Original post by Little Toy GunI didn't doubt what she claimed she was trying to say, you're the one who's somehow clinging on to a point that is both irrelevant and not a point of debate at any point, in a discussion you weren't even a part of.
And hypocrite? I'm sorry but didn't your kindergarten teacher tell you past events should be described using the past tense?
Not to mention you're equating a misunderstanding I didn't insist to be the truth (note how I discussed the merit of her claim right after she told me what she meant?), to her seeing "...promotional activities which might be broadly described as 'marketing' are carried across the University" or "marketing, in many forms, is carried out" and still had the confidence to say according to the universities, they weren't marketing. I mean, how could "marketing is carried out" be understood as "marketing is not carried out"?
Besides, what she was accusing me of doing was "purposefully" misinterpreting what she said, which as I'd explained, I did not do. I simply read her sentence, and thought she perhaps meant to have a "the" before "only". There was nothing to apologize for when it was 1. not intentional, and 2. I didn't insist that was what she meant, but moved on immediately to talk about why her claim was incorrect, providing solid evidence. The fact that the two of you somehow saw that as a point of discussion showed how thin-skinned she was, and how perhaps you're a dupe.
But you know what? If you care about it so much, let me teach you a thing or two:
"Not surprised given how much more universities are spending on marketing to students... read somewhere before that only three universities in the UK, Oxbridge and St Andrews, spend nothing at all on advertising to students."
Before that? Before what? The only thing mentioned was "how much more universities are spending on marketing to students". She intended "that" to mean "the increase of marketing spending", which meant she was talking about the past. You cannot, logically, say "A happened before B", but actually "A is still in the present".
Let me make it simpler for you:
"Nowadays, a lot of Chinese tourists are travelling to Russia because of their new visa policy...before that, St Petersburg didn't receive that many tourists."
So are you really trying to argue that changing "didn't" to "doesn't" is correct?
The past tense should've been used no matter what she intended to say, and the very clearly incorrect grammar threw me off and I misunderstood it, and I didn't even drill on it, and instantly talked about how she was wrong. That was my attack. Not the grammar - or I would've explained it to her like I'm doing to you now.
Still don't get it? Let me give you more examples:
"I have a cup of yogurt for breakfast now that I know cornflakes aren't that healthy...before that, I had cereal for breakfast."
"London now has millions of people due to its economy...before that, there were only like some hundreds of thousands."
"I spend tens of thousands every month now that I've got a job...before that, I spent very little."
"I use the past tense when I'm talking about past events after Little Toy Gun kindly taught me how to write grammatical sentence...before that, I used the present tense."
Understand this now? Or do you need me to explain to you what the word "before" means? You can always just go and buy a dictionary, you know. There are even free apps.