Hello Kevin,

> I'm always interested in discussing the finer points of grammar,
> spelling, punctuation, usage, and syntax, Dank. So go right ahead and
> point out for us all exactly what you're objecting to in the sentence
> "You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you, drunken
> hillbilly racist?"

That's a run-on sentence.

Hal Burton wrote:

> Hello Kevin,
>
>> I'm always interested in discussing the finer points of grammar,
>> spelling, punctuation, usage, and syntax, Dank. So go right ahead and
>> point out for us all exactly what you're objecting to in the sentence
>> "You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you, drunken
>> hillbilly racist?"
>
>
> That's a run-on sentence.
>
>

Look a bit more closely. Those are clean sentences, run-on-wise.
This would be a run-on two separate sentences joined together.

ObBBQ: Salmon smoked with oak. 180 F until 130 F internal.
I prefer it slightly undercooked.

--
Reg

Hello Reg,

> Hal Burton wrote:
>
>> Hello Kevin,
>>
>>> I'm always interested in discussing the finer points of grammar,
>>> spelling, punctuation, usage, and syntax, Dank. So go right ahead
>>> and point out for us all exactly what you're objecting to in the
>>> sentence "You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you,
>>> drunken hillbilly racist?"
>>>
>> That's a run-on sentence.
>>
> Look a bit more closely. Those are clean sentences, run-on-wise. This
> would be a run-on two separate sentences joined together.

I see two independent clauses:

1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore.
2. Do you, drunken hillbilly racist <know>?

Note that the "know" in "do know" in the second clause is implied. It sounds
correct when spoken, but written down it is incorrect.

Hal Burton wrote:

> Hello Reg,
>
>> Hal Burton wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Kevin,
>>>
>>>> I'm always interested in discussing the finer points of grammar,
>>>> spelling, punctuation, usage, and syntax, Dank. So go right ahead
>>>> and point out for us all exactly what you're objecting to in the
>>>> sentence "You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you,
>>>> drunken hillbilly racist?"
>>>>
>>> That's a run-on sentence.
>>>
>> Look a bit more closely. Those are clean sentences, run-on-wise. This
>> would be a run-on two separate sentences joined together.
>
>
> I see two independent clauses:
>
> 1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore.
> 2. Do you, drunken hillbilly racist <know>?
>
> Note that the "know" in "do know" in the second clause is implied. It
> sounds correct when spoken, but written down it is incorrect.
>

I see your point. OK, that looks like a comma splice then.
A run-on would have no punctuation at all between clauses.

I suppose it could also be parsed this way:

1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you?
2. Drunken hillbilly racist!

The second taking the form of an interjection.

ObBBQ: Dropped a bunch of hot smoked salmon as it came
off the pit. The dog ws happy, but now I have to make more.

--
Reg

Hal Burton wrote:
> Hello Reg,
>
>> Hal Burton wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Kevin,
>>>
>>>> I'm always interested in discussing the finer points of grammar,
>>>> spelling, punctuation, usage, and syntax, Dank. So go right ahead
>>>> and point out for us all exactly what you're objecting to in the
>>>> sentence "You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you,
>>>> drunken hillbilly racist?"
>>>>
>>> That's a run-on sentence.
>>>
>> Look a bit more closely. Those are clean sentences, run-on-wise. This
>> would be a run-on two separate sentences joined together.
>
>
> I see two independent clauses:
>
> 1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore.
> 2. Do you, drunken hillbilly racist <know>?
>
> Note that the "know" in "do know" in the second clause is implied. It
> sounds correct when spoken, but written down it is incorrect.
>
>

Well, it don't matter too damn much when in all actuality, I am a
drunken hillbilly.

Kevin S. Wilson can suck my ass with a straw while he's riding out of
here on the horse he came in on.

It doesn't make a bit of difference to me what he posts here, I'm here
to stay.

My wife is even related to him in some sort of manner.

Like I give a ****.

Hear that, Kevvie, we're kinfolk!

<Maniacal Laughter>

I'm related to Kevin!

Makes you want to commit genocide, doesn't it, Kevvie?


ESAD

--
TFM®

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:10:49 GMT, Reg > wrote:

>Hal Burton wrote:
>
>> Hello Reg,
>>
>>> Hal Burton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Kevin,
>>>>
>>>>> I'm always interested in discussing the finer points of grammar,
>>>>> spelling, punctuation, usage, and syntax, Dank. So go right ahead
>>>>> and point out for us all exactly what you're objecting to in the
>>>>> sentence "You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you,
>>>>> drunken hillbilly racist?"
>>>>>
>>>> That's a run-on sentence.
>>>>
>>> Look a bit more closely. Those are clean sentences, run-on-wise. This
>>> would be a run-on two separate sentences joined together.
>>
>>
>> I see two independent clauses:
>>
>> 1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore.
>> 2. Do you, drunken hillbilly racist <know>?

That revision changes the original interrogative sentence into a
declarative sentence followed by an interragative sentence.

But let's hear what Dank has to say. After all, he's the one who
objected to it in the first place. So where did that boy get off to?

