Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #414499 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-02 21:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-26 01:00 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-02 21:41 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-03 06:36 -0400
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-03 03:48 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 14:00 +0000
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 09:20 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-03 05:03 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-04 08:35 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 06:47 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-05 07:44 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-05 06:09 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-05 21:16 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-06 07:31 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 06:44 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-06 14:40 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 13:31 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-06 15:53 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 21:01 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 23:17 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 23:56 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 00:12 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 04:46 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 07:20 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 05:28 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 10:10 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 16:28 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 21:30 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 07:38 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 05:50 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 16:33 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 21:46 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-10 16:59 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-10 21:35 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-11 05:49 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 03:58 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 04:15 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 04:26 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 23:14 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-14 23:57 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 00:24 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 03:13 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 03:25 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 03:44 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 04:09 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 04:37 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 04:43 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:48 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 05:51 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 23:56 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-18 00:23 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 04:00 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-18 09:29 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 23:26 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 00:55 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:31 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 23:49 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:57 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 00:08 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 01:34 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 02:14 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 22:51 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-25 01:05 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 23:09 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-26 00:59 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 23:08 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-26 23:32 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-26 23:49 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 01:37 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-27 03:29 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-11 20:30 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 21:20 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 18:32 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-12 21:35 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-14 07:12 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-14 09:10 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-14 16:55 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-14 21:27 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 19:01 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 20:57 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-17 14:52 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-17 21:29 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 19:11 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-18 21:28 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-19 18:57 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-19 22:14 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 18:31 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 21:29 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:32 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 23:50 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-21 07:15 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 05:38 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-21 16:15 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 21:22 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-22 18:57 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-22 21:49 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-23 07:41 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-23 07:59 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 09:44 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:02 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 07:19 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 05:28 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 16:30 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 21:36 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 23:20 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 00:05 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 00:35 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:39 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 07:39 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 05:54 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-08 13:33 +0000
Re: Triangles and predicates Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-08 15:37 +0200
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 06:44 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 06:43 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 16:35 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 16:41 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 21:51 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:05 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-10 06:48 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-10 21:39 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 03:09 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 03:56 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 04:13 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 08:08 -0400
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 05:16 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Python <python@example.invalid> - 2018-06-06 23:05 +0200
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 21:03 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:31 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-25 23:41 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-26 01:00 -0700
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 20:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <150458b3-9ed9-4a3d-80ff-c8808e73e8ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415606 |
