JonnyOldBoy Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Clyne has been driven purely by the money.... If he used a purely footballing decision with regards his move away it would have been to a team that gives a LOT more freedom to their players. This is why Lallana has looked so useless at Liverpool and why LOVes-himself-REN was put under so much pressure that he clearly was not used to. Liverpool are a vague and aimless team. The year they came second was simply a result of Suarez, and without him they would have not even made the top 7 that year. Brenda has not got a clue about how to build a proper team and he thinks Clyne = a problem solved for him... Huge money is making a mockery of the game in England and there are way too many square pegs in round holes in teams. Manure having Falcao beggared belief, Super Mario at Liverpool being two obvious examples but there are many more. I have faith in RK and he can build teams... I think this coming season will be one step back though for us to take two steps forwards and I think a top 7 finish this coming season will be a big ask. Not impossible..... but unlikely. Not a problem for me tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 History is the only thing that makes you a big club to be fair - lots of money doesn't and you can't be called big on the basis of what might happen in the future either. I think it's fairly clear which clubs are and are not big. The main issue is that people confuse big with good. Or in Liverpool's case, big with relevant. Liverpool are a big club - huge in fact. But they are also irrelevant domestically and in Europe. Big and irrelevant. Most big clubs have a history of winning stuff but having won stuff years ago doesn't make a club big, just more successful. A bit irrelevant in this thread though because Liverpool are bigger, more successful, richer and better than Saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Biscuits Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Why is this a sticky? It's done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Ash Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Why is this a sticky? It's done When the thread calms down and people stop posting it will drift away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Les Reed on Clyne, from daily express: “With Nathaniel’s contract entering its final year, it was important that his future was resolved this summer,” Reed said. “With Cedric Soares now in place and it becoming clear that Nathaniel did not wish to extend his deal, we were keen to swiftly move on early in our pre-season schedule,” he added. “We have now been able to conclude our negotiations with Liverpool, and we thank Nathaniel for his efforts during the past three seasons.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Les Reed on Clyne, from daily express: So what was out in the official website then... Good ole express Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 So what was out in the official website then... Good ole express little known fact that saintsfc.co.uk is in fact run by the daily express Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 A bit irrelevant in this thread though because Liverpool are bigger, more successful, richer and better than Saints. Bigger, yes. More successful, yes, but the gap has narrowed recently. Richer, yes, although in terms of revenue rather than ownership. Better than Saints? In what way? At least we don't have armies of plastic fans the majority of whom have never ever seen us play live. We are arguably better run than them. The question begs to be asked that if they are so brilliant, why do they wish to buy up so many of our team? We have made them a bit of a laughing stock this past year or so and I hope that Cedric proves to be better than Clyne as well, just to continue the merriment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Bigger, yes. More successful, yes, but the gap has narrowed recently. Richer, yes, although in terms of revenue rather than ownership. Better than Saints? In what way? At least we don't have armies of plastic fans the majority of whom have never ever seen us play live. We are arguably better run than them. The question begs to be asked that if they are so brilliant, why do they wish to buy up so many of our team? We have made them a bit of a laughing stock this past year or so and I hope that Cedric proves to be better than Clyne as well, just to continue the merriment. Even if Cedric has a better season than Clyne, the liklihood is that they will still finish ahead of us. Because they have always been and continue to be better than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Both ****holes though really. Where are "both ****holes"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 History is the only thing that makes you a big club to be fair - lots of money doesn't and you can't be called big on the basis of what might happen in the future either. I think it's fairly clear which clubs are and are not big. The main issue is that people confuse big with good. Or in Liverpool's case, big with relevant. Liverpool are a big club - huge in fact. But they are also irrelevant domestically and in Europe. Big and irrelevant. Makes you wonder why more top players don't sign for Pompey, Eh ? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Bigger, yes. More successful, yes, but the gap has narrowed recently. Richer, yes, although in terms of revenue rather than ownership. Better than Saints? In what way? At least we don't have armies of plastic fans the majority of whom have never ever seen us play live. We are arguably better run than them. The question begs to be asked that if they are so brilliant, why do they wish to buy up so many of our team? We have made them a bit of a laughing stock this past year or so and I hope that Cedric proves to be better than Clyne as well, just to continue the merriment. Surely your statement begs the question if we are so brilliant why do so many of our players jump at the chance to join them? better than Saints in that we have never, ever finished above them. So despite by your own admission that they are bigger, richer more successful and have been for every single year of the 130 years we've been in existence you're making total sense as usual Les. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genk Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Just for the record, I posted that Clyne was leaving back on 22nd January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanjay Sanchez Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Just for the record, I posted that Clyne was leaving back on 22nd January. Good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 (edited) Just for the record, I posted that Clyne was leaving back on 22nd January. Gold star for you sunshine. Bravo. Edited 2 July, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Bigger, yes. More successful, yes, but the gap has narrowed recently. Richer, yes, although in terms of revenue rather than ownership. Better than Saints? In what way? At least we don't have armies of plastic fans the majority of whom have never ever seen us play live. We are arguably better run than them. The question begs to be asked that if they are so brilliant, why do they wish to buy up so many of our team? We have made them a bit of a laughing stock this past year or so and I hope that Cedric proves to be better than Clyne as well, just to continue the merriment. To be fair that applies to any massive club, be it Real, Barca, Man U, Chelsea, Bayern, etc etc City are gradually getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Just for the record, I posted that Clyne was leaving back on 22nd January. His first choice was Utd, who subsequently backed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 Just for the record, I posted that Clyne was leaving back on 22nd January. Yes but he didn't, it was 1st July!! HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 2 July, 2015 Share Posted 2 July, 2015 History is the only thing that makes you a big club to be fair - lots of money doesn't and you can't be called big on the basis of what might happen in the future either. I think it's fairly clear which clubs are and are not big. The main issue is that people confuse big with good. Or in Liverpool's case, big with relevant. Liverpool are a big club - huge in fact. But they are also irrelevant domestically and in Europe. Big and irrelevant. To the 45 thousand fans who attend every game and the millions more globally? Surely not. Maybe to you fair enough point taken but not to their fan base, most especially their match going fan base. You see virtue of your claim of irrelevancy what would that make say Rochdale, S****horpe , Huddersfield, Lincoln even the Saints themselves? The very backbone of our league and its history and without whom . . . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 intresting article here (quite long) about how good clyne is compared to other PL fullbacks http://www.thehardtackle.com/2015/analysis-how-good-is-nathaniel-clyne-compared-to-premier-leagues-best/ this bit caught my eye Clyne is reportedly at 90,ooo per week salary at Liverpool FC. That is, again, for a defender, lot of money. To put it into context, arguably league’s best right back, Branislav Ivanovic is paid around 80k per week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delboy Dave Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 £90k a week, frightening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 £90k a week, frightening! You can see why he was so keen to join Liverpool he could possibly be the highest earning full back in the PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 You can see why he was so keen to join Liverpool he could possibly be the highest earning full back in the PL. hm. wonder what zabaleta is on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 hm. wonder what zabaleta is on He de-clyned to answer . . . . [sorry I'll get me coat] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 His first choice was Utd, who subsequently backed out. Why on earth would Manchester United, merely pull out of signing, as most Saints fans agree is arguably the beat R/B in the league and for a paltry £12.5 mill at that? A team that paid a £12 mill loan fee, topped off with a reputed £365,000 per week for Falcao? So perhaps it is not so Glasshopper . . . . . http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/450784/Louis-van-Gaal-Nathaniel-Clyne-transfer-news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorne Malvo Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 Why on earth would Manchester United, merely pull out of signing, as most Saints fans agree is arguably the beat R/B in the league and for a paltry £12.5 mill at that? A team that paid a £12 mill loan fee, topped off with a reputed £365,000 per week for Falcao? So perhaps it is not so Glasshopper . . . . . http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/450784/Louis-van-Gaal-Nathaniel-Clyne-transfer-news Maybe for 90k a week, LVG would prefer Jones at right back.