who is identified in today's TD as the apparent owner of "Roger's Hall?"
"Justin Caudwell works in 113.8 degree heat atop Roger’s Hall at the University on North Alabama in Florence at 11:45 a.m."
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Roger's Hall is the big manse at the head of Court St. Belongs to UNA and houses several offices and a formal dining room. It was donated by the Rogers family, I believe the same family that originally owned Roger's Department store.
You are right, interventor. Tom Rogers, Sr owned it in the 1920's and then UNA bought it in the late 1940's.
The "Roger's" type-o isn't as glaring to me as this one: the University on North Alabama.
Be those both as they may, I find it obnoxious to pick apart the errors in the paper. There will be grammatical and usage errors in any daily paper. I am more concerned with editorials disguised as articles and misrepresentation of the facts.
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
The "Roger's" type-o isn't as glaring to me as this one: the University on North Alabama.
Be those both as they may, I find it obnoxious to pick apart the errors in the paper. There will be grammatical and usage errors in any daily paper. I am more concerned with editorials disguised as articles and misrepresentation of the facts.
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
Is that Tom Roger Sr. also related to the Rogers family that owned the Rogers Dept. Store on Court Street or was he the one that established that store ?
Yes, Hound Dog - That is the same group of Rogers.
Rogers opened in 1894 on Court Street by B.A. Rogers and T.M. (Tom) Rogers Sr.
Rogers opened in 1894 on Court Street by B.A. Rogers and T.M. (Tom) Rogers Sr.
Like I said, the english majors that could get a job at McDonald's are TD proofreaders.
BeternU -- I want to lovingly make a suggestion...GET A LIFE!! It is tiresome to read every post you make and have it be a slap at someone for making a typo or grammatical error....
I don't read the Times Daily to just find typos -- I read it and other publications for NEWS!!!
I don't read the Times Daily to just find typos -- I read it and other publications for NEWS!!!
quote:Originally posted by T S C:
You are right, interventor. Tom Rogers, Sr owned it in the 1920's and then UNA bought it in the late 1940's.
The "Roger's" type-o isn't as glaring to me as this one: the University on North Alabama.
Be those both as they may, I find it obnoxious to pick apart the errors in the paper. There will be grammatical and usage errors in any daily paper. I am more concerned with editorials disguised as articles and misrepresentation of the facts.
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
Suit yourself if you are content with reading a daily paper that constantly makes bumbleheaded errors of all kinds. I would like to see some improvement, but I have read the Times Dorky for over 25 years and they seem never to improve. There are daily papers in some small cities in Alabama that truly care about quality and that do not commit the chronic and laughable errors often seen in the TD.
quote:Originally posted by DixieChik:
BeternU -- I want to lovingly make a suggestion...GET A LIFE!! It is tiresome to read every post you make and have it be a slap at someone for making a typo or grammatical error....
I don't read the Times Daily to just find typos -- I read it and other publications for NEWS!!!
Then just don't read what I post on that kind of subject matter. I also read the TD for news (and not, as you swinishly and ignorantly imply), "just to find typos." I would rather have a more literate local medium available to provide that news. Regrettably, the TD is the only daily paper in the area. Maybe if they had some competition, they would do better.
quote:Originally posted by interventor:
Roger's Hall is the big manse at the head of Court St. Belongs to UNA and houses several offices and a formal dining room. It was donated by the Rogers family, I believe the same family that originally owned Roger's Department store.
Congratulations--or rather, condolences! You are now accredited to be an editor or proofreader for the Times Daily. You, too, seem not to be able to distinguish between the proper usage ("Rogers") and the TD's ignorant "Roger's."
I would like to urge everyone who is as sick of reading the negativity and ugliness posted by beternU to join me in ignoring him going forward.
quote:Originally posted by T S C:
Yes, Hound Dog - That is the same group of Rogers.
Rogers opened in 1894 on Court Street by B.A. Rogers and T.M. (Tom) Rogers Sr.
Also namesake of Rogers School
quote:Originally posted by T S C:
You are right, interventor. Tom Rogers, Sr owned it in the 1920's and then UNA bought it in the late 1940's.
