He's laughing his ass off at your vacant minded suggestion that he list the rules he knows.
Obviously, not CI's intent.
you're batting zero
Anus, Aptly named, BTW, for jumping the gun
posting something I revised
English grammar is not so simplistic as you make it out to be.
They were laughable examples of a severely confused mind,
a little man who thought by reading some nonsense somewhere
Why did it take you six pages of dribble to "explain" your "rules", considering that they were stunning examples of simple mindedness?
As soon as you ran yourself up a stump, which was often, off you would go on another tangent, completely forsaking your "explanations".
Where is your source for these "rules"? Did you make them up yourself?
There is little complexity in the knob.......I understand perfectly.
Is "a lot" also excluded in your rule? Do the rules of English allow a lot more?
The discussion on 'much more' has been moved to,
you've obviously not read the right posts.
for there's a venue for you to discuss your "rules".
Not that that has anything to do with evolution, because atheism and evolution are not related.
No people that passes abruptly from a state of subservience under the rule of a despot to the completely unfamiliar state of political independence can be said to have a fair chance of making democratic insitutions work.
And they are incorrect . Like people who use "much more" .
"That that" and "much more" are fine, and of course even necessary in the right circumstances.
Perfectly good English.
They [[the reactors]] were also much more religious, much more active in the affairs of their church and much more preoccupied, on a subconscious level, with their pelvic and abdominal organs.