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 Maybe for 90k a week, LVG would prefer Jones at right back.... Maybe LVG would maybe he wouldn't and maybe in a world of maybe's, a maybe somewhat substantiated by the article, maybe Clyne the best R/B in the country followed his heart, maybe that is just possible? After all Man U will do almost anything to usurp Liverpool and vice versa, and £90,000 a week when, as pointed out, they will pay some one like Falcao £365,000 per week with no Prem experience, not to mention Rooney some £300,000 per week and Luke Shaw and Van Persie and DI Maria and so and so on . . . . anyway you get the point, £90,000 becomes relative chicken feed does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 come on guys. clyne is nowhere near the best RB in the league. we all know he's at the very least behind jones, and then behind henderson. roy knows best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 come on guys. clyne is nowhere near the best RB in the league. we all know he's at the very least behind jones, and then behind henderson. roy knows best Woy, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 To the 45 thousand fans who attend every game and the millions more globally? Surely not. Maybe to you fair enough point taken but not to their fan base, most especially their match going fan base. You see virtue of your claim of irrelevancy what would that make say Rochdale, S****horpe , Huddersfield, Lincoln even the Saints themselves? The very backbone of our league and its history and without whom . . . . . . . . Every club is relevant to their fans. But are they relevant to the rest of football? Liverpool are far more irrelevant now than they were from 1970 - 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 When debating whether Liverpool is "better" than us, there are two yardsticks by which that judgement can be made. One is as a club and the other is as a team. Undoubtedly as a club they are way ahead of us in terms of the usual measures of historical achievements, size of ground, following and wealth. Arguably we are the better run and better managed club. In terms of which is the better team, if the gauge of that is to be solely by the criteria of which one finishes above the other, then I can foresee us being the better team next season or the one after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint IQ Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 Even if Cedric has a better season than Clyne, the liklihood is that they will still finish ahead of us. Because they have always been and continue to be better than us. They were hardly better than us last year, 2 points and -17 goal difference to ours tiny difference so we were on about the same level. I hope we will continue to progress like we have every year for the past 6 seasons and they continue to fail under Rodgers, mainly defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 Every club is relevant to their fans. But are they relevant to the rest of football? Liverpool are far more irrelevant now than they were from 1970 - 2010. Surely on that basis "your irrelevancy" applies or can apply to all clubs away from their own fans? So let's come at this another way and see if we can make these murky waters any clearer - if one took a poll across world football on say the basis "who is the most relevant team in football now or in the past, between Liverpool and Southampton"? Are you of the mental disposition that Southampton would win the poll? Surely not? The majority of fans would possibly utter and whisper "who is Southampton?" Since in never having won the Title, or any major European trophy, indeed no major trophy win in the last 39 years and that FA cup win, the only "major" trophy win in their whole history, has hardly conspired to make any resounding impact of a magnitude to make the impartial fan sit up and take notice. So where are we then? We are back to where we started, Liverpool have relevancy to their own support, which on a global basis is far in excess of Southampton's, yet such relevancy does not, nor can it undermine Southampton's relevancy to their supporters AND in the great scheme of things [as previously alluded to] if there are no Southampton's, no Lincoln City, no Rochdale, no Mansfield etc etc there is no really competitive football league and therefore no Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea etc. etc. and going further afield no Real Madrid, no Barca, no Bayern etc. etc. so in the end it can be readily debated that all teams do have a relevancy to each other, no matter was is claimed or espoused. On such a basis then I think it is safe to say Liverpool FC, DO HAVE RELEVANCY, as indeed does every other team in the context of what we are discussing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 They were hardly better than us last year, 2 points and -17 goal difference to ours tiny difference so we were on about the same level. I hope we will continue to progress like we have every year for the past 6 seasons and they continue to fail under Rodgers, mainly defensively. Our best league finish for 30 years and it was still below Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 They were hardly better than us last year, 2 points and -17 goal difference to ours tiny difference so we were on about the same level. I hope we will continue to progress like we have every year for the past 6 seasons and they continue to fail under Rodgers, mainly defensively. We had our best season in a generation and one of our very best of all time. Meanwhile, Liverpool had a bog standard/below average season, which finished in disappointment and serious question marks about the manager. But they still competed in the Champions League, and two cup semi finals. Oh, and still finished above us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 We had our best season in a generation