If you would pull your head out of your butt...you would clearly see that it is!!
He's correcting your grammar too btw.
If you would pull your head out of your butt...you would clearly see that it is!!
It's clunky. I cant remember the exact rule but:Damn people and their grammar and spelling issues.
BTW...what was wrong with my grammar? I am always willing to learn something new.
everytime i check this poll the number of votes is higher, but the margin is always 2.
It's clunky. I cant remember the exact rule but:
"This is the most controversial thread I have read in a long time."
"the most controversial" is a definite description.
"thread" for this purpose is a thing.
You are describing the actual thread as something controversial. The thread itself is not what you are talking about though. You are talking about the contents of it, which are also definite things. The opinions expressed in posts which make up the thread are argumentative but for them to be controversial there would have to be arguments about the actual posts, which there are not.
You are characterizing the interaction of people in the thread, which is also not controversial, because no one is talking about that. Now you could say "This is the most controversial topic I have read [or seen] in a long time", which makes a whole lot more sense. "This is the most controversy filled thread I have read in a long time" also gets your point across.
Your original sentence can be considered OK, but one would have to know what you are talking about to read what you wrote correctly, and even then it takes a second.
It's clunky. I cant remember the exact rule but:
"This is the most controversial thread I have read in a long time."
"the most controversial" is a definite description.
"thread" for this purpose is a thing.
You are describing the actual thread as something controversial. The thread itself is not what you are talking about though. You are talking about the contents of it, which are also definite things. The opinions expressed in posts which make up the thread are argumentative but for them to be controversial there would have to be arguments about the actual posts, which there are not.
You are characterizing the interaction of people in the thread, which is also not controversial, because no one is talking about that. Now you could say "This is the most controversial topic I have read [or seen] in a long time", which makes a whole lot more sense. "This is the most controversy filled thread I have read in a long time" also gets your point across.
Your original sentence can be considered OK, but one would have to know what you are talking about to read what you wrote correctly, and even then it takes a second.
Does not compute.
Dood I U but holy fuck you're a nerd.
You tell her she shouldn't say it's a controversial thread, but then you suggest "controversy filled". Does not compute.
Yeah, the thread has controvery but the actual thread is not controversial. Subject object. . .
Yeah, the thread has controvery but the actual thread is not controversial. Subject object. . .
If a thread contains controversy, then you can say that it is controversial. Without replies and posts you wouldn't have a thread to begin with. Perpetuation. The sum of the parts equals the whole, etc. If a food has sugar in it, the food is sweet. Not just the sugar molecules within.
The thread isnt controversial though. It's explicitly neutral. If someone made another thread and then people argued about this thread it would be controversial. This isnt grammar, it's just style. I said that in my first post.
Then again, she shouldn't say the thread is controversy filled either.