Are you saying you have a problem with that?
![]()
Are you saying you have a problem with that?
![]()
Nope. The preposition reading is far clearer. He wants people like he–excuse me, like him. In the same way I’d say “His posts are like a pile of fetid squirrels,” or “I wish there were more pizzas like that,” he wishes there were more people like him. No imaginary verb is necessary.
Check around for usage notes. I’ve found several that address this exact question; not a one approves of “like I.”
I have no problem with it as a colloquialism, but it’s nonsense to claim it’s standard English.
Edit: if you really want to be formal, “like” is frowned at by some in its use as a conjunction; the preferred conjunction is “as.” So even the “he’s as formal as he is stupid” argument fails.
We all need someone to shit on. Thanks for being our toilet, Jefferson.
Has anyone asked if his full name is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions?
No.
We’re alt-write.
Fearsome, they are. Hardened veterans of the 101st Keyboard speak their names in muted tones of awe and reverence. Their eyes are smoky with the fires of the noobs they have flamed, steely Spartans of the message boards. The weak, the timid, the liberal shrink from the sting of their contempt.
Probably if those Islamic jihadist guys ever actually read these boards, they would most likely just give up, whipped by their stern disdain, they would just quit. Maybe take up Scientology or Ayn Rand.
Thread winner!
applause
All that has been established is that rancid hate-filled mobs of “liberals” infest the internet.
Of course the offensive nature of your statement comes through loud and clear.
All that has been established is that rancid hate-filled mobs of “liberals” infest the internet.
The sarcastiquotes are great, since without them the sentence is bullshit. With them, it’s just opaque, since nobody knows to whom you’re sarcastically referring. Sadly, a little bit of transparency is likely to render the quote bullshit again.
The twerp still thinks I’m a liberal. Oh, well Trump still thinks he’s competent.
All that has been established is that rancid hate-filled mobs of “liberals” infest the internet.
No, I think what’s been clearly established from your pontifications in your short but illustrious time here is that you’re a prejudiced asshole, but you seem to be rapidly expanding the scope of your prejudice. Muslims and liberals everywhere, oh, my!
You also can’t write. Sloppy writing is common enough, but when you grace us with phrases like “if the world were more like I”, that isn’t just ordinary sloppy writing (not to mention the narcissism), it’s a contrived affectation – the bleating of feigned superiority by a pompous ignoramus. Just the kind of pompous dweeb, in fact, who might be expected to spontaneously offer us a helpful lecture on remedial English.
No, I think what’s been clearly established from your pontifications in your short but illustrious time here is that you’re a prejudiced asshole, but you seem to be rapidly expanding the scope of your prejudice. Muslims and liberals everywhere, oh, my!
You also can’t write. Sloppy writing is common enough, but when you grace us with phrases like “if the world were more like I”, that isn’t just ordinary sloppy writing (not to mention the narcissism), it’s a contrived affectation – the bleating of feigned superiority by a pompous ignoramus. Just the kind of pompous dweeb, in fact, who might be expected to spontaneously offer us a helpful lecture on remedial English.
The grammar is correct, nurdlinger. But trying to criticise someone on a site like this for their grammar indicates you have lost the argument.
Of course the offensive nature of your statement comes through loud and clear.
What are you trying to say?
The 12 days to become “radicalised” is a quote from a Government (UK) expert on radicalisation.
Who? Others have asked you for a citation and you seem to be ignoring them. I’m genuinely curious about the context and so far I’ve been unable to find any expert commentary or report approximating the claim.
Who? Others have asked you for a citation and you seem to be ignoring them. I’m genuinely curious about the context and so far I’ve been unable to find any expert commentary or report approximating the claim.
I think you need to consult with an expert proctologist for the answer.
The grammar is correct, nurdlinger. But trying to criticise someone on a site like this for their grammar indicates you have lost the argument.
I was the one who corrected your pronoun usage. You denied the error and insisted that you were correct. I had a lot of support on this forum, from other people who are smarter than I am, who were able to describe your error. If you can’t even get things like that right, how are we to expect that you are getting anything else right?
The grammar is correct, nurdlinger. But trying to criticise someone on a site like this for their grammar indicates you have lost the argument.
Good idea, doubling down on the stupid always helps! ![]()
I explained here why your grammar is wrong. Not just wrong, but wrapped in a contrived and pretentious aura that is blissfully unaware of its own wrongness. Or perhaps Shakespeare, Swift, Dickens, and other great writers are the ones who are wrong, and linguists like Mark Liberman and Geoff Pullum are wrong, too, but you, a random Internet dweeb and raving bigot, are absolutely correct. But I don’t think so.
I would also note that you not only cannot write, you also cannot read. The word “also” in my earlier note preceded my description of your grammatical blunder. This means “additional to”. Your primary credentials as an Islamophobe and raving bigot were established first. Your secondary credentials as a pretentious illiterate are just the icing on the cake.
What are you trying to say?
Something even you can understand: FUCK OFF.