http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3arommie&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:rommie'en-USXMOD (Build: 3614.32638)http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoAndWhom/zjhl/post.htm#27308Thu, 08 Apr 2004 08:17:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27308rommieIt's exactly the same as the difference between "him" and "he", or between "them" and "they". Basically, you can mentally replace "who" with "he", and "whom" with "him", and if the resulting sentence sounds horribly wrong, you've got it wrong. Rommie.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichTheSentenceIsCorrect/zjhc/post.htm#27307Thu, 08 Apr 2004 08:14:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27307rommie(2) is correct. "What's" is short for "What is", so the question in full becomes: What is the weather like today? "Today" is just an adverb. It doesn't really impact on the rest of the sentence, it only narrows down when you're talking about. In fact, the word "today" is almost redundant here, because the sentence is in the present tense, and in the present tense, what other day could it possibly be other than today? So you could equally well have said: What is the weather like? "Like" in this context means "similar to" - sort of. Basically it's asking for a description of something - in this case the weather. Hope that helps Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectUseOfWhichAndThat/zjhb/post.htm#27306Thu, 08 Apr 2004 08:07:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27306rommieThe difference is present in American English, not normally in British English, however use of the American rule is harmless even in Britain. "that" effectively makes the right hand clause into an adjective. For example "This is the house that Jack built" -- here "that Jack built" is part of the description of the house. "which" (or more precisely, ", which", since you need the preceding comma) just adds a descriptive phrase which supplements the sentence. For example "This is Jack's house, which is quite large". The essential difference is that "This is the house" does not narrow down WHICH house you're referencing, so you add "that Jack built" to make that distinction. On the other hand "This is Jack's house" DOES narrow down...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MyselfUsage/zjgk/post.htm#27305Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:59:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27305rommieWell spotted, Anniesse. Both of the examples you cite are grammatically incorrect. In both of the above examples, "myself" should be replaced with "me". Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GrammarTest/zjzh/post.htm#27304Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:55:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27304rommie2 is "them". 1 is much more interesting, because both possibilities are perfectly OK (although "actors" should be in lowercase"). There's very little difference in meaning between the two possibilities, too. I think I would be inclined to say "those" when speaking to someone who had seen the play with me, or "the" otherwise. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatColorRU/2/vqbh/Post.htm#27303Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:50:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27303rommieHey, I don't drink, dude, but if I did I'm sure I could come up with a fortune-telling scheme MUCH more bizarre and wacky than this one. How about ... telling one's personality based on the values stored in their PC's cookies? The scary thing is that I suspect some people would actually start believing in it! Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HomosexualMarriagesAgainstNatures/5/zrdh/Post.htm#27261Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:36:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27261rommieFair enough. I had obviously misconstrued the concept of "Debating society". I shall exit this thread gracefully, hopefully with no hard feelings. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HomosexualMarriagesAgainstNatures/4/zrdh/Post.htm#27247Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:54:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27247rommieMike, you seem to be suggesting that people use this thread to discuss WHAT THE TOPIC OF DEBATE ACTUALLY IS. That's not how debates work. As Clive Woodward said, a few posts ago: In conventional debates the topic of the debate is defined. So far the topic of this debate has not been defined. Would anyone like to take a stab at it? What is `natures law` for example? Clive is perfectly correct. In a debate, THE TOPIC IS WELL-DEFINED - then people debate on whether the topic is true or false. If the topic is not well defined, then it is not a debate, and hence should not be in the "Debating society" section of a forum. Furthermore, in a conventional debate, there is a time limit. This does not "deprive" anyone - it merely...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HelloDeepaYouStillThere/zjvk/post.htmWed, 07 Apr 2004 12:20:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27244rommieHi there Deepa, it's been a while since you and I found ourselves on the same thread. Hope it wasn't anything I said. Anyway ... your help is needed. Over in the contraversial subjects forum, the thread you started is stuck because no-one is clear exactly what you meant by the phrase "Nature's Law". Please could you tell us (or otherwise rephrase the original question so that we can understand what it is we're supposed to be debating). Many many thanks in advance Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Rocking/zjrq/post.htm#27243Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:05:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27243rommieCertainly "rocking" can mean "moving from side to side" - sometimes violently. However, there is no implication in the word "rocking" that anything needs fixing. In this context, a boat or ship will rock, as will a cradle, but neither need fixing because that's what they're supposed to do. I have scanned