T1B

I knew he couldn't be talking about sandwiches.

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I know a lot of posters here like to re-hash the same argument over and over again (abortion, climate change, etc.)

Abortion and climate change are debatable subjects.

Grammatical rules are not.

Like I said, when I feel like spending the time, I'll hook you you up with the links.

Goober McTuber wrote:I know a lot of posters here like to re-hash the same argument over and over again... but once is usually enough for me.

I'll remember that during your next Scott Walker thread.

Took about 5 seconds.

http://grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html

I can link you up several thousand more showing you're wrong, if you like.

Although it does explain the one rarely-encountered exception.

Or I can link you up with ones that tell you why your stab at the English version of English is wrong, too.

From your link:

Now, keep in mind that this comma and period inside the quotation marks business is strictly American usage. The British don't do it that way. They are inclined to place commas and periods logically rather than conventionally, depending on whether the punctuation belongs to the quotation or to the sentence that contains the quotation, just as we do with question marks and exclamation points.

War Wagon wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I know a lot of posters here like to re-hash the same argument over and over again... but once is usually enough for me.

I'll remember that during your next Scott Walker thread.

Trolling is not arguing.

Goober McTuber wrote:From your link:

Now, keep in mind that this comma and period inside the quotation marks business is strictly American usage. The British don't do it that way. They are inclined to place commas and periods logically rather than conventionally, depending on whether the punctuation belongs to the quotation or to the sentence that contains the quotation, just as we do with question marks and exclamation points.

If you think you typed that in proper "British English," keep flailing away. You fucked that up, too. It certainly was not properly punctuated.

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:From your link:

Now, keep in mind that this comma and period inside the quotation marks business is strictly American usage. The British don't do it that way. They are inclined to place commas and periods logically rather than conventionally, depending on whether the punctuation belongs to the quotation or to the sentence that contains the quotation, just as we do with question marks and exclamation points.

If you think you typed that in proper "British English," keep flailing away. You fucked that up, too. It certainly was not properly punctuated.

The King's English.

Besides, your sig file is a flat out lie, as I never made such a statement. I suggested that someone ascribing to suckaholic’s logic might make such a statement, but that statement could not be attributed to me, regardless of what you think of the punctuation.

Therefore, you are a fucking liar. Why should I put any credence in the mutterings of a lying fucking liar?

Goober McTuber wrote:The King's English.

Again, lame excuse. If you knew anything about the subject like you claim, your error would be quite obvious to you.

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:The King's English.

Again, lame excuse. If you knew anything about the subject like you claim, your error would be quite obvious to you.

And if you weren't such a lying fucking liar, you might just have a shred of credibility.

Again?

Correct or incorrect usage isn't subject to opinion or credibility, only right and wrong.

You're wrong -- and from all your obfuscation, you obviouly now know you are... but don't know why.

And I'm still laughing.

Sorry, liar = zero credibility.

More obfuscation? It ain't working for you, although your attempts to hide your ignorace behind something completely unrelated to the topic at hand is amusing.

My "credibility" has nothing to do with your ignorance, which is fully on display... and you still haven't figured it ot yet.

I have figured out that you're a liar. That's all I need to know.

Good for you that you know something, because you sure the fuck don't know how to punctuate the King's English.

Goober McTuber wrote: Why should I put any credence in the mutterings of a lying fucking liar?

This is an obscure message board. No one lies on the internet...especially in here.

Nice thread hijack BTW.

Goober McTuber wrote:Not if you were taught the King's English.

Queen's English you mean.

They already went through the whole King's vs Queen's English thing.

Van wrote:They already went through the whole King's vs Queen's English thing.

Google "King's English" and "Queen's English" and you'll find 4 times as many hits for the former. When I was in school, the Queen was in power but my teachers were so old they were still teaching the King's English.

Yes, we did live on the street with the idiots.

Funny side note to that story, the chief a-holes next door were forced to file bankruptcy. Looks like they will have to short sell their house. Awwwww, too bad. I guess the multi-level marketing of energy and advocare isn't enough to live on.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Not if you were taught the King's English.

Queen's English you mean.

He doesn't know how to use it, but DAMMIT, he knows what it's called!

Goober McTuber wrote: When I was in school, the Queen was in power ....

Victoria?

smackaholic wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: When I was in school, the Queen was in power ....

Victoria?

Helen. Of Troy.

Dinsdale wrote:He doesn't know how to use it, but DAMMIT, he knows what it's called!

When you catch a fish, do you taunt it for days telling it how much you're getting over on it?


Put your cards on the table and let's have a look-see. I am curious.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:He doesn't know how to use it, but DAMMIT, he knows what it's called!

When you catch a fish, do you taunt it for days telling it how much you're getting over on it?


Put your cards on the table and let's have a look-see. I am curious.

Since you asked, OK.