On Saturday, 16 June 2018 02:02:00 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/14/2018 11:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Thursday, 14 June 2018 23:55:19 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/14/2018 11:10 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 14:12:45 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/12/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 01:32:50 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/11/2018 11:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 June 2018 03:30:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 5:58 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:49:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:59:40 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was a time when it didn't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Current definitions change, you know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Those aren't the current definition, you know. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, those that change are. Only those that > >>>>>>>>>>> have changed are not, but they were. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So that's a no, you don't know that those aren't the current definition. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Oppositely, poor idiot - you don't know those were the > >>>>>>>>> current definitions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What was the current definition is not the current definition. It really > >>>>>>>> shouldn't be this hard for you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But, what was the current defiinition was the current > >>>>>>> definition. Even such a poor fanatic should understand > >>>>>>> it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So you still haven't figured it out. The word "was" was not used to > >>>>>> modify "the current definition". So your rebuttal isn't relevant. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin, poor puffed fool - you're not the one deciding > >>>>> what word "was" modify and what it doesn't modify. > >>>>> Face it. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> 1) It's my utterance we are talking about. I certainly know what I > >>>> intended the "was" to modify. > >>> > >>> You surely know what you intended, but who cares what > >>> you intended. > >> > >> You apparently do given how much time you've spent arguing about it. > > > > About what you intended?You're imagining, as usual. > > If you don't care about what I intend to say, then you wouldn't respond > at all. > > >>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >> > >>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >> > >> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > > > > I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > > fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > > As expected from a fanatic trash. > > > > It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As expected from fanatic trash, of course. > The object of a > transitive verb is what the verb "acts" upon. And "current time" can't be this object, because …?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pg6e5v$tnr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415611 |
On 6/15/2018 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Saturday, 16 June 2018 02:02:00 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/14/2018 11:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 23:55:19 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/14/2018 11:10 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 14:12:45 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 01:32:50 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 11:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 June 2018 03:30:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 5:58 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:49:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:59:40 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was a time when it didn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current definitions change, you know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those aren't the current definition, you know. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, those that change are. Only those that >>>>>>>>>>>>> have changed are not, but they were. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So that's a no, you don't know that those aren't the current definition. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oppositely, poor idiot - you don't know those were the >>>>>>>>>>> current definitions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What was the current definition is not the current definition. It really >>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be this hard for you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, what was the current defiinition was the current >>>>>>>>> definition. Even such a poor fanatic should understand >>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you still haven't figured it out. The word "was" was not used to >>>>>>>> modify "the current definition". So your rebuttal isn't relevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin, poor puffed fool - you're not the one deciding >>>>>>> what word "was" modify and what it doesn't modify. >>>>>>> Face it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) It's my utterance we are talking about. I certainly know what I >>>>>> intended the "was" to modify. >>>>> >>>>> You surely know what you intended, but who cares what >>>>> you intended. >>>> >>>> You apparently do given how much time you've spent arguing about it. >>> >>> About what you intended?You're imagining, as usual. >> >> If you don't care about what I intend to say, then you wouldn't respond >> at all. >> >>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>> >>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. >>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. >>>> >>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. >>> >>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've >>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. >>> As expected from a fanatic trash. >>> >> >> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > > It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > expected from fanatic trash, of course. "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or someone—an object." See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > >> The object of a >> transitive verb is what the verb "acts" upon. > > And "current time" can't be this object, > because …? > "current time" doesn't appear in the sentence. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 21:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e2a7acb-b0d2-42b1-91e7-39aac61cf935@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415706 |
On Sunday, 17 June 2018 21:52:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/15/2018 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Saturday, 16 June 2018 02:02:00 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/14/2018 11:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 23:55:19 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/14/2018 11:10 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 14:12:45 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/12/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 01:32:50 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 11:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 June 2018 03:30:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 5:58 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:49:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:59:40 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was a time when it didn't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current definitions change, you know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those aren't the current definition, you know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, those that change are. Only those that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have changed are not, but they were. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So that's a no, you don't know that those aren't the current definition. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Oppositely, poor idiot - you don't know those were the > >>>>>>>>>>> current definitions. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What was the current definition is not the current definition. It really > >>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be this hard for you. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But, what was the current defiinition was the current > >>>>>>>>> definition. Even such a poor fanatic should understand > >>>>>>>>> it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So you still haven't figured it out. The word "was" was not used to > >>>>>>>> modify "the current definition". So your rebuttal isn't relevant. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Martin, poor puffed fool - you're not the one deciding > >>>>>>> what word "was" modify and what it doesn't modify. > >>>>>>> Face it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) It's my utterance we are talking about. I certainly know what I > >>>>>> intended the "was" to modify. > >>>>> > >>>>> You surely know what you intended, but who cares what > >>>>> you intended. > >>>> > >>>> You apparently do given how much time you've spent arguing about it. > >>> > >>> About what you intended?You're imagining, as usual. > >> > >> If you don't care about what I intend to say, then you wouldn't respond > >> at all. > >> > >>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>> > >>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>> > >>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>> > >>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>> > >> > >> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > > > > It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > > expected from fanatic trash, of course. > > "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > someone—an object." That's right. > > See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from fanatic, lying trash. > > > > >> The object of a > >> transitive verb is what the verb "acts" upon. > > > > And "current time" can't be this object, > > because …? > > > > "current time" doesn't appear in the sentence. Right. And "current definitione" can't be this object, because …?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 19:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pg9hno$o9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415744 |
