Snuck vs Sneaked (Page 7 of 8)

Your claim was that in referring to these what you describe as uncorroborated stories that "...  no such accusation ever came forward until three weeks before a Presidential election." My claim is that if you do a simple competent search, it will show clearly that there were numerous incidents prior to Trump's presidential candidacy, so therefore, the stories coming to light now are not the only ones and these current ones weren't recently fabricated because they were told to others long ago when the assaults happened. Now they may have been intimidated, traumatized, embarrassed, etc. at the time to stop them from going public, but that doesn't discredit them for coming forth now as concerned citizens and victims to dispute Trump's lies about it being merely locker room banter.

You saying Trump's defense is that he has done nothing wrong when he admits his sexual assault on tape is ludicrous. It's kind of like a kid - which his behavior and temperament resemble - saying they didn't eat the chocolate cake when it's smeared all over their face. Take care. Vern

Clearly he was speaking from the experience of women he had met, and there's a fair chance that they were in his orbit because of attraction to wealth and power.  He also has superb personal confidence and maybe some close-up charisma.  Yes, they are strengths/gifts that should not be abused.  Lead us not into temptation!

I would hope my wife/daughter/sister were self-aware enough to avoid fascination with wealth and power, and to control the messages they put out in response to it, just as I would hope my sons and brothers could avoid yielding to strong signals from women they didn't know, or didn't want to respond to.  But none of us has perfect self-control, and those who approach it may well be sociopaths.

I don't seek to whitewash Trump, but to understand.

The whole of Chesterton's collection The Secret of Father Brown is bracketed by a framing story, which can be summed up in a small part.

It's one thing to condemn what you would never do, and another to condemn what you know you could do, given the circumstances and capacities.  It's one thing to condemn when you can't imagine the temptation, and another to condemn when you do understand it.

But this misses a point that may be more important.  Patton got into trouble for slapping a traumatized soldier.  I suspect Montgomery would never have done such a thing.  But who would you rather have in charge of your armies?  Hint: Patton was the one Allied commander the German General Staff feared.

Loving the Banana metaphor/innuendo but didn't get the cheese thing?

You assume to know what my attempt was. As you assured me that you know the difference between your verb tenses, let me assure you, I know what a contraction is and how it is used. The use of “your” instead of “you’re” was a result of typing too fast and auto correct. It was a typo.
And my earlier post wasn’t about pointing out you don’t know your verb tenses. I’m sure you do. I was pointing out that your argument was flawed.
You say, in order to “actually hear someone say the word ‘snuck’, you’d need to ‘rent an American film like 'the Outlaw Josie Wales’. Then you go on to disrespect my state “Georgia” (the USA one) not being the (proper Georgia in Transcaucasia).

Then you came back and said you misremembered. Okay, then.
But then, you go on to say “Even Josie Wales don’t say ‘snuck’!!” There is an implied jab here. Maybe I'm too sensitive. Maybe it's because it is difficult to discern "tone" in a post; possibly as difficult as it is to recognize "intent."

All I did was point out, that in the example you provided, he was speaking in the present tense. You can’t speak to how he would use the past form of the verb "sneak", when all you had to go on was the present version. For all you know he may have used ‘snuck’ later in the movie.

Be that as it may, all your examples are to illustrate that those that use ‘snuck’ are backwards and illiterate.
You have a right to your opinion. I'm not saying you don't. But recognize, that it is only an opinion, with no more weight or truth than that of anyone else, and there is no reason to attack others on a personal level.

Right! How could I be so blind. Trump is the second coming and his loyal subjects perceive his perfectness and worship at his perfect feet. He can do no wrong. May he lift you up in his righteous arms and bestow all his glory upon you. Take care. Vern

I don't know if you'll understand this, but I never thought that the word 'snuck' is a present/current tense word, nor did I suggest that it was interchangeable with any of the words within my example of script from a movie.

I think that position was clear from the preceding conversation within the thread.

And yet you pop up to haughtily inform me that the word 'snuck' is not a present/current tense word and that it wasn't interchangeable with any of the words within my example.

It's like one of those 'Doh!' moments.

You mentioned what you believed were errors or faults within my post. I replied in kind, mentioning what I perceived to be errors within your reply. Like for like, tit for tat and in the self-same manner.

You mention the errors in my post and that's all well and good. Fine and dandy.

