Heritage putting up junk on their website for all to see. fake ALI

[David Atkatz]

Should be "problems of infighting that are prevalent..."

Gotta fix that.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Should be "problems of infighting that are prevalent..."

Gotta fix that.

Not necessarily. It might be the problems that ARE prevalent because of comparatively rare infighting, or the infighting that IS prevalent because of the occurance of said problems.

I be an an inglish teachman.

[David Atkatz]

It is, without a doubt, "problems are prevalent." In his sentence, prevalent describes the problems, not the infighting.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is, without a doubt, "problems are prevalent." In his sentence, prevalent describes the problems, not the infighting.

I disagree and see no reason, syntactically, why that is so. It would surely be clearer to use a definite article to refer to infighting if that were indeed what were prevalent, but it is not necessary. You can say that your interpretation is true "without doubt," but it is interpretation only and therefore open to credible doubt. In fact, the vast majority of defining relative clauses modify by proximity, which means that in a case of ambiguity, we could fall back on the interpretation that the relative pronoun "that" is modifying the noun in closest proximity, which in this case is the aforementioned "infighting." However, you are using larger contextual clues to interpret that it is modifying the earlier-occurring "problems." That's a fair interpretation, but it is far from being "without doubt," and I revel in the fact that very few things dealing with language are such.

[David Atkatz]

Wayne, that is probably the clearest and best thought out reply to a post of mine that I have ever seen.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Wayne, that is probably the clearest and best thought out reply to a post of mine that I have ever seen.

Thanks bro. Something needs to have focus in what has become a mess of a thread.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Thanks bro. Something needs to have focus in what has become a mess of a thread.

For some weird reason, even without meaningful input from 'the creator', Travis threads are often long and interesting....often for unintended reasons.

[shelly]

I would wonder if someone did not agree with them what would happen

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

I would wonder if someone did not agree with them what would happen

During my short visit to that page, I got the impression that the discussions were between the 'experts' at the planet, and a small group of carefully-screened people, with most of the discussions being planet people responding to their own posts;i.e-Travis starting a thread and then talking to/with himself.

So unless they create a member and plant a 'minor dissension' thread, there is really no damage of anyone arguing with their expert opinions.

As has been said frequently in the past: "It's a very small planet."

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by shelly

I would wonder if someone did not agree with them what would happen

No soup for you!

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by shelly

I would wonder if someone did not agree with them what would happen

Tarred and feathered?