On 6/17/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Sunday, 17 June 2018 21:52:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/15/2018 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Saturday, 16 June 2018 02:02:00 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/14/2018 11:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 23:55:19 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/14/2018 11:10 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 14:12:45 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 01:32:50 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 11:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 June 2018 03:30:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 5:58 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:49:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:59:40 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was a time when it didn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current definitions change, you know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those aren't the current definition, you know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, those that change are. Only those that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have changed are not, but they were. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that's a no, you don't know that those aren't the current definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oppositely, poor idiot - you don't know those were the >>>>>>>>>>>>> current definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What was the current definition is not the current definition. It really >>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be this hard for you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But, what was the current defiinition was the current >>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even such a poor fanatic should understand >>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you still haven't figured it out. The word "was" was not used to >>>>>>>>>> modify "the current definition". So your rebuttal isn't relevant.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin, poor puffed fool - you're not the one deciding >>>>>>>>> what word "was" modify and what it doesn't modify. >>>>>>>>> Face it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) It's my utterance we are talking about. I certainly know what I >>>>>>>> intended the "was" to modify. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You surely know what you intended, but who cares what >>>>>>> you intended. >>>>>> >>>>>> You apparently do given how much time you've spent arguing about it. >>>>> >>>>> About what you intended?You're imagining, as usual. >>>> >>>> If you don't care about what I intend to say, then you wouldn't respond >>>> at all. >>>> >>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>> >>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. >>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. >>>>>> >>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. >>>>> >>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've >>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. >>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. >>> >>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As >>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. >> >> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or >> someone—an object." > That's right. Finally, you've seen the light. >> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > > But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > fanatic, lying trash. That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to modify "current definition". What I said was that the "was" in my sentence didn't modify "current definition". It modified "a time". >>>> The object of a >>>> transitive verb is what the verb "acts" upon. >>> >>> And "current time" can't be this object, >>> because …? >>> >> >> "current time" doesn't appear in the sentence. > > Right. > And "current definitione" can't be this object, > because …? > It's in a subordinate clause. (go look it up, if you can) Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 21:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa341043-3ad1-45c9-95e2-1fb5f2ccc2f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415809 |
On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 02:11:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/17/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Sunday, 17 June 2018 21:52:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/15/2018 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 16 June 2018 02:02:00 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/14/2018 11:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 23:55:19 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/14/2018 11:10 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 14:12:45 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 01:32:50 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 11:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 June 2018 03:30:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 5:58 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:49:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:59:40 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was a time when it didn't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current definitions change, you know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those aren't the current definition, you know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, those that change are. Only those that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have changed are not, but they were. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that's a no, you don't know that those aren't the current definition. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oppositely, poor idiot - you don't know those were the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current definitions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What was the current definition is not the current definition. It really > >>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be this hard for you. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But, what was the current defiinition was the current > >>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even such a poor fanatic should understand > >>>>>>>>>>> it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So you still haven't figured it out. The word "was" was not used to > >>>>>>>>>> modify "the current definition". So your rebuttal isn't relevant.. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Martin, poor puffed fool - you're not the one deciding > >>>>>>>>> what word "was" modify and what it doesn't modify. > >>>>>>>>> Face it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) It's my utterance we are talking about. I certainly know what I > >>>>>>>> intended the "was" to modify. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You surely know what you intended, but who cares what > >>>>>>> you intended. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You apparently do given how much time you've spent arguing about it. > >>>>> > >>>>> About what you intended?You're imagining, as usual. > >>>> > >>>> If you don't care about what I intend to say, then you wouldn't respond > >>>> at all. > >>>> > >>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > >>> > >>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > >>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > >> > >> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > >> someone—an object." > > That's right. > > Finally, you've seen the light. > > >> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > > > > But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > > definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > > fanatic, lying trash. > > That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > modify "current definition". Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? Google keeps record. You know it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 18:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pgc58k$va9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415816 |
