http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aryan%3fsmith&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:ryan?smith'en-USXMOD (Build: 3607.32596)http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyMoslemsHateWesternWorld-Yorker/4/grjg/Post.htm#31924Thu, 03 Jun 2004 07:02:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31924ryan smithMr. Lotus, You have made no statements nor arguments on the issue of good vs. evil. You only state that everyone knows what these are and imply that what's legal is what's good. See quote below: "If you can't tell the difference then why aren't you in jail. I just do not believe you." Also, your Ghandi quote, people who don't know right from wrong are fools. My examples are not irrelevant to the suggestion of good=legal. Again, you have not addressed any of the examples that I've given, but only say that they are logically flawed and irrelevant (and also ridiculous). My arguement about Nazi Germany was to illustrate that sometimes things that are legal (and supposedly good) are later deemed to be wrong and illegal. You...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyMoslemsHateWesternWorld-Yorker/4/grjg/Post.htm#31860Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:43:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31860ryan smith"Actually I said 'right from wrong' but never mind." You also said "evil doer", what's your point here anyway? Good, evil, right, wrong. Want to argue about vocabulary? "If you can't tell the difference then why aren't you in jail. I just do not believe you." So good is legal and evil is not? Is that it? A little simplistic don't you think? If I were a Nazi in Germany in 1939, would I thus be good by robbing a Jew (it was certainly legal)? I can legally buy (from the bank) the home of someone who has defaulted on their mortgage, is that good? How do you know I'm not in jail?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyMoslemsHateWesternWorld-Yorker/3/grjg/Post.htm#31816Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:20:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31816ryan smithRegarding good vs. evil, anyone who invokes such concepts has a lot of explaining to do. What is evil? What is good? If I kick a beggar in the head and the shock causes him to rethink his life, quit drinking wine all day, and work hard to get a job, was kicking him a good act or an evil act? If he later dies from a heart attack because his new job caused him too much stress, again, did I act in a good way or an evil way? If, after he dies, his wife and children are happy beyond measure because he--when poor and when rich--beat them every day, I ask, was kicking him good or evil? Perhaps you think I'm a fool, however, I cannot tell good from evil in most cases. Please enlighten us fools with your wisdom.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AStrangeSentence/gggp/post.htm#31522Mon, 31 May 2004 08:42:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31522ryan smith"what is a colourful painting for one is just a blank sheet of paper for the other" Nice analogy! I hereby request permission to use it once in a while. These kinds of English oddities are exactly what make for misunderstandings, things getting lost in translation, jokes falling flat.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoUltraGrammarProblems/ggnb/post.htm#31503Mon, 31 May 2004 02:04:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31503ryan smithThat you Henry and Miriam! Would it ever be proper to use whom to refer to the friends? "One of my friends, whom are cute, is here." I as this because the sentence "One of my friends, all of whom are cute, is here." sounds correct to me. Thanks! Again.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoUltraGrammarProblems/ggnb/post.htmSun, 30 May 2004 14:46:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31434ryan smithIf anyone can answer these from an ultra-correct grammar point of view, I'd be very grateful. 1. In the sentence: "Help me ? the street," which is correct "cross" or "across"? Both? 2. In the sentence "One of my friends who ? cute is there," is "is" or "are" correct? Both? (Add commas as needed.) Like I said, these are issues of pure grammar in its most refined and deadly form. I know which sound better and I know how to rewrite #2 so there's no ambiguity, but what I need to know is which are correct beyond reproach. Thanks!http://www.englishforums.com/English/AStrangeSentence/gggp/post.htm#31431Sun, 30 May 2004 14:24:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31431ryan smithGlad to help if/when I can. Jacobs give the rule, then says that in some cases it can and is broken. But, there is no concrete rule for breaking the rule. He justifies this with his opinion that we all know what a slept in bed is, but few of us know what a died in bed is. That is, does the verb have a known affect on the 'bed'? "The bed was slept in..." brings to mind messy sheets and a pillow on the floor. We've all seen such a bed many times, every morning for instance. "The bed was died in..." brings to mind more questions than images. Who or what died in it? A young man, a dog? Are the sheets stained with blood? Is there a corpse? So...there is no concrete rule. If the sentence brings to mind a unambiguious image,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AStrangeSentence/gggp/post.htm#31347Sat, 29 May 2004 10:59:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31347ryan smithHis key point is the last sentence, "We don't normally visualise a 'died-in' bed." This sentence in not a rule, it's just an indication of what we can get away with when we're breaking the previous rule. Really, it's just a fancy way of saying that "slept in" is accepted because it's commonly used, while "died in" is not. "Died in" would be fine in the right situation. Imagine a king's bodyguard trying to stay out of trouble. "The King died in his bed?!" "Uh...well, the bed was certainly died in." Well, on second thought, maybe not.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RealestVsMostReal/gznn/post.htm#31208Thu, 27 May 2004 15:10:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31208ryan smithYou shouldn't use 'realest'. It's not a word. A good dictionary will list the inflected forms (-er, -ing, etc.) of a word. If none are listed, then use 'most', 'least', etc. E.g.: Meriam Webster, which is free at www.m-w.com, lists 'uglier' and 'ugliest' under 'ugly'. It lists nothing like that under real. So, according to m-w at least, 'realest' is not a word. Besides, how can something be more real that something else? Things are either real or they're not, right? Are there stages to reality?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PunctuationWithinQuotations/gzvk/post.htm#31206Thu, 27 May 2004 14:55:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31206ryan smithThen this is what I would write: The title of the thread is "Grammer Nazi's enter if you DARE!" which is exactly what you've got above minus the full stop, the redundancy of which miriam pointed out in the first reply.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HyphenationQuestion/gzkn/post.htm#31156Thu, 27 May 2004 06:15:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31156ryan smithI think that single-family is hyphenated. You may also want to put a hyphen in multi-family just so it's clear that single- is not a typo. Or you coud say "...single-family and multifamily..." There's no shame in repetition if it clarifies your point.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PunctuationWithinQuotations/gzvk/post.htm#31097Wed, 26 May 2004 15:28:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:31097ryan smithYeah, and she punctuated the whole sentence for you. Why not try to reword your question so that people who want to help you can do so?http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfWereVsWas/gvmb/post.htm#30943Tue, 25 May 2004 15:11:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30943ryan smithMiriam, Glad to help. But really, your post covered everything quite nicely. I was merely pointing out a pitfall of using informal language. Anyway, English wouldn't be English if there weren't many different ways to say the same thing. Note to students: Nestor's got a nice little joke nested in his post...Don't avoid the correct form.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfWereVsWas/gvmb/post.htm#30911Tue, 25 May 2004 06:46:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30911ryan smith"I wish I/he was..." is very informal. Many people would pass judgement on a speaker's education on hearing them say this. I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone, but I suggest that people don't even bother to learn this version of the subjunctive. If you know it, forget it. Just keep in mind that some people will use it out of habit or because they don't know better.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVerbTense/gvwb/post.htm#30846Mon, 24 May 2004 10:41:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30846ryan smith#2 is the best of the 3. But... I think that all of them are a little too wordy. Why use "would be" at all? On what condition would the ideal form of goverment become benign monarchy? Are there other forms of ideal government? "The ideal form of government IS benign monarchy, where one sane ruler (i.e. me) decides...puts them into...and doles..." "Would be" is fine, as long as you imply or state that such a person does not exist.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfWereVsWas/gvmb/post.htm#30844Mon, 24 May 2004 10:22:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30844ryan smith"Were" used this way is called the subjunctive mood. This mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true. It's usually used with words like "if" and "wish". Other examples: "I wish I were a sea cucumber." "If I were you, I would eat less bacon."http://www.englishforums.com/English/HasHaveNeedHelp/gvgp/post.htm#30776Sun, 23 May 2004 17:17:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30776ryan smith'has' is singular. The subject is 1 thing. 'have' is plural. The subject is 2, 3, 4... things. The supermarkets have everything. Their son has gone to Sweden for the week. Hope this helps...!http://www.englishforums.com/English/DreamMerchantIndustry/gvhz/post.htm#30775Sun, 23 May 2004 17:10:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30775ryan smith1 - Someone who sells false promises. Someone who deals in imagination, and whose actual product is not really very good. Possibly a scam artist. "Merchant" is frequently used in a negative way. This is just my opinion. It's a metaphor, so the context is important. Is this the title of a children's book, or the nickname of a drug dealer? 2 - Could be a normal business made and run by one person. Or it could be the only person in the whole world who works in a very specialized business . If I assemble mobile phones in my basement all alone, I could be a one man industry. Or if I'm the only person in the world who etches portraits of famous world leaders onto plasitic CD cases, that entire line business could be called a one man...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GottenQuestion/gcnw/post.htm#30320Wed, 19 May 2004 07:00:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30320ryan smith"Gotten" is the past participle of "got", right? So if the sentence, "Has everyone written a column?" is correct, then it seems to me that the sentence "Has everyone gotten a ticket?" should be correct too. Same form just different p.p. verbs and different objects. I think the confusion comes from the fact that both "got" and "gotten" are valid past participles of "got". Perhaps many people don't use "gotten," and thus don't know how it should be used. Short answer: I think the M.C. was correct.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyMoslemsHateWesternWorld-Yorker/3/grjg/Post.htm#30144Mon, 17 May 2004 07:04:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30144ryan smithNew Yorker: A claim needs evidence proportional to its magnitude. Big claims need big proof. That's why I don't believe in aliens, Roswell, or Santa Claus. One document which is largely considered to be a fake is not enough to convince me that Islamic radicals and a secular dictator cooperated with each other. But, clearly it's enough to convince some people! Many people unquestioningly believe whatever their government tells them, strange but true. Remember the UK-made weather balloon trailers that the US claimed to be mobile biological weapons labs? Still believe that one, too? What about the 45 minute claim? Re: Atta in Iraq: "A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyMoslemsHateWesternWorld-Yorker/2/grjg/Post.htm#30059Sun, 16 May 2004 02:32:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:30059ryan smithYou can believe what you want. You can believe that a speech made by Hussein in which he mentioned "apple", translated from Arabic no doubt, is reasonable proof of his connection to 9.11. You can believe that the plutonium issue is mumbo-jumbo despite the reporter winning a Pulitzer Prize for the discovery. In situations when personal views are reinforced, people seem to require very little evidence. In situations when personal views are challenged, people seem to require mountains of evidence. You say Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism? Yet, your own government says that nearly all the alleged 9.11 terrorists are/were Saudis. Care to explain? Tell me, what would have Hussein have done had he acquired nuclear weapons?...http://www.englishforums.com/English/BooItIsTooQuiet/gbbv/post.htm#29832Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29832ryan smithAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm awake. Still too quiet for you?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyMoslemsHateWesternWorld-Yorker/2/grjg/Post.htm#29831Fri, 14 May 2004 03:03:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29831ryan smithI know you don't mean all Muslims. Let's not forget that Hussein was the dictator of a secular state--not a radial Islamic one. So, I don't see your point in trying to demonize him. The US exploited its own people too, secretly injecting US citizens with plutonium* is but one example. Yeah, sure, Hussein was a bad guy, but what does that have to do with radical Muslims hating the West? It doesn't further your argument. That is, unless you can do what the US administration has so far failed to do and show a connection between Iraq and 9.11. Are you aware that not one of the alleged hijackers is Iraqi? They're mostly Saudis (an ally of the US) and six of them have since been found to be alive. Here's something that would drive me...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RightWordWrongWord/grqc/post.htm#29770Thu, 13 May 2004 06:53:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29770ryan smithSamka, thanks for the economic definition of "labour". I wasn't aware of this, and it's probably better given Miriam's context.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyMoslemsHateWesternWorld-Yorker/2/grjg/Post.htm#29768Thu, 13 May 2004 06:42:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29768ryan smithThanks Simon for an insightful post and for genuinely trying to look at the situation from another point of view. If more people would actually apply the Golden Rule as you have, the world would be a better place. "Why do so many Muslims hate the Western World?" Western World? Do you mean to include France, Germany, Canada, and other Western countries that do not support America's policy of preemptive war? Do you mean to include nearly half of the people in the UK and the US who do not support the war in Iraq? Do you mean to include Japan, which is part of the Eastern World but supports the war in Iraq? The question is flawed. The next best logical answer is that so many Muslims don't hate the Western World. However, many...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RightWordWrongWord/grqc/post.htm#29763Thu, 13 May 2004 04:28:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29763ryan smithI think "labour" implies manual work, something a metallurgist would do little of. "Metallurgical industry" (assuming I spelt it correctly) is better that "metallurgist industry," which sounds like the buying and selling of people who've studied metallugy. Lastly, "metals industry" sounds best to me since it's shorter, but I don't know the exact topic at hand.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ShouldProvenTerroristsAssassinated/zzkm/post.htm#29694Wed, 12 May 2004 10:58:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29694ryan smithYes, I too want to get rid mass murdering terrorists. I have no idea how, but suspect that assassinating them will do nothing more than convince more people to become mass murdering terrorists. I agree with miriam, whom I thank for the nice comments. Jets and tanks are the weapons of the rich, car bombs and hijackings are the weapons of the poor. Those who want to fight will always find innovative ways of killing each other. Those who don't want to fight will always run the risk of getting caught in the cross-fire. Some poor fellow who did nothing more than go to work early on 9.11 gets killed by a hijacked 767. Likewise, some innocent girl who happened to be born in the wrong Iraqi town gets maimed by a US cluster bomb. Where does it...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ALongTimeOrJustLongTime/grwk/post.htm#29668Wed, 12 May 2004 09:11:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29668ryan smith"It has been such a long time..." I believe that "Long time no see" is a direct transliteration of the Mandarin Chinese "Hao jiou bu jien". Of course, this little oddity could just be a coincidence.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ShouldProvenTerroristsAssassinated/zzkm/post.htm#29661Wed, 12 May 2004 08:42:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29661ryan smithProclamation: It is wrong to kill, so killers shall be punished by death. "Wait, if we put killers to death, then technically we're in the wrong. It shouldn't be wrong to put a killer to death; killing killers is good. We must revise our law so that we are always in the right." Proclamation, amended: It is wrong to kill anyone but killers. Killers shall be punished by death. "Hmmm. So, now we're always in the right, but we could still face death for killing a killer." Proclamation, twice amended: It is wrong to kill anyone but killers. Killers shall be punished by death except those killers who have killed a killer. "Excellent. Now we can kill terrorists so long as they haven't killed other people who have killed. Hmmm....http://www.englishforums.com/English/SemicolonsWithBullets/grgg/post.htm#29638Wed, 12 May 2004 07:51:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29638ryan smithIt's not a question of grammar, it's a question of style. To me, it looks funny. Your publisher or your audience may have a different opinion.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ALongTimeOrJustLongTime/grwk/post.htm#29636Wed, 12 May 2004 07:48:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:29636ryan smithKeep the article "a". I can't think of an example in modern English where "time" does not take an article or quantifier of some kind.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectPersonalAddressWidowedWoman/djxp/post.htm#17652Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:55:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:17652ryan smithFirst, you must find out what family name she uses, her former husband's name (Windsor) or her maiden name (Stewart). Then address her as Mrs.Windsor or Ms.Stuart. Also, I don't think you'd be wrong with Ms.Windsor either. This is what I would do, but I'm not British. So you may want to wait for a more culturally sensitive opinion.http://www.englishforums.com/English/InPlace/djhd/post.htm#17647Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:17647ryan smithKlatifz: Yes, your modification sounds fine. Orpheus: I think "in place" here means "established". "...procedures are established to..."http://www.englishforums.com/English/Avatars/cljg/post.htm#17422Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:34:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:17422ryan smithI don't think we need avatars. The lack of them here is one of the things I like. Yes, they add personality and zip, but so does well written post content. However, if they do get implemented (sigh), may I suggest that they be limited to some small size standard like 32x32 or 64x64 pixels. Or better yet, users should be able to turn them off under their preferences. There are few thinks worse than going to a forum where people have huge animating GIF avatars, 10 lines of signature, and 2 lines of post content. Ack! Thankfully this is not one of those forums. Plus, some of us (who me?) covertly post here from work. Avatars would just draw unwanted attention.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpMePleaseSomeQuestions/dwxr/post.htm#17409Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:07:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:17409ryan smith"He drinks and eats too much." (He eats, he drinks, don't forget it's "too") "When I first tried it..." (During my first time trying it) "When I tried it first..." (When I tried -it- before I tried some other things) "I don't even know where to start." ("from" would be redundant) Sorry, I don't know the "favours" one -- I can't get your meaning.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TypingOk/djdw/post.htm#17408Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:56:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:17408ryan smithI think that "OK" and "okay" are the only proper ways to write this. By the way, OK is an abbreviation for "all correct" (oll korrect).http://www.englishforums.com/English/CouldSomeoneThese/dgpb/post.htm#16824Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:28:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16824ryan smith"It displays all the song names on yahoo" is correct enough. You may have to say "songs' names" to please everyone. Or you could say "the names of all the songs". "mine and sunny's" is fine and so is the second sentence. Yes, it is okay to say "Smith's mom". "It's him/her/me" is standard. Good luck.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoAndWhom/dznk/post.htm#16656Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:29:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16656ryan smithThe word is gradually being phased out? By whom? The only reason use of the word is in decline is that few people know how to use it properly. "Long live whom!" (er, maybe that should be a question)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Gotten/dgvd/post.htm#16655Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:22:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16655ryan smithHere are two more examples. It's an American thing. "That's it, things have gotten out of hand." (The situation has become out of control) "Have you gotten better yet?" (Are you well yet, or still ill?)http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSign/dzwb/post.htm#16413Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:30:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16413ryan