

<originally>
Can we all start speaking in French (as badly
translated by Google)? I am positive that will
quell the incessant minor corrections to
anyone's past, present, or future participle.
</originally>

Oh, ..and 'WADS' is an abbreviation I coined on
the spot - 'with all due sarcasm'. If you have a
problem with it - bite me.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.athompson.info/andrew/

Message posted via http://www.javakb.com

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed In article <email***@***.com>,
Andreas Leitgeb <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer <email***@***.com> wrote:
> >> ... explaining how you was rude to me ...
> >
> > In English, the word `was' indicates the past participle of `to be' in
> > the third person singular form /only/.
>
> Damn, I really *was* sure, that this word has more uses than just
> for 3rd person...
>
> I think there is some "usenet law", that claims that everyone
> correcting another poster's grammer is bound to make some
> grammar-related error in his posting, as well.
>
> Aren't I right?

I know it as "Skitt's Law":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skitt%27s_law

There may be other versions.

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed
On Sep 19, 11:42 am, Gordon Beaton <email***@***.com> wrote:

> You are confusing simple past tense and past participle. The
> participle is used as an adjective or with have/had/will to form the
> perfect tenses. E.g. "I did X" and "X is done".
>
> The participle of "to be" is "been", the past tense is "was".
>
> /gordon

erm... any1 wud lk 2 dedikate sum tim 2 discus da folwin txt? :)
I find it brilliant and at the same time I'm really concerned about
the kids who posted it, got it from a friend, copied from BBC websites
few months ago:

chloe
loads of ppl in my yr (yr9) av ad sex many av ad it more den once. i
aint an sex and im in no rush but dat dosnt mean dat if i wanted to
over
the nxt to yrs i wont. but i no dat wen i do av sex its gunna be my
decision not my friends or my bfs or any1 else!!!!!!!

sometimes sex is just for fun or it is just as a dare for most people
it
is jst to prove something, before sex was for love for when people are
ready, theres nothing involved in sex no more it used to be love, now
its just pride

bex
if u think u r ready 2 have sex..then fair enough..nowt can stop you.
But people dont fink much about the consequences. Sex ed isnt taught
well in schools..i can say i am 15 n i dnt rele know dat much at all
about sex!!

nicole15
i fink if ur rdy 2 do it then go ahead but dont get pressured in2 it.i
also fink age is jus a number causes if its ment 2 be it will.i am in
love wit a 19year old fella and he respect me nd dosent pressure me 2
do
anyfing wit him cause he loves me :-> xoxo

nicole15
i fink if ur rdy 2 do it then go ahead but dont get pressured in2 it.i
also fink age is jus a number causes if its ment 2 be it will.i am in
love wit a 19year old fella and he respect me nd dosent pressure me 2
do
anyfing wit him cause he loves me :-> xoxo

Jelly
In dis country, sex is made out 2 b such a biiig issue dat it no wonda
dat so many yung ppl c it as a huge, excitin ting- d soona experienced
d
betta. If dis country was mre relaxd about sex & talkin bout sex like
otha European countries, praps England, like dem, wudnt hav so many
problms related 2 underaged sex. Cos no big fuss is made, many
teenagers
in those countries decide 2 wait b4 havin sex- r country woud be
100x's
betta if it followd ther example a bit mre insted of stirring up
teenage
emotions- dey mite as well be quoting Mean Girls- "If u hav sex, u
WILL
die." Wel, we hav 2 find out if dats tru now dont we... Tsk.

CJ
mi sis fell pregnant @ 14 n 4 a while no1 in da family spoke 2 her.
but
wen they realised she hadnt planned it n wos rele sorry n upset, they
took her bak. woteva happens 2 u (regarding sex etc) u shud b
supported
bi family n frends. it dnt make u different, it mite just mature u a
lot
more. we rnt taught the consequences of pregnant + non-protected sex
enuf, just tht we shudnt do it b4 wer 16. if we were taught these
things
then we wudnt do it as much. even tho u shud do it wen u feel right,
if
its under 16 or woteva, protection lyk condoms is quite expensive now.
so if they cnt afford it, they rnt gonna use it.

