Post by thread:[OT] Internal Voltage Boost

I wrote (couse I love English :-) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier You reacted (do you love English?): On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Bob Blick <spam_OUTbobblickTakeThisOuTftml.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Final warning. Topic is PIC, change the tag if you want to discuss > sentence structure. > > Bob > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:51:07 +0300, "Marechiare" said: >> > Looking at the Family Reference Manual (DS39897C ~page 210), it >> > looks as if all the info you need is in there. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free > >

Hat: Tam o' Shanter > I wrote ... you ... The he wrote / I wrote / untrimmed / posts post-mixed combination defies establishing exactly what is said or intended. The point which the admin was making is that people (you and others) have been asked repeatedly not to interject random unrelated material into threads under the main topic tags, and especially under [PIC]. There are excellent reasons for requesting this (as opposed to SOME other requests which may or may not have as firm a basis.) The lists primary focus is PIC and many have objected and object to the general flights of random fancy which have crept (or leaped) into the list over time. OT is provided for the exercise of such excesses, within certain bounds, and people have been asked and asked and asked to respect this requirement. Having people who by now DO know better continue to ignore the requests MAY be argued to be 'over reaction' but you'd be unwise to argue it loudly.[That's not a threat on my part, just good advice]. > I wrote (couse I love English :-) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier If you aspire to being an Anglophile then the path to enlightenment probably leads first by way of correct spelling before reaching the lofty heights of twitting others re linguistic constructs that are nowadays more often honoured in the breach than the observance. [Because <-- 'cause <-- couse] > You reacted (do you love English?): Speaking for myself, 'What do you think?' :-). Not, of course, that that has any bearing whatsoever on the noising up of [PIC]. ie {Quote hidden}> > 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant > > 3. If wishing to make points re pedantry, sophistry, euphony, > > sollipsism (although, I don't know about you ... :-) ), symphony, et > > al > > *** PLEASE *** (as frequently requested) change tag to [OT]: > > Changing subject line to eg "Random drivellings" is optional. > > ie leaving the subject line as is in OT at least shows what the > > intended target is, when / if one fails to include enough subject > > material to avoid a literary act e'n more heinous than the one alluded > > to. _________________ Next tutorial in series: Trimming prior posted material. R

RussellMc wrote: >> I wrote (couse I love English :-) >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier > > If you aspire to being an Anglophile then the path to enlightenment > probably leads first by way of correct spelling before reaching the > lofty heights of twitting others re linguistic constructs that are > nowadays more often honoured in the breach than the observance. > [Because <-- 'cause <-- couse] Thank you pointing out my typo in "couse". That really helps me. Interesting, my intention was not to "Pedanticly nitpick about English usage" when I posted that link on dangling modifiers. The idea was, as always, very simple - to help a person improve his language. Frankly, I don't understand why you and some others are getting so defensive about that my post with just one short line - a link to wikipedia article. There were no any attack/nitpick at all. Guys, let's live friendly lives! :-)