Wally S,
Let's see here. You now admit that you entirely missed the point of
that page, and your only defense for that crucial failure is that I
didn't make the point obvious enough for you. Do you not see how that
is circular reasoning?
Wally S, if you had not been so slow on the uptake the first time or the
second or third time you read that page, do you think you still would
have responded as you did originally? I'll bet not. You shot off your
mouth, you eventually realized you wished you hadn't started this to
begin with, and you're now hoping to divert me and any other readers of
this exchange from the embarrassment of you utter failure to get the
point of that page to your new assertion that you know better than I do
how to write my own Web site pages, as though that had been your point
all along. I did not write that page, or any other page on my site, for
people who are dense, although I admit I set a few traps to catch those
few who are both wrong and self-righteous.
Remember, what I asked about was a problem with IE6. It was YOU who
complained about that randomly chosen page. If you hadn't, I would
never have had call to embarrass you this way. It was you who escalated
this discussion to include such strong phrases as "Shame on you" and
"public kick in the pants."
As to whether I contacted the Rev. Dr. Abe before publishing the page in
question, I can hardly believe you are asking such a ludicrous question.
You are desperate to defeat me, Wally S, in at least some small way, but
this lame and naive attempt is beneath you, face-to-face or not. Try a
lot harder or give up.
--Johnny
P.S. And no, I won't take the time to point out your errors. As far as
I can tell, I have a lot better things to do right now.
Wally S said:
Johnny,
I used IE6, and all the links looked new.
I appreciate your concern about good English, and I would be curious to know
what errors you found in my posting. Maybe I missed the point of your page,
but then maybe the point was not clearly made in the first place. And maybe
you have the expertise to criticize Rev. Abe's English, but I have the
expertise to tell a writer that if a writer's point is not understood, it is
generally the fault of the writer and not the reader.
You imply that my criticism of your page was uninvited, but then, who
invited your criticism of Rev. Abe? Did you contact him and let him know? At
least I criticized you to your face.
Sorry if I caused you pain. Did I hit a nerve?
Wally S
Johnny said:
Wally S,
Thanks for the information about the links. Which versions of which
browsers did you try?
Also, I'm curious to know why you're so sure my grammar is not fine,
especially since you've obviously gotten yourself worked up enough about
the subject to make the comments you did, and most especially since this
newsgroup is about a wholly different subject. I dare you to find a
single error in grammar or syntax or diction or punctuation anywhere on
my Web site, which now runs to some 230 pages. I've found four errors
or questionable usages in your 160-word post, so I'd say my record is
better than yours so far.
Speaking of which, you compare Fowler's to "the website
refer to,"
but that "website" is just an different page of the same site, or did
you not catch on to that? That page, along with its companion, runs to
some 12,000 words on the subject of usage. If you had bothered to read
the top of the companion page, you'd have seen that I do claim to have
the expertise to tell the Rev. Dr. Abe how to write.
"Public kick in the pants"? "Tasteless mockey"? If you think
http://barelybad.com/fprevdrabe.htm is bad, there are a lot of pages on
my site that will get you even more riled up, so you'd better tighten up
the laces on them boots and I'd better buy more pants.
In any case, Wally S, the only reason I'm responding at all to your
hissy fit is to tell you and anyone else reading this post that YOU
MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT of that page. The whole idea, you genius, was
to pick on picayune problems in Abe's advertisement (including the "who"
versus "that" problem) while missing the only one worthy of comment, the
grossly illiterate "have wrote."
You were so eager to criticize me and defend the Reverend Dr. Abe that
you gave yourself a public kick in your own pants. If I'd been as dense
as you, then I WOULD be ashamed.
--Johnny
Your links are fine, but your grammar is not. You laugh at the
reverend for
what is not really a mistake, but you miss the big one. You write:
"...without ever learning that it should be 'others WHO have wrote
me,' not
'others THAT have wrote me. '"
According to Fowler's "Modern English Usage," a publication far more
respected than the website you refer to, the distinction between
"that" and
"who" when referring to persons is not perfectly clear, and there are
situations in which "that" can be appropriate. Worse than this (shame
on
you!) you missed the real error: "have wrote" should be "have
written."
I am not a great fan of publicly ridiculing someone without good
reason,
but your tasteless mockery of someone you do not know and who may not
have
had the educational opportunities you have had makes you a fine
candidate
for a public kick in the pants.
Wally S
This is a problem that appears to affect IE but not Netscape, and
it's a
baffler.
If you go to my page at http://barelybad.com/funpix.htm you'll see a
list of links in the right column of the main table. No matter what
I
do, on my IE6 exactly two of those links always appear in the color
for
a VISITED link, those being Dr. Rev Abe and Paper Clip.
Does anyone have any idea what's special about those two?
Thanks.
--Johnny
johnnyg aattssiiggnn barelybad.com
