[Eeyore]

Harry Lavo wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:
Doofus the Donkey dorked:

I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of
electronics
having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality

It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.

There was no error to correct.

You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].

No I didn't !

Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!

You're just an attention slut aren't you ?

Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic. But
unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm in
the right.

Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.

Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
no one else on this NG can either.


"which" instead of "that" (more correct) and publications don't literally
"talk".

and

"having" instead of "has" referring to the singular "publication"

Perhaps three errors?

Subtle, and hardly in the way of most peoples' understanding. But
grammatical errors nonetheless.

You can't replace having with has in the above without reconstructing the
sentence.

Graham