and one of our very best of all time. Meanwhile, Liverpool had a bog standard/below average season, which finished in disappointment and serious question marks about the manager. But they still competed in the Champions League, and two cup semi finals. Oh, and still finished above us. So they won nothing either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 So they won nothing either. Yep, in terms of winning stuff us and Liverpool are, like, neck and neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 (edited) Yep, in terms of winning stuff us and Liverpool are, like, neck and neck. Last season, of course. In terms of league position I thought our run was quite exciting, very little difference to Liverpool's. Edit: over the last 9 years they've won bugger all really, just the one League Cup. More than we have, I'll grant you, but nothing much to go on about. And on, and on, and on... Edited 3 July, 2015 by Whitey Grandad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 July, 2015 Share Posted 3 July, 2015 Last season, of course. In terms of league position I thought our run was quite exciting, very little difference to Liverpool's. Edit: over the last 9 years they've won bugger all really, just the one League Cup. More than we have, I'll grant you, but nothing much to go on about. And on, and on, and on... Our league season was brilliant, far better than the one experienced by Liverpool fans. So far from having 'little difference' I'd say they were almost polar opposites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 4 July, 2015 Share Posted 4 July, 2015 He de-clyned to answer . . . . [sorry I'll get me coat] I'd be careful what you say, with the usual summer grammatical pedantry season well and truly open. You cannot declyne "to answer" - it not a noun, it's a verb, and you can only conjugate a verb. Mind you, everyone is entitled to their sexual preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Share Posted 4 July, 2015 I'd be careful what you say, with the usual summer grammatical pedantry season well and truly open. You cannot declyne "to answer" - it not a noun, it's a verb, and you can only conjugate a verb. Mind you, everyone is entitled to their sexual preference. Unless we're talking about Liverpool's impending decline, with or without a 'clyne'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint IQ Posted 4 July, 2015 Share Posted 4 July, 2015 We had our best season in a generation and one of our very best of all time. Meanwhile, Liverpool had a bog standard/below average season, which finished in disappointment and serious question marks about the manager. But they still competed in the Champions League, and two cup semi finals. Oh, and still finished above us. Barely, they struggled to beat teams like Ludogorets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 5 July, 2015 Share Posted 5 July, 2015 Quote Originally Posted by ENSKIED View Post He de-clyned to answer . . . . [sorry I'll get me coat] QUOTE=hughieslastminutegoal;2208368]I'd be careful what you say, with the usual summer grammatical pedantry season well and truly open. You cannot declyne "to answer" - it not a noun, it's a verb, and you can only conjugate a verb. Mind you, everyone is entitled to their sexual preference. Then Hughie in relation to your very kind response one is compelled to offer that a quick glance at the Forum readily informs that anyone with such a "disposition" as you relate is going have their work well and truly cut out, however, we should never of course knock gainful employment of any description. While about this I have to say my flabber was somewhat ghasted sir in your failure to acknowledge that the extraction of comedic elements of a communication [among perhaps other expediences], perceived or otherwise, can often be to the detriment, indeed can override rigid complicity with any perceived linguistic and or grammatical restraints. Such flouting or disregard is what is often termed "poetical licence" though there are those among us with a more barbaric interpretation of things who vent their spleen concerning such rules in terms such as "who ****ing cares"?. Hence so little attention is paid to the deeper grammatical rules and interpretations in regard to of the use of our language; language being organic as it is and therefore in a state of constant flux. In regard to the latter such careless and indiscriminate flouting of grammatical rules must have passed you by? I mention this in case "with the usual summer grammatical pedantry season well and truly open " as you claim you are of the mind to undertake the Herculean task of correcting the grammar of the Forum yourself - something you seem more than well equipped to do. Incidentally as something of an aside it could be readily debated you are wrong in your statement "you can only conjugate a verb" besides biology to which you seem to make a comedic allusion, one can, if I recall correctly conjugate in mathematics, chemistry, bibliography and botany. Should you elect to undertake the correcting of grammar and its correct use and interpretation on the forum, do know that you have my full support and that hating desecration and ill-use of our mother tongue as I do, I fully encourage you to do so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint IQ Posted 7 July, 2015 Share Posted 7 July, 2015 Can't believe Clyne's retweeted this what on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintLiam Posted 7 July, 2015 Share Posted 7 July, 2015 Can't believe Clyne's retweeted this what on Earth. Must be pity surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 7 July, 2015 Share Posted 7 July, 2015 Its