Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Improper use of the word 'had' in articles

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    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.

    Comment


    • #22
      One of the most idiotic threads I've ever read.

      Comment


      • #23
        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.

        Comment


        • #24
          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, 03:26 PM.

          Comment


          • #25
            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.

            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?)

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

            Comment


            • #26
              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, 03:49 PM.

              Comment


              • #27
                Hehe

                I'm starting to like you.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
                  Hehe

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

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X