Board Thread:Administration/@comment-24376429-20140226203353/@comment-1196539-20140304170352

CreepyStoriesRUs wrote: Yes, but first, let us give the denotation of grammar. "Grammar is the set of structual rules that make any clauses, phrases, words, and other terms from a natural language be used correctly."

Does this so mention anywhere that you must understand something to make it acceptable? Take such poets and authors akin to the works of Edgar Allen Poe. He used such high grammar that it was hard to understand, but that doesn't mean he had bad grammar. I never called anyone stupid either. I simply gave the quite unpopular side of the argument to see if you guys really had a solution to that. It is true, however, that I hardly know this bureaucrat, and I didn't know that she was of that rank. Excuse me for not knowing, if I do say so myself. If you guys really don't like that I don't know someone, then just consider me confused. I will take this in note next time. All because I said you don't understand the quality used doesn't mean you're stupid, numerous accounts of people don't interpret grammar on the Internet because they find it a waste of time. Please do check over my post to see if I used any harmful words that might've harmed you. If you have any oh-so-important notes I must take, then just don't waste your time any further. Still conveniently ignoring the example.

I'll spell it out, nice and crystal clear.

"Neutral because of I am against" is not grammatically correct. There should be no "of" in that phrase. It is grammatically incorrect for that "of" to be there.

This is not influenced or in any way related to the clarity of your argument, which is a separate issue entirely. That said, I thank you for clarifying your point and confirming that I was indeed correct in my summary of it. In the future, I suggest you don't assume the worst about a person and attack them just because you don't know them. You know what they say about assumptions.