You can live with hope or you can live without hope.

[Alien]

A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.

If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...

You really do not get it, do you. I have O level in English which took me literally 6 lessons to do and pass.
What I find really stupid is that you and others moan about  English grammar(but only here on sites where you post) is the hardest for anyone including English teachers. But I do know as any educated person that sometimes we tend to write as we speak without punctuation. The educated amongst us have no problem with reading what everyone else writes because our ability to comprehend and understand what we see if above that of the average person.

You complaining about grammar is about your lack in ability to see what is before you in content. It is the lack of the person complaining which is the real issue. You are lacking in the ability and intelligence to be able to put in your own punctuation as you read. I have no problem with the punctuation and the grammar fallacy.

All people who complain about grammar (basically the stringing of words together to make sentences) are actually lacking in the intelligence and ability to correct it themselves.
That they lack the knowledge, education and ability to understand what is written based on the words strung together. The sentences do make sense to those educated enough to know what is being discussed...

Blimey. Someone is having a bad day.

[Leonard James]

Who knows what you are talking about?

Only Sass does ... and even she is mystified as to what she means at times. 

[Alien]

The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.

Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pìgs.

Len, nobody kept pigs by the thousand.

Jews didn't, but Jesus went into areas of mixed Gentile/Jewish populations.

But Roman legions (note that) numbered thousands. The Tenth Legion were infamous in Palestine and were partly responsible for the destruction of the temple.

That was 40 years later or so. Were they around when Jesus was?

Their emblem was the boar.

You may be right, but the only info I can find (Wikipedia) says their emblem was a bull.

[floo]

A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.

If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...

You really do not get it, do you.

Wrong, it is you who has failed to get "it".

Foo wrote

    A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.

I'm pretty sure she meant

   A string of posts from Sass - who knows what she is talking about?

I've observed her posts about you quite a lot and it would be totally out of character for her to imply you know what you are talking about ever.

Anyway, thanks for the rant.  I deleted the rest without reading it.

Who knows what you are talking about?

I have just clocked why the grammar issue was brought up.

A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.


But actually that sentence is not grammatically incorrect, I said what I meant to say, I was being tongue in cheek!

[BashfulAnthony]

According to whom?

According to those who write correct English.  Try doing it.

[Shaker]

According to whom?

According to those who write correct English.  Try doing it.

I do - consistently.

The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... 

[BashfulAnthony]

According to whom?

According to those who write correct English.  Try doing it.

I do - consistently.

The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... 

 You were wrong.  Why can't you ever accept that?

[Shaker]

According to whom?

According to those who write correct English.  Try doing it.

I do - consistently.

The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... 

 You were wrong.  Why can't you ever accept that?

Why can't you answer a simple question? You presented a passage in #116 which was bracketed by quotation marks, thus imputing it to some as yet unidentified source instead of its being written in your own words. What was/is that source and why are you so keen to conceal it? My alleged "wrongness" in this matter relies upon some authoritative source which is generally regarded as a definitive agreement upon English usage; you're copying and pasting without even revealing your sources.

A bit shabby and shoddy all round, really. No surprise to me, but still.

[BashfulAnthony]

According to whom?

According to those who write correct English.  Try doing it.

I do - consistently.

The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... 

 You were wrong.  Why can't you ever accept that?

Why can't you answer a simple question? You presented a passage in #116 which was bracketed by quotation marks, thus imputing it to some as yet unidentified source instead of its being written in your own words. What was/is that source and why are you so keen to conceal it? My alleged "wrongness" in this matter relies upon some authoritative source which is generally regarded as a definitive agreement upon English usage; you're copying and pasting without even revealing your sources.

A bit shabby and shoddy all round, really. No surprise to me, but still.

You silly, sad man!  You were wrong: the end!

[Shaker]

Ah; a feeble and pathetic dodge, then. So it goes.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ah; a feeble and pathetic dodge, then. So it goes.

Staggering:  The way you attempt to turn things round to avoid admitting a simple error.  I'm not dodging anything  -  you are!  You really have a problem admitting you are wrong, ever  Still, that's your problem, but it is not a pleasant characteristic.

[Shaker]

I'm not dodging anything

Sure you are. Where did your quotation in #116 come from?

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm not dodging anything

Sure you are. Where did your quotation in #116 come from?

Give up.  Admit you are wrong, you pathetic man!   

[Shaker]

Why are you so reluctant to reveal the source of the quotation you posted in #116?

[BashfulAnthony]

Why are you so reluctant to reveal the source of the quotation you posted in #116?

What does it matter?  Are you saying what I wrote was incorrect?  That is the point.  If so, justify why it was incorrect.  If not, admit you were wrong.  It is as simple as that.

