In actuality, >>0 should be a link to http://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1182180250/64.
"In actuality" is a stupid phrase
Calling phrases stupid is so last millennium.
The 'that is so last X' phrase has jumped the shark long ago.
You should be using double quote marks there.
Although either the single or double style is generally accepted depending on regional preference, I believe you are referring to what are properly known as quotation marks, and not simply quote marks.
tl;dr
There's no reason to use texting shortcuts when a complete keyboard is available to type on.
You neglect to consider the possibility that the poster may not have a keyboard, and must use alternative methods to input data. Such as copy and paste from the character map.
That last sentence is a fragment.
A fragment is not really a sentence at all, then, is it?
>>11's poster used too many clauses to express an incorrrect opinion, thereby invalidating any further statements from said poster.
>>12's poster used too many r's in "incorrrect" therein.
I do wish that posters would stop using abbreviations like typo for typographical error... We are not juvenile adolescents using cellular telephones.
"Juvenile adolescent" is redundant.
>>16
As one could be an average adolescent, or a particularly mature adolescent, surely one could be a particularly juvenile adolescent? An adolescent more adolescent than other adolescents, if you will.
"An adolescent more adolescent than other adolescents, if you will." is nothing more than a mere sentence fragment.
>>17 Used 6 times the word "adolescent". Try a synonyms dictionary for a more varied and elegant writing.
I do agree with >>19 but I fear that he writing for style. Better also use a dictionary while you're at it.
>>20 used zero of one mandatory "is" in his sentence. Could that possibly be an indicator of his lacking grasp of the English language?
>>21 poses a question to the readers which they will be quite unable to answer.
>>22 purports to know the readers' ability to answer such questions, when he really cannot be certain about it. Also, since the word "unable" describes a complete lack of ability, it is unnecessary to prefix it with "quite".
"Redundant" sounds bombastic and pedant. Consider using more down-to-Earth words like verbose or wordy.
>>25 second sentence is noncommittal and wishy-washy, with the sickening word "consider" coming across as pedantic as the post he was criticizing.
You could have summed that up and in a briefer and more witty fashion by paraphrasing Yoda's oft-quoted line.
"And" appears twice in >>30's post, without even so much as a comma separating the two. That's a big no-no.
I must add that the previous three posters may not realize it gets difficult to refer an individual as "⊂二二二（ ＾ω＾）二二二⊃" for several reasons. The foremost being the wide majority of BU-N in here, and secondarily the unpronounceable nature of that series of Unicode characters.
Ergo, utilizing >>30 as a proper noun is justified in this informal atmosphere.
>>36 should avoid using so much white-space. This is not a Web 2.0 site.
> marketroidisms
That is not a word at alll.
>>40 is unable to tell a drawl apart from a spelling error.
>>41 mentions drawls and spelling errors, making it clear that he doesn't understand at least one of the terms since drawls are spoken whereas spelling errors are written.
>apart from
could be shorter, like "seperate"
Anyways, >>44, please listen to me. That it's really related to this thread.
I went to /Language/ a while ago; you know, /Language/?
Well anyways there was an insane number of people there, and I couldn't get in.
Then, I looked at the rules posted on the headboard, and it had "respect each other's language" written on it.
Oh, the stupidity. Those idiots.
You, don't come to /Language/ just because you want lingual respect, fool.
It's only respect, R-E-S-P-E-C-T for crying out loud.
There're even lengthy run-on sentences there. Sentences of 4 lines, all out for some nitpicking, huh? How fucking nice.
"fact remains: some languages are just easier than others" God I can't bear to watch.
You people, I'll give you respect if you just get out of those threads.
/Language/ should be a red ink place.
That tense atmosphere, where two guys on opposite sides of the monitor can start a debate at any time,
the lecture-or-be-lectured mentality, that's what's great about this place.
Illiterates and dyslexics should screw off and stay home.
Anyways, I was about to start correcting a typo, and then the bastard above me writes "That is not an english word why did you say it"
Who in the world writes a question without an eroteme nowadays, you moron?
I want to ask him, "do you REALLY want to end that without punctuation?"
I want to correct him. I want to correct him without regard for context.
