This should be done by anybody.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:32 pm

If you produce much more doggerel like that, CONTEXTMAN, then SUPERGRAMMAR MAN aka SUPERGRAMMARIAN may have to come along and strangle you with your y-fronts.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:02 am

Stephen, I do not know why your comments were written.

That these sentences are not grammatical is not meant.

It must be confessed though, the "rule" need not have been mentioned in the first place.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:11 am

"Children" was all he could sigh, obviously resigning himself to the joke. Although he had used the plural, he only really had one particularly naughty little boy in mind.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:23 am

woodcutter wrote:Stephen, I do not know why your comments were written.

That these sentences are not grammatical is not meant.

It must be confessed though, the "rule" need not have been mentioned in the first place.

Which "rule"?

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:09 am

Metal - "Do not passivize for no reason". I did say it twice already.

I'm afraid I didn't see what the last comment you made with "should" was referring to though.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:17 am

woodcutter wrote:Metal - "Do not passivize for no reason". I did say it twice already.

I think mi anaphor is gettin all mixed.

I'm afraid I didn't see what the last comment you made with "should" was referring to though.

Which comment?