The "Roger's" type-o isn't as glaring to me as this one: the University on North Alabama.
Be those both as they may, I find it obnoxious to pick apart the errors in the paper. There will be grammatical and usage errors in any daily paper. I am more concerned with editorials disguised as articles and misrepresentation of the facts.
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
Also, some of the www.timesdaily.com typos are not wrong in the printed copy. The online people make more mistakes than the print people.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:
[QUOTE]
Suit yourself if you are content with reading a daily paper that constantly makes bumbleheaded errors of all kinds. I would like to see some improvement, but I have read the Times Dorky for over 25 years and they seem never to improve.
Why do you bother????????
quote:Originally posted by T S C:
I would like to urge everyone who is as sick of reading the negativity and ugliness posted by beternU to join me in ignoring him going forward.
Suit yerself, you crosseyed little baby chick!
Caring about the correct use of the greatest language in the world is something all of us should be engaged in. I realize that the prevailing level of literacy in this part of the world is pretty low and thus I am not at all astounded to find that there are those who consider my efforts at improving things in this realm to be misplaced. I suspect that these critics are fully content with the rudimentary stage of their halting progression toward correct English usage. But as for me and my house, we seek better things.
why are you resorting to name calling? Simply because you have a quirk about using the English language correctly does not make you above or better than any single person here on these forums! We all make typo errors,but hey SO WHAT!
your redneck veins are showing by such a crude response and stooping to call names.
your redneck veins are showing by such a crude response and stooping to call names.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:
Suit yerself, you crosseyed little baby chick!
Caring about the correct use of the greatest language in the world is something all of us should be engaged in.
Again, the irony of your idiotic rants is thick enough to cut.
"Crosseyed" is two separate words, numbrod. Watch: "Cross eyed."
Gosh you are a colossal obnoxoid!
quote:Originally posted by smurph:
why are you resorting to name calling? Simply because you have a quirk about using the English language correctly does not make you above or better than any single person here on these forums!
Oh, he IS above us all. In his mind, anyway. That is very evident from watching his antics on the Florence City Council Show.
I won't go so far to name his name (there is an infinitesimally small chance that I am wrong) but suffice it to say that he is almost certainly the one that talks just like he writes here. He is obviously in love with himself and his thesaurus.
I can't tell you how many times I've come close to throwing my beer at the TV every time he looks into the camera with that annoying smirk after he thinks he said something "smart." Grrr.
OMG! well THAT explains it all
thanks GoFish for the headup.
thanks GoFish for the headup.
betern nuttin,
"Congratulations--or rather, condolences! You are now accredited to be an editor or proofreader for the Times Daily. You, too, seem not to be able to distinguish between the proper usage ("Rogers") and the TD's ignorant "Roger's.""
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I used the form Roger's to denote the department store that once belonged to the Rogers family, not as the name of the store. BTW, there is no grammatical reason for putting Roger's in quotes. Now, please GET A LIFE! And, quite insulting nice, funny ladies like TSC.
"Congratulations--or rather, condolences! You are now accredited to be an editor or proofreader for the Times Daily. You, too, seem not to be able to distinguish between the proper usage ("Rogers") and the TD's ignorant "Roger's.""
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I used the form Roger's to denote the department store that once belonged to the Rogers family, not as the name of the store. BTW, there is no grammatical reason for putting Roger's in quotes. Now, please GET A LIFE! And, quite insulting nice, funny ladies like TSC.
quote:Oh, he IS above us all. In his mind, anyway. That is very evident from watching his antics on the Florence City Council Show.
I won't go so far to name his name (there is an infinitesimally small chance that I am wrong) but suffice it to say that he is almost certainly the one that talks just like he writes here. He is obviously in love with himself and his thesaurus.
I can't tell you how many times I've come close to throwing my beer at the TV every time he looks into the camera with that annoying smirk after he thinks he said something "smart." Grrr.
