Let me direct your attention to:
>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"
Where you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?". So...
> "Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense.
...still stands.
> why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing?
To illustrate what was actually being answered; do try to keep up. And, hey... Who introduced the mixed tenses?
> you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless.
Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?
> the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense
If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".
> I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin
Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.
> - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment.
Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.
> you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey'
Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... Ate the 'p' and of course never entered the 'l' in 'reply'. When will I learn not to post to HN on that fucking contraption?
> and 'wich',
My bad.
> plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,
Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!? Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.