The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

either an effort to mislead or bad math there - sloppy in either case, buckaroo banzai



two million tons to nine million people over two years

not two tons to nine million people over two years

For your consideration:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-less-informed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

What do you mean 'your fault?' You deliberately wrote a convoluted sentence in the hope that some idiot would get the wrong end of the stick, and you could feign outrage. Well I was the idiot, I fell into your trap, and that's what you intended all along.

Do thay still have dueling in England ?

I suppose if we did, you'd be over here like a shot, eager to show off your close grouping.

You think--



is a convoluted sentence?

I will admit to deliberately having written it though but the idea that I had hoped that some idiot would get the wrong end of the stick so that I could feign outrage is pure fancy on your part izzy.

Sure it is. One of the few things I know about you is, you don't miss a trick. You accused me of doing exactly the same thing when we spoke about oubliettes, that would suggest you've done something similar in the past, if not on this occasion.

I had copied and pasted from Setanta's post Jack. I presume the "million" was edited in after I had done that or that the copying and pasting process had somehow deleted the word.

But I unreservedly apologise to anyone I have mislead or disconcerted by my obvious jesting.

Not really.

What ought to be remembered in case the lessons of history have not been is that the 99% who own a measly 50% of the wealth own 99% of the physical force unless the 1% who own the other half have the willing co-operation of a significant proportion of the 99%.

It also should be borne in mind that the 99% are not only getting a very good deal with the 50% they do own but that they only enjoy such a fantastic privilege, seen historically and geographically, because of the wizardry of the 1% and that if the 99% owned 99% of the wealth all they would do with it is piss it against the wall in a gargantuan splurge of eco-unfriendly self indulgence which would drop the polar bears in the ****.

When I was a lad Christmas presents consisted of an apple and an orange and now parents are raddled with anxiety what to give their kids because they not only have everything they need but a good deal more of a whole pile of junk that they don't need. If the 1% owned 80% of the wealth a degree of sanity might return.

I imagine that the 99%'s ownership of 50% of US wealth represents a degree of wealth 99% greater than that of the 99% in the UN's list of the world's poorest countries and any arguments concerning how hard done to the 99% in the US are applies equally to the 99% in these poorest countries unless you are a racist which I am quite confident you don't think you are.

I assumed that the Archbishop's friendly remarks to the protesters in London were designed to protect St.Paul's Cathedral.

I am choking on percents. Not accidental, I presume.

@ izzy

I suggest that spendius did not deliberately write a convoluted sentence to confuse but that all of his sentences are convoluted due to his arrogance and his muddy thinking and, perhaps, to many hours spent at his pub. He sees all "through a glass darkly."

We don 't ofen agree, but this time, I gotta admit it!





David

I think you will find, Dave, that my last post on the Karma thread is more to your taste despite how much difficulty those who cannot read properly might find with it.

Me too, but I often agree with POM.

I vaguely remembered one that I did agree with recently.

I don 't say that u r NEVER comprehensible,
just not ofen enuf. I bear u no ill will.





David

Why don't we turn things on their head, let's examine the sentence again.


Could you describe this as a straightforward sentence, because I can't. I've already accepted that you made me look like an idiot. Yours is just a post on a thread, not something someone would need to study for a degree in Philosophy, so I don't think I should have to concentrate so much, as to detect the finer nuances that you're so proud of.

Incidentally, Professor:
that shoud be: "too many hours spent at his pub"
not: "to many hours spent at his pub"; we need to spell that word
correctly in order to express its different meanings: to, too & two.

Pass that along to your students, with my best wishes.





David

Actually, 'too many hours down the pub,' or 'at his local pub' would be more in keeping with our vernacular.

I was focusing my attention of the logic of the grammar,
establishing the distinction in the use of that word,
toward the goal of clarity of thinking.
For the most part, English grammar is admirably logical; not always, but almost always.

Vernacular use to the side, it is theoretically possible
that his "pub" might be elevated above the speaker,
further uptown (higher street number), or North, or up in an attic or roof garden.





David

Actually you missed the nuance of her use of "to" rather than "Too' It was used in combination with "due" as in"due to".
Your years championing the use of phonetic spelling is quickly detaching your written abilities from the mother tongue.