Frank, at 23:51 on Jun 01 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

FM> I'm not even sure about possible.

BG> Probably not to the extent that would make it sufficiently 
BG> useful, agreed.

FM> Because after all who ever could intelligently interpret the 
FM> rampant ravings, miscellaneous musings, flagrant flirting, 
FM> calculated condescension, blatant bigotry and RTL, in AvTech?

Not to mention alliterative excesses such as yours above.  :)

FM> In that specific example, you could say, "Shakespeare is a 
FM> valid English work" or "Shakespeare is a valid English word".

BG> Dunno, I'd be inclined to suggest that the first example is 
BG> grammatically incorrect anyway, and should read either "A 
BG> 'Shakespeare' is a valid Englis work", or "Shakespeare's is a 
BG> valid English work" (or to be completely pedantic, "Shakespeare's 
BG> are valid English works").  Ain't English fun?

FM> I'll maintain the original is valid; it's acceptable to use the
FM> singular as a generic as in, "Man is a social animal".

I see your point, but as "Man" is ordinarily used generically in
place of "mankind", but there was only one (famous) Shakespeare,
I beg to differ.

FM> Not to mention the usual ones like, "Time flies like an arrow".

BG> True, metaphors would be an absolute nightmare to validate.

FM> The English grammar parser I started to write many years ago for
FM> interest actually generated 3 meanings for that sentence, in the 
FM> form of 3 separate parse trees.

Only 3 ?  Using a certain degree of poetic licence, I see around 5 or 6.

BG> However, there is still no substitute for having learned 
BG> correct grammar, syntax etc at school,

FM> Yes.

BG> Glad you agree.  I perpetually nag Robert (now 15) about his poor spelling
FM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think you knew I did. :-)

Correct.  I was actually having a sly (albeit friendly) dig at Rod.  :)

BG> and grammar, but my main concern is with his pronunciation and 
BG> elocution. After a few weeks of making him verbally repeat any 
BG> word from which he drop the final letter(s) (*ing is the worst, as 
BG> you'd expect), all is well until he spends a weekend in Toowoomba 
BG> with his dole-bludging moronic natural father, then the whole 
BG> cycle repeats itself.  So much for learning by example...

FM> The learning is only as good as the example.

Nothing wrong with the example being set _here_, I can assure you.  I'm
more concerned with his inability to retain what he learns (in which case,
"learn" is inaccurate).  It pisses me off no end that he's quite
capable of reciting the words to most songs, and even fucking TV
commercials, yet STILL hasn't bothered learning his 12X table by rote.  He
failed Maths last year (indeed, all subjects) given the ridiculous method
of scoring used in Qld schools these days.  No marks per se, just five
levels of accomplishment, and Robert scored level 4 with all subjects. 
Very disappointing, even from a non-biological parent's POV.  Even worse,
it's simply extreme laziness on his part.

BG> very much in keeping with my own observation that the majority 
BG> of local school kids are simply lazy little shits.

FM> No doubt you're right,

BG> I'd hoped not, but do you have any other valid explanation?  I don't.

FM> Yes. Your learning by example example above. 

Dunno, I'd have hoped he would respect our examples considerably more than
those of his peers, but it would appear not.

FM> No social pressure to do so. 

True, only parental pressure, FWIW (which, it seems, is SFA these days).

FM> Positive peer pressure *not* to do so. 

You mean the typical "rebellious teenager" stuff?

FM> Perceived irrelevance (Rod's argument). 

Despite typically knowing absolutely everything at age 15, I still doubt
they're old enough to make an informed opinion either way myself.

FM> Current education philosophies. 

Another sore point.

FM> Individual teacher incompetence within the education system. 

Another VERY sore point.

FM> Cultural corruption (your TV comment below).

IMO, one of the biggest problems of all.

FM> That's just off the top of my head. :-)

Hope your neck appreciates the reduction of exo-cranial stress then.  :)

BG> Mind you, given the amount of TV being watched by kids these days, some 
BG> of the grammatical blunders made by news copywriters (and compounded by 
BG> their readers) are disgusting (as my hero, Stuart Littlemore, so 
BG> frequently and pungently points out).

FM> And pompously. 

Oh, absolutely.  I have actually nicknamed him "Rod Littlemore".  |-)

FM> He's not lily-white you know. 

No, but he's generally near enough IMO.

FM> Nevertheless I too like Media Watch.

I do have one major complaint, now that you mention it.  15 minutes is
nowhere near long enough to stick it up the tabloid media, but IMO he still
does an admirable job in the minimal (not minuscule :)) time allotted.

FM> * It's easy to apply yourself, if you just use crazy glue!

BG> Stealing American taglines now, are we?  Have you no shame?  |-)

FM> Fuck me stupid, 

No thanks (and don't call me stupid!).  |-)

FM> I get more comments on the damned taglines than on the message content!

FM> No, don't bother commenting on that. :-)

Damn, I had the absolute epitome of sarcasm ready to enter as well.

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10 alpha