Big o' You, Bigamy

How very big of you, my friend, to call this grammar truce. You must feel quite magnanimous right now; the very picture of beneficent altruism. I accept the terms.

Since I am such a veritable treasure trove of insult fodder, please, have at me. I await your no doubt coherent, well thought out, acerbic onslaught with bated breath.

Grammar truce

I started to write a post pointing out the punctuation missed, the misquoting, and the mislinking of your last post, and then I stopped myself. You are a gold mine of insultable material, and there is absolutely no reason to rebut the way the Microsoft Office paper clip would.

So I propose a truce. No attacking missing punctuation, misspelled words, and other typos. Deal?

Delusions of Grandeur

"Are you hitting on me?" seems to be a recurring theme with you. I'm pretty sure the waiter really just wanted to know if you were ready to order. The streetcar driver simply wanted you to pay your fare. Every time a male says something to you, they are not hitting on you. "Are you hitting on me?" is not a valid response to "Please stop yelling at me ma'am." So, in that same vein, my attacking your grammatical ineptitude while getting in some self deprecating humour is not me hitting on you.

Also, maybe try taking some of the desperation out of your voice when you say it: "Are you hitting on me? Please?"

I'm going to take this moment point out that you misspelled the word "fact" in your last posting, unless you meant to talk about the "face of my statement". Just because the spell checker didn't underline it doesn't mean it's right.

Are you hitting on me?

1. It has been a while since I got to be copulative. You?

We've been over this. We're just friends. This, of course, means that I can only tolerate you on a physically and emotionally superficial level, which is why most of our communication is via the internet. This way when I talk to you, I can talk to other people for whom I have feelings other than pity. Furthermore, I can pretend you're mildly intelligent because the internet allows you to look up terms you don't understand.

And despite the face that "the depths of [my] pettiness never cease to amaze [you]" (which doesn't surprise me - shiny surfaces never cease to amaze you), you should know that your grammatic relabelling is only contrary to mine in regards to "fight'n'", and it is incorrect. It's not a copulative adjective, but since I know how the word excites you, I'll let it slide.

The Depths of Your Pettiness Never Cease to Amaze Me

It would be just like you to pick something as insignificant as a missing apostrophe (in what is already purposely a grammatical nightmare, I might add) and harp on it for an entire posting. I'm sure you've never made a typo in your entire life. But I'll be waiting until you slip up and then, BAM - the old fork in the eye.

Incidentally, the only visually jarring thing around here is your face.

Furthermore, are you sure you know what a gerund is? Because I don't see a single one in that title. Without the apostrophe in "thems" what I see is an overly-plural pronoun, a copulative¹ adjective and a plural noun. But hey, thanks for comin' out.


1. It has been a while since I got to be copulative. You?

Your placement of punctuation is arbitrary.

The title of this blog is almost passable, considering it came from you. I mean, I can't really expect something too original or witty or intelligent because of its source. However, if you are going to put two, visually-jarring apostrophes in the word "fight'n'," then please follow through with the apostrophe belonging in the word "them's." Of course, you're going to try and say something like "I'm right! I hate you!" then proceed to crawl under your bed and cry, but please remember that without that apostrophe there is no verb in that sentence - only a subject noun, copulative* noun with a descriptive and over-punctuated gerund.


*I know what you are going to say, and let me assure you, it is you who is copulative.