Firstly it wouldn't be a secret if I blurted it out and it's the type that mentioning the nature of it would make it too easy to figure out. So you knowing the secret is irrelevant.
Secondly, trying to compensate for not understanding what was said to you by correcting my grammar is very easily noticed. You're compensating with something irrelevant to something relevant.
No it's just that "would of" grates on my nerves. It's one of the more idiotic errors one can make as it makes no logical sense. You wouldn't say "I of done that" so why would you say "I would of done that"? It's "have", not "of". Or the contraction "would've", short for "would have".
Let's see here. My error was not forming 100% grammatical accuracy and your error is your lack of comprehending something that was easy to understand. You also base my lower intellect on grammar alone...That is your reasoning?
So let's compare. My lack of grammatical accuracy compared to your piss poor reasoning skills. Which would make one less intelligent than the other? What would you consider to be a more prominent measurement of intelligence, 100% grammatical accuracy or reasoning skills?
See, I'd pick the latter, perhaps you would too. I would even bet on it. If I am right on what your answer would be I would kindly suggest you check who you're trying to outsmart before trying to outsmart me, especially if you wanna try and fling it in my face because if you are a regular here and know of me well enough, you would know that your little attempt to seem intellectually superior to me based upon grammatical accuracy was a piss poor position to come from that was most defnitely bound to fail.
So due to your clear lack of reasoning skills, lack of comprehension skill of what is being said to you, and your ego that has a bark worse than its bite, I'd consider you back off from your assumed intellectual highground you're building because it just means you'll have a lengthy drop from the top. The whole "The bigger they are" thing, yano?
I really do hope you're a regular, otherwise you really did just bite off more than you can chew. If there was a top ten things not to do on this site, ticking off this user's pride would be up there. ;)
Pardon, but the way my question was phrased..."coerced into having sex"...and how you responded..."I'm sure I could of gotten out of it if I was sober". If that's not blaming the alcohol then I don't know what is. You said you were incapacitated by alcohol! In other words, it wouldn't have happened if you weren't drunk. What exactly did I misinterpret there?
It's not really about being grammatically correct, it's a clear sign of lesser intelligence when one doesn't notice such obvious errors like "could of" and the like. If you read English you should realize it eventually. If you even stopped one second to think about what makes sense..."of" or "have", you'd realize it if you had any sense.
Have you ever been coerced into having sex?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Oh ok. So what was the big secret?
And it's "would have", not "would of".
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Firstly it wouldn't be a secret if I blurted it out and it's the type that mentioning the nature of it would make it too easy to figure out. So you knowing the secret is irrelevant.
Secondly, trying to compensate for not understanding what was said to you by correcting my grammar is very easily noticed. You're compensating with something irrelevant to something relevant.
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
No it's just that "would of" grates on my nerves. It's one of the more idiotic errors one can make as it makes no logical sense. You wouldn't say "I of done that" so why would you say "I would of done that"? It's "have", not "of". Or the contraction "would've", short for "would have".
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You understood what I said, did you not?
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Of course I did, but I also knew you were less intelligent based on your error. I take you less seriously because of it.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Let's see here. My error was not forming 100% grammatical accuracy and your error is your lack of comprehending something that was easy to understand. You also base my lower intellect on grammar alone...That is your reasoning?
So let's compare. My lack of grammatical accuracy compared to your piss poor reasoning skills. Which would make one less intelligent than the other? What would you consider to be a more prominent measurement of intelligence, 100% grammatical accuracy or reasoning skills?
See, I'd pick the latter, perhaps you would too. I would even bet on it. If I am right on what your answer would be I would kindly suggest you check who you're trying to outsmart before trying to outsmart me, especially if you wanna try and fling it in my face because if you are a regular here and know of me well enough, you would know that your little attempt to seem intellectually superior to me based upon grammatical accuracy was a piss poor position to come from that was most defnitely bound to fail.
So due to your clear lack of reasoning skills, lack of comprehension skill of what is being said to you, and your ego that has a bark worse than its bite, I'd consider you back off from your assumed intellectual highground you're building because it just means you'll have a lengthy drop from the top. The whole "The bigger they are" thing, yano?
I really do hope you're a regular, otherwise you really did just bite off more than you can chew. If there was a top ten things not to do on this site, ticking off this user's pride would be up there. ;)
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
Pardon, but the way my question was phrased..."coerced into having sex"...and how you responded..."I'm sure I could of gotten out of it if I was sober". If that's not blaming the alcohol then I don't know what is. You said you were incapacitated by alcohol! In other words, it wouldn't have happened if you weren't drunk. What exactly did I misinterpret there?
It's not really about being grammatically correct, it's a clear sign of lesser intelligence when one doesn't notice such obvious errors like "could of" and the like. If you read English you should realize it eventually. If you even stopped one second to think about what makes sense..."of" or "have", you'd realize it if you had any sense.