Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

The following link ,

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/runons.htm

is often cited as a grammar source and yet it is filled with mistakes. One mistake was pointed out to them over five years ago, they admitted it wasn't accurate, but nothing has been changed.

Oops, comma splice.

Why? Because these types of websites simply collect all the old nonsense and regurgitate it in the same fashion that OED regurgitated the nonsense about split infinitives until 1996 or thereabouts when they finally came out and "pronounced" it to be kosher.



You could probably find a section at this website where they warn against using words like 'smooshed'. How many teachers would redmark that little "error"?



Run on sentences are not "structural flaws". They are unbelievably common in everyday speech and that everyday speech spills over into everyday writing.

"Proper" punctuation has nothing to do with grammar. It has to do with stylistic considerations that we try to observe for the most formal of writing.

If we were to follow their advice in the sentence above, [which is a really dumb example for them to have chosen without including some guidance to let people know what they already know, that these stylistic considerations DO NOT cover speech], we would have a change in the nuance,

The sun is high, so put on some sunblock.

Without, 'so' the statement is more neutral. By adding 'so' it could easily be glossed as an angrier, more insistent statement. In the next section, they probably went on for pages about the importance of writing clearly and not inserting extra words. [roll eyes emoticon]




Pure piffle. A2K postings are replete with comma splices. Using comma splices [no hyphen necessary]/short pause statements is as natural as breathing and the only time I've noticed them come up is when OmSig wants to bust someone's balls.

Okay, not pure piffle, mostly piffle. Why don't these sites, which purport to know about language, put at the top of every page,

THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES DO NOT APPLY TO ALL LANGUAGE SITUATIONS. THEY ARE STYLISTIC CONVENTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ARTIFICIALLY DEVISED TO TRY TO AVOID CONFUSION IN THE WRITTEN WORD.

And yet, there are people who make entire careers out of passing off this flat earth nonsense, very likely even some of those same professors who are unwilling to allow any Wikipedia sources to taint their students thoughts or papers.

Did I just slice a comma?

Do you mean, Renaldo, "paragraph after paragraph detailing certain questions that have arisen in the course of this discussion" thick, or do you mean the thick that is evident in "Are you really this thick?"

I reply to the first point in someone's post who takes my post and edits it for their responses. I will not read their post after they have taken apart my post. You're wasting your time if that is what you expect.

How very convenient for you. Someone takes the time to address you point-by-point, but they are wasting their time.

I think that's basically what I said on about page three of this discussion. It's a waste of time, because you don't care about facts.

(And this is another example of dishonesty. You mix together bits of truth with bits of fantasy, and then claim "there's some truth in what I say!")

I disagree. What you call replying "point by point" is isolating my words out of context to fit your agenda. My reply is one complete thought. Lefties use this tactic quite often. Any fool can use tactics like this and make themselves look intelligent.

You have yet to show me where I am wrong.

Okay. Since your reply is "one complete thought" ... we (= lefties) use this tactic quite often. And we make us look intelligent by such.

Interesting response..... ehem, complete thought of you, I should say.

You'd rather have folks just put "All this is bullshit" at the bottom of your postings?

As it is for every young and naive student to learn where they are wrong and where they are right, so too, is it important for every old naive student to learn the same thing.

Like I said......any fool can use this tactic and make themselves look intelligent.

Once again we see a lefty omitting part of my words. Thanks for proving my point and your dishonesty.

Yyyyyyyaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwn

AAK! I've reached the tipping point. I've been waterboarded by boobies endless attempts to use obvious GOProp rationalism's used by heartless conservatives that lack cogent moral arguments. Arguments that prey on the stupidity of their blinded constituents. I succumbed to the waterboarding.

I confess. I confess. I'll tell you, boobie, whatever boobie wants to hear. I've been to room 101. I've seen the future and it's not pretty.

My confession



--Just stop the waterboarding boobie

Medic, medic, man down over here.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

You're doing exactly what I said you would!

Sometimes, perhaps even more often, it's quite entertaining to read your post.

Sometimes, I think that you really must fool us.

And quite often, I really feel pity ... I'll enclose you in my prayers, RD.

Who do you pray to?

I really don't like discussions about personal beliefs - since they are personal.

But as said earlier, I'm a Christian, Roman Catholic to be precise.

Do you believe your Pope hears directly from God?

Tangent city, Renaldo.

Since you have problems with quoting, I better copy my related post from above:


But since this is a rather ridiculous question: no. And I've never heard until now of someone saying so.