Again, this guy is twice my age.
Imagine when I am his age lmao.
Blocklist
Sort:
btickler wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Facts are facts.
Sorry. I was grammatically correct despite you saying otherwise, and you were proven wrong. I think after proving I was grammatically correct, this conversation doesn't really have much more meaning so responding would be futile at this point.
You missed the point. The word "irregardless" has been added to dictionaries, and so can now be argued to be "correct" usage. But it was added because a bunch of people misused the the non-existent word for so long (thinking of "irrespective") that it forced its way into common usage...but it's still wrong, and reflects a dumbing down of language over time.
Which again, would have been fine, if said once and let sit.
No one likes a grammar nazi.
Jul 7, 2021
0
#204
btickler wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
Facts are facts.
Sorry. I was grammatically correct despite you saying otherwise, and you were proven wrong. I think after proving I was grammatically correct, this conversation doesn't really have much more meaning so responding would be futile at this point.
You missed the point. The word "irregardless" has been added to dictionaries, and so can now be argued to be "correct" usage. But it was added because a bunch of people misused the the non-existent word for so long (thinking of "irrespective") that it forced its way into common usage...but it's still wrong, and reflects a dumbing down of language over time.
1. I was proven correct and will always be correct regarding the correct grammar we previously discussed.
2. You're now trying to move on to a different argument "should dictionary meanings be used as correct because of so-so".
I don't really care for the second new discussion.
Problem5826 wrote:
Again, this guy is twice my age.
Imagine when I am his age lmao.
This assumes you are going to even make it that far. I have my doubts.
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
1. I was proven correct and will always be correct regarding the correct grammar we previously discussed.
2. You're now trying to move on to a different argument "should dictionary meanings be used as correct because of so-so".
I don't really care for the second new discussion.
The "correct" usage for English is "in a mass". You're welcome.
Jul 7, 2021
0
#207
btickler wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
1. I was proven correct and will always be correct regarding the correct grammar we previously discussed.
2. You're now trying to move on to a different argument "should dictionary meanings be used as correct because of so-so".
I don't really care for the second new discussion.
The "correct" usage for English is "in a mass". You're welcome.
I didn't replace en masse with in mass. I said "in mass" in a situation where it's grammatically correct. Again, nothing more can come from this argument and you even want to discuss new additions (should certain words be correct, etc.). It's no big deal. I don't want to encourage this discussion any further, as its futile.
btickler wrote:
Problem5826 wrote:
Again, this guy is twice my age.
Imagine when I am his age lmao.
This assumes you are going to even make it that far. I have my doubts.
Meant to be some sort of insult?
Clearly based on my Roma ethnicity and the fact that I'm different. You haven't dealt maturely with a single point that I've made.
LOOK AT THIS GUY ZOOMER NERDS. HE IS A DISGUSTING RACIST.
Only joking. We do plenty well. Don't you worry about that lol
Problem5826 wrote:
Meant to be some sort of insult?
Clearly based on my Roma ethnicity and the fact that I'm different. You haven't dealt maturely with a single point that I've made.
LOOK AT THIS GUY ZOOMER NERDS. HE IS A DISGUSTING RACIST.
Who knows or cares about your ethnicity? Is there some way I was supposed to know...?
If you are of Italian descent, I'm sorry...for Italy. Having lived there, I am aware of how frustrating it is to Italians when people of Italian descent do things that reflect poorly on real Italians and Italian culture.
btickler wrote:
Problem5826 wrote:
Meant to be some sort of insult?
Clearly based on my Roma ethnicity and the fact that I'm different. You haven't dealt maturely with a single point that I've made.
LOOK AT THIS GUY ZOOMER NERDS. HE IS A DISGUSTING RACIST.
Who knows or cares about your ethnicity? Is there some way I was supposed to know...?
If you are of Italian descent, I'm sorry...for Italy. Having lived there, I am aware of how frustrating it is to Italians when people of Italian descent do things that reflect poorly on real Italians and Italian culture.
I went out with an Italian for a year. They are hot.
Seriously you are an idiot. This is funny though.
American centric, innit?
Problem5826 wrote:
I went out with an Italian for a year. They are hot.
Seriously you are an idiot. This is funny though.
American centric, innit?
I'm not sure you have the chops to discern idiocy. You seem oblivious to your own.
Jul 7, 2021
0
#213
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
What do you mean.."in mass"? There's 37 million members on this site. I have about 200 friends,...and have blocked about 200. That means there's 36.5 million members I've never encountered.
He means "en masse".
Either are acceptable.
