Briles Sues Baylor

#27
#27
Dudleys87 said:
Winning and money are the only thing that matters to some if they thought he could win them a lot of games the offer would be there before the ink dries
Click to expand...

This suit forces "money" to be an insurmountable issue for whoever would think of hiring him. Suing his former employer and dragging them thru what could be a very ugly discovery process will disqualify him from ever getting another interview, let alone another job.
 
#29
#29
vollygirl said:
The original post said "if" he wasn't unhirable.
Click to expand...

The word "if" does not change the logic.

To say, "If Briles was not unhirable before, he sure is now." logically is saying, "If Briles was hirable before, he sure is now." (because of the double negative)

"It is not unlikely to snow." logically means, "It is likely to snow." etc, etc.

The original post should have said something like," If Briles was unhirable before, he sure is now. (meaning he sure is unhirable now.

Or, more clearly, "If Briles was not hirable before, he sure is not hirable now."
 
#31
#31
bamawriter said:
Holy crap what a fail. Try thinking a little before critiquing someone's grammar.
Click to expand...

I did try to think. Please refer to post #29.

If you really are a writer, then I guess I should yield to your expertise.
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
vol1981 said:
The word "if" does not change the logic.

To say, "If Briles was not unhirable before, he sure is now." logically is saying, "If Briles was hirable before, he sure is now." (because of the double negative)

"It is not unlikely to snow." logically means, "It is likely to snow." etc, etc.

The original post should have said something like," If Briles was unhirable before, he sure is now. (meaning he sure is unhirable now.

Or, more clearly, "If Briles was not hirable before, he sure is not hirable now."
Click to expand...

Subject-verb agreement is not as hard as you're making it seem.
 
#35
#35
vol1981 said:
I don't think so. Just ask someone who teaches grammar, then report back.
Click to expand...

Are you really arguing semantics on a college football message board? I think even you understood exactly what was meant by the OP, but for some unknown reason you're trying to prove some petty point. Am I in the ballpark?
 
#36
#36
bamawriter said:
Subject-verb agreement is not as hard as you're making it seem.
Click to expand...

Okay, (with egg all over my face) I see what you are saying. I was putting too much thought and emphasis on 'double negative.' It certainly took me long enough, and I'll say I've learned from it.

Please accept my apologies. I really wasn't trying to be a(n)__________.

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
solivols said:
Are you really arguing semantics on a college football message board? I think even you understood exactly what was meant by the OP, but for some unknown reason you're trying to prove some petty point. Am I in the ballpark?
Click to expand...

I've already apologized to the OP. Have a nice day.
 
#38
#38
vol1981 said:
Okay, (with egg all over my face) I see what you are saying. I was putting too much thought and emphasis on 'double negative.' It certainly took me long enough, and I'll say I've learned from it.

Please accept my apologies. I really wasn't trying to be a(n)__________.

:hi:
Click to expand...

All good. I'll probably actually make that mistake soon enough. Just wait a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
volly, does Freak need a Grammar Moderator? A Grammarator, so to speak? (Grammod??)

I'd be interested. :hi:
 
#42
#42
VolunteerHillbilly said:
There are a handful of places that would probably hire Briles today if they had an opening. Auburn comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Not now, no. Some "just want my team to win" segments of various fanbases might clamor for him, but there's little chance, as of currently, that an actual program (especially a major one) would make that move following this/at this moment.
 
#44
#44
vol1981 said:
The word "if" does not change the logic.

To say, "If Briles was not unhirable before, he sure is now." logically is saying, "If Briles was hirable before, he sure is now." (because of the double negative)

"It is not unlikely to snow." logically means, "It is likely to snow." etc, etc.

The original post should have said something like," If Briles was unhirable before, he sure is now. (meaning he sure is unhirable now.

Or, more clearly, "If Briles was not hirable before, he sure is not hirable now."
Click to expand...

On the other hand, you'd be incorrect, though, on another part of the grammar.

When using "if" in that way (or even "I wish"), the verb that follows is supposed to be in the subjunctive mood in cases like this ("were" not "was").

So one would say something like, "If it were to rain," "if I were taller," or "If Briles were..." and so on.

Think the Oscar Meyer song:

wienermobile2-747697.jpg





Ok, I'm done... no further discussions relating to grammar.
 
#45
#45
TrueOrange said:
Ok, I'm done... no further discussions relating to grammar.
Click to expand...

I believe that the qualifier "before" actually requires the use of "was" over "were", because the sentence is "speculative" as opposed to "hypothetical." But now you've got me questioning myself and I'm actually going to look it up when I get a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#47
#47
vol1981 said:
The original post said something like "......Briles wasn't unhirable....." That is a double negative.

Another double negative would be, "The man was not unhealthy." That means the man WAS healthy.

Another example, "The road was not unsafe." That means the road WAS safe.

So again, if Briles was not unhirable, then that means he WAS hirable.

simple English grammar

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I knew where you were going. Still managed to not care. It's fun to write how we talk. Mess autocorrect's azz! :)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top