Dear fivejejon,
To cut a long story short, I respect your decision not to return to my threads. In face of that I`d like to express my gratefulness again for the time you have taken to answer my queries. You are free to leave. It is certainly better to do so. Still, I cannot understand why you are up in arms. I don´t think I have given you any reason, on the contrary, I have always treated you respectfully and decently. And if indeed I did annoy you unwittingly, or, at least, if you felt I did, I assure you that I`m sorry. But you may also take it from me that I preferred sometimes not to reply anymore because I tried not to irritate you as I had felt a snappish and peevish overtone*. I also got the impression that you felt attacked with nobody attacking you. You have always been ready to make your competence as a native speaker accessible. But you should also allow for second or third questions on the same issue if your reply hasn´t turned out to be final or consistent, if it raises further questions, or if there are authors who take different positions. Wouldn`t it be enriching to learn about them? Or are you resistant to other people`s points of view? On the contrary, I deem it a unique chance for oneself to broaden one`s limited mind. Moreover, it is a token of magnanimity to bear challenging views. How can you regard coming back to your proposition as “catching out” people? On that condition I`d rather do without your advice. Well, that´s what forums have been established for – a free exchange of different positions to learn from each other. It might be due to their occupation that the pedagogues within the guild of teachers tend to be exposed to the risk of being bad learners as they seem to know(-)all**. But we live and learn. Everybody, of course! I`m not sure whether or to what degree we´ve been talking at cross purposes. In your last contribution you cited three quotations which all miss the point. My statement: “I`m sorry, but I haven´t quoted that very sentence anywhere.” refers to your assertion: ”You misquoted me.” It is difficult for me to see how it is possible to misunderstand that. But it doesn’t matter. What can´t be cured, must be endured.
Nevertheless, all the best to you!
Hucky
* For example, to name just one instance I considered it not worth replying to something like this: “I clearly noted: ' Quirk et al (1985)'.”, taken from No. 35 of the thread “What happens if …” , which borders on the ludicrous as instead of going into Quirk´s argument you evaded by saying you meant Quirk et al. The books I quoted are written by Quirk et al. As if you didn`t know.
** Further down, in paragraphs 2 and 3 you find two quotes from No. 30 of the thread “What happens if …” The above sentence is from me, the lower is your reply. I beg your pardon, but one cannot be more mistaken as to stating such things. Does it not even occur to your mind that you might be wrong, or to study the matter before judging it? Just to give you a clue: You keep mixing up the terms rule and law. It should not be too difficult to verify this.
As we know the exception does not disprove the rule, but prove it.
You have clearly misunderstood the word 'prove' in 'the exception proves the rule'.
Thus the rule won´t get flawed in face of exceptions, but - on the contrary - confirmed.
If a rule is confirmed by exceptions, it would seem to be a pretty pointless rule.