What is Reddit's opinion of
English Grammar For Dummies?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
ProductGPT
Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
37 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Obviously you didn't read. Nowhere did I say this is going to take off. I was doing technical analysis and stating what the technicals indicate.
I also clearly said this will take a long time to go up to fair value and will be a slow rise.
Technical analysis is not astrology. It is the basis of all profitable day traders.
It's ok if you can't read, but it's just embarrassing for you when I clearly state not to buy short term calls and gamble and clearly said it will require you to lock up some money for the long run.
Now, if you took any of that as me indicating this is a month to month play, perhaps you would like to check out my amazon affiliate link to a great book I recommend for you. Book for you
"Wow the absolute arrogance and racism in this paragraph. Ordering me about, telling me I'm white (I'm mixed race), telling a European all about Europe. Im guessing you're either American or German"
Work on your English comp. If you think that's "ordering around", then you need to work on your nuance.
"Also, if your reading comp was that good, you'd understand certain nuances that native English speakers convey. You missed the point entirely.
Sorry what?"
I'm not even going to continue with this.
I see you're still going with grammar inconsistencies. Poor grammar just shows limited intellectual curiosity, an inability to retain or comprehend new ideas, and multiple deficits compared to your peers.
You're just slow, and that's okay. I can't even imagine what a complex topic is like for you. I'll give you a cookie and your 12th place trophy. Good luck in the future. Later
For you: https://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0470546646
It does make sense because the definitions for remove and erase are nearly identical. For example:
Remove (verb): take away or off from the position occupied; eliminate or get rid of.
Erase (verb): rub out or remove; remove all traces of; remove recorded material from medium; delete from memory.
Contrast that to your piss poor examples.
Raise (verb): lift or move to a higher position; increase the amount, level, or strength of.
Transfer (verb): move from one place to another; change to another place, route, or means of transportation.
Evacuate (verb): remove from a place of danger to a safer place; remove contents from.
You need to read this and get back to me. Here’s a brief example - let’s say you need to pick the best sentence that is the closest to the following:
- I removed the sentence from the paragraph.
Now which of these sentences is the best answer: 1. I erased the sentence from the paragraph. 2. I raised the sentence from the paragraph. 3. I transferred the sentence from the paragraph. 4. I evacuated the sentence from the paragraph.
This is literally shit you learn in sixth grade. Lmao
Does your mom know you are up past your bedtime? No dessert for a week young man!
But seriously, considering saving your allowance and investing in this book. You sorely need it.
https://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0470546646
Ummm...what? Good try, but once again you are incorrect.
First of all.
>That year was in the past. It has passed us by.
This statement itself is correct, but the context is completely different from your original post, so we will ignore it.
Now for your mistake.
>This passed season was OK
You are not saying that the season did pass (verb) and it was OK, you are describing the season which is in the past (we'll call this one an adjective) and that it was OK.
One helpful trick could be to think about this sentence using the other tenses. This future season will be OK. This present season is OK. The tenses of past, present, and future are clarifying the noun which in this case is "season".
It's one thing to be a dick to someone who is trying to help you improve your grammar. It's another thing to completely ignore it while being so fucking condescending.
There are many websites which explain the difference of past vs. passed far better than the one you provided. If you need further reading, I suggest this book.
If you're referring to my lattermost statement, welcome to reddit big guy, maybe brush up on your grammar a bit before you get too deep because that tends to be a point of contention on this website.
I guess my point with my original reply was that his comment added literally nothing of substance. There was no straw man! hahaha idk if he took philosophy or something as a freshman and stored a few cool words deep in that clearly eloquent lexicon, but the first post pointing out that he knew an SAE who was a great guy is in NO WAY A STRAW MAN!!!!! This is all induction! They are fucking stereotypes and inductive reasoning can be easily disproven through counterexamples!!!!
I should post this to r/rant, cause seriously this is the reddit circlejerkery that is the only part of this amazing website that kills me. BilyBlaze makes a statement that holds no water whatsoever, but because reddit is 90% insecure pussies who have some beef with greek life, it gets upvotes out the ass. classic!
and finally, i know i already asked, but to what fucking school does this kid go?
" People get raped at the SAE chapter at my school all the time" back that up a bit. most 'rapes' get reported so you should have some statistics to back up that ridiculous bull shit. or were they unreported? did you happen to be the guy in whom all these poor victims confided? that's how you know?
EDIT and obviously I was asking about his school originally because of the regular rapings. not because of his poor grammar, but now that I've properly considered it, I need to know for both reasons.
No offense, (and I'm not normally a grammar nazi) but that was a tough read.
http://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0470546646
Here’s a REAL investment opportunity for you :P
https://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0470546646
Like I said before, only disappointment here is your inability to read "SR or higher guaranteed" before complaining about not getting your guaranteed UR that was never promised to you.
Here's something that can help you understand why a guaranteed SR is not a guaranteed UR. https://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0470546646
> No, it's not my fault you can barely understand a complex though.
You don't even know the difference between though and thought. Sit your ass down.
> Okay, so the government guarantees rights, but also takes the most rights away.
