10-29-2012, 09:00 PM
(10-29-2012, 08:07 PM)shoju Wrote: Uh... No. You are making English teachers cringe.
Jester is right on this one.
The context clues to deciphering the meaning would be in the final part.
"Because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers"
I mean. FiT, talks a pretty big game here on the lounge, but (no offense intended here), are you really going to assume that random guy A on the lurker lounge has enough sway somewhere that his accusation about two hollywood types is going to ruin their careers? That's like saying that you believe that I could somehow undermine the careers of members of the Republican Party for calling them closet Pedos....
To be fair though, I didn't have any problem parsing the sentence as is. I didn't even have to reread it to understand it.
Most English Teachers will tell you that if there is an inferred subject in writing, that you should revert back to the most recent subject in the writing. In this case, the Subject would be Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow, and if he were stating himself, he would need to re-declare himself.
Are you guys really still discussing this? Lol....wow.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)