Am I missing something?

[CivilDiscourse]

You really do not understand the basics of grammar and syntax, do you? Groucho's famous quip is deliberately grammatically ambiguous.

My sentence was not.

Did you perhaps notice the rest of the examples? My point stands and disputes your unspoken argument when you keep asking people what was "grammatically incorrect" about your statement.

[Gondwanaland]

Now when the subject is qualified by the subordinate clause.

The subject of the sentence is the Americas. That subject is qualified by the phrase "peopling of those continents."

Ergo "the Americas" refers to the land masses i.e. "those continents" and not the inhabitants of "those continents."

Furthermore if that sentence is read in its original context its meaning becomes quite clear to anyone who can read for basic comprehension, which, judging from the flurry of posts in the last few hours to this thread, many here cannot.

I think the Americas have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories, particularly with regard to the peopling of those continents. I recall one theory [quite old now] that postulated shipwrecked survivors from the fleet of Alexander of Macedon had arrived there in the fourth century BCE and established the early civilisations. The lost tribes of Israel was/is another popular hypothesis along with the Egyptians and Sumerians. I suspect there is hardly one group of ancient peoples who have not been credited with establishing their colonies on those continents by those who subscribe to the various beliefs found in Arkeology and Pyramidiocy."

Cool. Now explain what you mean by "have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories"

Where did the Americas come in? What location did they come in to? And why did they come in to that location for all sorts of crackpot theories? Were the crackpot theories for sale? If not, what prompted the Americas to come in for said crackpot theories? Were the Americas just in need of some? Was their pantry of crackpot theories becoming bare? Were they stocking up on them like people did on toilet paper last year?.

[Gondwanaland]

You really do not understand the basics of grammar and syntax, do you? Groucho's famous quip is deliberately grammatically ambiguous.

My sentence was not.

As he is not the one who said that some inanimate land masses came in for all sorts of crackpot conspiracy theories,, I would suggest that it is not his basics of grammar and syntax that are in question.

Now if you were a regular ordinary poster with English as a second language, I'd be very willing to brush it off as a misplaced use of words or a misunderstanding of a term. But because you regularly troll and also regularly become a semantics and grammar Nazi (no pun intended), I can't in good conscience give you that benefit of the doubt.

[Gondwanaland]

You LOVE it when you get into these needless "back and forths", and it's not just "my buddy Rogue", you do this constantly, and with multiple people.

You're a low class who seems to love the battles, and not so much actual civil discourse. And you're nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.

What's really sad is the entire first page or two of this thread was a rare universal agreement amongst posters from all parts the political spectrum. And then she goes off and turns it into this.

[CivilDiscourse]

What's really sad is the entire first page or two of this thread was a rare universal agreement amongst posters from all parts the political spectrum. And then she goes off and turns it into this.

Not only that, it seems people made a deliberate attempt not to patronize her, call her out, attack her, etc. Everyone was amicable towards her. This antagonism was directly her.

[firstfloor]

Are you missing something? I think so. It is done so that one side better explains their experience to the other side. Can work both ways, wherever there is division.

Lets get on and have more of the same!

[Cow Poke]

Cool. Now explain what you mean by "have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories"

Where did the Americas come in? What location did they come in to? And why did they come in to that location for all sorts of crackpot theories? Were the crackpot theories for sale? If not, what prompted the Americas to come in for said crackpot theories? Were the Americas just in need of some? Was their pantry of crackpot theories becoming bare? Were they stocking up on them like people did on toilet paper last year?.

Ducks is bet when rain showers lost. Don't you know?

[Cow Poke]

What's really sad is the entire first page or two of this thread was a rare universal agreement amongst posters from all parts the political spectrum. And then she goes off and turns it into this.

Yes, she's the little low class witch in the bar who will do just about anything to start a fight, then feign shock that nobody is getting along.

[{Tim}]

FWIW I understood what she meant the first time. OTOH it probably would have been easier for her to just explain in small words after it was misunderstood the first time. And her history of being seen as a troll and arguing with the other thread posters assuredly didn't help her words to be seen charitably.

It seems to me that this may be partly over the phrase "... have come in for ...", which seems not to be well known in American English?

[tabibito]

FWIW I understood what she meant the first time.

Likewise

OTOH it probably would have been easier for her to just explain in small words after it was misunderstood the first time. [relocated] It seems to me that this may be partly over the phrase "... have come in for ...", which seems not to be well known in American English?

It was not all that easy - the cause of the difficulty was not self-evident, but the phrase was explained in easy to understand terms more than once. H_A also clarified what she meant for herself: that explanation was dealt with dismissively.

And her history of being seen as a troll and arguing with the other thread posters assuredly didn't help her words to be seen charitably.

"Victim blaming" would not be an inappropriate term for this.

[{Tim}]

explain the clause "have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories"

What do you mean by "have come in for?" That alone is a head-scratcher for me.

"Oh I think the Americas have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories, particularly with regard to the peopling of those continents."
"have come in for" (perhaps a problem with dialect) = have been subjected to = have received/have been on the receiving end of.
WRT the Americas, there have been all sorts of crackpot theories ...

As quoted -- subjected to, or targeted by.
eg- "Tories come in for mockery over 'transphobic' equalities minister"

To translate, what HA said was "The american continent has been the subject of all sorts of crackpot theories, especially as to how it was first populated."

