Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..musorianin said..Mr Milk said..musorianin said..
A short course in Australian University funding:
Dawkins reforms c. late 1990s remove full subsidy for tertiary education. Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) introduced. existence in several decades.
Full disclosure: yes, I work in this sector. Equitable access to diverse and high quality (i.e. not cheap) education is fundamental to the health of our society. Thanks for your time.
You're out by 10 years. Dawkins was Hawke's minister. Reforms were 88/89. By the late 90s, Howard was in charge.
I assume you don't teach history/politics
You'll allow me a typo perhaps, that was done on my phone; correct, I meant to write "late 1980s." Mea culpa. Aside from the proof reading and cheap shot about what I may or may not teach, do you have a point of substance about what I wrote?
You wrote all that on your phone? Must have taken hours.
Still, it would be nice to have you marking my essays. "That piece of incorrect factual information isn't wrong, it's just a typo, so it needn't be corrected" would be how it goes. Everybody gets top marks.
Wrong. You would not have received "top marks." For a university essay, I would expect a standard of proof reading and fact checking significantly higher than I would for a post on a watersports forum. As you have shown some interest in assessing my post, I'll assess your reply to mine. What marks you would have got, would depend on the question. If the question was, for example, "Spot the basic errors of chronology in this post," you would have got a good grade. How good? I can't be sure, as I am happy to concede I may have got one or two other dates slightly wrong. If, on the other hand, the question was, "Read this post and write a considered response to the substantive claims of its author" you would not have got top marks; actually, you would have got zero. However, as I am sensing (based on your responses to me and your continuing discussion about pronoun declension with another poster) that you have a good (bordering on fanatical) appreciation for the importance of basic details (which, I do not disagree, are important) but have so far not demonstrated any capacity for higher-order thinking tasks, I'm going to cut you some slack and say "revise and resubmit."
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..Subsonic said..Mr Milk said..
The subsidy must be too small to ensure that local students get adequate education. Correct grammar in the previous post would be "...like you or me", not "you or I". To check, read the sentence without including "you". It sounds silly if it ends with I rather than me.
grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/when-to-use-i-or-me-in-a-sentence.html
English is a changing and adaptable language. Much of the grammar used today would've sounded strange a century ago, and very strange indeed around three centuries ago.
Perhaps "you and I" is more common, but there is nothing silly sounding about the term "you or I". It's quite a common term these days. Don't let that get in the way of your argument though.
The problem is not the distinction between and and or, it's the difference between I and me. Substituting I for me is associated with pretentious women trying to talk proper and getting it wrong.
The problem isn't whether it's grammatically correct (or which word is used), it's whether the reader can comprehend what is being said, and whether it is reasonable to consider variation in how a sentence is constructed, even if it isn't technically grammatically correct.
The days when our Universities were esteemed institutes of tertiary education have gone the way of the Dodo, and have been extinct for quite a while now. They are now big businesses, churning out any number of worthless degrees to anyone with the money, be it Government funded money or overseas money. Certainly there are degrees that are far from worthless and will always be in demand and will result in well paid employment for those that graduate. However there are thousands of 'niche', 'boutique' or 'Gucci' courses, that result in degrees that are practically worthless, how many jobs per annum do you think would be available to a graduate in "Music Industry Management" or a "Bachelor of Theatre"? Do a search for available University Degree Courses and you may be surprised at some of the rubbish on offer.
The Universities themselves have created this "Myth" that a "Degree" is a guarantee to success, it is a Myth because there are tens of thousands of 'Graduates' unemployed (even before Covid) or working in retail or hospitality.
"The problem isn't whether it's grammatically correct (or which word is used), it's whether the reader can comprehend what is being said,"
Sorry but when you are submitting written reports to senior management or the CEO of a company comprehension becomes secondary to proper spelling, grammar and composition. When submitting technical reports the reader may not have an understanding of the systems, but you can bet his or her technical advisors will and he/she would be loathe to forward a sub par document on to them.
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
Sorry but when you are submitting written reports to senior management or the CEO of a company comprehension becomes secondary to proper spelling, grammar and composition. When submitting technical reports the reader may not have an understanding of the systems, but you can bet his or her technical advisors will and he/she would be loathe to forward a sub par document on to them.
Might as well kick the can again. The word you want is loath.
grammarist.com/spelling/loath-loathe-loth/#:~:text=loth),adjective%20meaning%20unwilling%20or%20reluctant.
Hey Rupert
www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180723-the-commas-that-cost-companies-millions
The more recent one with the truck drivers in Portland is a great example of punctuation costing money 
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
"The problem isn't whether it's grammatically correct (or which word is used), it's whether the reader can comprehend what is being said,"
Sorry but when you are submitting written reports to senior management or the CEO of a company comprehension becomes secondary to proper spelling, grammar and composition. When submitting technical reports the reader may not have an understanding of the systems, but you can bet his or her technical advisors will and he/she would be loathe to forward a sub par document on to them.
With all due respect Rupes, we're talking about a seabreeze post that Mr Milk took issue with, and tried to play grammar nazi from a high horse. Not a CV that has been submitted to the CEO of BHP for the role of personal speech writer.
Well fan me with a feather?
I read the title of the thread and actually thought we were talking "University places". 
Silly me, besides this is Sea Breeze I didn't think it was mandatory to actually stay on topic 
. I will pay more attention in future, I will try to stay on topic (even if it has nothing to do with the title of the thread), I have also noted not to use "loathe" but will use "loath" if applicable. .
All Good. 
Take care.
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
Well fan me with a feather? I read the title of the thread and actually thought we were talking "University places". Silly me, besides this is Sea Breeze I didn't think it was mandatory to actually stay on topic . I will pay more attention in future, I will try to stay on topic (even if it has nothing to do with the title of the thread), I have also noted not to use "loathe" but will use "loath" if applicable. .
All Good. Take care.
Yep.
we should all probably stay on topic from here i reckon.
Select to expand quoteSubsonic said
Yep.
we should all probably stay on topic from here i reckon.
Watch out mate, I wouldn't go around here using a lower case i for your personal pronouns...
