Reply to: "just ignore and let this one die"

Still needed fixing.

Connolly? You surprised me.

Go on girl.

Show off your real colors.

Cop a mope Rick. I'm in no mood for you today. You wouldn't know someone's real colors if a 5 gallon bucket of them were spilled on you.

I'd just like to add:

No, some of us sign on to the Forums solely to satisfy their OCD desire to count the number of times self-proclaimed smartasses mix up it's and its . . .

Pep (opinions of such people don't matter, of course)

Are y'all still here? Sigh. I thought you'd all be gone 'home' by now, to the real IT, and left this fraudulent imposter thread. Well, I'm goin over there, and go read some other threads. For this one......what was the question anyway? (for the residents to answer that is.....)

Yay!

*hops from paw to paw, dancing an odd little gavotte*

*sing-songs*
I saw Pep make an error...I saw Pep make an error

But... ... which way to repair it?

Sorry, you'll have to explain what the error is, Jerry. "Some of us" is plural, as is "their", and the verb form "sign" as well.

Pep (awaiting enlightenment before vacating the thread)

well... "us" implies the speaker is included in the group, "their" implies exclusion.

I would have expected it to read:
"some of us sign on to the Forums solely to satisfy our OCD desire"
or
"some of them sign on to the Forums solely to satisfy their OCD desire"

I can understand and agree with your interpretation, but my intent was to leave it undefined or ambiguous (as usual) as to whether the speaker *was* actually included in the group that counts grammatical errors as well as the group Ric attacked.

Pep (Grammatically sensitive? Moi?)

So, you're saying that being a self-proclaimed smartass is a part of your obsessive-compulsive disorder? I mean, since you make more and more gross errors in communicating than anyone else here every time you open your virtual mouth. It seems to me like your OCD isn't linked to correctness or (haha) "education", but just to being a forum troll.

Pure comedy gold, Pep; pure gold.

While I might see your point, the manner in which that sentence is constructed requires that the the subjective and objective pronouns match. Mixing the first and third persons creates a level of semantic ambiguity as to render the entire statement meaningless. At least for a discerning reader.

*chuckles*

It's been a while since I have seen someone backpedal that fast.

Go on, tell me that I'm just not smurt enough to understand your "undefined and ambiguous" mode of communication. I think it is a compliment. Really.

1. Where did I say that *I* had OCD?

2. Where are the gross errors?

Pep (do they have psychiatrists that specialise in delusional dragons, do you think?)

Not meaningless, just difficult for those uncomfortable with apparent ambiguity.

Pep (which I am not)

Why, in that same post, silly person.

I mean, if it was "undefined and ambiguous", then it could EASILY be applied to you, right?



Pointed out constantly to you, like Jerboa just did.



If there are, they don't get much in the way of practice. Dragons tend to be more grounded in reality than most humans. However, for humans, I know there are plenty who do a booming business; some are probably even thankful for your existence.

wait!...we should probably stop and translate for a second...

J: Ha! You just erred
P: Prove It
J: See
P: Did not
J: Did too
P: Nuh uh...I meant to do that
J: Did Not
P: Did Too

I know. He's such a galoot at times.

Actually, Talarus, it isn't so much a gross error, as an editorial quibble. Mixing pronouns like that, while not exactly a violation of grammar rules, is certainly discouraged, and would never pass editorial muster for a final draft.

A gross error would be their/they're/there, or its/it's, or even *triple shudder* two/to/too.

I should point out that ad hominem restrictions apply to humans posting here (but not dragons).

You might interpret it like that, but you would be wrong. I enjoy confusing senile dragons like you.

As demonstrated, it was not even an error, much less a gross one. I await further examples of "gross errors" with unbated breath.

Of course you are not delusional.

Pep (Perhaps they should test that Alzheimers cure on dragons first)

OK. Let's simplify and clarify.

"We satisfy our desire" If I had said this it would be correct and it would be obvious that I was part of the group that satisfies their desire, but would not necessarily indicate what group I was talking about when I said "we".

"Some of us satisfy our desire" would also be correct and it would be obvious that I was part of the group that satisfies their desire, and *does* define the larger group as being those members indicated by Ric.

"Some people satisfy their desire" If I had said this it would be correct, but it would not be defined whether or not I was in the group that satisfies their desire; again, the larger group would be undefined.

"Some of us satisfy their desire" may sound incorrect but it isn't since it reflects a similar imprecision regarding whether I was in the group that satisfied their desire, but *does* define the larger group as being those members indicated by Ric.

Since I wanted to acknowledge that I was part of the group that Ric described, but did not want to acknowledge being part of the group that satisfied their desire, I used the form I did, wholly intentionally.

Pep (I take great care about such subtleties when I post)

PS Unchecked for consistency between group as a singular entity or a plural number of people

Yes, they do. Maybe you should heed them for a change?



No more wrong than any other interpretation of something so "undefined and ambiguous". Wrong because you say so? Maybe, but irrelevant. However, definitely not wrong from the words themselves.

I think you enjoy confusing yourself more.



As demonstrated?! "I say so, thus demonstrated!" That's rich! Oh, you're in no danger, even with bated breath, since it won't be long before your next one.



Kinda pointless to test cures on ETERNALLY HEALTHY patients, especially of the wrong species, don't you think?

Maybe you should volunteer for the study? Might get some mileage out of it that you just can't seem to get here.

I always address the post, never the human being behind it, however ridiculous.

Nevertheless, you are wrong.

Demonstrably not just because *I* say so.

Delusions of eternal health when the breakdown of mental faculties is immediately apparent have a very bad prognosis.

Pep (Keep posting, it may attract help for you)

I would tend to think that a form which makes a sentence meaningless, since it is "undefined and ambiguous" in the extreme, is the epitome of a "gross error", since it conveys no useful information.

Then again, that's pretty much his modus operandi.

Ah ha!

It's a matter of perspective, and prior knowledge, resulting in incorrect assumptions. As a regular IT poster, I had grouped you with "them". Therefore, my initial reading caused a great deal of confusion.

I'll get you yet Daniels!