| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:17:35 -0500, JohnH wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003 07:52:12 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: Joe Parsons wrote in message . .. On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote: [snip] Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us, except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons of mass destruction before the war. If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct word is *taxpayers'*. John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you. Joe Parsons What did Saddam use on the Kurds? Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong. Only for one poster, whose grammar was atrocious and who persists in name-calling. If one is going to call others 'stupid', then he should at least do so correctly. There's a fundamental problem with that kind of approach, John. Anyone who knows me at all knows I consider proper usage to be very important--in both written and spoken communication. I'm constantly trying to get the words right and generally self-edit pretty carefully. But the kind of informal communication that we use in daily speech and on Usenet is typically evaluated by different criteria--and rightly so, I think. If every person contemplating a contribution to a newsgroup thought s/he might be subject to someone's criticism based on *form*, few would venture to post. But there's a tactical reason for not sinking to spelling and grammar flames. Yesterday, you wrote, in response to a post made by "basskisser:" Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand what it is you are trying to say. Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax, rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to parse/decode some moderately convoluted text. Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup. Joe Parsons The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an innoculation against speling flaims. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic/off topic | General | |||
| For my on topic friends... | General | |||
| on topic looking for | General | |||
| On Topic: Near Perfect Day on the Bay | General | |||
| Manifolds and risers -- help (on topic!!) | General | |||
Threaded Mode