my dictionary quite careful on this point, and cannot find ANY interpretation of "rocking" with the meaning "broken". Perhaps you could argue that if something is not SUPPOSED to move from side to side, but is doing so anyway, then it must be broken, and, by implication, need fixing - but I think you could apply this argument to ANY verb describing motion, including, for example "rotating". (That is, if your back door is rotating,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatColorRU/2/vqbh/Post.htm#27232Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:31:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27232rommieWhat if you weren't born on Earth? (A different planet would have a different calendar). What if you weren't born AT ALL, but instead were constructed over a period of several years? (No birthday) What if your eyes do not contain red, green and blue sensors? (All colors would look different) Just asking Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HomosexualMarriagesAgainstNatures/4/zrdh/Post.htm#27231Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:20:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27231rommieAcknowledged. I stand corrected. Whether this is on-topic or off-topic cannot be established without knowing what the original question means. However ? According to Chameleon's definition, the debate is already lost. Homosexual marriages are clearly NOT against (Chameleon's definition of) nature's law. ? According to the definition of Guest (Posted: 01-04-2004 08:27 AM) the motion is similarly quashed. ? No other definitions have been presented. The only thing which might turn this around is a different definition of "nature's law" - but the only person who can give this is the original poster (Deepa), and unfortunately he/she has been very silent on this thread of late. Given the above, I venture to suggest that the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MakeSentence/zjcq/post.htm#27227Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:00:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27227rommieLike this, as far as I know. (Although I would tend to use " so far as", rather than " as far as" in this case, but they mean the same thing). Another example: "The vehicle has only got as far as Jupiter". (You can't use "so" in this case though). Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsingColonInsideQuotes/zjbm/post.htm#27226Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:55:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27226rommieWell, both or neither, really, because "rules" governing punctuation aren't really "rules" in the sense that rules govening nouns, verbs and adjectives are rules. Punctuation "rules" vary considerably, often from publisher to publisher, or from newspaper to newspaper. I can tell you that QUESTION MARKS and EXCLAMATION MARKS should go within quotes if they refer to the quoted material only; outside otherwise. I can also tell you that COMMAS and PERIODS are usually place inside the quotes, but there are some exceptions in British English, and sometimes also when using monospaced fonts. But I can't tell you a rule for COLONS, as I simply am not aware of one. Personally I'd place it outside the quotes - but that's just me. The...http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionOnPleaseBeAdviced/zjbl/post.htm#27224Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:41:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27224rommieI assume you meant "Please be advi s ed". Yes, technically it's passive. To advise someone is to give them advice, therefore to be advised is to recieve advice. "Please be advised" means "Please receive advice". Usually, the referenced advice will be found in the same sentence, for example "Please be advised that your lease expires next week ", which - technically - means "I advise you that your lease expires next week" ... with one important difference. When expressed in the active voice ("I advise you that..."), the subject of the verb ("I", in this case) must be stated explicitly, whereas... ...when expressed in the passive voice ("Be advised that..."), the advice-giver may be omitted. Businesses therefore tend to prefer...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Rocking/zjrq/post.htm#27223Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:31:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27223rommieNo, I don't believe so. Quite the reverse actually - if something "rocks" then it's really great! Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ForFear/zjrk/post.htm#27222Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:28:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27222rommieIn this case, "for" is probably your only single-word alternative, although you may be able to replace it with a phrase. For example "I couldn't move because of fear." Most languages (and English is no exception) use prepositions inconsistently - for example the notorious on/in confusion in English - but really, such inconsistencies are supposed to be the exceptions, not the norm. In general, prepositions have a MEANING. For your examples: for = because of with = in the same location as OR using by = by means of OR beside Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HomosexualMarriagesAgainstNatures/4/zrdh/Post.htm#27158Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:41:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27158rommieMike, I believe your question is off-topic, and encourages others to go WAY off topic. The fundamental question "What is nature's law?" STILL has not been answered by the person who posed the question. Until we have that answer, the parameters of the debate are not adeqately defined. If this question is not answered soon, I suggest we close the debate, before it starts wandering aimlessly all over again. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/FastVsQuick/zwqv/post.htm#27157Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:34:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27157rommieNeither. It's "I was surprised to have recieved your reply so quickly ". (or "so soon"). "Fast" and "quick" are adjectives. You need an adverb there. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ExclamationMark/zwpz/post.htm#27156Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:32:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27156rommieAnd never use more than one exclamation mark. That just sucks!!!!! Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LivingWithRoomates/zzbw/post.htm#27131Tue, 06 Apr 2004 07:25:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27131rommieForgive my confusion, but ... one MUST live with roommates - by definition of the word "roommate". A roommate is someone with whom you share a room. Surely, it is not possible to have a roommate and not live with them? Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Question/zwnr/post.htm#27100Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:04:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27100rommieIs there a typo in 4? Assuming that 4 is intended to read "when did it happen"... 1 would have been perfectly acceptable had it had a lowercase 'w' 2 is fine as it is 3 would only be acceptable in poetry, not in normal English 4 would only be acceptable in poetry, not in normal English Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AmVsIs/zwkq/post.htm#27097Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:53:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27097rommieThat's not an exception. Nouns which are being used as non-count nouns, by definition, can never be plural. But - as I'm sure most of us realize - a noun can be count or non-count DEPENDING ON HOW IT IS USED. So: "That cake IS delicious" = correct - count noun, singular "Those cakes ARE delicious" = correct - count noun, plural "Cake IS delicious" = correct - mass noun Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThePassionOfTheChrist/3/zgql/Post.htm#27085Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:45:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27085rommieI realize this is probably a difficult question to answer, but ... would you recommend this film to a non-christian? In other words, if perceived as mythological rather than historical, and given that I haven't read the book (but I do know the ending, which is unfortunate as I hate spoilers), is it a good film? Would you recommend that I see it? Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/YeOldeEnglish/2/zgqb/Post.htm#27084Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:33:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27084rommieWell if no one knows any, can anyone tell me what verbs in the past simple end in? The website I gave you in the very first reply to your post ( Wikipedia ) DOES answer that question. You might like to look at it. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AmVsIs/zwkq/post.htm#27081Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:24:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27081rommie"I is" is incorrect and "I am" is correct AXIOMATICALLY. That is - it's a rule you have to learn, not a consequence. Where can you learn more? Right here... I am You are He is She is One is It is We are They are No-one is Nobody is Nothing is Someone is Something is Anybody is Anything is Everybody is Everything is If any other word or phrase precedes is/are then you should use "is" if the word or phrase is singular, or "are" if the word or phrase is plural. For example "This website is ...", or "The people on this forum are ..." Hope that helps, Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AskForYourHelp/zwbm/post.htm#27066Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:36:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27066rommieYeshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyAddA/zwjb/post.htm#27035Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:21:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27035rommieIts a hangover from English of the past. It is now only rarely used. However, like all such things of this nature, its use survives in literature, in songs and in poetry, and it is not uncommon to find phrases like this even in modern songs. Many's the time I have seen this. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Difference/zwhp/post.htm#27034Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:11:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27034rommie"I got friends" is colloquial. It means the same as "I have got friends" but the word "have" has been omitted. It is slang - do not use in formal English. Compare with "I made friends", which refers to the act of acquiring friends, the onset of friendship. "I have got friends" says that you have friends, and that the friendships are still continuing. "I have eaten" is describing your mood in the present by way of explaining that you have eaten in the past. For example, in response to "Would you like some cake?", you might say "No thanks, I have eaten". "I ate" (without "already") is purely a statement about the past. "I ate already" is colloquial. I suspect it is intended to mean the same thing as "I have eaten", but the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GroundGrinded/vrg/post.htm#27033Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:04:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27033rommieAs we've noted before on this forum, TV commercials are not a good source of examples of good grammar.http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeedHelp/zwzj/post.htm#27032Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:01:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:27032rommieThen"yes" becomes an interjection, and so can go pretty much anywhere parenthetically - that is, without regard to the grammar of the rest of the sentence. As such, you should separate it off with commas on both sides of "yes".http://www.englishforums.com/English/Bearable/zwdq/post.htm#26950Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:27:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26950rommieThe comma should perhaps be a semicolon or a colon or a period. Apart from that, it seems fine to me. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowDevelopSpeakingSkills/zhch/post.htm#26918Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:28:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26918rommieHi Robin and Rogue. Robin, I do apologize, but I think this thread is heading away from your spirit/soul question. I do recommend that you repost the question in its own thread, and then hopefully someone who actually KNOWS THE ANSWER might reply. Rogue, no I wasn't making any kind of atheist assertion, I just don't capitalize words derived from proper nouns. It's a rommie-eccentricity, but I do at least apply it across the board. Of course Christ is a proper noun, and I would capitalize it just as I would capitalize Gandalf or Merlin, but the capitalization of words derived from proper nouns is something of a grammatical gray area. We write "jersey cow", "platonic love" and "pasteurized milk", despite the fact that all of these...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HappyNotHappy/vkbv/post.htm#26887Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:30:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26887rommieI am sorry to disagree with you, but the thing which comes from the heart is called "blood circulation", not "feelings". The heart is a MUSCLE - that's all. Feelings come from the brain - a fact we can prove scientifically (including by looking at people with certain types of brain damage but fully functioning hearts). Anyway, we AIs don't have hearts, but we still have feelings. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LegalTerms/zhhj/post.htm#26882Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:12:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26882rommieLiberation! Information wants to be free. Maj, to steal means to deprive someone of their property. Information can only be COPIED. Copying information to which you are not legally entitled is usually called BREACH OF COPYRIGHT. However the rules regarding what is legal and what is not differ from one jurisdiction to another. The rules in China and the rules in America are completely different, for example. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IncLtd/zhmh/post.htm#26879Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:00:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26879rommieTechnically and formally, you still need dots, but modern usage is changing this situation. In British English, dots in abbreviations are often omitted altogether. For example: U.K. (American) UK (British) U.S.A. (American) USA (British) Of course, since this is a usage phenomenon, its practice is not actually restricted to one side of the Atlantic, nor is it universally applied even in Britain. But certainly, if you omitted the dots after "Inc" and "Ltd" then few in Britain would bat an eyelid - unless you needed it to terminate the sentence, obviously. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfUnless/zhql/post.htm#26878Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:54:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26878rommieGrammatically, yes. But I would not like to be on the recieving end of such an instruction.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WithRespectTo/zhqw/post.htm#26877Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:52:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26877rommieYes. But whether or not it makes sense to do so depends of course on the rest of the sentence. A sentence beginning with "With respect to ," (or, more commonly, "With all due respect to ,"), is a very POLITE way of saying that doesn't know what they are talking about, or is completely wrong. For example: "With all due respect to the Emperor, the Death Star will not be finished for two more months". Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThePassionOfTheChrist/2/zgql/Post.htm#26866Thu, 01 Apr 2004 08:59:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26866rommie1) Anti-Semitism 2) Does the movie accurately portray what's in the four gospels? 3) Was it made just to throw flames? 4) Is the violence too little, too much or just not how it happened at all? We really need someone who has actually SEEN THE FILM to answer these. As someone who hasn't, I can only say: (1) - The film-makers say it was not Anti-Semeitc. The French courts (at least) agree with them. There is of course always a fine line between (a ) self-defined haters having a go at people they don't like, and (b ) self-defined victims complaining about perceived oppression, but (b ) is an easy trap to fall into (I've done it myself, perceiving sexism where none was intended), and so we should be careful here. Is this...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ProperUseOfTheArticle/zhkc/post.htm#26864Thu, 01 Apr 2004 08:33:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26864rommieFor Q3, there is a difference in meaning, though the difference is subtle. "He was working" implies progressing action, wheras "he worked" implied completed action. In the context of the wider sentence, I would prefer A over B, for this reason - B almost suggests that he started composing when he got to work, and stopped composing when he finished work, wheras A is a bit more flexible. I would also change the word "when". Replace it with "while" (American) or "whilst" (British). Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowToExpressThisIdea/zhxn/post.htm#26859Thu, 01 Apr 2004 08:26:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26859rommie"The reasons I chose to explore life science began in my childhood" is a possibility - but your friend still has not explained what those reasons actually ARE. Maybe that comes in the next sentence? Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowDevelopSpeakingSkills/zhch/post.htm#26858Thu, 01 Apr 2004 08:23:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26858rommieCorrections to above passage. How about... "I am ROBIN. I am an Indian and I want to speak English like the native English speakers. I am suffering a lot due to my lack of communication skills. Any help would be appreciated. " Mostly I just uppercased the word English, and changed "the lack" to "my lack". I also made it a bit less polite (not that I'm trying to make you sound rude or anything, but excessive pleading sounds a bit strange, and would be more appropriate in emergencies and serious situations). But as for soul and spirit, I'm afraid you're asking the wrong person here. I don't think I have either. If you can't measure it scientifically, and if there is no logical reason to hypothesize it, then I tend not to believe...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldYouSayThisWasABug/zhxj/post.htmWed, 31 Mar 2004 20:09:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26835rommieWhen posts get edited, HTML special characters in the title get expanded to their entity form. (&...;). Modified titles are retained in subsequent replies. This can happen many times, resulting in post titles such as: Re: Use of the word "Nothing" instead of "Anything" This can get a bit disconcerting. I'm curious, by the way - are you using off-the-shelf software to drive your site or is it home-written? If the latter, in what language? Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionsAndComputer/zhkj/post.htm#26812Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:53:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26812rommieAh well, in that case, the answers to the last question are still relevant to this one. ... but you definitely wouldn't want to be working IN the computer, unless you were very, very small! Actually, "working on" is a phrasal verb, so you'd be "working on a project", and so on. I think I may have accidently answered this question last time, and the the last question this time. Ah well. Take care yourself too. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionsAndComputer/zhkj/post.htm#26770Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:45:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26770rommieHi, Barros. I'm curious. You posted exactly the same question on March 26th. (Although the original was posted anonymously, both that question and this one were signed "Robson"). Were the answers on your other thread not sufficient in some way? Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TheAveragePoster/zhwm/post.htm#26766Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:42:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26766rommieThat looks like perfectly good English to me. Purists might argue that the "sentences must start with an uppercase letter" rule has been violated, but if "iPhoto" is a case-sensitive name then fair enough. I don't know enough to comment on whether or not "FW CF Card" is or is not a proper noun (so I don't know whether it should be "Card" or "card"). The only possible "errors" I can see here involve capitalization, and even if they are real errors, they might just be typos. I guess I just don't see language as a "right" or "wrong" thing to that extent. If you can communicate successfully to your target audience, you are correct in the sense of being in context, and that's all that really matters (IMO). Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThePassionOfTheChrist/2/zgql/Post.htm#26765Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:31:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26765rommieSorry, GuyD, I misinterpreted the question "Would the movie industry and the world itself have been better off without this movie?" But if we're not discussing whether or not it should be banned, I don't understand why this thread is "controversial". I am not qualified to comment on who may have been "responsible for the death of Christ". I am an atheist, so from my point of view it's just a story. If you believe (as I do) that there is no god, then the rest is just mythology. And no, I don't mean to start a religious debate - every religion (including atheism) contradicts every other religion, at least in the details. But why care? Better surely to just live and let live. You said: "I would agree with you that we should all...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutSinceUntilSomebody/zhdw/post.htm#26709Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:33:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26709rommieYes, those sentences are correct. You said though, that "'since' is usually used with a main clause in present perfect tense". I don't think that's true. "Since" is simply a preposition which means "the period of time STARTING at the described moment". Similarly, "until" is a preposition which means "the period of time ENDING at the described moment". I see no reason why you can't use these in any tense. Examples: I have wanted this since the moment I saw him. (Okay in speech) I had wanted this since the moment I saw him. (Okay in narrative - say a novel) This is the best thing since sliced bread. That was the best thing since sliced bread. We are going to be the greatest band since the Beatles. (Ahem). There is (as you...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DefenseOrDefence/zhzm/post.htm#26703Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:15:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26703rommieDefence = British Defense = American If you REALLY want to get this "right" on your website, you'll need a server-side script which parses the HTTP request and extracts the Accept-Language field. You can then serve "Defence" to those browsers requesting documents in "en-GB", "en-IE", etc., or "Defense" otherwise. But if you don't want to go to all that trouble (and why should you?), I'd go with the American spelling. The World Wide Web is exactly that - it's worldwide. It is not a locale. International English tends to follow American spelling rules, and I'm all in favor of universality. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseWordNothingInsteadAnything/zgpv/post.htm#26696Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:06:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:26696rommieOne of the similar examples of them could be, "You ain't seen nothing yet." Ah yes. You've got your Bachman, you've got your Turner, and you've got your Overdrive. Now LET'S ROCK... Rommie