Are you sure you don't just want to try writing "That word is not familiar to me. What is it's meaning?"
Coming from a Grammar Nazi such as myself, the latest trend among us nazis is this, extra sage.
That's right, extra sage. This is the nazi's way of reprimanding.
Extra sage means more time under the radar. But on the other hand the price is a tad higher. This is the key.
And then, it's obnoxious. This is unbearable.
However, if you follow this advice then there is danger that you'll be noticed by the posters from next sage on; it's a double-edged sword.
I can't recommend it to amateurs.
What this all really means, though, is that you, >>44, corrected the wrong post.
also >>45 legendary!
>>47 posted in the correcting minor nuances without regard for context thread rather than the compliment the poster above us thread. Regardless I am thankful for his praise.
Fulfilling your extra sage.
>>51 was inconsistent with his use of post links.
>>52: why "was"? If the post is inconsistent, it is likely to stay that way forever as the post cannot be edited.
"was distracting and was unnecessary." would be a better paraphrase of >>54 with more punch.
>>55 did not capitalise the first letter of his sentence.
>>57 used a system of spelling inferior to that in common use in Amerikkka.
>>58 spelled "America" with three k's. "America", in fact, has no k anywhere in it.
>>59 disregarded a foreign language spelling of America in which there is, in fact, a 'k'.
>>61 forgots to include the commas: ", in fact," is excessive.
>>63 lacks appreciation of nuances over style and substance.
>>66 doesn't realize that the RIAA is just an organization, and doesn't act at all, but rather its members do.
You're overly liberal with commas; A semicolon is always a good way to join two related sentences together.
>>68
uhm. Please don't start with a capital letter after a semi-colon.
"Semicolon" is not hyphenated.
You missed out on the opportunity to inform the previous poster that uhm is not an English word.
>>71 Agglutinative languages or synthetic languages flexibly integrate onomatopoetic words into their structure. This may evolve into a new word, up to the point that it is no longer recognized as such.
Because you touch yourself at night. Also, while the lack of initial capitalisation may be forgiven thanks to your attempted ellipsis (which, incidentally, is missing a dot), your sentece is missing a question mark.
The question should not be "why", but rather "how".
>>76
When a preschooler enters his annoying "why?" stage, it's good to redirect the child by asking him other "w" questions - who, where, when? - to make him diversify his choices, not just "how".
That oversight can be forgiven due to an unfortunate lack of English language gender-neutral pronouns.
>e to a
That word obviously is not listed in any recent English dictionary. The reason of dispensing such nonsense to our peaceful forum users is not immediately familiar with me, and I question the reason behind uttering such gibberish
>>79 is too soft about it. It would be irresponsible to be complacent about this gender inequity. Please think of the robots' feelings.
>robots'
I don't even know where to start about that.
>>84
In complete honesty I find nothing wrong with your post. Keep up the good work.
>>85 failed to correct minor nuances of the previous post without regard for context.
Staying up so late makes you construct such posts like >>86. What are you doing up at 1 in the morning?
>>88
0100 hours in Military Time. Not every one is a civil.
>>89 certainly hasn't the civility and decency to refrain from stopping in mid-word. He should have said "civilian".
>>90, "in mid-word" is excessive; "stopping mid-word" would have sufficed.
>>91 made poor use of the post reference, leaving his sentence awkward from the start.
As those two grammatical units are not independent clauses, a semicolon should not have been used at all. This makes pluralization questionable.
It is questionable whether these pronouns "this" and "that" require capitalization.
>>96's use of "it is" to introduce a dependent clause that later refers to the antecedent is clumsy, and would be better reworded. For example,
> Whether these pronouns "this" and "that" require capitalization is questionable.
>>97 thinks language should stick to arbitrary standards, but it is actually the result of a long evolution going back to centuries evolving from something that sounded very different from what we use right now. In 500 years if this is archived and someone read this they will laugh at you for thinking it was correct usage.
>In 500 years if this is archived and someone read this
If someone "READS" this, please. Also, according to your evolution argument, in 500 years only specialists in Ancient English will be able to read this.
There is no need to quote part of the post and include a link to the post. One or the other is sufficient.