don't pay for something that's going to be useless to you soon.

GAMEchief wrote:

He's actually right. You take the extra parties out, and you're left with "why would I be" not "why would me be."

He's wrong, as you were in the other thread.

(i.e. "Flare and I went to the park.")

That's an example of a grammatically relevant context of his statement. Mine was not. "You, Charles and I" is not correct.[1][/1][2][/2]

That's the entire point, the parties are there, therefore "[person] and I" isn't suitable. There are 3 people, not 2.

This is basic English that I thought Artificial, let alone LG would understand.

But that still doesn't answer my question. I'm curious as to why in the world you made me, Flare and Charles in the same sig.

It's annoying as heck and clearly has some sort of ulterior meaning.

This sentence is also correct for the same reason the other one was correct.

Go say "you, Fred and I" to your English teacher and see if you don't get a slap directly in the face.[/person]

The Unintelligible wrote:

He's wrong, as you were in the other thread.

(i.e. "Flare and I went to the park.")

That's an example of a grammatically relevant context of his statement. Mine was not. "You, Charles and I" is not correct.[1][/1][2][/2]

That's the entire point, the parties are there, therefore "[person] and I" isn't suitable. There are 3 people, not 2.

This is basic English that I thought Artificial, let alone LG would understand.



This sentence is also correct for the same reason the other one was correct.

Go say "you, Fred and I" to your English teacher and see if you don't get a slap directly in the face.[/person]

To be fair, all of you are wrong.

Arti and game are wrong because their use of "I" was plainly improper.

You were wrong only because you omitted a ",", instead of creating the sentence "You, me, and Charles". However, you used me correctly otherwise.

Fluttershy wins again

You were wrong only because you omitted a ",", instead of creating the sentence "You, me, and Charles". However, you used me correctly otherwise.

Incorrect. An additional comma wasn't necessary. The sentence structure of your example is the same as mine.

Why would you, me and Charles be in the same signature. That's like the biggest oxymoron ever.

But that still doesn't answer my question. I'm curious as to why in the world you made me, Flare and Charles in the same sig.

It's annoying as heck and clearly has some sort of ulterior meaning.

But you're right about one thing, GAME and Arti were blatantly wrong.

I assume Artificial is mad because I pointed out that he seemed rather butthurt about Tree in another thread. I assume GAME is mad simply because he's always corrected to begin with.

Artificial usually doesn't try to grammar nazi, so that supports my belief. I didn't know GAMEchief was stupid enough to believe that Artificial was actually correct, so I assume he's likewise upset.

The Unintelligible wrote:

Incorrect. An additional comma wasn't necessary. The sentence structure of your example is the same as mine.




But you're right about one thing, GAME and Arti were blatantly wrong.

I assume Artificial is mad because I pointed out that he seemed rather butthurt about Tree in another thread. I assume GAME is mad simply because he's always corrected to begin with.

Artificial usually doesn't try to grammar nazi, so that supports my belief. I didn't know GAMEchief was stupid enough to believe that Artificial was actually correct, so I assume he's likewise upset.

Quite frankly I'm no English major, so I'm not 100% sure whether or not the comma was necessary. From my perspective, for CLARITY purposes, the comma is necessary. It's not implied that a comma is or is not needed before the "and", but the comma before "and" ESNURES it is correct.

Source:
Rules for Comma Usage

Source originally to doublecheck whether me or I was correct:
I vs Me - e Learn English Language


P.S. Hooray, I'm learning grammar rules. Thank you internet.

I don't think your additional comma is technically incorrect, I just know that it isn't necessary as it denotes a pause or breakpoint in a sentence.[*]

But we're more or less on the same page. Even if you were correct, Game and Artificial are still incorrect. So yeah, doesn't matter. Just wanted to give Arti a quick slap on the wrist.

The Unintelligible wrote:

I don't think your additional comma is technically incorrect, I just know that it isn't necessary as it denotes a pause or breakpoint in a sentence.[*]

But we're more or less on the same page. Even if you were correct, Game and Artificial are still incorrect. So yeah, doesn't matter. Just wanted to give Arti a quick slap on the wrist.

With your penis?

Why not?

The Unintelligible wrote:

Why not?

Giggity

Suddenly, I completely forgot what the original topic of this thread was.

Something something gaia gold is for losers. Something something.

The Unintelligible wrote:

Something something gaia gold is for losers. Something something.

Right I remember now.

Incidentally:

Selling gaia gold that doesn't get people banned!

/Threadninjaed

1) Oxford commas are required, so TU is dumb anyway.
2) It is "I" not "me," no matter how many times you say otherwise. Nowhere in your citations does it prove your point.

He and I - correct: "He and I are I am going to town."
Him and me - correct: "She told him and me the truth."

does this shit really matter that much to you guys

Just like in the previous thread, I've won again. GAMEchief chooses to ignore, I'll let him piece it together again.

Just know this GAMEchief, never try to correct me again. You will continue to lose. You are intellectually inferior. I don't want to see you oppose me, ever again. This is like the millionth time you've been corrected.

I stand my ground as the one true king. Still waiting on my "Supreme Overlord" user title.

I actually lol'd, thanks

I felt it needed to be said. GAMEchief = dumb, Unintelligible = genius.

All the times we've argued, he has probably been right once. On reddit he seems even more retarded than he does on LG.

It needed to be said. The throne needed to be claimed.

#TUForAdmin

i can't take you seriously right now lol

Use wrote:

i can't take you seriously right now lol

I think that's the entire point. With some charisma and charm added in the mix.

Basic conclusion: Me > LG > Charles

ITT: GRAMMAR

Now how about we get back on topic. Who made it, and why are we all in it? Lol. Just because we're all the ultra-active staff or something? Or because we like tounging each other anuses in the Moderator section?

EDIT: Woah that's actually kind of cool, the shout tag combines two T's that are next to each other because of the font and boldness and size and stuff, lol.

Intellectual arrogance is amongst the worst kind.

Artificial wrote:

Intellectual arrogance is amongst the worst kind.

Completely true. Although I've humbled myself a bit recently.

It's safe to say that you made something out of pretty much nothing though, which I could say is arrogance on your part. GAMEchief is worse though because he's quite arrogant when I think it's pretty unwarranted.

i think this was all incredibly stupid, you could have been doing more productive things then arguing over grammar.

GAMEchief wrote:

1) Oxford commas are required, so TU is dumb anyway.
2) It is "I" not "me," no matter how many times you say otherwise. Nowhere in your citations does it prove your point.

He and I - correct: "He and I are I am going to town."
Him and me - correct: "She told him and me the truth."

I am all for commas, however, the citation states he and I are not always grammatically correct. It's based on the circumstance of whether the people are the subject or affected by the subject. In the original quote the picture is the subject and the people are the affected. So yes, me is correct and I is incorrect. However, in your new example "he and I" are the subject

Great, more arguing. We're all one family here at LG, stop bickering and churn butter together.

PrincessFluttershy wrote:

I am all for commas, however, the citation states he and I are not always grammatically correct. It's based on the circumstance of whether the people are the subject or affected by the subject. In the original quote the picture is the subject and the people are the affected. So yes, me is correct and I is incorrect. However, in your new example "he and I" are the subject

Yeah man, you're wasting your time.

I think he knows this already, he just chooses to ignore to feign self-righteousness. Or he's really that dumb that he doesn't understand how he's wrong yet again.

Either way, don't really care. Just amazed at his stupidity and persistence.

We should really make a scoreboard of all the topics that have been discussed in this post. This is probably the most efficient posting on LG in awhile.

PrincessFluttershy wrote:

I am all for commas, however, the citation states he and I are not always grammatically correct.

what

Obviously it's not always I. Or else "me" wouldn't be a word.

It's based on the circumstance of whether the people are the subject or affected by the subject. In the original quote the picture is the subject and the people are the affected. So yes, me is correct and I is incorrect. However, in your new example "he and I" are the subject

.In TU's quote, I is the correct usage. No citation has been provided to say the contrary.

SpornyTheAlien wrote:

Great, more arguing. We're all one family here at LG, stop bickering and churn butter together.

What kind of family doesn't bicker?

Tree wrote:

We should really make a scoreboard of all the topics that have been discussed in this post. This is probably the most efficient posting on LG in awhile.

I still don't know the original topic.

GAMEchief wrote:

what

Obviously it's not always I. Or else "me" wouldn't be a word.


.In TU's quote, I is the correct usage. No citation has been provided to say the contrary.

He's so distraught his rebuttals aren't even making sense anymore.

Proof that he mad



lel infraction lel

You are literally spamming, and it's annoying to have to clean up after a moderator.

Don't make it a ban.

Having to delete 10 posts of yours is ridiculous.

GAMEchief wrote:

Don't make it a ban.

u r intimidatin me

The Unintelligible wrote:

Proof that he mad



lel infraction lel

Proof of your infraction.*
Conveniently leave out that you made 10 posts in a row, even after I deleted the original set of deliberate spam. This is not an argument you will win. Do not push it.