"Perhaps there have been some spelling drifts in the next three centuries,
and JMS spends so much time in the future that he has trouble with our
local-present archaic English....."

I would point out that the phrase "local-present archaic English" is
ungrammatical and at odds with English useage. You could say, "with our
current-day English which he finds archaic," but not what you've written
here, which implies that English is present only locally -- presumably
local to where you are, when in fact English is present in many parts of
the globe -- and that the present English is also archaic in fact, as
opposed to being perceived as such by me....

I could go on and on about this particular turn of phrase, because it's
ungrammatical on several levels, but this forum has better ways to spend
its time.

Note, however, that I could have done this with *many* of your posts,
which correct me or others on one word, while containing whole *phrases*
which violate the rules of grammar.

Which is what you do.

The difference is, I have manners and don't feel it's my god-given
responsibility to correct other people on their useage on-line.

One could also offer a thought or two about the notion of "not seeing the
forest for the trees," correcting people on little word choices while
oneself applying incorrect phrases.

One could also take exception with your notion that if you have made up
your mind about an issue, then that is the single and sole truth, and that
anyone who offers a contrary opinion is either stupid, or deliberately
misleading people, since there cannot possibly be reasonable differences
of opinion about such issues as gun control, there cannot be any
possibility of reading studies in different ways, there is Gharlane's way,
which is the Truth Eternal, and those who are deliberately stupid or
willfully misinformed.

There is a phrase in the bible, Gharlane: go and pluck the log out of your
own eye before you try and remove the splinter from someone else's.

You repeatedly use sloppy grammar, misuse the English language, and turn
its complexities on its head in order to support your political
positions...then have the audacity to correct the grammar and spelling of
others. I don't do this to you, even though your messages provide
boundless opportunities for this. Because I try to err in the direction
of politeness.

So may I suggest that, with your studies in grammar, spelling and syntax,
you consult a book of manners and expand your horizon in that area as
well. And since you take umbrage whenever someone objects to your
advising them on grammar and other niceties, I'm confident that you will
not in any way argue with or be upset by this reply to you, since that
would be a direct contradiction to your own stance on being corrected.


jms