amusement, clearly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 7 July, 2015 Share Posted 7 July, 2015 Quote Originally Posted by ENSKIED View Post He de-clyned to answer . . . . [sorry I'll get me coat] QUOTE=hughieslastminutegoal;2208368]I'd be careful what you say, with the usual summer grammatical pedantry season well and truly open. You cannot declyne "to answer" - it not a noun, it's a verb, and you can only conjugate a verb. Mind you, everyone is entitled to their sexual preference. Then Hughie in relation to your very kind response one is compelled to offer that a quick glance at the Forum readily informs that anyone with such a "disposition" as you relate is going have their work well and truly cut out, however, we should never of course knock gainful employment of any description. While about this I have to say my flabber was somewhat ghasted sir in your failure to acknowledge that the extraction of comedic elements of a communication [among perhaps other expediences], perceived or otherwise, can often be to the detriment, indeed can override rigid complicity with any perceived linguistic and or grammatical restraints. Such flouting or disregard is what is often termed "poetical licence" though there are those among us with a more barbaric interpretation of things who vent their spleen concerning such rules in terms such as "who ****ing cares"?. Hence so little attention is paid to the deeper grammatical rules and interpretations in regard to of the use of our language; language being organic as it is and therefore in a state of constant flux. In regard to the latter such careless and indiscriminate flouting of grammatical rules must have passed you by? I mention this in case "with the usual summer grammatical pedantry season well and truly open " as you claim you are of the mind to undertake the Herculean task of correcting the grammar of the Forum yourself - something you seem more than well equipped to do. Incidentally as something of an aside it could be readily debated you are wrong in your statement "you can only conjugate a verb" besides biology to which you seem to make a comedic allusion, one can, if I recall correctly conjugate in mathematics, chemistry, bibliography and botany. Should you elect to undertake the correcting of grammar and its correct use and interpretation on the forum, do know that you have my full support and that hating desecration and ill-use of our mother tongue as I do, I fully encourage you to do so! Knob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSFC Posted 7 July, 2015 Share Posted 7 July, 2015 Can't believe Clyne's retweeted this what on Earth. That numpty right there is you're typical Liverpool fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltonaggro Posted 7 July, 2015 Share Posted 7 July, 2015 Can't believe Clyne's retweeted this what on Earth. A little known fact is that off the pitch for the past six years Nathaniel has been North West Ambassador for MIND UK and Volunteer Patron of the MHTF (The Merseyside Hard of Thinking Forum). All the criticism directed towards him about just moving for the money, flipping like a burger etc. is very wide of the mark, he's moved to be closer to the people he loves, the inbred throng of low intelligence that make Liverpool the bestest club in the world - YNWA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENSKIED Posted 8 July, 2015 Share Posted 8 July, 2015 (edited) Then Hughie in relation to your very kind response one is compelled to offer that a quick glance at the Forum readily informs that anyone with such a "disposition" as you relate is going have their work well and truly cut out, however, we should never of course knock gainful employment of any description. While about this I have to say my flabber was somewhat ghasted sir in your failure to acknowledge that the extraction of comedic elements of a communication [among perhaps other expediences], perceived or otherwise, can often be to the detriment, indeed can override rigid complicity with any perceived linguistic and or grammatical restraints. Such flouting or disregard is what is often termed "poetical licence" though there are those among us with a more barbaric interpretation of things who vent their spleen concerning such rules in terms such as "who ****ing cares"?. Hence so little attention is paid to the deeper grammatical rules and interpretations in regard to of the use of our language; language being organic as it is and therefore in a state of constant flux. In regard to the latter such careless and indiscriminate flouting of grammatical rules must have passed you by? I mention this in case "with the usual summer grammatical pedantry season well and truly open " as you claim you are of the mind to undertake the Herculean task of correcting the grammar of the Forum yourself - something you seem more than well equipped to do. Incidentally as something of an aside it could be readily debated you are wrong in your statement "you can only conjugate a verb" besides biology to which you seem to make a comedic allusion, one can, if I recall correctly conjugate in mathematics, chemistry, bibliography and botany. Should you elect to undertake the correcting of grammar and its correct use and interpretation on the forum, do know that you have my full support and that hating desecration and ill-use of our mother tongue as I do, I fully encourage you to do so! Knob Undoubtedly you are Golac and a prize one at that, but mummy should have taught you by now to let people work such things out for themselves rather than for you to give into the need to go public and inform people of the same. Edited 8 July, 2015 by ENSKIED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now