On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:23:53 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
<snip>
> You've got to admit that this guy (or monthpiece) can truly use flame to
> provoke and get replies that make his drivel visible, sometimes getting past
> filters and killfiles.
Well, posts are after all there to be replied to, and whether anyone likes
it or not, Erik is a regular in the group, and entitled to make his views
known. He's been a bit more of an arse than usual lately, but so have
quite a few people ;-)
>
>
>>> ... using the standard english construction "if it were", rather than the
>>> usual American "if it was"; I don't read Erik's posts usually, so haven't
>>> seen his style for a while, but I do recall him confusing dependent
>>> with dependant, so it seems surprising to see such a construction, and
>>> gives the strong impression that someone else wrote some, if not all,
>>> of that posting?
>>>
>>> Thoughts anyone?
>>
>> Your tinfoil hat is on too tight, Mark :-) Most ordinary people's grammar
>> is not rigidly consistent; I doubt very much if there is any more to it
>> than that.
>
>
> I agree, but Mark was probably sarcastic on the other hand. I am not entirely
> sure. Bear in mind that Microsoft was caught red handed as it was employing
> shills and sending them to public forums. While this last message didn't
> contain anything that is conspicuously suspicious, I have seen posts that
> seemed like a public statement issued by a panel. And it looks bad.
Mark's always been particularly hot on correct grammar, so he was probably
(semi) serious. Others less meticulous might not even have noticed the
was/were/ thing.
As for shills, I don't and never have believed Erik or indeed anyone here
is one.
--
Kier
|
|