On 6/18/2018 11:28 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 02:11:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/17/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Sunday, 17 June 2018 21:52:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2018 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, 16 June 2018 02:02:00 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/14/2018 11:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 23:55:19 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/14/2018 11:10 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 14:12:45 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 01:32:50 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 11:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 June 2018 03:30:37 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2018 5:58 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:49:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2018 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:59:40 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was a time when it didn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current definitions change, you know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those aren't the current definition, you know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, those that change are. Only those that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have changed are not, but they were. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that's a no, you don't know that those aren't the current definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oppositely, poor idiot - you don't know those were the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was the current definition is not the current definition. It really >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be this hard for you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But, what was the current defiinition was the current >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even such a poor fanatic should understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you still haven't figured it out. The word "was" was not used to >>>>>>>>>>>> modify "the current definition". So your rebuttal isn't relevant.. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Martin, poor puffed fool - you're not the one deciding >>>>>>>>>>> what word "was" modify and what it doesn't modify. >>>>>>>>>>> Face it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) It's my utterance we are talking about. I certainly know what I >>>>>>>>>> intended the "was" to modify. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You surely know what you intended, but who cares what >>>>>>>>> you intended. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You apparently do given how much time you've spent arguing about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About what you intended?You're imagining, as usual. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't care about what I intend to say, then you wouldn't respond >>>>>> at all. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've >>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. >>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. >>>>> >>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As >>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. >>>> >>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or >>>> someone—an object." >>> That's right. >> >> Finally, you've seen the light. >> >>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ >>> >>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current >>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from >>> fanatic, lying trash. >> >> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to >> modify "current definition". > > Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > Google keeps record. You know it does. Its record agrees with me. You know it does. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 22:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <430fdc9c-0ed6-48e6-ae6d-776ca7909590@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415860 |
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > >>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > >>>> > >>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > >>>> someone—an object." > >>> That's right. > >> > >> Finally, you've seen the light. > >> > >>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > >>> > >>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > >>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > >>> fanatic, lying trash. > >> > >> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > >> modify "current definition". > > > > Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > > Google keeps record. You know it does. > > Its record agrees with me. You know it does. No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy to search just above). > >>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". So, why are your lies so stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 18:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pgeo3s$m3o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415866 |
On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've >>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. >>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As >>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. >>>>>> >>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or >>>>>> someone—an object." >>>>> That's right. >>>> >>>> Finally, you've seen the light. >>>> >>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ >>>>> >>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current >>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from >>>>> fanatic, lying trash. >>>> >>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to >>>> modify "current definition". >>> >>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? >>> Google keeps record. You know it does. >> >> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > > No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > to search just above). > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > > So, why are your lies so stupid? That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. Google shows this. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 21:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c3ecde6-2502-4226-b83a-cb1ae71f5300@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415891 |
On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > >>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > >>>>>> someone—an object." > >>>>> That's right. > >>>> > >>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > >>>> > >>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > >>>>> > >>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > >>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > >>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > >>>> > >>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > >>>> modify "current definition". > >>> > >>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > >>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > >> > >> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > > > > No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > > to search just above). > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > > > > > So, why are your lies so stupid? > > That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. :) Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific (your) statement. Why are your lies so stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <020ebd76-b3a7-4cff-bbd3-ec4966b6a1ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415902 |
Den torsdag 21 juni 2018 kl. 06:30:04 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > > >>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > > >>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > > >>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > > >>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > > >>>>>> someone—an object." > > >>>>> That's right. > > >>>> > > >>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > > >>>> > > >>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > > >>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > > >>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > > >>>> > > >>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > > >>>> modify "current definition". > > >>> > > >>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > > >>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > > >> > > >> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > > > > > > No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > > > to search just above). > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > > > > > > > > So, why are your lies so stupid? > > > > That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > > claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. > > > :) > Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > (your) statement. > > Why are your lies so stupid? Crying people lie as much as you do constantly is a great indicator of you being guilty of it yourself. You are only as quick to jump to people doign certain things, when you know you do it yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 23:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efb2931b-9a52-438c-84f8-8143346b31b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415908 |
