Ifrit wrote:ok so should I assume you mocking me now?
Hardly.. I'm merely exercising and flexing some muscles.

Ifrit wrote:Look is there really a problem making people aware of the facts?
So I made a post in each of the areas that I deemed closest linked, I guess thats spam...
Two birds in one shot.
Ifrit wrote:Stop making it out that Im accusing ~artanis~ (person of the forums) being the same person as Hellsing/LOA, why dont you grammer check what I posted and tell me im wrong.
Kay then.. here goes:
For Analysis 1 wrote:Lets take LOA (Hellsing, ~Artanis~) as an example hes said he raided most of those UU, chances are he sent the UU from accounts he scammed and then raided them (at least this is my impression), on top of people getting scammed from sending their UU to accounts they were told had no FSS for the reason the scammer could raid them.
LOA (Hellsing, ~Artanis~)..
*slap*
That's one.. no distinction made, no simple notice of the Artanis in your accusatory post being a different Artanis from the one on the forums..
For Analysis 2 wrote:Did you ready the post invloved in the links up above, ~Artanis~ is Hellsing/LOA who scammed the account.
Yes.. I did "ready"(sic) the post "invloved"(sic).
Your main sentence is "Artanis is Hellsing/LOA". Pretty straightforward for someone who claims they're not accusing ~Artanis~ of anything..

Additional information regarding "Hellsing/LOA" is given: "who scammed the account." (Notice: "scamming the account" is no grammatically sound construct. It does, in fact, mean nothing.. there is no proper verb nor a proper subject/object relation between any of the possible clauses in your sentence.)
Additional information regarding the 'proof' is given: "Did you ready the post invloved in the links up above" (Notice: Yes, I did.. even though reading them all bored me beyond comparison. What was the point again?)
Ifrit wrote:(1.)I didnt mean to imply that I was better then anyone else at english and act arrogant about it, I was implying that because of my heritage that I knew english and that I could properly compose it, that it wasnt my fault for those that didnt understand its composure. (2.) If that offended you I cant help that, if it makes you feel better I'm sorry. (3.)Look I'm a decent guy and I'm will to talk to you and make my opinions and do whatever I have to, to prove your opinions of me. But I wont throw things in your face.
1. Pity, because the sentence you make at point 3. suggests otherwise.. it's ungrammatical, buddy.

Or does your "99.9% perfect grammar" only apply when you put your mind to it? Too bad.. if it does, you cannot blame your heritage for the quality of your English. If your heritage IS influencing your skills, your proper grammar should be automatic and always present.

2. Agreed; which is why I warn you.. so that you can prevent such arrogance from harming anyone in the future. Especially if you speak about being so excellent at English in a grammatically incorrect sentence.

3. I'm sure you're a decent guy.. no doubting that. But that sentence doesn't make sense. And my grammar check just told me that it was ungrammatical if anything.

No need to throw your things in my face.. you convinced me already of you being a decent guy. I will not contest that.

Anyway.. I'm done.. my exercise is over. I'll overlook your next 20 posts before commenting again. Such is the reward for offering resistance.