No.
yes.
mass - pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people.
en masse - in a group; altogether
Right, but "en masse" is a phrase. You cannot change it. You could say "in a mass," but "in mass" is incorrect, I believe.
"in mass" is not a phrase, but it is grammatically correct. I used the words correctly, get over it.
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/24/in-mass/
btickler wrote:
Problem5826 wrote:
I went out with an Italian for a year. They are hot.
Seriously you are an idiot. This is funny though.
American centric, innit?
I'm not sure you have the chops to discern idiocy. You seem oblivious to your own.
Good. That's how a strong culture works, Tickler.
Tell me about Italy. I nearly went to Florence.
Let's be decent for the sake of the kids at least.
They can cook, amiright? or is that gender normative?
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
What do you mean.."in mass"? There's 37 million members on this site. I have about 200 friends,...and have blocked about 200. That means there's 36.5 million members I've never encountered.
He means "en masse".
Either are acceptable.
No.
yes.
mass - pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people.
en masse - in a group; altogether
Right, but "en masse" is a phrase. You cannot change it. You could say "in a mass," but "in mass" is incorrect, I believe.
"in mass" is not a phrase, but it is grammatically correct. I used the words correctly, get over it.
Stop going on about spelling mistakes on page 12, you abslute nerd.
Jul 7, 2021
0
#216
Problem5826 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
What do you mean.."in mass"? There's 37 million members on this site. I have about 200 friends,...and have blocked about 200. That means there's 36.5 million members I've never encountered.
He means "en masse".
Either are acceptable.
No.
yes.
mass - pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people.
en masse - in a group; altogether
Right, but "en masse" is a phrase. You cannot change it. You could say "in a mass," but "in mass" is incorrect, I believe.
"in mass" is not a phrase, but it is grammatically correct. I used the words correctly, get over it.
Stop going on about spelling mistakes on page 12, you abslute nerd.
Sorry. SPELLING MISTAKE! CALL THE COPPERS!
Jul 7, 2021
0
#217
Problem5826 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
What do you mean.."in mass"? There's 37 million members on this site. I have about 200 friends,...and have blocked about 200. That means there's 36.5 million members I've never encountered.
He means "en masse".
Either are acceptable.
No.
yes.
mass - pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people.
en masse - in a group; altogether
Right, but "en masse" is a phrase. You cannot change it. You could say "in a mass," but "in mass" is incorrect, I believe.
"in mass" is not a phrase, but it is grammatically correct. I used the words correctly, get over it.
Stop going on about spelling mistakes on page 12, you abslute nerd.
Technically, it wasn’t a spelling mistake.
AunTheKnight wrote:
Problem5826 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
What do you mean.."in mass"? There's 37 million members on this site. I have about 200 friends,...and have blocked about 200. That means there's 36.5 million members I've never encountered.
He means "en masse".
Either are acceptable.
No.
yes.
mass - pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people.
en masse - in a group; altogether
Right, but "en masse" is a phrase. You cannot change it. You could say "in a mass," but "in mass" is incorrect, I believe.
"in mass" is not a phrase, but it is grammatically correct. I used the words correctly, get over it.
Stop going on about spelling mistakes on page 12, you abslute nerd.
Technically, it wasn’t a spelling mistake.
Mate, bugger off with your sillyness.
I actually want to talk to the Tickler for a change lol
Jul 7, 2021
0
#219
Problem5826 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
Problem5826 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
What do you mean.."in mass"? There's 37 million members on this site. I have about 200 friends,...and have blocked about 200. That means there's 36.5 million members I've never encountered.
He means "en masse".
Either are acceptable.
No.
yes.
mass - pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people.
en masse - in a group; altogether
Right, but "en masse" is a phrase. You cannot change it. You could say "in a mass," but "in mass" is incorrect, I believe.
"in mass" is not a phrase, but it is grammatically correct. I used the words correctly, get over it.
Stop going on about spelling mistakes on page 12, you abslute nerd.
Technically, it wasn’t a spelling mistake.
Mate, bugger off with your sillyness.
I actually want to talk to the Tickler for a change lol
Okay, okay.
Facts are facts.
Sorry. I was grammatically correct despite you saying otherwise, and you were proven wrong. I think after proving I was grammatically correct, this conversation doesn't really have much more meaning so responding would be futile at this point.
You missed the point. The word "irregardless" has been added to dictionaries, and so can now be argued to be "correct" usage. But it was added because a bunch of people misused the the non-existent word for so long (thinking of "irrespective") that it forced its way into common usage...but it's still wrong, and reflects a dumbing down of language over time.
Which again, would have been fine, if said once and let sit.