Introduction and question

[Grant Barrett]

I had to read it a couple of times, too.

But check out the errors: I think they are intentional in order to make the larger
point that "if message intended equals message received then grammar, spelling and the
like are irrelevant" and also to prove (I think) David's attitude is not serious.
I've marked the "mistakes" with asterisks, though I've left alone his satirical
renderings of typical Internet flame- and troll-speak (particularly the ridiculous
insistence on quoting any dictionary as an argument-winning source).

Although, I gotta say, I'm not sure of my reading. Just giving David the benefit of
the doubt.


>Spare us the definitions and theory PUHLEEZ.  Just because you know a bunch
>of theory doesn't mean **your ** smart.
>
>**You're** own argument proves you utterly incorrect by the fact that the
>audience responded with a counter-attack on the use of syntax.  **Its** a common
>flame technique to focus on the syntax of the other person's flame.  That
>indicates the audience DID understand the speaker's intended
>message!
>
>The audience's perlocutionary act in response to the writer's locutionary
>act was a parry, thus indicating the intended message was understood; ergo,
>the period served **its** purpose.
>
>Ergo - Consequently; therefore.  (American Heritage
>Dictionary).
>
>Parry - "2. An evasive answer or action."  (American Heritage
>Dictionary).