Seems to have given everyone plenty of fun arguing about it, though. "Do not answer a fool...", and all that. (aka, feeding the trolls makes you a troll, I guess?)

[{Tim}]

"Victim blaming" would not be an inappropriate term for this.

Seems there might be some debate over who was the victim and who was the perpetrator, based on the history of this thread.

Just to be clear, I was meaning to imply that the past arguments between her and the other posters likely led to her being taken in the worst possible light; I wasn't drawing any conclusion over who (if anyone) was "at fault" for that history of past arguments..

[tabibito]

Seems there might be some debate over who was the victim and who was the perpetrator, based on the history of this thread.

Just to be clear, I was meaning to imply that the past arguments between her and the other posters likely led to her being taken in the worst possible light; I wasn't drawing any conclusion over who (if anyone) was "at fault" for that history of past arguments..

The comment was restricted to events in this thread - past history and on other threads might have fuelled expectations leading to inappropriate responses on this thread, to be sure, but the responses to H_A's posts on this thread remain inappropriate.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As he is not the one who said that some inanimate land masses came in for all sorts of crackpot conspiracy theories,, I would suggest that it is not his basics of grammar and syntax that are in question.

Now if you were a regular ordinary poster with English as a second language, I'd be very willing to brush it off as a misplaced use of words or a misunderstanding of a term. But because you regularly troll and also regularly become a semantics and grammar Nazi (no pun intended), I can't in good conscience give you that benefit of the doubt.

You made a reply [post 8 ] that ended with this remark, "Yup. My favorite crackpot theory is the whole "Chinese discovered America" by the now-deceased Gavin Menzies."

Yesterday at post 19 I replied to that post with this.

"Oh I think the Americas have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories, particularly with regard to the peopling of those continents. I recall one theory [quite old now] that postulated shipwrecked survivors from the fleet of Alexander of Macedon had arrived there in the fourth century BCE and established the early civilisations. The lost tribes of Israel was/is another popular hypothesis along with the Egyptians and Sumerians. I suspect there is hardly one group of ancient peoples who have not been credited with establishing their colonies on those continents by those who subscribe to the various beliefs found in Arkeology and Pyramidiocy."

Which was a perfectly pleasant and slightly jocular reply to what had been an amicable exchange between ourselves.



At post 27 rogue06 made this reply to me, "Nobody would have gathered that from your sneer "Oh I think the Americas have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories."

I clarified my remark by replying to him at post 29 with this, "The reference being to the various lunatic fringe theories concerning the alleged discoveries of the Americas as continents and as to who initially populated those continents."

To which he replied at post 31, "You implied that Americans are easy prey for crackpot archaeological ideas when in fact it is nothing unique to any area. I corrected that misconception."

As I had written nothing of the sort I challenged him. In that reaction I doubt I am alone as I suspect most correspondents [including yourself] would defend what they had written when someone else was trying to misrepresent or misconstrue their words.



The question remains as to whether rogue06 actually did honestly misunderstand what I had initially written, even after I had clarified what I had intended by it with my reply to him at post 29, or whether he was deliberately being obtuse.

However, the answer to that question is known only to rogue06.

[CivilDiscourse]

You made a reply [post 8 ] that ended with this remark, "Yup. My favorite crackpot theory is the whole "Chinese discovered America" by the now-deceased Gavin Menzies."

Yesterday at post 19 I replied to that post with this.

"Oh I think the Americas have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories, particularly with regard to the peopling of those continents. I recall one theory [quite old now] that postulated shipwrecked survivors from the fleet of Alexander of Macedon had arrived there in the fourth century BCE and established the early civilisations. The lost tribes of Israel was/is another popular hypothesis along with the Egyptians and Sumerians. I suspect there is hardly one group of ancient peoples who have not been credited with establishing their colonies on those continents by those who subscribe to the various beliefs found in Arkeology and Pyramidiocy."

Which was a perfectly pleasant and slightly jocular reply to what had been an amicable exchange between ourselves.



At post 27 rogue06 made this reply to me, "Nobody would have gathered that from your sneer "Oh I think the Americas have come in for all sorts of crackpot theories."

I clarified my remark by replying to him at post 29 with this, "The reference being to the various lunatic fringe theories concerning the alleged discoveries of the Americas as continents and as to who initially populated those continents."

To which he replied at post 31, "You implied that Americans are easy prey for crackpot archaeological ideas when in fact it is nothing unique to any area. I corrected that misconception."

As I had written nothing of the sort I challenged him. In that reaction I doubt I am alone as I suspect most correspondents [including yourself] would defend what they had written when someone else was trying to misrepresent or misconstrue their words.



The question remains as to whether rogue06 actually did honestly misunderstand what I had initially written, even after I had clarified what I had intended by it with my reply to him at post 29, or whether he was deliberately being obtuse.

However, the answer to that question is known only to rogue06.

This thread went south at post 18 when you started demanding proof about a friendly anecdote. It was after that that any built up charity you had garnered quickly drained away. It was obvious you were looking for a fight.

As I had written nothing of the sort I challenged him. In that reaction I doubt I am alone as I suspect most correspondents [including yourself] would defend what they had written when someone else was trying to misrepresent or misconstrue their words.

I think now's a good time to remind you about the thread where you went down an entire derail with Gond demanding he answer your question about "Single biggest factor", even after he (and everyone else) explained what he was saying, and you kept going on? Do you remember that? Why is it you are complaining about others when your complaint is exactly what you were doing in another thread?