No shit. A functional society cannot exist in total anarchy akin to a natural state without a government. In a legitimate form of government, the people consent to having some of their rights being taken away in exchange for having a secure society. For example, people don't have the right to take a shit in the middle of the street because it would be a massive public sanitation issue. This concept isn't anything new, it was recognized by Philosophers during the Enlightenment Era like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.
> Look at the second amendment, guarantee gun rights but takes it away heavy parts of gun rights. Same situation with Roe v Wad, we had some rights, but a good chunk of was still held back.
Okay, so from this, I can assume you want to expand woman's right to choose, seeing as how you say that some rights were held back. You don't specify which rights, so who knows if you have any idea what you're talking about.
> Now to getting our full set of rights. You have to take power from central government, give to local. Rinse repeat until you get to the individual. I don't want partial right, nor do I want YOU to have partial right. So stop being a government soyboy, and actual pick up the fight for our rights!
You seem to be under the impression that states getting the power is somehow a magical stepping stone between the government withholding rights, and individuals getting rights. This is outright wrong. There are multiple examples in American History where the Federal Government had to step in to secure the rights of marginalized groups.
Example: When the Civil Rights act was passed and public schools were integrated, the State government of Arkansas 9 black students from attending a formerly all-white segregated school. In response, the federal government, headed by President Eisenhower had to use threat of force to allow the black kids to attend.
Want a more recent example? Look no further than the SCOTUS case of Obergefell vs Hodges, where the SCOTUS, which is a federal entity and not a state entity, overturned decisions made in State-level courts in Kentucky and Ohio and said that governmental entities must recognize the right of gay people to marry, regardless of state.
I'll say it again, There is no magical rule in this country that says rights ending up in the hands of the state rather than the federal government will eventually lead to an expansion of individual liberties. Even in the case of women's reproductive rights, where states have already begun to curtail freedoms granted to women under Roe vs Wade, you're somehow trying to spin this as an improvement. Unless you see more governmental overreach over an individual right to choose to be a parent, it isn't an improvement.
> Also, nice thought experiment: The constitution magical no longer exists. Come on idiot think for more than five second, give me an actual thought experiment.
Except this actually happened in this country, under the constitution that, surprise, existed during that time: ever heard of the three-fifths compromise?
> You do know amendments can't be just taken away like that, that's why their such a big deal.
While the amendments may be hard to change, they can be interpreted differently, and how they are interpreted has had massive impact for the everyday people in this nation. You would do well to remember that nearly a century of segregation was considered constitutional even with the 14th amendment in place, under the separate but equal rule, until it was overturned in Brown vs Board of Education. The issue is this SCOTUS is overturning precedent after precedent using shadow dockets. Justice Thomas quite literally said in his opinion that the Supreme Court ought to revisit cases that decriminalized gay marriage, gay sex, and unrestricted access to contraceptives. No amendments are being changed, just their interpretation is.
Also. They're = abbreviation of They are. Their = belonging to or associated with some previously identified person/entity. May I humbly suggest some light reading for you?
> Also, if you think cause Roe vs Wade is why I think this story is fake your proving your stupidity further,
Your = determiner word being used to associate to the person that the speaker is referring to. You're = abbreviation of you are. You don't get to call anyone stupid when you failed 2nd grade grammar, Cletus.
> if your that adamant about an abortion your not going to immediately give in when a solution could be six hours or closer
Right, everyone in this country is well off to consider an impromptu, multi-day trip across state borders where they will not be working and therefore will not be generating income at that time. Are you just out of touch with the struggles of the working class, or are you a trust fund baby? If you are some spoiled rich kid, why couldn't your parents afford to give you better tutors that could teach you the difference between your and you're?
You've probably been fed a steady diet of misinformation and propaganda that harped on about 'federal gubmint bad, state gubmint gud' so I can't help but feel sorry for you when you lash out in confusion elementary school dropout levels of English. I suggest you pick up a history book if you don't know what all these big scary court cases mean. But do be warned, you may have to read legal documents which have words with more than 3 syllables though.
This might help.
Whats the point in conversing with someone who cant even be bothered to spell words correctly.
https://www.amazon.ca/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0470546646
Check it out, brah.
Honestly books like these are great - https://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods-dp-0470546646/dp/0470546646/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
And you can get them for free at the library. Mine even has an app so I can download them from home to my phone or kindle. They are smaller than they appear because most of them are ike work books with example problems but if you skip all the example problems because you know English you can legit read the whole thing over the weekend
I have one I can recommend based on your post.
https://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0470546646
>everyone of my post.
https://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0470546646
Please buy yourself a copy of this book. Thanks.
Grammar for Dummies if Strunk & White doesn't fit the bill.
To make English look properly, look at book
I think you'll find this book most helpful.
It’s okay, if you sound out the words r e a l s l o w you’ll eventually understand what I’m saying. I can’t help you with context though.
If you can’t understand how your first comment is a faulty presumption that I said anything about Yen being “morally greater”, and how my reply is simply highlighting how idiotically defensive you’re being a simple discussion — I can’t help you, maybe this can?, but at this point I doubt it.
Popular alternatives to English Grammar For Dummies