On Thursday, 21 June 2018 08:32:45 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den torsdag 21 juni 2018 kl. 06:30:04 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > > > >>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > > > >>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > > > >>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > > > >>>>>> someone—an object." > > > >>>>> That's right. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > > > >>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > > > >>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > > > >>>> modify "current definition". > > > >>> > > > >>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > > > >>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > > > >> > > > >> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > > > > to search just above). > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > > > > > > > > > > > So, why are your lies so stupid? > > > > > > That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > > > claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. > > > > > > :) > > Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > > (your) statement. > > > > Why are your lies so stupid? > > Crying people lie as much as you do constantly is a great indicator of you being guilty of it yourself. > > You are only as quick to jump to people doign certain things, when you know you do it yourself. Crying people lie as much as you do constantly is a great indicator of you being guilty of it yourself, poor halfbrain. You are only as quick to jump to people doign certain things, when you know you do it yourself, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 07:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pgg4sb$img$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415902 |
On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've >>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. >>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As >>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or >>>>>>>> someone—an object." >>>>>>> That's right. >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current >>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from >>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to >>>>>> modify "current definition". >>>>> >>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? >>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. >>>> >>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. >>> >>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy >>> to search just above). >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>> >>> >>> So, why are your lies so stupid? >> >> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a >> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. > > > :) > Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > (your) statement. > > Why are your lies so stupid? > It's not my lie. It's yours. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 05:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe5ea9ff-3528-4151-a242-b8fafb98cd2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415930 |
On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:15:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > >>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > >>>>>>>> someone—an object." > >>>>>>> That's right. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > >>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > >>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > >>>>>> modify "current definition". > >>>>> > >>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > >>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > >>>> > >>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > >>> > >>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > >>> to search just above). > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>> > >>> > >>> So, why are your lies so stupid? > >> > >> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > >> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. > > > > > > :) > > Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > > (your) statement. > > > > Why are your lies so stupid? > > > > It's not my lie. It's yours. Google keeps record, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 16:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pgh4h3$49k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415931 |
On 6/21/2018 7:38 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:15:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've >>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. >>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As >>>>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or >>>>>>>>>> someone—an object." >>>>>>>>> That's right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current >>>>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from >>>>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to >>>>>>>> modify "current definition". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? >>>>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. >>>>> >>>>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy >>>>> to search just above). >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, why are your lies so stupid? >>>> >>>> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a >>>> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. >>> >>> >>> :) >>> Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific >>> (your) statement. >>> >>> Why are your lies so stupid? >>> >> >> It's not my lie. It's yours. > > Google keeps record, poor halfbrain. > Why yes it does, and those records show that I didn't use a special rule of grammar that only applies to my statement. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 21:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82a62cb1-7d8d-4f87-a151-9c088f27402c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415975 |
On Thursday, 21 June 2018 23:15:20 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/21/2018 7:38 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:15:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > >>>>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > >>>>>>>>>> someone—an object." > >>>>>>>>> That's right. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > >>>>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > >>>>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > >>>>>>>> modify "current definition". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > >>>>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > >>>>> to search just above). > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So, why are your lies so stupid? > >>>> > >>>> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > >>>> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. > >>> > >>> > >>> :) > >>> Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > >>> (your) statement. > >>> > >>> Why are your lies so stupid? > >>> > >> > >> It's not my lie. It's yours. > > > > Google keeps record, poor halfbrain. > > > > Why yes it does, and those records show that I didn't use a special rule > of grammar that only applies to my statement. Of course you didn't. When you said 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". it was just a very stupid lie. Why are your lies so stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-22 18:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pgk2cs$v6e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415991 |
On 6/21/2018 11:22 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 23:15:20 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/21/2018 7:38 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:15:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As >>>>>>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or >>>>>>>>>>>> someone—an object." >>>>>>>>>>> That's right. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current >>>>>>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from >>>>>>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to >>>>>>>>>> modify "current definition". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? >>>>>>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy >>>>>>> to search just above). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, why are your lies so stupid? >>>>>> >>>>>> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a >>>>>> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> :) >>>>> Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific >>>>> (your) statement. >>>>> >>>>> Why are your lies so stupid? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not my lie. It's yours. >>> >>> Google keeps record, poor halfbrain. >>> >> >> Why yes it does, and those records show that I didn't use a special rule >> of grammar that only applies to my statement. > > > Of course you didn't. When you said > 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > it was just a very stupid lie. > > Why are your lies so stupid? > The rules governing transitive verbs are not special rules that only apply to my statement. Your claim that they are is a very stupid lie, but it's your lie. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-22 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b862aff9-2c45-4853-8fb0-2f7ec0100a65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416089 |