OMG!!!! I have mostly ignored or made fun of his posts because I REALLY thought this was an alias Bluesman or Swindle or someone had made up just to stir the pot!!! I thought there is no way someone is this arrogant and pompous and serious about it in the world! How much more funny it is now that it could be a REAL person that acts like this! I blew the water out of my nose that I was drinking when I read GoFish's post! That's funny !
quote:Originally posted by MentalFloss:
I blew the water out of my nose that I was drinking when I read GoFish's post! That's funny !
So you know who I am referring to, then?
Yes, he is truly as obnoxious in real life . . . Assuming my VERY strong suspicion is correct.
quote:So you know who I am referring to, then?
No I just could'nt believe that he REALLY exists.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by T S C:
You are right, interventor. Tom Rogers, Sr owned it in the 1920's and then UNA bought it in the late 1940's.
The "Roger's" type-o isn't as glaring to me as this one: the University on North Alabama.
Be those both as they may, I find it obnoxious to pick apart the errors in the paper. There will be grammatical and usage errors in any daily paper. I am more concerned with editorials disguised as articles and misrepresentation of the facts.
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
Suit yourself if you are content with reading a daily paper that constantly makes bumbleheaded errors of all kinds. I would like to see some improvement, but I have read the Times Dorky for over 25 years and they seem never to improve. There are daily papers in some small cities in Alabama that truly care about quality and that do not commit the chronic and laughable errors often seen in the TD.
Why not? We read your errors everyday...... and we laugh......
quote:Originally posted by MentalFloss:quote:So you know who I am referring to, then?
No I just could'nt believe that he REALLY exists.
Watch the Florence City Council show sometime. There is a regular speaker who speaks and "acts" exactly as this BetternU guy. Exactly. Uses the same flamboyancy with English and ample use of unnecessary adjectives and rants about the same topics.
In person, he is about the most pompous, egotistical person I have ever seen. The fact that he occasionally raises a good point with his critiques is overshadowed by his obvious love of hearing himself speak.
INTERVENTOR, pay attention!
You posted this:
[QUOTE]I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I used the form Roger's to denote the department store that once belonged to the Rogers family, not as the name of the store. BTW, there is no grammatical reason for putting Roger's in quotes. Now, please GET A LIFE! And, quite insulting nice, funny ladies like TSC.[QUOTE]
Yes, indeed, you DID use the form "Roger's" to "denote the department store." But that does NOT make your usage "Roger's" correct in any way. The name of the store and the name of the family are the same, namely "Rogers." Look it up in the phone book if you doubt that. When you back the name down to "Roger" and then add an "s" to make the name possessive, you are in fact changing the name "Rogers" to the name "Roger," as though the store was owned by someone whose first name (or last name) was "Roger."If the name of a family was "Williams," would you make the possessive "William's?" Well, maybe YOU would, but it would be just as wrong as the "Roger's" that you used.
As to placing an item in quotes, well I did THAT to make it plain that I was setting forth the word just as it had been ignorantly used in the place I cited. The placing of the word in quotes makes that clear and protects me from being associated with such ignorant and ungrammatical usage. That is a common practice on the part of those of us who find it necessary to advise plural-and-possessive-challenged persons or others who abuse the mother tongue. When we offer our help, it is often useful to cite the particular blunder in the manner in which it was committed, thus setting the stage for our kind and corrective advice.
You posted this:
[QUOTE]I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I used the form Roger's to denote the department store that once belonged to the Rogers family, not as the name of the store. BTW, there is no grammatical reason for putting Roger's in quotes. Now, please GET A LIFE! And, quite insulting nice, funny ladies like TSC.[QUOTE]
Yes, indeed, you DID use the form "Roger's" to "denote the department store." But that does NOT make your usage "Roger's" correct in any way. The name of the store and the name of the family are the same, namely "Rogers." Look it up in the phone book if you doubt that. When you back the name down to "Roger" and then add an "s" to make the name possessive, you are in fact changing the name "Rogers" to the name "Roger," as though the store was owned by someone whose first name (or last name) was "Roger."If the name of a family was "Williams," would you make the possessive "William's?" Well, maybe YOU would, but it would be just as wrong as the "Roger's" that you used.
