Grammar question

[Philip]

No worries, if we meet on the street, I will slow down so the slipstream from my beamer doesnt knock you off your bicycle.

[abelcainsbrother]

Proverbs 21:9 "It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop,than with a brawling woman in a wide house."

"Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever". Your ideal woman, no doubt.
Someone smarter and more educated is a threat.

Wrong!

[Audie]

Proverbs 21:9 "It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop,than with a brawling woman in a wide house."

"Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever". Your ideal woman, no doubt.
Someone smarter and more educated is a threat.

Wrong!

You may not have ideals; otherwise, it is exactly right

[RickD]

Proverbs 21:9 "It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop,than with a brawling woman in a wide house."

"Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever". Your ideal woman, no doubt.
Someone smarter and more educated is a threat.

A threat to what? My wife is more educated than I am, and I don't feel threatened by her.

[abelcainsbrother]

Proverbs 21:9 "It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop,than with a brawling woman in a wide house."

"Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever". Your ideal woman, no doubt.
Someone smarter and more educated is a threat.

Wrong!

You may not have ideals; otherwise, it is exactly right

You're still wrong! Proverbs 31:10-31

[Kurieuo]

Only a woman would be so pedantic. (notice it was largely the women who seemed to really point out something wrong here?)

Do what I do when I get fed up with such "pedanticism", get a beer out of the fridge, kick your feet up and watch something on tv. Then if she tries to interrupt your zone by talking, you could interrupt her back with an "are my sandwiches ready yet?" Just be prepared to bunk with the dog, while perhaps not as comfortable it is more peaceful.

You dont like pedantrianism?

Pwedantisticalness? Or is it just that you didnt like your middle school English teacher.

What on earth other than that is it that you bible dissectors and philosophy talkers do?


Ardy bills himself as the grammar cop, so when he made a mistake, I twitted him for it.

He could have let it go, or corrected himself but being a guy and all..

So a buncha henchmen jump int to support him, all of them just as wrong; I should
be a good girl and say might makes right? Ha.

Someone edited their post. Can I hear you say "ped-ant-ic"!? Don't worry, not necessary.

[crackpot]

I hope we never meet in real life. Not because you are smarter or more educated, but because you are so arrogant and cocky in sharing that knowledge of yours. Pathetic.

No worries, if we meet on the street, I will slow down so the slipstream from my beamer doesnt knock you off your bicycle.

BMWs are overrated and not worth the money they sell for. Dumb broads buy beamers.

Smart women with adequate income buy Lexus.

[RickD]

I hope we never meet in real life. Not because you are smarter or more educated, but because you are so arrogant and cocky in sharing that knowledge of yours. Pathetic.

No worries, if we meet on the street, I will slow down so the slipstream from my beamer doesnt knock you off your bicycle.

BMWs are overrated and not worth the money they sell for. Dumb broads buy beamers.

Smart women with adequate income buy Lexus.

BMW's are Bimmers, not beamers. I don't dare ask what a beamer is.

[RickD]

I asked on a grammar website, and this is the response I got:

Nick is trying to illustrate what is normally the usage of the perfect tense in order to separate the order of events into chronological order (to show that A happened before B when both happened in the past,) but because the direct object clause is a paraphrase, the paraphrase is not required to be tensed out. Further still, the fact of a sequential adverb such as "then" causes sequence of events to be clear, and the perfect tense remains optional. You only are required to use the perfect tense to sequence events if the surrounding words outside of the verb do not clarify, at which point the verb becomes the determining factor.

So Audie,

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[crackpot]

I don't dare ask what a beamer is.

A beamer is a BMW with a Chinese accent. Doh.

[RickD]

I don't dare ask what a beamer is.

A beamer is a BMW with a Chinese accent. Doh.

I think you mean a Hyundai Accent.

[Audie]

I don't dare ask what a beamer is.

A beamer is a BMW with a Chinese accent. Doh.

I think you mean a Hyundai Accent.

Ooooooooooh now you are gonna get it!!!

[Kurieuo]

I asked on a grammar website, and this is the response I got:

Nick is trying to illustrate what is normally the usage of the perfect tense in order to separate the order of events into chronological order (to show that A happened before B when both happened in the past,) but because the direct object clause is a paraphrase, the paraphrase is not required to be tensed out. Further still, the fact of a sequential adverb such as "then" causes sequence of events to be clear, and the perfect tense remains optional. You only are required to use the perfect tense to sequence events if the surrounding words outside of the verb do not clarify, at which point the verb becomes the determining factor.

So Audie,

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Oh dear, "education" has failed somewhere.

[RickD]

I asked on a grammar website, and this is the response I got:

Nick is trying to illustrate what is normally the usage of the perfect tense in order to separate the order of events into chronological order (to show that A happened before B when both happened in the past,) but because the direct object clause is a paraphrase, the paraphrase is not required to be tensed out. Further still, the fact of a sequential adverb such as "then" causes sequence of events to be clear, and the perfect tense remains optional. You only are required to use the perfect tense to sequence events if the surrounding words outside of the verb do not clarify, at which point the verb becomes the determining factor.

So Audie,

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Oh dear, "education" has failed somewhere.

In Australia.

[Kurieuo]

I asked on a grammar website, and this is the response I got:

Nick is trying to illustrate what is normally the usage of the perfect tense in order to separate the order of events into chronological order (to show that A happened before B when both happened in the past,) but because the direct object clause is a paraphrase, the paraphrase is not required to be tensed out. Further still, the fact of a sequential adverb such as "then" causes sequence of events to be clear, and the perfect tense remains optional. You only are required to use the perfect tense to sequence events if the surrounding words outside of the verb do not clarify, at which point the verb becomes the determining factor.

So Audie,

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Oh dear, "education" has failed somewhere.

In Australia.

I was thinking more north/north-west of here, or is it more north-east east of here?