I mention the errors within your reply post and that wounds you. A personal attack?

In the eleven or so years that I've been on tNBW I've experienced it over an again. Writers criticise other authors writing but get very upset if their own work is critiqued in the self-same manner.

You express an 'opinion', freely given, but another's opinion in reply, in the same context is not, what? Not Permissible? There was nothing personal in my replies, I merely pointed at your mistakes as you thought you had mine.

Onto the ‘Snuck’ insult;

If I, here in Ukraine, ex-Pat of leafy South East England, feel that the word 'snuck' sounds like a dumb word within my vocabulary, then that's because it does. I'm sure there are very many common or garden British/English words and expressions that would feel very odd and alien if used within the context of you own vocabulary. Cachinnate; piquant, indubitably, atrocious... et al.

You might say ‘want’ where I'd say ‘yearn’ or you’d ‘hate’ where I'd ‘loathe.’ Who knows?

Some of those words, or words like them, if uncommon within your daily language, them might make you think of something or give you a feeling. Let’s say for example that to a farmhand called Jed down in Turkey Creek, Evangeline, Louisiana the word ‘snuck’ is totally normal but he feels the word ‘indubitably’ to be stupid, dumb or daft. He rejects the word because it is alien to his vocabulary and it reminds him of a Jane Austen novel he once read to impress a gal, but secretly found pretentious (as many Americans find some British/English words and phrases).  Like I said, no problems there, and as a Brit, I wouldn’t be offended. Why would I be offended? It is just the way it is.  Jed finds the word ‘indubitably’ pretentious and daft. I bet that you’d have no problem whatsoever with that either? But hold on a minute, there’s Lord Charles Forsyth in Aston Abbotts, Buckinghamshire who with his middle-English RP (Received Pronunciation) finds the word ‘snuck’ a bit dumb sounding. That’s insulting and offensive? Just because his great, great grandfather burnt down the Washington White house or is there some other deep rooted give but can't take reflex?

The Georgia quip, it was nested in there for my dearly beloved friend in Atlanta within the state of Georgia USA. The country Georgia in the Caucasus is far superior when it comes to decent Churchkhela  and Kharcho. As a nation it has been around since 4BC but they don’t have a Eugenie Victoria Bonnie Blue Butler. Anyway, it’s not your Georgia anymore. The Chinese own it.

…which is my way of saying that I think you are getting upset for the sake of it.

And that dearly beloved friend laughed when she saw it.

Notice that I wrote 'nested' in the quip explanation and not 'snuck'?

I only just noticed it myself within your quote of my line and it is a real-time example of where a 'snuck' just doesn't come natural to me or pop-up into my mind as a choice. It is what it is.

I'm not the one saying the female doesn't have the sense and ability to say no in the "Oval Office", you are. Therefore I would never forbid them. I trust my wife/daughter and others to be able to turn around and kick the sob in the balls or worse for inappropriate behavior, not succumb to the power play you imply they can't resist. I assure you my wife and/or daughter would/can defend themselves in such a situation. So back to the question: Do you not think those women who consented to the advances of BC had the same freedom of consent as you purport your wife/daughter/etc. might have? Your previous statement certainly implies otherwise. Please clarify. Take care. Vern

You have nothing to say about the several times I attacked your intelligence for no reason at all within my post? I only did that so I could tell you not to gong my bell when you protested. I had prepared a whole when in Rome argument, and everything. I was going to suggest that you admire my brilliant arguing tactics, which are only amplified by my personal attacks.

Those were gold mines, sir. You might have pointed them out as indicative of a weak argument.

I'll just delete the post. I thought it was obvious I was making up a pretend conversation, but I hadn't considered the way people skim within forums. I see your point, and apologize. I was serious on the points I made, but irreverent about my approach.

It's not that Trump has always been right; it's that his political opposition of any Party has always been wrong.

A couple neglects to latch the bedroom door before engaging in vertical exercise, and their child walks in and sees everything.

GOP/DEM/LIB/GREEN/VERN : What an abuse of children! Why, we would never!

Trump: It's embarrassing, and one is regretful; mind your own effing business!

"A COUNTRY WITH NO BORDERS ISN'T A COUNTRY." 

That alone, spoken by no politician in the U.S. for generations, deserves him the Presidency.

Did you mean your or you're? ;-)