Right. The “verification” which the “inspection regime” is to carry out is that the disarmament process is completed.
Frankly, all I did was ask Hank a couple of questions in the GD thread. I didn’t even state a sold position. I just said that it seemed to me to say what I said it seemed to say, and asked if there were something documented that might set me straight.
I was then told that I couldn’t read, and was given a grammar lecture.
Wow. I wish I could build an investment portfolio based on Gaudere’s Law.
It pay’s off every time.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
**While we’re at it, Hank…[ul][li]The possessive “its,” has no apostrophe.[]Conjunctions do not take objects. Prepositions and transitive verbs take objects.Objects are nouns. In the quoted section, “verified” is an adjective.[/ul] **[/li][/QUOTE]
While we’re at it, december, there’s no need for a comma after “its”. Here are some other examples of places where commas are often put, and wrongly so:
But, I don’t think this is going to work. Because Hank, has six arms, (this one is correctly placed) types with his feet and, voted Modesty party, last term elections. If, I were going to court tomorrow, (again, proper) I would wear my blue suit, with that black tie. Libertarian is, a poster, on this MB.
Happily, in your retirement you have much more time than many of us to pour over proper placement of commas and work on such;)
You didn’t get a gramar lecture asswipe. I didn’t say you couldn’t read either you lying asswipe. You asked what you were missing. You were missing comprehension of the statement. No, the inspectors are not there to disarm Iraq. Nor are they there to simply oversee disarmament. They are there to “bring about” and “verify” that process. WTF is so complicated about that? They are an “inspection” team. The presence of the team and the poking and proding around should be enough to “bring about” the full disarmament. If the demand was simply that Iraq must disarm and must allow the inspectors to watch then why all the specifics about access to any and everything? Because the inspectors are do just that “inspect”. Should we get into the definition of “inspect”? I am sure it is on par with things like “scrutininze”, “search”, etc.
Oh I know it. I mean, the sheer variety of misspellings, just of the word grammar, in this thread, would pay better than anything I have my money in now.
I have no comment in the actual issue at hand, except to say:
grammar .
You guys can just quote that from now on if you have to.
Yes, I noticed that after posting. Alternatively, rather than not have a comma after “its,” I could have had an additional comma before “its.”
What is he pouring over proper placement, maple syrup?
I come bearing proof that it is indeed our grassy friend who has trouble with reading comprehension.. Having borne this proof, I depart into the shadows.
If you were my student I’d bust you for the improper usage of “pour”, punha. Everyone knows what you meant to say was “pore”, which is defined as “to read studiously or attentively – usually used with over”.
When invoking Gaudere’s Law, one must be certain to use the appropriate words, lest they end up looking like a fool. Kinda like you, college boy. 
This post was brought to you by Dave, college dropout.
[sub]Hahahaha…busted.[/sub] 
Well Spazcat, I must admit that I did not think that you were refering to an image of your parents actually raping you or something. I actually thought you were miffed at the fact that I said your parents were the ones who screwed you out of some money by forcing you to file a tax return that you are not required to file. In a conversation about being screwed out of some money you develop an image of having sex with your parents? Is there something you would like to tell us?
Only that you’re an idiot. But I think that was the reason Libertarian started this thread in the first place.
Nah. He started this thread because he is anal about grammar. Well, that and because he was wrong about the resolution.
That’s Izzy you’re talking to, Lib. If it’s possible, he’ll find a way!!
::: ducks and runs :::
I, for one, am sick to death of seeing this comment and the others like it.
“Go back and re-read my post”.
AAARRRGGGHHHHH!!!
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT mean that they didn’t undestand your point!!!
And Hank? In case you didn’t know, you’re getting your ass kicked. Fall back, regroup, and take another tack.
Getting my ass kicked in here doesn’t really hurt that much. 
And Spooje, it isn’t my point being missed. It is the point spelled out in black and white by the UN. My gramer aint too good but the yoo-in nos there stuff.
Dave, lest you think the Air Force has taught you something about verb use, let me introduce you to a figure of speech I’ve learned in my, oh, 21-ish years on Earth. To pour over something means to closely/rigorously examine it. Cite. Pay attention especially to the second-to-last one there, “To move or perform an activity at maximum speed or intensity.” I’ll certainly grant you that “pore” is possibly the better verb to use there, but that does not necessitate its use.
Besides, it also gives the imaginative reader the mental image of december’s brain as liquid, which “pore” does not and “pour” does.
Words of wisdom, from someone averaging 8.8 posts a day to this MB.
Not working. Not even a nice try.
december at least fessed up.
Good bluff, iampunha. However, “to move or perform an activity at maximum speed or intensity” is NOT the meaning of “pour.” It’s the meaning of the idiom, “pour it on.”
However, the first definition for “pore” is
To read or study carefully and attentively: pored over the classified ads in search of a new job.
The inclusion of “over” in the phrase “pour over” makes it clear that you meant “pore.”
It is pour way to compourt yourself, to pourposely keep arguing even though you have no propour suppourt.
December, I’m fairly sure that I meant “pour”, seeing as I don’t recall prior to today seeing the verb in the aforementioned expression spelled “pore” before today. However, as I only recently learned (within the past year), that the phrase is not “intensive purposes” but “intents and purposes”, I’ll happily concede that it was a lack of homophonic distinction, combined with the use of the phrase as “pour over”, that led me to believe I was correct.
As such, it was neither an attempted bluff nor a “try”. And since when, december, does one need support to keep arguing?
[sub]Missing an a in that last sentence, as long as we’re all tempting Gaudere’s Rule…[/sub]