On 6/6/99 7:15:41 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>What are you, an echo or
>I know what I wrote -- it's right there
>for you, me,(or anyone else) to look at,
>if need be). Why on earth you seem to
>feel that it is necessary to provide a
>verbatim account of every post you
>respond to is beyond me (and probably a
>good subject for further analysis).
>Both the style and the content of your
>remarks clearly demonstrate that the
>rather amusing term you deigned to
>use(how cute of you!)to describe my
>original ob-servation much more
>appropriately suits the tenor of your
>commentary than it does mine.
>I am pleased (if not, indeed, honored)
>to see that you seem to not only have a
>passing knowledge of what a "participle"
>is, but took both the time and effort to
>ensure that your note was free of
>spelling errors (especially those as
>egregious as "saught").
>However, should you not have placed the
>word "had" after the word "he" (and
>before the word "left")?
>Additionally, wouldn't one ordinarily
>expect to see a "," after the word
>"dangling" (and before the word
>And, finally, isn't the word
>"misspelled" (instead of "misspelling")
>more appropriate to the construction
>Take thy "pomposity" and get thee behind
>And as for "Patos?" I am certain that
>his reverend uncle would do a
>"double-take" on his response, as well!
>Aren't we missing just a few of the
>rudiments of the English language here?
>Give me a break, folks, killing the
>messenger went out of style eons ago!
A resident grammarian..... When the bell rings, go to recess!
The questions will not be dignified with answers.
Staten Island WebŪ Forums Index.