Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 Are you having difficulty understanding the meaning of the sentence? Or would you care to demonstrate how you can better that in 10 words or less? No need- TonyErikson did it better than I can, in post #60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 OK- I like that. What the fact that you've been proven to not understand what others can. You're being a tit and a grammar one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 What the fact that you've been proven to not understand what others can. No, I meant that I much prefer your version to the turgid original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 No, I meant that I much prefer your version to the turgid original. You just didn't understand the original yet you chose to pull it up. That's you being a prat not the writer of the article or the article itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 No, it's the writer not expressing himself clearly enough: the focus of this thread (remember?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 No, it's the writer not expressing himself clearly enoughThat is your opinion of that piece. Which, manifestly, is neither mine nor Tony Erikson's. So, in the context of the thread (grammatically-correct English), why is your opinion any more authoritative or relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 It's not. If you re-read post #1, you'll see precisely the aim of the thread. Your contributions advance it not one jot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 No, it's the writer not expressing himself clearly enough: the focus of this thread (remember?) He was clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 It's not. If you re-read post #1, you'll see precisely the aim of the thread. Your contributions advance it not one jot.Your OP was plenty clear enough (how ironical ). Thus, you still have to explain to me in what respect the English language written by Mr Brobst is 'poor'. So far, the only demonstration of 'poor' character, is about your apparent grasp of computing matters. Moreover, and putting aside the fact that Mr Brobst's article is perfectly clear and understandable (at least to me and Tony Erikson, as we both appear to be versed in computing matters to a sufficient extent), is 'poor' synonymous with 'unclear'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temuchin Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I wish I was clever.:roll: A pedant may, of course, point out that that ought to be "I wish I were clever.": the subjunctive mood is required there. But I'm not a pedant, so I'll wait for one to come along... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.