If I could be arsed, I could find lots of examples of good writing with sentences that have two ands in them. But for the time being, please consider this: some sentences and phrases are actually better constructed by using the word and twice, and sometimes the sentences have a comma before the second and, and some sentences positively demand a second and. Get it now? Five ands in a perfectly readable and understandable sentence, and another thing ... I could go on but I'm sure you're bored with this now. I know I am! The point is that there are no grammatical rules on how many ands one can use in a sentence. It's nearly always possible to accommodate them. And if you rack up too many you can always end the sentence and start the next one with a conjunction (usually and or but). The sort of style rule that deals with how many ands you can use in one sentence is usually put in place unilaterally by the owners or editors of publications depending on their own personal preferences. On the substantive issue under discussion, I wonder if the Fog Index was something that had disappeared into the mists of time before my schooldays. Like that U and non-U nonsense we were once taught.
No one can deal with this sort of situation. No amount of police or the army can make any difference to nutters who are prepared to commit murder and die in the attempt. This seems obvious to me. I used to work in an office in Henrietta Place just off Oxford St. Two guys could show up with guns in holdalls, whip them out, shoot the security guard (naturally unarmed), take the lift to whatever floor they choose and shoot dead any number of people. Having law enforcement people around might, might, prevent them leaving the building alive, but it wouldn't stop the murder. You can't have armed officers in front of every building and even if you did, any old passer by could walk up to them and shoot them dead before they had a chance to deal with the situation. The mobilisation looks good from a political perspective: something is being seen to be done. But you can't prevent terrorism of this nature that far down the road. You're only hope is to decode the plot before it happens. Cue more internet surveillance.
Thanks. But do you agree with my defence of multiple ands, and my use of commas before said conjunctions, and that I have insisted that one can begin a sentence with a conjunction. We need to know!
Where does it get us each time? It gets us further down the road of proving that Muslims are muzzling free speech. The response to the Rushdie fatwa was not strong enough, the response to the Danish cartoon event was not strong enough either. Suppose there are Muslims on this site (there may well be). Am I allowed to say that I think that their religion is a load of old toss, or might that offend them? I'm sure it would. But if I can say it, why can't I make a cartoon about it? Go along with your train of thought Ali, and you have just created a world where it is not permissible to make fun of religion. Next, you can't make fun of the Royal Family. Then, you won't be able to make fun of politicians. Before you know were you are, you won't be able to even criticise any of these things and you have lost your right to free speech. Some people are posting as if free speech is a sort of given, that everyone has it. They don't. Look back a few centuries and you'd have been burned at the stake for lampooning Christianity. Thankfully, we evolved and moved on. What has happened is that we have now accepted into the land people who are not up to speed. So what are you going to do, backtrack on the progress we have made and rewind a few centuries to their world view, or insist that those who want to live in an enlightened land develop a bit of enlightenment themselves? It's not much to ask, frankly.
I'm a big fan of multiple ands. And another thing [see what I did there?]: you should use the commas that you think aid understanding of your expression, which might, or might not, indicate pauses in your speech for the sake of effect, perhaps comic.
That's a clear and helpful way of putting it. Those muslim individuals who are prepared to subscribe to the enlightenment (only two centuries late, but never mind) are welcome in western societies. Those who are stuck in their islamic pre-enlightenment mindset and refuse to learn better are the problem. They have to be told they are the problem, especially if they are in denial. It is rather like the problem would be of having a segment of the population who cannot speak English, or who are illiterate, or who are alcoholics. A strategy needs to be developed for getting them to address their problem, and implemented nationally and internationally.
There is a reason why the Taliban and Boko Harram are anti education; it is to keep people in the dark ages.
If girls are denied education and boys education consists of learning to recite the Koran verbatim what future do they have in our world ? Pete is bang on in his last post.
Probably the same reason why the standard of UK education dropped so dramatically and so that the feudal system could be expanded.
Another great post. Thanks Glid. However, you are taking over this thread with too much reasoned argument. I may have too flog you to remind you not to try to usurp the power invested in a few psychopathic zealots and their clerics by their benign and loving god.
As a humanist, I am offended by your sarcasm. Can I please kill you, or at least flog you 1,000 times? We humanists are too polite for our own good sometimes!
Do I take it that you regard my request as legitimate and reasonable and not in any way harsh? I reckon around fifty MPs a week could be offed if sarcasm were a capital offence.
