English grammer rules

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: English grammer rules

Post by Famspear »

Patriotdiscussions wrote:What I thought, you spent about zero point five seconds on any kind of research on the topic of origin of name.
No, I spent zero point ZERO seconds on any kind of research on the topic of "origin of name." What's wrong with you?

Can't you get it through your head? I and the rest of us here on this planet ARE NOT YOUR PARENTS. Whatever problems you still subconsciously have with Mommie or Daddy are YOUR problems. The rest of the world is not here to help you "work through" the unresolved aspects of your early childhood relationships.

Get some therapy.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: English grammer rules

Post by LPC »

Pottapaug1938 wrote:More goalpost-moving from PD. He either is incapable of giving a direct answer to a direct question; so until and unless he changes, and starts responding to our answers to this questions with something besides inanities and irrelevancies, his questions are not worth a moment's additional thought from any of us.
Exactly.

Which means that this thread no longer serves any useful purpose, and is locked.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

can you add this to ENGLISH GRAMMAR thread?

Post by fortinbras »

There was, until today, a thread on the Rules of Grammar, rehashing the SovCit (and other) silliness about official and court papers that put the party's name in block letters (=all-caps). I was going to contribute what I thought was important info to that thread but today found it Locked.

I wanted to mention the court decision in Jaeger v. Dubuque County (ND Iowa 1995) 880 F.Supp 640 (at 643) aff'd 113 F.3d 1238, which discussed this at length.
https://casetext.com/case/jaeger-v-dubuque-county

Briefly put, the practice of putting the name(s) of the relevant person(s) in block letters dates way back to the dim epochs before the typewriter (an implement of ancient times that replaced writing on wet clay), when legal papers were written by hand - and also when a large portion of the population could barely read. In those circumstances it was felt necessary to make the crucial names stand out and be immediately recognized by putting them in block letters. This practice continued when typewriters came into use because of their limitations (compared to PCs). And by now the practice is so ingrained that it is not merely customary but, in many jurisdictions, required by local court rules. Numerous court cases have CONSISTENTLY held that putting the names into block letters (all-caps) did not work any sort of alchemy on the people so named.

If it is possible, I would like the forum rules bent to have this message added to that locked thread.

Mod Note: I added this post to the locked thread. I agreed with fortinbras that legal reality, complete with citation, should have the last word.
Last edited by wserra on Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Explained in post.