As to placing an item in quotes, well I did THAT to make it plain that I was setting forth the word just as it had been ignorantly used in the place I cited. The placing of the word in quotes makes that clear and protects me from being associated with such ignorant and ungrammatical usage. That is a common practice on the part of those of us who find it necessary to advise plural-and-possessive-challenged persons or others who abuse the mother tongue. When we offer our help, it is often useful to cite the particular blunder in the manner in which it was committed, thus setting the stage for our kind and corrective advice.
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Originally posted by beternU:
Suit yerself, you crosseyed little baby chick!
Caring about the correct use of the greatest language in the world is something all of us should be engaged in.
Again, the irony of your idiotic rants is thick enough to cut.
"Crosseyed" is two separate words, numbrod. Watch: "Cross eyed."
Gosh you are a colossal obnoxoid!
Your ranting dogmatism is somewhat misplaced. Actually, it is a hyphenated word---a compound adjective:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cross-eyed
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=18513&dict=CALD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-eyed
The epithets ("numbrod" and "obnoxoid") you spew at me, however, are not words at all. It seems TRULY IRONIC, in a big time way, for you to find such "irony" in my omission of a hyphen, when you yourself serve up words that do not exist other than as fulminations of your inchoate mentality. Get yourself a dictionary and a thesaurus and work on vocabulary development a bit. There are hundreds of terms of defamation and insult in the wondrous language we use here. There is no need at all to use non-existent words of abuse when there is such a richness of the real things freely available to all!!
Trying to sound smart can sometimes show that you're not as smart as you try to seem. For example, in a previous post, you accused GoFish of serving up "words that do not exist other than as fulminations of your inchoate mentality." By saying this, you accused him of strongly criticizing (fulmination) his own underdeveloped (inchoate) mentality. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever?
By the way, the definitions came from your Cambridge Dictionary link.
By the way, the definitions came from your Cambridge Dictionary link.
I am imagining beternU typing his responses in plain, everyday conversational English and then running every word he can through a thesaurus program so that he sounds highfalutin.
quote:I am imagining beternU typing his responses in plain, everyday conversational English and then running every word he can through a thesaurus program so that he sounds highfalutin.
I still thinks it's another regular on here pulling our chain. Makes for nice entertainment though. Don't ya think?
quote:Originally posted by MentalFloss:quote:I am imagining beternU typing his responses in plain, everyday conversational English and then running every word he can through a thesaurus program so that he sounds highfalutin.
I still thinks it's another regular on here pulling our chain. Makes for nice entertainment though. Don't ya think?
Nah, he's definitely irregular.
It is not so much amusing to me as it is sad. A grown man calling people crosseyed! For the record, it is true. I have horrible vision in one eye and so I am indeed crosseyed. It is something I can remedy with contact lenses though. Being a pompous fool is no doubt harder to fix.
quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:
Trying to sound smart can sometimes show that you're not as smart as you try to seem. For example, in a previous post, you accused GoFish of serving up "words that do not exist other than as fulminations of your inchoate mentality." By saying this, you accused him of strongly criticizing (fulmination) his own underdeveloped (inchoate) mentality. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever?
By the way, the definitions came from your Cambridge Dictionary link.
Silly tiger! "Of" has as its primary definition (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) "1. From:--indicating derivation, separation, source, etc., as born of noble blood."
NOTE CAREFULLY: The sense of "from" is the first sense of the word given in this unimpeachable source.
By substitution, then: "fulminations FROM your own inchoate mentality."
My usage was entirely correct. Your cheap and ignorant cavil is without merit!
quote:Originally posted by T S C:
It is not so much amusing to me as it is sad. A grown man calling people crosseyed! For the record, it is true. I have horrible vision in one eye and so I am indeed crosseyed. It is something I can remedy with contact lenses though. Being a pompous fool is no doubt harder to fix.
Hey, it was YOU who picked out the little chicken picture, not me!
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:
Trying to sound smart can sometimes show that you're not as smart as you try to seem. For example, in a previous post, you accused GoFish of serving up "words that do not exist other than as fulminations of your inchoate mentality." By saying this, you accused him of strongly criticizing (fulmination) his own underdeveloped (inchoate) mentality. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever?