On Saturday, 23 June 2018 01:57:21 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/21/2018 11:22 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 23:15:20 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/21/2018 7:38 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:15:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > >>>>>>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > >>>>>>>>>>>> someone—an object." > >>>>>>>>>>> That's right. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > >>>>>>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > >>>>>>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > >>>>>>>>>> modify "current definition". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > >>>>>>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > >>>>>>> to search just above). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So, why are your lies so stupid? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > >>>>>> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> :) > >>>>> Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > >>>>> (your) statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why are your lies so stupid? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's not my lie. It's yours. > >>> > >>> Google keeps record, poor halfbrain. > >>> > >> > >> Why yes it does, and those records show that I didn't use a special rule > >> of grammar that only applies to my statement. > > > > > > Of course you didn't. When you said > > 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > > modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > > > it was just a very stupid lie. > > > > Why are your lies so stupid? > > > > The rules governing transitive verbs are not special rules that only > apply to my statement. Your claim that they are is a very stupid lie, > but it's your lie. But no rule governing transitive verbs decides that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current definition", poor halfbrain. But now we're talking about something else. You've claimed: "2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition"." Whatever rule of grammar you meant, you've claimed also "That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements." That directly means that this rule of grammar you're invoking, whatever it is, applies only to one statement. Now, why are your lies so stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-23 07:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pglf4r$8of$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416117 |
On 6/22/2018 11:49 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Saturday, 23 June 2018 01:57:21 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/21/2018 11:22 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 23:15:20 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2018 7:38 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:15:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone—an object." >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from >>>>>>>>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to >>>>>>>>>>>> modify "current definition". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? >>>>>>>>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy >>>>>>>>> to search just above). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, why are your lies so stupid? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a >>>>>>>> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> :) >>>>>>> Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific >>>>>>> (your) statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why are your lies so stupid? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not my lie. It's yours. >>>>> >>>>> Google keeps record, poor halfbrain. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why yes it does, and those records show that I didn't use a special rule >>>> of grammar that only applies to my statement. >>> >>> >>> Of course you didn't. When you said >>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" >>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". >>> >>> it was just a very stupid lie. >>> >>> Why are your lies so stupid? >>> >> >> The rules governing transitive verbs are not special rules that only >> apply to my statement. Your claim that they are is a very stupid lie, >> but it's your lie. > > But no rule governing transitive verbs decides > that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > definition", poor halfbrain. Yes there is. "current definition" appears in a subordinate clause. It is therefore, not the object of the sentence. This too is not a special rule. > But now we're talking about something else. > You've claimed: > "2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition"." > > Whatever rule of grammar you meant, you've claimed also > "That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements." Both are true statements. > That directly means that this rule of grammar you're > invoking, whatever it is, applies only to one statement. No it doesn't. But thanks for providing yet more evidence that my claim about what you're doing is true. > Now, why are your lies so stupid? It's not my lie, it's yours. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-23 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac5c24c9-262a-4066-8ada-fc27ef248515@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416139 |
On Saturday, 23 June 2018 14:41:04 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/22/2018 11:49 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Saturday, 23 June 2018 01:57:21 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/21/2018 11:22 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 23:15:20 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/21/2018 7:38 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:15:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone—an object." > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > >>>>>>>>>>>> modify "current definition". > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > >>>>>>>>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > >>>>>>>>> to search just above). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, why are your lies so stupid? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > >>>>>>>> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements.. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> :) > >>>>>>> Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > >>>>>>> (your) statement. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why are your lies so stupid? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's not my lie. It's yours. > >>>>> > >>>>> Google keeps record, poor halfbrain. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why yes it does, and those records show that I didn't use a special rule > >>>> of grammar that only applies to my statement. > >>> > >>> > >>> Of course you didn't. When you said > >>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>> > >>> it was just a very stupid lie. > >>> > >>> Why are your lies so stupid? > >>> > >> > >> The rules governing transitive verbs are not special rules that only > >> apply to my statement. Your claim that they are is a very stupid lie, > >> but it's your lie. > > > > But no rule governing transitive verbs decides > > that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > > definition", poor halfbrain. > > Yes there is. "current definition" appears in a subordinate clause. It > is therefore, not the object of the sentence. This too is not a special > rule. You've fabricated this rule, of course, as expected from fanatic trash. > > > But now we're talking about something else. > > You've claimed: > > "2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > > modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition"." > > > > Whatever rule of grammar you meant, you've claimed also > > "That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > > claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements." > > Both are true statements. So - the rule you've fabricated is according to you applied just to one, your statement. Now, why are your lies so stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76794906-6130-4baa-85ef-dc6611785043@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415930 |
On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:15:14 AM UTC-7, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > >>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > >>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > >>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > >>>>>>>> someone—an object." > >>>>>>> That's right. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > >>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > >>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > >>>>>> modify "current definition". > >>>>> > >>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > >>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > >>>> > >>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > >>> > >>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > >>> to search just above). > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > >>> > >>> > >>> So, why are your lies so stupid? > >> > >> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > >> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. > > > > > > :) > > Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > > (your) statement. > > > > Why are your lies so stupid? > > > > It's not my lie. It's yours. > > Martin Shobe Well Martin, I think we can agree that you're arguing with a troll, from what I gather just another equivocator and it's pretty clear that it really hasn't written anything relevant to mathematics or an opinion there, and just has one howler fallacy about physics, it appears to be a low-level howler troll. The taxonomy of trolls is wide and varied, here arguing definitions is one marker, and maintaining the howler another. It's pretty clear that you're in the right, but, not so much that troll would ever not be in the wrong. Troll: do you have an opinion or position statement? The howling's rather detached from the subject of the topic. If you're interested in a book about triangles, we're pretty much all familiar with Euclid's Elements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web