Negotiation with AC

[Victor]

... Looks like a split infinitive to me. ... And another one! Letters may be written in thoroughly formal English, but e-mails rarely are unless they are corporate. "My reply made sense, if you had translated it to Modern English correctly." Poor use of conditional there, it should be either, "would have made sense", or "makes sense" and "if you translate". Practiseth that which thou preachest!

I believe that it was a bit of an exaggeration to write that grammar correction to jamz. He is maintaining the community best he can, and what's the point in correcting his grammar? ... It does seem that you are legally allowed to operate this game, but don't attack jamz - and if you do, why not just attack his points. The grammar is irrelevant and simply serves to irritate. I do like ACR though

"Split infinitives" are not actually an error. Also, prepositions are something you can strand and end sentences with. I have to admit that the conditional is flawed; the "had" should be removed because he might have translated it correctly but pretended to have not. Imperatives have no inflection, so "[practice] that which thou preachest!"

There are two parts to my replies. The first is the grammar corrections because "why not?" If your grammar is corrected, either improve it or dispute it. The second is to address the topic. Why should I attack his points when I can attack both his points and his grammar?

I don't use grammar to win arguments; it's just a side thing. Besides, that would be a non sequitur. You can safely ignore it and just stick to the topic, but jamz didn't.

Also, I have a bot on Twitter that issues grammar corrections: https://twitter.com/Your_Grammar

It's a shame that AC hates us, but we really only hate them for hating us.