- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Greenspan Criticizes Administration
Greenspan Criticizes AdministrationFollow
Anyway, Yossarian, like I was saying, your usage of grammar is perfectly fine in this case. It's amazing how well one can articulate one's self without purporting to be an expert in the field. And how the purported experts can have a shocking failure to grasp simple concepts.
trickybeck wrote:
Anyway, Yossarian, like I was saying, your usage of grammar is perfectly fine in this case.
Ya. It's sad, but by admitting I could have made an error, I was trying to draw gbaji out into actually making a point. I was going to reply earlier in the day, with this very same comment, but thought: god this is pointless.
gbaji is much funnier if you let him actually try to define his own terms. In this case, he has redefined noun to include (or replace - who knows!) adjective.
Then reply. Use his exact definitions. Watch as he contradicts himself by reverting to the standard definitions we all use in everyday life.
Like shooting fish in a barrel, really.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
In either case it's *not* a verb. It's a noun. He's not talking about "securing world oil supplies", but about having "secure world oil supplies". Totally different meanings.
That is not a noun, you fUCking mental midget. If it's used in the way you think it's used - and I have no horse in that race - then it's an adjective. It describes a noun.
Holy mother of God, you're an idiot.
Apparently, you missed the part where I said it was either one of a series of adjectives describing an object *or* was part of an objective phrase.
You're correct though. I should have clarified that better. It's either a noun (part of an objective phrase, which is treated in whole as a noun) or it's an adjective that describes a noun. In either case, it's not a verb.
The important point is that it's not a verb. Nice job with the whole missing the forest for the trees though...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
yossarian wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
Anyway, Yossarian, like I was saying, your usage of grammar is perfectly fine in this case.
Ya. It's sad, but by admitting I could have made an error, I was trying to draw gbaji out into actually making a point. I was going to reply earlier in the day, with this very same comment, but thought: god this is pointless
Gah! The grammar may be perfectly fine, but the use is wrong.
Intentional or not, you changed the entire meaning of what Greenspan said and argued against that changed meaning instead of what he actually said.
The point I was actually trying to make was exactly that. The consistency with which many people do this sort sort of thing. A point you claim you wanted to draw out of me, but which I've stated and clarified at least twice in this thread, but you seem unwilling to discuss. What exact "point" did you think I was bringing up when I pointed that out? It's not like I didn't tell you. Oh wait! I did...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You still haven't told me what I won 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gbaji literally doesn't understand English. Literally.
Recent Visitors: 206
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (206)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Greenspan Criticizes Administration
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC