A question about present perfect tense

[Soup]

You may think that, but both David L and I have already proven ...

I gather post #2 was invisible.

Such a lengthy thread for the poster to weed through, wouldn't you agree? It'd be better if we could work from one another's posts, adding in what is missing or needs further clarification, rather than restating what has been said already--unless, that is, what has been said is wrong.

[Raymott]

I gather post #2 was invisible.

Such a lengthy thread for the poster to weed through, wouldn't you agree? It'd be better if we could work from one another's posts, adding in what is missing or needs further clarification, rather than restating what has been said already--unless, that is, what has been said is wrong.

Yes, I agree. I had not seen your post #3 before I posted mine #4, even though the time stamps reveal that mine was posted 18 mins. after yours. I'm sorry if you think I was standing on your toes. but it's quite likely that I was multi-tasking, and did not actually press "Submit" until after you had posted.
Do I understand your concern correctly, or am I missing something? (I note you've quoted me from a later post in response to a different poster)

[Soup]

... standing on your toes.

That wasn't my concern either. My humble suggestion is that if we are going to restate what has already been said, we should consider mentioning the name of the poster who said it; i.e., David, as this will aide everyone in keeping track of who said what, who is in agreement with who(m), who is not, and which points need further clarification. In the case that your post is "late", you could either edit your post to state that or post again to state that. Otherwise, the thread can be difficult to follow--for everyone.

Working together in harmony.

[Raymott]

That wasn't my concern either. My humble suggestion is that if we are going to restate what has already been said, we should consider mentioning the name of the poster who said it; i.e., David, as this will aide everyone in keeping track of who said what, who is in agreement with who(m), who is not, and which points need further clarification. In the case that your post is "late", you could either edit your post to state that or post again to state that. Otherwise, the thread can be difficult to follow--for everyone.

Working together in harmony.

Um, I still don't get it. Coincidentally, David posted 18 minutes after me, and our posts said the same thing as it applied to the concerns of the new poster, Viviana C. Ribichich (who quoted me in her post, contradicting without evidence, the points that you, David and I had made). In my reply, which you partly quoted (#12 in which you quoted me as saying:
“Originally Posted by Raymott
You may think that, but both David L and I have already proven ...”)

So, I have obviously attributed David L, as well as the person to whom the reply was made (me). I therefore used examples from Viviana’s quote of my post, since that is the one she was objecting to. It’s true that I did not attribute you, but as I said, I had probably not even then read your post; but I’m happy to admit that the points Vivian was calling incorrect were originally made in your post.
Can you clarify any further the exact point of etiquette that I’ve fallen foul of, since it is transparently not the lack of attribution of David L, as you claim.

[riverkid]

I gather post #2 was invisible.

... that is, what has been said is wrong.

Post #2

The past participle of the verb "to die" is "dead" hence, your first sentence should read "He has been dead for three years."

Post #2 was indeed "wrong". The past participle of the verb 'die' isn't 'dead', it's 'died'. 'dead' is an adjective and though some of our adjectives come from past participles, this ain't one of 'em.

[RonBee]

Post #2



Post #2 was indeed "wrong". The past participle of the verb 'die' isn't 'dead', it's 'died'. 'dead' is an adjective.

I missed that. (Ron hits self on head.
)

[riverkid]

I missed that. (Ron hits self on head.
)

Simply a clear indication that it happens to the best of us, Ron.

[riverkid]

That wasn't my concern either. My humble suggestion is that if we are going to restate what has already been said, we should consider mentioning the name of the poster who said it; i.e., David,

If your suggestion was of such a humble nature, Soup, why is it that you expressed concern about post #2 being overlooked? David didn't appear until post #5, one posting after Raymott.

[Raymott]

If your suggestion was of such a humble nature, Soup, why is it that you expressed concern about post #2 being overlooked? David didn't appear until post #5, one posting after Raymott.

I'm quite prepared to let it pass, riverkid. Perhaps Soup has been working too hard lately. . Still, he does need to take his own responsibility for not being able to follow the thread.

[riverkid]

I'm quite prepared to let it pass, riverkid. Perhaps Soup has been working too hard lately. . Still, he does need to take his own responsibility for not being able to follow the thread.

Me too, Raymott.

It took some doing, more than I was able to muster, to follow its later course.