[Shaker]

What does it matter?

You're claiming it as an authority which supposedly demonstrates that I am incorrect. I want to know what you regard as such an authority. 

Are you saying what I wrote was incorrect?  That is the point.  If so, justify why it was incorrect.  If not, admit you were wrong.  It is as simple as that.

No, it's as simple as the fact that you are constitutionally dishonest in refusing to provide a source for something which you have posted supposedly as some sort of authority on the English language.

I suspect it was some sort of half-arsed mess of a third-string website whose source you're embarrassed to acknowledge, hence the continued stonewalling.

[BashfulAnthony]

What does it matter?

You're claiming it as an authority which supposedly demonstrates that I am incorrect. I want to know what you regard as such an authority. 

Are you saying what I wrote was incorrect?  That is the point.  If so, justify why it was incorrect.  If not, admit you were wrong.  It is as simple as that.

No, it's as simple as the fact that you are constitutionally dishonest in refusing to provide a source for something which you have posted supposedly as some sort of authority on the English language.

I suspect it was some sort of half-arsed mess of a third-string website whose source you're embarrassed to acknowledge, hence the continued stonewalling.

Is your original comment correct or not?  The rest is a red herring.   Try doing it, it won't
hurt; and people might even think more of you  (though that's unlikely.)

[Shaker]

Is your original comment correct or not?  The rest is a red herring.   Try doing it, it won't
hurt; and people might even think more of you  (though that's unlikely.)

Christ, that really must have been some shitty old website you lifted your quotation from; no wonder you won't reveal the source 

[BashfulAnthony]

Is your original comment correct or not?  The rest is a red herring.   Try doing it, it won't
hurt; and people might even think more of you  (though that's unlikely.)

Christ, that really must have been some shitty old website you lifted your quotation from; no wonder you won't reveal the source 

The fact is, you are narcissistic.  A narcissist is never, ever wrong, and likes to present diversions. The narcissist cannot accept responsibility for making a mistake and he is expert at diverting the blame to others.  A narcissist, like you, will never admit any mistakes, and when confronted, will deflect and delay. You believe you are invincible and perfect. Most people can admit to making errors, and apologise.  You are unable to do this as that would require acknowledging that you are not perfect.  Learn a little humility, old son.

[Shaker]

A narcissist, like you, will never admit any mistakes, and when confronted, will deflect and delay.

You haven't "confronted" me with anything but a quote from a source you're quite clearly too ashamed to acknowledge.

[BashfulAnthony]

A narcissist, like you, will never admit any mistakes, and when confronted, will deflect and delay.

You haven't "confronted" me with anything but a quote from a source you're quite clearly too ashamed to acknowledge.

Narcissist.  Keep on deflecting and delaying.  Keep digging.   

[floo]

Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. The term originated from the Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water.

I would never attribute narcissism to Shaker, however the term would be a very good description of his accuser!

[Leonard James]

Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. The term originated from the Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water.

I would never attribute narcissism to Shaker, however the term would we a very good description of his accuser!

Your perception, Roses, is brialliant at times! 

[Rhiannon]

The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.

Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pìgs.

Len, nobody kept pigs by the thousand.

Jews didn't, but Jesus went into areas of mixed Gentile/Jewish populations.

But Roman legions (note that) numbered thousands. The Tenth Legion were infamous in Palestine and were partly responsible for the destruction of the temple.

That was 40 years later or so. Were they around when Jesus was?

Their emblem was the boar.

You may be right, but the only info I can find (Wikipedia) says their emblem was a bull.

Come off it. Even agribusiness farmers today don't keep free-ranging herds of pigs by the thousand.

It's not a historical account so the fact it post-dates Jesus doesn't matter. The probable date of the writing of Mark fits perfectly with the idea of satirising Rome though.

Legio X Fretensis had the boar as its emblem.

[Rhiannon]

The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.

Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pìgs.

Len, nobody kept pigs by the thousand. But Roman legions (note that) numbered thousands. The Tenth Legion were infamous in Palestine and were partly responsible for the destruction of the temple. Their emblem was the boar.

I don't think Jesus referred to them as pigs, but the writer of Mark did. We was making the point that Jesus triumphed over those that wanted to destroy him and his followers. It's a kind of satire.

Blimey, you've got to hand it to these Christians! Their ingenuity in thinking up "explanations" for the otherwise daft stories in the Bible knows no bounds! 

Which Christian would that be, Len? Not this pagan for one.

If you look into it, Len, you'll find this entirely plausible, even likely. Why be closed-minded as to its meaning just because some still take it literally?