Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Improper use of the word 'had' in articles

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    Dear Phoronix [...]
    I fail to see a problem with the aforementioned uses of 'had'. It might not fit your personal taste, but grammatically it is alright -- one doesn't _have_ to use the Past Simple in the cases you mentioned, it's only more frequent.

  2. #22

    Default

    One of the most idiotic threads I've ever read.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    One of the most idiotic threads I've ever read.
    Honestly, it would be only half as much idiotic if posts like this and like the first 2 or 3 responses just wouldn't occur.
    It was a good meant advice to improve the quality of phoronix articles and even if the thread starter was a bit overambitious, responses like that are just childish.

    No offense here so don't start flaiming now, please, but just think about what you're writing.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoBrain View Post
    Honestly, it would be only half as much idiotic if posts like this and like the first 2 or 3 responses just wouldn't occur.
    It was a good meant advice to improve the quality of phoronix articles and even if the thread starter was a bit overambitious, responses like that are just childish.

    No offense here so don't start flaiming now, please, but just think about what you're writing.
    It was just idiotic attempt to "hey, look how I am smart!". This thread is childish if you didn't notice. Better focus on technical issues than on grammar and similar things. Maybe my intention was to make this idiotic thread even more idiotic?

    No offense here so don't start flaiming now, please, but just think about what you're writing.
    Last edited by kraftman; 01-03-2009 at 03:26 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It was just idiotic attempt to "hey, look how I am smart!". This thread is childish if you didn't noticed.
    No. Not the intention. Guess again.

    Believe it or not, the intention was to improve the quality of the articles.

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Better focus on technical issues than on grammar and similar things.
    See, here's what I don't understand. What you said is a fair argument.

    Unfortunately, when making this argument you and others do it in such a way that destroys the thread. (Maybe try not being a jerk?)

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Maybe my intention was to make this idiotic thread even more idiotic?
    You've succeeded! Congratulations!

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    No. Not the intention. Guess again.

    Believe it or not, the intention was to improve the quality of the articles.
    I believe in what I said before.

    See, here's what I don't understand. What you said is a fair argument.

    Unfortunately, when making this argument you and others do it in such a way that destroys the thread. (Maybe try not being a jerk?)
    I think this thread is stupid so I'm answering in such a way. (Hey, but you are!)

    You've succeeded! Congratulations!
    It's mainly your merit.
    Last edited by kraftman; 01-03-2009 at 03:49 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Hehe

    I'm starting to like you.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    Hehe

    I'm starting to like you.
    Yeah, I keep your thread alive

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •