Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/01/2014 06:39 (04/01/2014 06:39) |
| Message-ID | <slrnljkgr6.r5f.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (47m) > Sandman Neil Ellwood (8h & 20m) > Sandman |
In article <cl4jj9do9n9elbllptdcc59nh5c35u588t@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:
I am perfectly aware of the meaning of the word "gross", which is why I am baffled by your misuse of it. Accidentally writing "is" when one should have written "are" is pretty much one of the tiniest and "non-bloated" ways to make a grammar mistake.SandmanTony CooperSandmanTony CooperPeterNSandman
Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI corrected your English.
There is none to look at that meet that criteria.
Here's one for you, then. "There is none..." is a gross error.
"gross", huh? I'm way past at taking you at face value, so you need more than just a claim here, Andreas.
What? You need some "substantiation" that it should be "There are none..."?
I actually missed that, I thought it was "none" you were in reference to, which sort of speaks to how low your credibility with regards to English is and how any comment you make about it will be doubted until you give anything substantial.I'm still baffled about the "gross" part though, but that's just you trolling though.Tony Cooper
Use that dictionary you keep copy/pasting from: gross >unattractively large or bloated.
That being said, a "gross" mistake is not something that is likened to being large or bloated, you picked the wrong definition. Words mean several things, and "gross" when used to describe a mistake is more aptly defined with the "vulgar, unrefined" part of the Oxford definition of the word, as opposed to something related to size. Or even the "complete, blatant" one.
In this case, either definition is equally ill-fitted though, which is why you used it of course.
-- Sandman[.net]
03/13/2014-
-
