ROFLMAO, they will afaf, they will.  ad infinitum, ad nauseum, but still, it is funny reading the 'back and forth' and they do remain so civilized and 'proper' in their grammatical darts and arrows at each other.

too funny.  (more so because I'm not involved in either side, merely sitting on the side, reading and laughing at it all.)

I completely agree with you Billy Idle.  I say "communication is communication". 

Good points!  Descriptive grammar is, in my opinion, the correct way to view a language.  It accounts for more variability and the dynamic nature of language over time.  I believe that prescriptivists stifle the true creativity that can be found in the natural, casual usage of language. 

I also find it interesting that most of the "fringe" or "non-standard" dialects often times contain the most creative and clever usages of language, but at the same time are considered backwards and undesirable. 

Anyway, most of my musings on this topic are to show how the original poster was wrong about the first sentence being "ungrammatical" and how one should not so harshly judge others' use of the language.  I think everyone should realize that the concept of a sentence being "grammatical" is just an artificial and static construct imposed over a dynamic system and in no way really reflects the reality of the phenomenon.  Trying to force a square peg into a round hole will get you nowhere, as the prescriptivists always try to do.

"Doh"  Homer Simpson

Non-standard use of grammar and language can be clever and interesting if it's done on purpose in limited situations. However, when it's done repeatedly with no thought behind it, it's just a poor grasp of English.

Many people feel vulnerable on this issue and resort to "communication is just communication" (not directed at anyone in particular) because they are afraid of being judged when they make mistakes. This is a cowardly stance and a barrier to improvement. Not all expressions are equally eloquent and precise just as not all opinions are equally valid. We all make mistakes but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to better ourselves. I'm still trying to improve my English (not my first language), my chess and just about everything else.

BTW: A dialect usually has a different set of rules with its own logic. This is totally different. The problem is that many people just don't understand the plural and singular while speaking otherwise standard English.

Back in the 80's when I was working on a language translation project, we came across some interesting pathalogical sentences:

The horse raced past the barn fell.

Had had 'had had'. Had-Had had 'had'. Had-Had had the right answer.

We had most fun with German idioms such as: Wo sich Fuchs und Hase gute Nacht sagen. Though not too difficult to translate literally: 'Where fox and rabbit say goodnight to each other', you then had to figure out what it actually meant, and identify the corresponding English idiom.

So what does it mean?  It's like agreeing to a truce for a brief time?  That's cute, whatever it means.  

Retguvvie.  lol.  I had missed the thread when it took a long pause.  I thought they might need a little encouragement.  :)

 It makes sense with punctuation:

John, whereas Peter had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the Headmaster's approval.

Beast.  You had me at the fifth had.

Disgruntled publican of the Pig and Whistle to a bad sign-writer:

There's supposed to be a space between the "Pig" and "and" and "and" and "Whistle"

I'm from the literalist pedant school of Grammar.  I am always flummoxed at the foot of the escalators on the London Underground by the sign there that reads:

"Dogs must be carried"

I look around in panic for a spare dog but they never provide any.  I can be down there for hours sometimes before I ambush an elderly dog-owner and happily carry his dog up to the surface.

In Grammar School we spent a good amount of time analyzing the popular sign "No Smoking Permitted".

Here's a quesion:

Which sentence do you judge as being more correct:

1. It got dark once we left the building.

                        or

     2.  It became dark once we left the building.

Please state if English is your first language or otherwise.

Here's a fun one:

The police watched the girl with the binoculars.

Who has the binoculars?

--

More ambiguities known as "garden path" sentences:

1. The old man the boat.
2. The man whistling tunes pianos.
3. The cotton clothing is made of grows in Mississippi.
4. The complex houses married and single soldiers and their families.
5. The government plans to raise taxes were defeated.

So, essentially, what you are saying is that you can't communicate as effectively if you don't speak the standard dialect of a language as if you do?  Please clarify me if I have misinterpreted your assertion.  There are several variables to take into account here.

In the middle of nowhere (in the sticks).

(For further German-expression-clarification and insight-into-the-German-mind, refer to this site.)

Now I'm curious, Ozzie.   Would you say that that, (the time spent analyzing the sign you mention above), could be one of the (or the) major factor you devoted a significant portion of your lifetime to the enterprise known as "chess"  - for which you get little remuneration but a lot of mind-exercise ?

All your base are belong to us?

@RetGuvvie98 no I don't think so, perhaps I exaggerated, we probably spent 10 or 15 minutes talking about it, one time.

no sweat, ozzie, idle thought of an often idle mind.  was kidding about that.

as we left the building it was dark

not english as i am a yorkshireman