Originally posted by LanndonKaneHe didn't say that. His statement was "Who are better men or women?"
I think he means who is better at chess, men or women. And thats a good question, because all the top players in the world right now are men. Why can't both genders be equal at chess, its not an activity where one sex characteristic comes in handy more than another.
In spite of the improper grammar, we can not assume what he meant. He should have came back and answered that, but he didn't - which means that we are wasting our time replying to someone who:
- can not use the English language well enough to ask a question, and
- is not interested in a reply to his question.
Originally posted by arrakisWhat's wrong with you? You normally don't seem to have problems with assuming what someone means (or what kind of a person someone is, including their whole background).
He didn't say that. His statement was "Who are better men or women?"
In spite of the improper grammar, we can not assume what he meant.
He should have came back
Oops, didn't you just say something about improper grammar? 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysI've NEVER assumed what someone means... not even with YOU, Nordlys.
What's wrong with you? You normally don't seem to have problems with assuming what someone means (or what kind of a person someone is, including their whole background).
[b]He should have came back
Oops, didn't you just say something about improper grammar? 😛[/b]
I understand that your ego is wounded and that you have a desperate need to find fault with those people who have pointed out your own faults. I find nothing wrong with the grammar I used, but then *I* do not share your emotional problems.
1 edit
Originally posted by arrakisOkay, your usual strategy is not to assume what someone means, but to assume what problems someone has. You illustrated this even in the very post I am currently replying to - you assumed that my ego is wounded and I have emotional problems. Just to add another example: "This person is in so much suffering from his own doing that he drinks a 5th of booze a day!" (about Ravello); or that hilarious post about me: "As is the possibility that you, as a damaged person, have your mind set from the experience. Doesn't mean that your rebellion is justified...
I've NEVER assumed what someone means... not even with YOU, Nordlys.
No, it just means that you couldn't accept what happened to you and have become what you are now." (You still haven't told me why I am a damaged person and what supposedly has happened to me.)
"He should have came back" is correct grammar?? I know my English isn't perfect, so I may very well be wrong, and I am more than willing to learn (I wish people would point out my mistakes more often), but this definitely sounds wrong to me. It should be "He should have come back", if I am not totally mistaken.
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysIt appears that your hostilities are affecting your thinking as well.
Okay, your usual strategy is not to assume what someone means, but to assume what problems someone has. You illustrated this even in the very post I am currently replying to - you assumed that my ego is wounded and I have emotional problems. Just to add another example: "This person is in so much suffering from his own doing that he drinks a 5th of booze a d wrong to me. It should be "He should have come back", if I am not totally mistaken.
GEEZE girl, give it up.
Originally posted by arrakisThe point is that he shouldn't have left in the first place if he was serious about asking such a provocatively empty question. 😳 Perhaps as he intended, we are all filling up those empty possibilities with our own peculiar inanities. That certainly seems to be the case, currently, Arrakis. Agreed, Snorty?
It appears that your hostilities are affecting your thinking as well. "He should have come back" is MUCH worse!
GEEZE girl, give it up.
We ought to lock all the doors so that he can't come back. 🙄 That way none of us will ever know.
Originally posted by arrakisWhat about explaining it to me instead of babbling about hostilities? As I have said before, I have only had four years of English in school. There's nothing wrong with my thinking, but I may have learnt something wrong. The past participle of "come" is "come", not "came", so it's "he has come", and I would have thought it should also be "he should have come". If not, why not? Is it also "he should have went", not "he should have gone", to take another example?
It appears that your hostilities are affecting your thinking as well. "He should have come back" is MUCH worse!
GEEZE girl, give it up.
Out of interest, I googled "should have come" and "should have came". I got ca. 1 480 000 results for "should have come" and ca. 172 000 for "should have came". It doesn't prove anything, but it points in the direction that I may be right after all.