Tammy
i think that u shud av sex wen ur ready, rele ready. i mean it dnt
matter wat age u r, its if ur ready. u can get tricked nd fooled at
any
age so i think u shud let gals learn from there own mistakes, if u
stop
em they will do it even more!xXx

Shania
Da most important fing about sex dat isnt taught, is da emotional
side.
Many gyals & even boiz surcome 2 pear pressure, & sum gyals r fooled
easily. long goe r da dayz where ppl say 'if u love me.....' Teens r
more manipulative dese dayz & i fink dis shud b taught, how 2 say no,
even if pursuaded. How can ne1 take da law seriously, if they
blantantly
advertise underages parents....who still care 4 dere kids? i fink if
da
goverment put dese children in2 care..ppl wud soon realise dat dis
aint
a game!?! Still, if ur unda 16 & still a virgin....wait coz it hurts
nuff!!!!! xXx

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 18, 7:11 pm, Joshua Cranmer <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Ed wrote:
> > Yes, I do! The fact that I got the 5-start ratings on my postings
> > explaining how you was rude to me, makes me to kind of trust the
> > google ratings!
>
> (To readers of m.e.l.e: this is a perfect example of how NOT to write
> English.)
>
> (P.S. I know I shouldn't do this, but it is just too fun to pass up ;-))
>
> Several comments to explain about why this is not proper grammar:
>
> In English, the word `was' indicates the past participle of `to be' in
> the third person singular form /only/. The relevant past participle
> (here, we need to be in second person, which corresponds as well to all
> plural forms) that you are looking for is `were'.
>

Where did you learn that, fucking idiot! You are trying to make me
look bad, but at the same, you are making mistakes! For your info, I
don't proofread, when posting on the internet!

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed
"Ed" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

>>
>
> Where did you learn that, fucking idiot! You are trying to make me
> look bad, but at the same, you are making mistakes! For your info, I
> don't proofread, when posting on the internet!

Yuuu don8t:" I wud nev$ver hafffe gest/;'<*&^%^

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 19, 9:47 pm, filip <email***@***.com> wrote:
> erm... any1 wud lk 2 dedikate sum tim 2 discus da folwin txt? :)
> I find it brilliant and at the same time I'm really concerned about
> the kids who posted it, got it from a friend, copied from BBC websites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/documentaries/sexdiaries.shtml

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed Ed wrote:
..
>...You are trying to make me look bad, ...

Why would anyone bother?

Especially given you are ..
a) Insignificant
b) Doing such a good job of making you look bad*,
all by your lonesome self.

;-)

* But please don't allow me to stop your vitriolic
outbursts. (Oh go on, use rude words - you *know*
you want to). The available evidence suggests your
words are providing immense amusement to the
regular posters of this group.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.athompson.info/andrew/

Message posted via JavaKB.com
http://www.javakb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/java-general/200709/1

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed Andrew Thompson wrote:
> Ed wrote:
> ...
>> ...You are trying to make me look bad, ...
>
> Why would anyone bother?
>
> Especially given you are ..
> a) Insignificant
> b) Doing such a good job of making you look bad*,
> all by your lonesome self.
>
> ;-)
>
> * But please don't allow me to stop your vitriolic
> outbursts. (Oh go on, use rude words - you *know*
> you want to). The available evidence suggests your
> words are providing immense amusement to the
> regular posters of this group.

Not being able to see Ed's posts myself, I find folks' responses to him rather
delightfully surreal.

I don't regret that I don't see the original posts, though.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 20, 6:01 am, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > Ed wrote:
> > ...
> >> ...You are trying to make me look bad, ...
>
> > Why would anyone bother?
>
> > Especially given you are ..
> > a) Insignificant
> > b) Doing such a good job of making you look bad*,
> > all by your lonesome self.
>
> > ;-)
>
> > * But please don't allow me to stop your vitriolic
> > outbursts. (Oh go on, use rude words - you *know*
> > you want to). The available evidence suggests your
> > words are providing immense amusement to the
> > regular posters of this group.
>
> Not being able to see Ed's posts myself, I find folks' responses to him rather
> delightfully surreal.
>
> I don't regret that I don't see the original posts, though.
>
> --
> Lew- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You don't regret seeing my posts, because you would feel more guilty,
if you saw them!

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 20, 2:53 am, "Andrew Thompson" <u32984@uwe> wrote:
> Ed wrote:
>
> ..
>
> >...You are trying to make me look bad, ...
>
> Why would anyone bother?
>
> Especially given you are ..
> a) Insignificant
> b) Doing such a good job of making you look bad*,
> all by your lonesome self.
>
> ;-)
>
> * But please don't allow me to stop your vitriolic
> outbursts. (Oh go on, use rude words - you *know*
> you want to). The available evidence suggests your
> words are providing immense amusement to the
> regular posters of this group.

Regular posters, like you? Yep, that could be the case, as I know
often friendship can blind a friend to not see an other friend's
shortcomings!
Fuck off, now, idiot!

