talkmagic.co.uk

daleshrimpton wrote:
I would of thought that the words p**-***w would of been enough info on ity's own.

Aaaaaaargh - please, please. Would OF, Could OF?? You mean would've, or could've or should've!

I'm sorry to rant about that but this is such a pet peeve of mine!!

Using the word 'of' in those contexts doesn't even make any sense???!

I blame the internet for such declines on language usage!!

Check this thread here for more shame....

http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ftopic33852.php


However - I do completely agree with Dale's sentiments... surely the clue is in the name, isn't it???
Sean

/RANT

I blame the internet for such declines on language usage!!

Whilst you are probably correct in your assumption, I would also blame 46 years of battling with chronic Dyslexia.

I am probably not alone in saying that the internet being what it is, It is more important to get the message across, than to be gramaticaly correct.

However, to put your mind at rest, Had i been writing the follow up to war and peace, I would of had someone proof read it, before I published.



Thanks for agreeing with the message i was trying to get across....

What is really good about Paul's book isn't so much the methods or effects (Although they're solid), but the language he uses - the precise dual-reality phrasing that lets these kind of effects shine for all involved.

Incidentally, the other main book on the subject is Mark Striving's "Before the Curtain Rises". Of the two, I'd go for The Gift, but that's just my opinion.

daleshrimpton wrote:Had i been writing the follow up to war and peace, I would of had someone proof read it

I do not care if that was deliberate or intentional, either way is brilliant in equal measures.

Yeah I can see Eshlys point, in that obviously the clue is in the name, and yes there are a hundred and one ways of doing it.

But its the language you need to use at certain points so you don't balls it up.
That was my concerns with it all.
I have the gift (no not literally) and it covers the bits that I think your after.

Well it did mine anyways.

F x

xx

Paul's gift covered your bits? *childish titter*

Dale Shrimpton writes, in part: " . . .It is more important to get the message across, than to be gramaticaly correct. . . . "

That is, beyond doubt, the FEEBLEST argument ever!

If the message is not correct, in grammar, or spelling, or anything else, it won't get across AT ALL!

It takes no more effort to get it right than to get it wrong, so why not get it right in the first place?

Peter Marucci wrote:If the message is not correct, in grammar, or spelling, or anything else, it won't get across AT ALL!

Then all i can say is, Ive been wasting my time posting on forums over the last 11 years, because nobody has understood one ruddy word.

Peter, as much as i respect you, i have in the most part got to disagree with you here.
The thing is, you forget that the internet is at best , conversational.
Its an instant communication device, that allows people to write as they speak.warts and all.


This isnt to say we should all go around using TXT. My post above was made,in reply to a minor niggle that has taken this thread off topic.

And for the sake of the original poster, can we please try and get it back on topic?

Peter Marucci wrote:If the message is not correct, in grammar, or spelling, or anything else, it won't get across AT ALL!

I understood your point very well, despite your incorrect use of punctuation, which I have quoted alongside the lazy option of "get". There is almost always a clearer and more appropriate word than "get" or "got".

A 'better' version, by your standards, would be, "If the message is incorrect in its grammar, spelling or anything else, then it will not be understood."

I PROPOZE WE HAV AN ANNUAL DAY OF LEET SPEEK!




(it makes me sad that I didn't mean to spell "Speak" incorrectly, but needed the computer to do it. DAMN YOU WORLD OF WARCRAFT!)

QQ

Lawrence wrote:QQ

Nerf Rouges.

FTA!

TTFN!