By the way, the definitions came from your Cambridge Dictionary link.
Silly tiger! "Of" has as its primary definition (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) "1. From:--indicating derivation, separation, source, etc., as born of noble blood."
NOTE CAREFULLY: The sense of "from" is the first sense of the word given in this unimpeachable source.
By substitution, then: "fulminations FROM your own inchoate mentality."
My usage was entirely correct. Your cheap and ignorant cavil is without merit!
I'm sure that's the way it was meant. NOT! You can't stand to be wrong. It must be nice to think so much of yourself you leave nothing for anyone else to even like. And as far as ignorant, you are the epitomy of that word. I think Go Fish was right, you are a bulbsucker.
quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:
Trying to sound smart can sometimes show that you're not as smart as you try to seem. For example, in a previous post, you accused GoFish of serving up "words that do not exist other than as fulminations of your inchoate mentality." By saying this, you accused him of strongly criticizing (fulmination) his own underdeveloped (inchoate) mentality. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever?
By the way, the definitions came from your Cambridge Dictionary link.
Silly tiger! "Of" has as its primary definition (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) "1. From:--indicating derivation, separation, source, etc., as born of noble blood."
NOTE CAREFULLY: The sense of "from" is the first sense of the word given in this unimpeachable source.
By substitution, then: "fulminations FROM your own inchoate mentality."
My usage was entirely correct. Your cheap and ignorant cavil is without merit!
I'm sure that's the way it was meant. NOT! You can't stand to be wrong. It must be nice to think so much of yourself you leave nothing for anyone else to even like. And as far as ignorant, you are the epitomy of that word. I think Go Fish was right, you are a bulbsucker.
I have been wrong before, but I am not wrong on this matter. My usage, as I fully explained, with appropriate documented support, was entirely correct. Your blithering, blustery response did absolutely NOTHING to rebut what I posted. Instead, having been proven wrong, you resorted to cheap insult and namecalling as a smokescreen. Truly pitiful, but that is always the case with de-fanged tigers, especially those that were very short in the tooth to start with!
There is still opportunity for you to redeem yourself by posting an actual response to the substance of what I have put up on this matter instead of taking the cheap and loutish ad hominem route.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:
Trying to sound smart can sometimes show that you're not as smart as you try to seem. For example, in a previous post, you accused GoFish of serving up "words that do not exist other than as fulminations of your inchoate mentality." By saying this, you accused him of strongly criticizing (fulmination) his own underdeveloped (inchoate) mentality. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever?
By the way, the definitions came from your Cambridge Dictionary link.
Silly tiger! "Of" has as its primary definition (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) "1. From:--indicating derivation, separation, source, etc., as born of noble blood."
NOTE CAREFULLY: The sense of "from" is the first sense of the word given in this unimpeachable source.
By substitution, then: "fulminations FROM your own inchoate mentality."
My usage was entirely correct. Your cheap and ignorant cavil is without merit!
I'm sure that's the way it was meant. NOT! You can't stand to be wrong. It must be nice to think so much of yourself you leave nothing for anyone else to even like. And as far as ignorant, you are the epitomy of that word. I think Go Fish was right, you are a bulbsucker.
I have been wrong before, but I am not wrong on this matter. My usage, as I fully explained, with appropriate documented support, was entirely correct. Your blithering, blustery response did absolutely NOTHING to rebut what I posted. Instead, having been proven wrong, you resorted to cheap insult and namecalling as a smokescreen. Truly pitiful, but that is always the case with de-fanged tigers, especially those that were very short in the tooth to start with!
There is still opportunity for you to redeem yourself by posting an actual response to the substance of what I have put up on this matter instead of taking the cheap and loutish ad hominem route.
You're wrong... You never meant it that way. After enough research you found a way to make yourself look right. No normal person speaks that way. If you meant "from", that is what you would have typed. You want to sit back and criticize everyone (probably because that is all you can do in your sad little existence), but will never accept any criticism. You are pompous and you try to act superior to everyone on this forum.
