Consider buying American!

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:

>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
>>> what is the correct grammar
>>Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>
>That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require an
>answer.

Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
such requires a question mark.

Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?
--
Dan.

In article >,
Dean Dark > wrote:
> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?

ITYM 'grammatical' That is the adjective of grammar. ;-)

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:36:57 -0500, Dean Dark >
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:
>
>>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
>>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
>>>> what is the correct grammar
>>>Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>>
>>That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require an
>>answer.
>
>Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
>such requires a question mark.
>
>Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?


As I said Dan - we ENGLISH invented the language so we can do what we like with
it unlike the French who are very strict with spelling and pronunciation and the
Spanish who place the ? upside down but then that's not English - is it?
--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:
>
>>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we
>>>> ENGLISH
>>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is
>>>> to say
>>>> what is the correct grammar
>>>Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>>
>>That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require
>>an
>>answer.
>
> Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
> such requires a question mark.
>
> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?

White's Law of Syntactic Entropy.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article > ,
> jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> BMW don't make their transmissions.
>>>>>
>>>> but they do write their own specifications!!!
>>>
>>> Well that's easy.........
>>>
>>> 1. it must work
>>>
>
>> actually, that's lower down the list.
>
>> specs are very detailed and very tight. it'll include all the
>> materials, their tolerances, their fatigue performance, weight,
>> hardness, microstructure, etc., etc. castings even get things like
>> their size stability closely defined because some transmission alloys
>> permanently change volume with time at elevated temperatures. it's very
>> non-trivial.
>
> Maybe. But BMW simply specify their version of a basic design. From ZF etc
> if autos. The same basic box as used in many other vehicles. And these
> days the differences between them tends to be mainly in the software.
> ZF specify what the 'box can handle torque wise by the final two digits of
> the model number. 6 cylinder BMWs changed from the 5HP18 to 5HP20 when
> they increased the largest engine capacity from 2.8 to 3 litres.
> Of course it could be argued that overspeccing the torque handling
> capability of an auto will result in longer life. It might - but it also
> results in greater weight, size and cost.

So, like everything else, it's a case of trade offs & good engineering.

wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:12:17 -0800, jim beam > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:59:45 -0800, jim beam > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:05:28 -0800, jim beam
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> but that's not the point. if the chain is worn enough to skip, it's
>>>>>> being run as a gross polluter. and long before. that is stupid and
>>>>>> easily avoided with a belt.
>>>>> All of this assumes the owner never did a "tune up" or put a timing
>>>>> light on it.
>>>> cam timing, not ignition timing!!! you can adjust the ignition timing
>>>> so it looks right, even when the cam's way off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Any mechanic with an ounce of knowlege knows timing
>>>>> drifts because the chain is wearing.
>>>> so why are you arguing that chains are better? belts don't wear
>>>> ["stretch"]! their timing never changes!
>>> Tell that to a woman that wore "garter belt" or Suspenders the timing that it
>>> broke was never hinted at - their stocking simply fell down like your engine
>>> does when the belt breaks.
>> have you ever cut a belt open? not that much rubber in there - it's
>> mostly kevlar cord. unless kevlar is used for underwear by english
>> chicks, that's a ridiculous analogy.
>>
>
> CHICKs?? Well Well - we are getting there. NNo just the analogy of things
> breaking but then there is the old adage -if it ain't broke don't fix it.
> Airplanes get preventative maintenence as to bridges and other similar things
> but cars do not fall out of the sky when the engine stops so people don't do
> preventative maintenence.

Perhaps in Europe or other furrin places, but not in the good old USA.
We don't maintain our infrastructure at all.

Mike Scheer wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:06:16 -0800, Phil Robyn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Tony Harding > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) I think you mean to say that "neither statement IS wrong."
>>>>>>>> "Neither" is singular,
>>>>>>> there are two instances, hence the plural - "neither of these two
>>>>>>> statements are wrong". something like "neither do i" is singular.
>>>>>> Wrong! The subject of the sentence is "neither", which is
>>>>>> singular. Without the qualification ("of these two statements") it
>>>>>> would read "neither is wrong" (not "neither are wrong").
>>>>> (jim, he's correct)
>>>>>
>>>> ok, let me re-state for the pedants:
>>>>
>>>> "neither of these two statements are wrong".
>>>>
>>>> happy now?
>>> No. You should have quit while you were behind. You're just making
>>> it worse.
>>
>>
>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we
>> ENGLISH
>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway, the
>> way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to
>> say
>> what is the correct grammar
> Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.

That's punctuation, not grammar.

Dean Dark wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:
>
>>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
>>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
>>>> what is the correct grammar
>>> Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>> That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require an
>> answer.
>
> Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
> such requires a question mark.
>
> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?

I think that one's up for grabs, but that does seem to be a law, doesn't
it?

wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:36:57 -0500, Dean Dark >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:
>>
>>>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
>>>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
>>>>> what is the correct grammar
>>>> Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>>> That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require an
>>> answer.
>> Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
>> such requires a question mark.
>>
>> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?
>
>
> As I said Dan - we ENGLISH invented the language

Sorry, but no one *invented* English - it's a polyglot of Anglo Saxon,
Norse, French, German, etc., that evolved over centuries. IOW, the
kitchen sink of modern languages.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:44:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Dean Dark > wrote:
>> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?
>
>ITYM 'grammatical' That is the adjective of grammar. ;-)

Oh bugger. There's just no end to it...
--
Dan.