I’d politely suggest that the thread in question bit the dust (if we really must ruminate over such things instead of just moving on) largely as a result of the tirade of four crude attacks from Teribus in the space of a few hours. And you’re just jealous, Iains. Anyway, this is a thread in which we may presumably express our opinions about the use of English, as Stu has just done and as I have also done in the thread, without being accused of “posturing.”

I’m also a fan of Roger’s Profanisaurus. I have several books on the use of English and find that none is comprehensive, but my favourite is Mind The Gaffe by Larry Trask. One thing that always comes across is that many of the alleged rules are not rules at all (you can even say “irregardless” if you want to), as English is defined by the way it’s used and not by professors in English departments. But I agree with Stu to the extent that there’s no harm in fighting to preserve useful points of grammar and nuances of expression. I once forced a PE teacher to rewrite a pupil’s report in which he’d stated that the lad was disinterested in athletics. When it comes to what we write, the primary concern should be clarity of expression. Making the recipient of your typing work harder on interpretation than they should have to marks a failure of communication, communication, after all, being the thing that language is supposed to be about.