He claims to be typing the "King's English" as an excuse for misplaced punctuation when he typed “I sucked a cock”.[sic, and kind of sick]


Uhm, no. If he actually knew what he was talking about, and was actually writing in the "King's English," he would have surely known the correct punctuation was:

'I sucked a cock'.

So he flailed on both sides of The Pond.

Thanks. And a quick google search tells me you're right.

I had no idea about the single quotes... back in the day.

There is no uniformity of single vs double quotations for spoken dialogue even in the Queen's/King's English. Or, if there ever was, that day is long past. Many British writers use double quotations.

Last I checked, John le Carré was a British writer of some note. He uses double quotations, and has for fifty years. Same with a more modern British author, J.K. Rowling. A British writer of even greater note, J.R.R. Tolkien, uses both. Checking my Ballantine Books editions of The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and The Trilogy, he uses single quotations for everything but The Hobbit, which was written after the The Trilogy yet still before Goobs was in school. Presumably.

Then again, perhaps the editors at Ballantine Books simply took it upon themselves to Americanize the punctuation for The Hobbit, and perhaps the same holds true for Bantam Books and John le Carré. Maybe in versions intended for the UK they use single quotations. I don't know.

All I do know is that a year or two ago I switched over to American English punctuation full-time even though I think British punctuation is more logical. That being said, seeing a period outside of a quotation mark now seems really jarring to me.

We were taught double quotes. Single quotes for a quote within a quote. And the period outside of the quotes where logical.

Dinsdale wrote:I sucked a cock

Nice.

^^^ Three quotes in your sig? You are truly the master of tediousness.

Screw_Michigan wrote:^^^ Three quotes in your sig? You are truly the master of tediousness.

My bad. I got sidetracked. I was intending to retire the other two. They've had a glorious run.

Geez, what is with the older, wiser, gentler Gobbles McTubesteak? Did you trip balls on some good LSD lately or something?

See Goobs, there's a difference -- I couldn't give two poos what you have in your sig.

You, on the other hand, seemed to have sucked your panties halfway to your small intestine upon seeing mine, to the tune of about a page of your usual spam.

A rather counterproductive effort at getting over.

Maybe it’s just that your life is so filled with lies that you’re just immune to it.

My life?

If you were to ask anyone who knows me in my life, they'd likely use the term "honest to a fault."

Whereas you delude yourself into thinking you're clever and witty every time you log in here.

Another swing and a miss.

And you wonder why people use smilies in their posts. It's to help people like you to not take everything so seriously.

Van wrote:...John le Carré...

Ugh. Just kill me. Spent a month one week reading "The Russia House." Three words: Te. Di. Ous.

Some Brits just do not translate well into American. Follet, on the other hand, is a terrific read.

Oh, and rack Dins, Goobs, and ucant for the bwahahas...

Goober McTuber wrote:And you wonder why people use smilies in their posts. It's to help people like you to not take everything so seriously.

Let's see...

we have "you're a liar!"

"You take this too seriously!"

And the oldie but goodie "I was being sarcastic!"


There's a term on these boards for what you're doing, but I won't use it and deprive you of your next "smack."

Truman, I can't make up my mind regarding le Carré. On the one hand, yes, he can be tedious. His subject matter and choose-no-sides message are decidedly anti-thriller. As opposed to others within the genre, it's like comparing an 88 screed with something similar by mvscal. He goes for the subtle turn-of-phrase over the shoot-'em-up car chase every time. On the other hand, he's like a fluent jazz player in his utter freedom and willingness to flaunt and ultimately eschew convention. The guy is absolutely fucking brilliant in terms of his narratives. There are times when I literally stop and reread certain passages just for his sheer audacity. His constructs are breathtaking.

He is a master writer. He's certainly not the guy to recommend for a spellbinding page-turner, but he will make you think. He'll also make you cast a revelatory eye on your own writing.

By no means is he my favorite author for entertainment value, but upon finishing any of his works I'm always glad for the time spent.

Okay. I’ll give le Carré another look. Regardless, “The Russia House” struck me as plodding and predictable, and his writing style – at least for this novel – was an assault upon American sensibilities.

Since it’s a given that you appreciate a good turn of the phrase, and should you happen to be a fan of the spy/cop/thriller/mystery genre, then you might want to give Martin Cruz Smith a try. You will appreciate the dark humor of Smith’s Arkady Renko character in “Gorky Park”, a senior crime investigator in Moscow’s MVD. The success of this novel spawned a series of others – you will want to read them all – and irritated the Great Bear effectively enough see Smith barred from ever entering the Soviet Union. Fortunately, his novels have outlived the Evil Empire. A VERY underrated author...

Van wrote:Queen's/King's English.

It's pretty easy. When the UK has a Queen (as it does now), you refer to the Queen's English. If they have a King, it's King's English etc.