4 ms·
Yeah. Say, when you decided to write in English, you agreed to obey the rules of grammar, which state that every sentence should have a subject, an object and
by chernevik 14y ago
Yeah.
Say, when you decided to write in English, you agreed to obey the rules of grammar, which state that every sentence should have a subject, an object and a verb. Constructions such as "Not some of the rules . . . " etc break that rule.
And when you decided to pick a fight with me, you agreed to not put words in my mouth. Suggestions that I assert some right to not have the laws enforced upon me, when I made no such statement, or any statement of any kind about my rights, break that rule.
I'm not saying all these rules are right. But this idea (that is, that while lecturing others, you have some right to break those rules because you them inconvenient) is absurd.
- Cushman 14y ago> But this idea (that is, that while lecturing others, you have some right to break those rules because you them inconvenient) is absurd. Heh. Protip: When criticizing style as a point of argument, make sure you don't accidentally a word. I'd actually recommend against criticizing style at all, unless someone's paying you to do it for them. It's hard to do in good faith. But thanks for the help, anyway.
- chernevik 14y agoAny reader will know what I mean, which for my style here is enough, because I am not the one arguing for compliance. And I'm not criticizing style "in good faith" but to make a point: the spirit of a rule is more important than its letter. Your agreement is obvious in the annotated violations of common rules of usage and argument. I don't really care about your grammar. But putting words in my mouth irritated me enough to craft a snarky response.
- Cushman 14y agoNext time, try a little more craft and a little less snark.