As for name calling, it seems to be a big gun in your arsenal. I have seen several instances where you are the first to call names. Also, on this subject, the names that GoFish calls you are made-up, but words have to be coined somewhere. Obnoxoid, bulbsucker, etc. seem to fit.
quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:
Trying to sound smart can sometimes show that you're not as smart as you try to seem. For example, in a previous post, you accused GoFish of serving up "words that do not exist other than as fulminations of your inchoate mentality." By saying this, you accused him of strongly criticizing (fulmination) his own underdeveloped (inchoate) mentality. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever?
By the way, the definitions came from your Cambridge Dictionary link.
Silly tiger! "Of" has as its primary definition (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) "1. From:--indicating derivation, separation, source, etc., as born of noble blood."
NOTE CAREFULLY: The sense of "from" is the first sense of the word given in this unimpeachable source.
By substitution, then: "fulminations FROM your own inchoate mentality."
My usage was entirely correct. Your cheap and ignorant cavil is without merit!
I'm sure that's the way it was meant. NOT! You can't stand to be wrong. It must be nice to think so much of yourself you leave nothing for anyone else to even like. And as far as ignorant, you are the epitomy of that word. I think Go Fish was right, you are a bulbsucker.
I have been wrong before, but I am not wrong on this matter. My usage, as I fully explained, with appropriate documented support, was entirely correct. Your blithering, blustery response did absolutely NOTHING to rebut what I posted. Instead, having been proven wrong, you resorted to cheap insult and namecalling as a smokescreen. Truly pitiful, but that is always the case with de-fanged tigers, especially those that were very short in the tooth to start with!
There is still opportunity for you to redeem yourself by posting an actual response to the substance of what I have put up on this matter instead of taking the cheap and loutish ad hominem route.
You're wrong... You never meant it that way. After enough research you found a way to make yourself look right. No normal person speaks that way. If you meant "from", that is what you would have typed. You want to sit back and criticize everyone (probably because that is all you can do in your sad little existence), but will never accept any criticism. You are pompous and you try to act superior to everyone on this forum.
As for name calling, it seems to be a big gun in your arsenal. I have seen several instances where you are the first to call names. Also, on this subject, the names that GoFish calls you are made-up, but words have to be coined somewhere. Obnoxoid, bulbsucker, etc. seem to fit.
Well, I suppose that when you, by imperial fiat, decree in essence that I am not entitled to rely upon the first-given definition of the word "of," then that settles the matter for all times and purposes. Sorry, but I don't buy that. Your second cheap and ignorant cavil is every bit as impotent as was your first-and failed--failed attempt to grammar-sharp one whose knowledge of the Mother Tongue is BETTERNYOURS!!
You truly need to get a life.
Lots OF words have different definitions. The definition that applies depends on what context the word is used. As a general rule, people don't use OF in the context you claim to have used it. (Oh no! A preposition at the end OF a sentence! What shall we do???) My point is that you cannot admit a mistake, under any circumstance. This is why everyone jumps your case. This why you are coming across as a pompous jerk. Why not give it a rest and let everyone communicate? I haven't heard about a test on here. Lighten up! You may accidentally make some friends. Just imagine what that would be like, almost like a real person.
Lots OF words have different definitions. The definition that applies depends on what context the word is used. As a general rule, people don't use OF in the context you claim to have used it. (Oh no! A preposition at the end OF a sentence! What shall we do???) My point is that you cannot admit a mistake, under any circumstance. This is why everyone jumps your case. This why you are coming across as a pompous jerk. Why not give it a rest and let everyone communicate? I haven't heard about a test on here. Lighten up! You may accidentally make some friends. Just imagine what that would be like, almost like a real person.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:
BETTERNYOURS!!
Okay, I can handle the "mispellings" and gross grammatical errors you make as you accuse others of same. The uber-pomposity, I can tolerate. I can even put up with the idiotic, smarmy, smirky look on your face as you look in the camera whilst making a point that you obviously consider clever.
But the double exclamation point is the FINAL STRAW! Who but a complete buttnapkin would ever do THAT??? . . . I mean THAT?