Sure you did. In Message #35 you wrote:
Albeit wrote: "No, a google search is not perfect, Lycen. Have you done the number crunching? Cut it in half, cut it down to a quarter. It still shows that there is no valid reason to exclude this collocation [a collection of words] in any register of English. If it's available to native speakers it's available to ESLs."
I offered it as a partial refutation, Kon. It showed that a greater favor for the more casual "... I replied". Obviously, it's not conclusive and I did mention that further look at some corpus studies might be helpful.
But you haven't explained why my analysis of the 3 times involved in the state of affairs and the statement is not valid in your view.
I'll look further at it.
Also, you seem to be tempted to make ad hominem attacks, by saying "whether or not you try to hide behind them, Kon." I'm not hiding in any way. I'm openly supporting my point.
There was not any personal attack, Kon. I said,
"These too many possibilities are available whether you seek to hide them from them or not, Kon."
I didn't say you were "hiding behind them". I said,
"These too many possibilities are available [to ESLs] whether you seek to hide them [these possibilities] from them [ESLs] or not, Kon.
I'm saying that all these possibilities, [the same number that are available to native speakers, no more no less] are there in the language. ESLs run into them all the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't bother to ask the questions they do.
You're missing it.
You and I, along with any native speakers, can change registers knowingly in different social situations. While speaking with less educated friends, I can tone down the grammar like Bill Clinton usually does; when speaking at an academic conference I can respect their norms of speech; when speaking to small children I can simplify my grammar and vocabulary.
I afraid to say, Kon, that you're the one who has missed it. Vocabulary aside, there's no need for anyone to tone anything down for any native speaker as regards grammar. Have you not seen the studies of William Labov who found that the greatest number of grammatical errors were found in the speech of those in academia.
Why should learners be prevented from attaining this ability, by not pointing out differences between the registers and their norms?
I'm not the one who wants them be prevented from attaining any ability. I'm the one who thinks that ESLs be exposed to all available structures and that they be given accurate information on how to use them.
I specifically stated that that was exactly what you should do, point out the differences between the registers and their norms. I just don't believe that you've made the case to absolutely prohibit the simple past use from even academic writing, let alone SWE/SFE.
You seem to be saying "if English allows something anywhere, in any situation, it is suitable everywhere." I suspect that most students are after a grasp that is a little less loose than yours.
A reading of my postings - and it would not even require a close reading - will show that's not at all what I believe or suggest.