Look sweetie, you want a perfect world of grammar. When you find it let me know and I will gladly kick you over to that world. It doesn't take grammar to help those who are smug enough to want a perfect world.

No need to tell you to get a life, because what you are exhibiting on this thread, only gives credence to you being a miserable SOB.

Hang on. Wait for it. Since the meany poster doesn't understand the subjunctive mood I bet she/he will come back saying that it is somehow repressive and possibly elitist to insist that it be used.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16:48 what do you want a "Stand your ground" episode? I said what I said and I meant what I meant. That's all, take it or leave it. If the norm was to leave ones name and address don't think that you're messing with punk-azz. I will step to you and you can bet your next suntan on that one, sweetie. You don't run nothing but your mouth.

I got your cowardice for you. If I was close to you, there would be no need to converse, chit-chat, shoot the breeze or talk. Keep it moving, you trollop.

If I WERE close to you, etc. Signed, the grammar police.

No, it's "was," singular subject. I was going to the store. We were going to the store. I was having a good time. We were having a good time. I was a student at Wilson in 1990. We were students at Wilson in 1990. Singular subject = singular verb. Plural subject must be matched with the plural form of the verb, aka, "were."

Sure, there are parts of DC and probably in some "failing DCPS" where it's common to say "We was going to the party." Still not correct.

Look, I'm being a prig. But you really asked for it.

Love, a 25-yr editor

Your employer must be proud that they hired a smug, uneducated editor who doesn't understand the subjunctive mood. If I were you, i would get off dcurbanmom and brush up on your grammar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16:48 what do you want a "Stand your ground" episode? I said what I said and I meant what I meant. That's all, take it or leave it. If the norm was to leave ones name and address don't think that you're messing with punk-azz. I will step to you and you can bet your next suntan on that one, sweetie. You don't run nothing but your mouth.

I got your cowardice for you. If I was close to you, there would be no need to converse, chit-chat, shoot the breeze or talk. Keep it moving, you trollop.

If I WERE close to you, etc. Signed, the grammar police.

No, it's "was," singular subject. I was going to the store. We were going to the store. I was having a good time. We were having a good time. I was a student at Wilson in 1990. We were students at Wilson in 1990. Singular subject = singular verb. Plural subject must be matched with the plural form of the verb, aka, "were."

Sure, there are parts of DC and probably in some "failing DCPS" where it's common to say "We was going to the party." Still not correct.

Look, I'm being a prig. But you really asked for it.

Love, a 25-yr editor

Anonymous wrote:16:48 what do you want a "Stand your ground" episode? I said what I said and I meant what I meant. That's all, take it or leave it. If the norm was to leave ones name and address don't think that you're messing with punk-azz. I will step to you and you can bet your next suntan on that one, sweetie. You don't run nothing but your mouth.

I got your cowardice for you. If I was close to you, there would be no need to converse, chit-chat, shoot the breeze or talk. Keep it moving, you trollop.

Hello Elliot-Hine crazy lady. I was wondering where you went. It's a much more interesting thread once your bipolar issues make their presence known.

Anonymous wrote:16:48 what do you want a "Stand your ground" episode? I said what I said and I meant what I meant. That's all, take it or leave it. If the norm was to leave ones name and address don't think that you're messing with punk-azz. I will step to you and you can bet your next suntan on that one, sweetie. You don't run nothing but your mouth.

I got your cowardice for you. If I was close to you, there would be no need to converse, chit-chat, shoot the breeze or talk. Keep it moving, you trollop.

If I WERE close to you, etc. Signed, the grammar police.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes two to conversate. But if you are feeling that your are looked upon as a fussy parent, then BINGO. There's a parent who's getting responses to their needs and wants, just observe and follow the lead of those parents.

Yes, there are no I in the word team but there's a "m" and "e", so you have to remember it just might be "me" who's not the team player.

I don't think DCPS is failing, I just find the opposite that there are those who are failing to realize it is not always about them personally.

PP: Conversate is not proper grammar. Converse would be the better (proper) choice.

I hate posters who correct grammar. Do you just sit there and edit blogs because you have nothing better to do with your life? Go find something else to do.

You couldn't possibly hate it more than I hate the use of the word CONVERSATE. ESPECIALLY when someone is being belligerent to a stranger and hiding the the cowardice of anonymity.

Ahem. Your post could use a little editing as well . . .

Anonymous wrote:Wait, you seriously think the reason DCPS schools are failing is because you can't get the teacher on the phone?

I doubt that my parents called school once during my entire public school education.

Step out of the helicopter.

Thanks for the laugh! Actually, there's a lot of truth in last line of your post.

16:48 what do you want a "Stand your ground" episode? I said what I said and I meant what I meant. That's all, take it or leave it. If the norm was to leave ones name and address don't think that you're messing with punk-azz. I will step to you and you can bet your next suntan on that one, sweetie. You don't run nothing but your mouth.

I got your cowardice for you. If I was close to you, there would be no need to converse, chit-chat, shoot the breeze or talk. Keep it moving, you trollop.

Bad parenting. BAD parenting. BAD PARENTING!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes two to conversate. But if you are feeling that your are looked upon as a fussy parent, then BINGO. There's a parent who's getting responses to their needs and wants, just observe and follow the lead of those parents.

Yes, there are no I in the word team but there's a "m" and "e", so you have to remember it just might be "me" who's not the team player.

I don't think DCPS is failing, I just find the opposite that there are those who are failing to realize it is not always about them personally.

PP: Conversate is not proper grammar. Converse would be the better (proper) choice.

I hate posters who correct grammar. Do you just sit there and edit blogs because you have nothing better to do with your life? Go find something else to do.

You couldn't possibly hate it more than I hate the use of the word CONVERSATE. ESPECIALLY when someone is being belligerent to a stranger and hiding the the cowardice of anonymity.

crappy pool of native students

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes two to conversate. But if you are feeling that your are looked upon as a fussy parent, then BINGO. There's a parent who's getting responses to their needs and wants, just observe and follow the lead of those parents.

Yes, there are no I in the word team but there's a "m" and "e", so you have to remember it just might be "me" who's not the team player.

I don't think DCPS is failing, I just find the opposite that there are those who are failing to realize it is not always about them personally.

PP: Conversate is not proper grammar. Converse would be the better (proper) choice.

I hate posters who correct grammar. Do you just sit there and edit blogs because you have nothing better to do with your life? Go find something else to do.

Anonymous wrote:It takes two to conversate. But if you are feeling that your are looked upon as a fussy parent, then BINGO. There's a parent who's getting responses to their needs and wants, just observe and follow the lead of those parents.

Yes, there are no I in the word team but there's a "m" and "e", so you have to remember it just might be "me" who's not the team player.

I don't think DCPS is failing, I just find the opposite that there are those who are failing to realize it is not always about them personally.

PP: Conversate is not proper grammar. Converse would be the better (proper) choice.

OP, I'm frankly surprised at the vitriol that's being sent your way on this thread. I, for one, totally understand where you're coming from. Furthermore, I think it's delusional of people to slam you pointing out the obvious. I guess everyone's seriously invested in their underperforming schools.

Unfortunately, I think the problems are systemic, so there isn't an easy fix. Charters and vouchers have forced DCPS to step up its game somewhat, at least in terms of "curb appeal" (i.e., superficially attractive to new outsiders). The follow-through largely isn't there however, which is why you still see such high abandonment of the system. Last year (not this present year) was the first uptick in DCPS registration in decades. Unfortunately, this year it dropped again. Apparently parents are willing to take advantage of PreK where it's available, but are still abandoning the system in the upper elementary grades.