<rubik's cubes> This is named after the inventor Erno Rubik. The “r” should always be upper case. (Rubik's cubes or Rubik's cube)

<vis-a-vis> This is improper. The “a” requires an accent mark. (vis-à-vis)

<clear cut> A hyphen is necessary between these two words. (clear-cut)

Secondly, as far as sandbagging goes, you are deliberately misrepresenting your chess ability in order to deceive others and therefore maximize your own personal gain. Even if there weren’t explicit rules against sandbagging, doesn’t common sense tell you it’s a dishonest practice?

However, people here have shown that there are explicit rules against it. Maybe that will make you reconsider your actions.

(This post assumes, of course, that <danielpi> is not lying about sandbagging just to say something objectively controversial in order to draw attention to himself.)

As for your "corrections", this is hardly original. Quite a few people have thought it would be clever to "turn the tables" on me, which I find to be quite an asinine gesture. Firstly, because my mistakes aren't remotely comparable to the illiterate babbling of certain others, I hardly find the analogy appropriate. Secondly, because this "turn the tables" nonsense tends to hinge on regional particulars (such as the previously discussed use of quotation marks), rather than correct grammar, you aren't really pointing out errors at all.

To reply, however, to your points (lest it seem that I'm avoiding your insipid observations):

1) If I were referring to Erno Rubik's cube (namely, a specific cube that he himself owned, or that he himself built with his own two hands), then I would be obligated to capitalize "Rubik's". However, once the object enters common language, we're not referring to it as "A cube possessed by Rubik". Similarly, we don't capitalize "platonic" when referring to platonic love, even though the term originates with Plato. A word's penetration into common language and its particular usage is often a tricky thing to gauge, and there are often discrepencies in our conventions. "Rube Goldberg" is another such instance, where it is unclear whether we are still talking about the cartoonist or using the term adjectivally when referring to, say, a "Rube Goldberg machine".

2) "Clear cut" is an acceptable, albeit less common, usage of "clear-cut". You may consult several dictionaries, as there is not always agreement. You will certainly find some that include "clear cut" as an acceptable alternative.

<2) "Clear cut" is an acceptable, albeit less common, usage of "clear-cut". You may consult several dictionaries, as there is not always agreement. You will certainly find some that include "clear cut" as an acceptable alternative.> Incessant misusage in informal writing is the reason most people neglect the hyphen. Provide me two reputable online dictionaries that define the phrase “clear cut” without a hyphen.

<3) "vis-a-vis" is clearly a typographical issue, since I don't have accents hotkeyed into my keyboard. At no point have I requested this degree of "correctness" from anyone, and it is obviously absurd and trivial.> Fair enough.

1) First of all, it's in possessive form, not "plural" form. Secondly, the adjectival use of "platonic" is not reason that it is written in lowercase. If you were to describe Plato's philosophy, you would refer to it as "Platonic philosophy". If you were to describe a platonic gesture, a platonic kiss, or platonic love- these would be lowercase, since this term is no longer referring to Plato. To receive a platonic kiss does not express that Plato kissed you. However, Platonic philosophy is the philosophy of Plato.

A rubik's cube is similarly becoming a word in the English language, rather than a proper name. You will very rarely see it written as "Rubik's cube," since you are referring in this case to a cube of the man, Erno Rubik. You *will* find many instances of "Rubik's Cube", which is the copyrighted name of a piece of merchandise (just as you would capitalize Monopoly, when indicating the proper name of the game (not the man)). If you are so adamant about finding links, don't ask me to fish through hundreds of advertisements for "Rubik's Cubes" on google; find it yourself.

2) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clear...

http://dictionary.reference.com/sea...

First two I checked- easily found. In the future, please look it up yourself. I feel somewhat obliged to respond to these petty little attacks, lest it seem like I'm admitting some sort of defeat. At the same time, I'm not going to continue to waste my time researching stuff for you. I come here to get away from schoolwork, not to find more research to do.

Anyhow, you seemed to be attempting to dodge the whole point of my reply- namely, that you're "turn the tables" trick is not even remotely similar to the grammar criticism that I've expressed, so the attempt at analogy or reversal or revenge or whatever is simply asinine.

German: German Pankov

French: French Defense (C00)

Russian: Russian team

Dutch: Dutch

Slovak: Jozef Slovak

Catalan: Catalan, Closed (E01)

2) Your second source is better, however it supports my stance, not your own. Definitions 1-2 apply to our case (your usage), and the correct form provided is "clear-cut." Definitions 3-5 are "clear cut" and "clearcut" and apply to a section of forest where all trees have been cut down for harvesting. I think we both know you weren't referring to a cleared area of land.

If you're going to do some research, at least support your own point and not mine.

Furthermore, if you’re going to be a grammar nazi with people whose 5th language is English, maybe you should learn these basic rules first (and also how to do research). I’ve seen you attack people whose 5th language is English for a misplaced or omitted comma and then proceed to say they deserve to be tortured and executed. So don’t trivialize my correction of your errors as asinine.

Now, back to Karpov...

Gelfand vs Karpov, 1995