>> Note that the "know" in "do know" in the second clause is implied. It
>> sounds correct when spoken, but written down it is incorrect.
>>

>I see your point. OK, that looks like a comma splice then.
>A run-on would have no punctuation at all between clauses.
>
>I suppose it could also be parsed this way:
>
>1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you?
>2. Drunken hillbilly racist!
>
>The second taking the form of an interjection.

I'd just call it a sentence fragment. But let's hear what Dank has to
say.

<crickets>

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:10:49 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>
>>I see your point. OK, that looks like a comma splice then.
>>A run-on would have no punctuation at all between clauses.
>>
>>I suppose it could also be parsed this way:
>>
>>1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you?
>>2. Drunken hillbilly racist!
>>
>>The second taking the form of an interjection.
>
>
> I'd just call it a sentence fragment.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. All interjections are
sentence fragments. In this case it would follow
the form:

<You are a> Drunken hillbilly racist!

Where "You are a" is implied. Or perhaps it would
just be "You".

Online references haven't helped as of yet.

--
Reg

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:10:49 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>
>
>>Hal Burton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello Reg,
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hal Burton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hello Kevin,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm always interested in discussing the finer points of grammar,
>>>>>>spelling, punctuation, usage, and syntax, Dank. So go right ahead
>>>>>>and point out for us all exactly what you're objecting to in the
>>>>>>sentence "You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you,
>>>>>>drunken hillbilly racist?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a run-on sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Look a bit more closely. Those are clean sentences, run-on-wise. This
>>>>would be a run-on two separate sentences joined together.
>>>
>>>
>>>I see two independent clauses:
>>>
>>>1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore.
>>>2. Do you, drunken hillbilly racist <know>?
>
>
> That revision changes the original interrogative sentence into a
> declarative sentence followed by an interragative sentence.
>
> But let's hear what Dank has to say. After all, he's the one who
> objected to it in the first place. So where did that boy get off to?
>

Work. Try it.

>
>>>Note that the "know" in "do know" in the second clause is implied. It
>>>sounds correct when spoken, but written down it is incorrect.
>>>
>
>
>>I see your point. OK, that looks like a comma splice then.
>>A run-on would have no punctuation at all between clauses.
>>
>>I suppose it could also be parsed this way:
>>
>>1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you?
>>2. Drunken hillbilly racist!
>>
>>The second taking the form of an interjection.
>
>
> I'd just call it a sentence fragment. But let's hear what Dank has to
> say.
>
> <crickets>
>
>

Admitting you are wrong? Damn! Will that be enough for you to stay
on-topic or get the hell out? This is a.f.b. Not alt.kevinlearnstotype

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:07:53 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

> Will that be enough for you to stay
>on-topic or get the hell out?

Off-topic?

<shrug>

There ain't a damn thing you can do about it, Dank, except froth at
the mouth. Pity, eh?

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:07:53 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:10:49 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hal Burton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello Reg,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hal Burton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello Kevin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm always interested in discussing the finer points of grammar,
>>>>>>>spelling, punctuation, usage, and syntax, Dank. So go right ahead
>>>>>>>and point out for us all exactly what you're objecting to in the
>>>>>>>sentence "You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you,
>>>>>>>drunken hillbilly racist?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a run-on sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Look a bit more closely. Those are clean sentences, run-on-wise. This
>>>>>would be a run-on two separate sentences joined together.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I see two independent clauses:
>>>>
>>>>1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore.
>>>>2. Do you, drunken hillbilly racist <know>?
>>
>>
>> That revision changes the original interrogative sentence into a
>> declarative sentence followed by an interragative sentence.
>>
>> But let's hear what Dank has to say. After all, he's the one who
>> objected to it in the first place. So where did that boy get off to?
>>
>
>Work. Try it.
>
>>
>>>>Note that the "know" in "do know" in the second clause is implied. It
>>>>sounds correct when spoken, but written down it is incorrect.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>I see your point. OK, that looks like a comma splice then.
>>>A run-on would have no punctuation at all between clauses.
>>>
>>>I suppose it could also be parsed this way:
>>>
>>>1. You don't even know who you're talking to anymore, do you?
>>>2. Drunken hillbilly racist!
>>>
>>>The second taking the form of an interjection.
>>
>>
>> I'd just call it a sentence fragment. But let's hear what Dank has to
>> say.
>>
>> <crickets>
>>
>
>Admitting you are wrong?

Uh, no.

First the drunken hillbilly racist, now you. Neither one of you can
read well enough to figure out who is replying to who. The sentence
fragment to which I referred is labeled with a great big ol' 2, above.

I didn't write it.

Are you starting to catch on now, Dank? Any of this getting through to
you?

>Damn! Will that be enough for you to stay
>on-topic or get the hell out? This is a.f.b. Not alt.kevinlearnstotype

Apparently, it is also not alt.danklearnstoread, because that sure
isn't happening.

Still waiting for you to parse the original sentence, Dank, and tell
us all in what way it is ungrammatical. But you just keep on
side-stepping and backpedalling. Why is that, Dank?

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:16:36 -0600, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>ObFood: Pan fried shredded beef tacos for dinner.

You forgot the Mad Dog 20-20 until the neighbors complain. Be thorough
in your descriptions, if nothing else.