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 19, 9:41 pm, "Mike Schilling" <email***@***.com>
wrote:
> "Ed" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>
> news:email***@***.com...
>
>
>
> > Where did you learn that, fucking idiot! You are trying to make me
> > look bad, but at the same, you are making mistakes! For your info, I
> > don't proofread, when posting on the internet!
>
> Yuuu don8t:" I wud nev$ver hafffe gest/;'<*&^%^

I like when I use the mind (Mind control at work) of this jackass, to
write nonsense!

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed Ed <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2:53 am, "Andrew Thompson" <u32984@uwe> wrote:
>> The available evidence suggests your
>> words are providing immense amusement to the
>> regular posters of this group.
> [...] Fuck off, now, idiot!

yah, yah, gimme mo' o' dat sduph!

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 21, 12:30 am, Andreas Leitgeb <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Ed <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2:53 am, "Andrew Thompson" <u32984@uwe> wrote:
> >> The available evidence suggests your
> >> words are providing immense amusement to the
> >> regular posters of this group.
> > [...] Fuck off, now, idiot!
>
> yah, yah, gimme mo' o' dat sduph!

I like when I control this idiot too, just look what she is writing!
Mind control at work, indeed!

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed Ed <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 12:30 am, Andreas Leitgeb <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> Ed <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 2:53 am, "Andrew Thompson" <u32984@uwe> wrote:
>> >> The available evidence suggests your
>> >> words are providing immense amusement to the
>> >> regular posters of this group.
>> > [...] Fuck off, now, idiot!
>> yah, yah, gimme mo' o' dat sduph!
> I like when I control this idiot too, just look what she is writing!
> Mind control at work, indeed!

Nah, dads nod de sem sduph, dads tshussd bu'shid.
Gimme summ mo' o' de ree'l one, eddiebaby!

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 20, 8:44 pm, Ed <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 6:01 am, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > > Ed wrote:
> > > ...
> > >> ...You are trying to make me look bad, ...
>
> > > Why would anyone bother?
>
> > > Especially given you are ..
> > > a) Insignificant
> > > b) Doing such a good job of making you look bad*,
> > > all by your lonesome self.
>
> > > ;-)
>
> > > * But please don't allow me to stop your vitriolic
> > > outbursts. (Oh go on, use rude words - you *know*
> > > you want to). The available evidence suggests your
> > > words are providing immense amusement to the
> > > regular posters of this group.
>
> > Not being able to see Ed's posts myself, I find folks' responses to him rather
> > delightfully surreal.
>
> > I don't regret that I don't see the original posts, though.
>
> > --
> > Lew- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You don't regret seeing my posts, because you would feel more guilty,
> if you saw them!

What does that even mean?

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 21, 1:00 pm, Daniel Pitts <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 8:44 pm, Ed <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 6:01 am, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
> > > Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > > > Ed wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >> ...You are trying to make me look bad, ...
>
> > > > Why would anyone bother?
>
> > > > Especially given you are ..
> > > > a) Insignificant
> > > > b) Doing such a good job of making you look bad*,
> > > > all by your lonesome self.
>
> > > > ;-)
>
> > > > * But please don't allow me to stop your vitriolic
> > > > outbursts. (Oh go on, use rude words - you *know*
> > > > you want to). The available evidence suggests your
> > > > words are providing immense amusement to the
> > > > regular posters of this group.
>
> > > Not being able to see Ed's posts myself, I find folks' responses to him rather
> > > delightfully surreal.
>
> > > I don't regret that I don't see the original posts, though.
>
> > > --
> > > Lew- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You don't regret seeing my posts, because you would feel more guilty,
> > if you saw them!
>
> What does that even mean?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It means he could feel guilty and decide to at least apologize to me!
He doesn't want give up, his bad manner, and rudeness, and that's why,
he did everything he can, to filter my posts and seems to not having
any regret, so far!

java-programmer >> A grammar lesson for Ed On Sep 20, 8:56 pm, Ed <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 9:41 pm, "Mike Schilling" <email***@***.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ed" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:email***@***.com...
>
> > > Where did you learn that, fucking idiot! You are trying to make me
> > > look bad, but at the same, you are making mistakes! For your info, I
> > > don't proofread, when posting on the internet!
>
> > Yuuu don8t:" I wud nev$ver hafffe gest/;'<*&^%^
>
> I like when I use the mind (Mind control at work) of this jackass, to
> write nonsense!

Google will be widely recognized as a verb - and in fact already
exists in several dictionaries - within the next five years. Let's
avoid the good mistake of fossilizing language. The world, and the
English language, continues to evolve and change. Welcome to the 21st
century!