smithTrivia time, yipee! "@" is called the "commercial at sign", or "at" for short. Also, "#" has many names such as "pound", "number", "hash", and "octothorp". Octothorp? What the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MayIUseSinceLikeThis/dzcp/post.htm#16249Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:27:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16249ryan smithSince means A causes B. We write "A since B" or "I'm happy since you're happy". Conversationally, this sentence is understandable (don't forget "do" or "did"): "Why do/did you go that way since this is the nearest way?" Grammatically, these sentences are better: "Why do/did you go that way? I ask you since this is the nearest way." Good luck.http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoArticleFestivalsSentence/ddkz/post.htm#16138Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:19:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16138ryan smithI think "the" is required if form is "the _____ festival." That said, I think that "Chinese New Year" does not take the "the". After all, named holidays like New Year's Eve, Christmas, and Easter do not take a "the".http://www.englishforums.com/English/EnglishGrammar/cgnz/post.htm#16121Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:47:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16121ryan smithUse of "a" or "an" depends on the sound rather than the letter. To say that all words beginning with consonants get "a" and all those beginning with vowels get "an" is inaccurate. a unique an honour a hospital an N (the letter) a NATO country ...It's the sound that matters not the glyph.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Tilde/dvlr/post.htm#16120Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:26:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16120ryan smithIt can also be used to express approximate numbers. "I will arrive at ~7 pm." (here it means about) "I will buy ~20 of them." (same, it could mean 19, 20, 21; somewhere around 20.)http://www.englishforums.com/English/EverydayJokesFromDeepblue/3/drnm/Post.htm#16044Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:28:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16044ryan smithA man enters the smoking carriage of a train and sits down in the last empty seat, which happens to be next to a woman. The man lights a large cigar. The woman glares at him and says, "a true gentleman would not smoke sitting next to a lady." "A true lady would not ride in the smoking carriage," he replies continuing to smoke. "If I were your wife, I'd feed you poison!" she cries. "Madam, if I were your husband, I would eat it."http://www.englishforums.com/English/EverydayJokesFromDeepblue/3/drnm/Post.htm#16041Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:17:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16041ryan smithA man walks into a shop and sees a dog sitting in the corner. He asks the shop's owner, "Does your dog bite?" "No, my dog does not bite," replies the owner. The man, cooing soflty, then tries to pet the dog, which immediately bites him viciously. "Ahh! I thought you told me that your dog does not bite!" he says. "Sir, that," the owner says gesturing to the animal, "is not my dog." Oh well, it's funnier on film -- one of the Pink Pather movies.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseageWordsHave/dvhl/post.htm#16036Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:50:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16036ryan smithYes, it is correct to say "I've got it". This statement can mean "I have it" or "I have solved a problem", and maybe more. One could easily fill a page writing about the use of "got" (and the differences between British and American usage).http://www.englishforums.com/English/ProperPlurals/dvhk/post.htm#16027Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:37:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16027ryan smithHi, I believe it's "time-outs". Good luck.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IMe/dvhb/post.htm#16026Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:30:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:16026ryan smithHi sonia10, Your trouble is understandable. Many native speakers use "I" and "me" incorrectly. "I" is the subject form. "Me" is the object form. Sometimes you can change a sentence to figure out what form to use: "My boyfriend and I will be moving to NJ soon" is correct because "I will be moving to NJ soon" is correct. "My boyfriend is more handsome than he" is correct since "my boyfriend is more handsome than he is" is correct and "my boyfriend is more handsome than him is" is incorrect. However, many, many people say stuff like "you are taller/shorter than him". You should be aware that people commonly misuse objective pronouns like this. The correct way to say this is "you are taller/shorter than he". If that sounds...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnotherQuestionOnIts/2/bwmr/Post.htm#15878Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:38:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:15878ryan smithWelcome to the discussion forums. Re: Guest comments While guests are always welcome, arguing with them is usually futile: they rarely reply. Sure, someone could have stated for the record that the Guest above was mistaken, but...er...wait, you just did. Thanks! Re: Moderator mistake (it's for its) How many times have I typed their for there or by for buy? More than I'd like to admit. I usually catch the error, however, sometimes I'm not so lucky. There is no spelling or grammar check here. Notice that I said, "welcome to the discussion forums," above. This is a place to talk about stuff. It is not a reference text. Welcome. Keep posting, be critical. Just be sure of what you are being critical of.