Regardless, instead of saying, "No, I didn't mean "luck of the draw", I meant it as a sort of pun, in reference to [insert your choice of whatever you wanted to reference here]" You said "...just google it." Perhaps you missed this, but I was experiencing (am still experiencing, actually) what I, poor misguided Eastern European bear what went to school with a picture of fucking Lenin recognised as Unreasonable HostilityTM, which made me react in a less than hospitable way. There is an old Hungarian saying that goes: The way 'hello' is, the way 'welcome' is. So kill me.
You also said that, no native speaker commands the entire lexicon, you seemed to be claiming that you did.
Actually, I don't think that I was. But if I were, it was because of the horseshit, which is causing me issues with my nipples, and I apologize profusely.
However, there seems to be a problem with ALL of your sources. Every instance seems to be a pun. The Washington Post article, is referencing the voting in the "straw poll". The "Luck of the Straw Day" seems to be a localized event akin to a Bingo Night, in which people draw straws to win prizes, the onlyreference that I can find to it is in a possibly fictional short story. The internet game you reference, seems to involve blowing bubbles in a drink through a straw. This means that my thought that you misinterpreted a pun as a turn of phrase is apparently accurate.
Yep. You got me there hands down, guv. I did a quick, cursory search of the phrase, saw some reputable sites use it and decided if it was good enough for them it was good enough for me. So sorry, I made a mistake there. As I have written elsewhere, in my half-hearted estimate of where the phrase "luck of the straw" resided on the scale between the firm favourite "luck of the draw"' and nonsensities such as "duck of the crow", "muck of the plough" or even "Chuck offa blow", I made a terrible mistake, which makes me an aspie or something. I forget.
The problem with making that pun is that there is no context for it. Even if a native speaker made that very pun the way you did, they would no doubt have received the same treatment.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I find it quite disheartening that you seem to think that everyone is out to get you, regardless of consequence. That is simply not the case. Your problem is that you seem to not realize that you have seemingly intentionally rubbed people the wrong way. Most of us would love to see you turn it around and becoming an actual contributing member. But if you continue to dig in your heels and screech at people when you are confronted with a mistake, then no one is going to have a positive reaction.
Thank you for that piece of unsolicited advice, unlike most of its kind, it is actually rather thoughtful. But I disagree with your view of what is actually going on here.
Now, where did anyone at all make the claim that what you said was nonsensical and unintelligible? Nowhere. Sure, you received a light ribbing for screwing up a turn of phrase, but that's primarily because you are STILL insisting that you are somehow absolved of error, even after admitting that YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ the sources that you cited as point of fact in your defense of a non-phrase. Or did you read them and so poorly understand them that you didn't read them?
And in regards to you correcting Roger as a "friendly gesture", how is correcting your use of an idiom any different? The only reason you got so mocked in the first place is bcause you demonstrate more and more that you either don't understand the intent that he/we have, and you consistently misread it, or that, as others have suggested, you truly DON'T understand the nuances of English, let alone American English.
Let me give you a hint: Being overly formal in American English tends to get you dismissed out of hand. It is condescending, stilted, and frequently the product of SGitR or Dunning-Krueger mixed with a bit of over-education and too little intellect to use it. IF your goal is to merely sound like a jackass know-it-all, then by all means, obsess about grammar to perfection. If, however, you intend to actually communicate a point of some kind, as the letter in question surely did, then addressing the recipient as an intellectual equal, and in a manner befitting formal, but not overly so, communication.
Now, to address everything else you've said: You are most certainly a skitter. You demonstrate this every single time you post something. Let me elucidate the situation for you: 1. Your English is very good. It is not even close to the best I've heard from an ESL student. Drop the pretension. 2. There is no such thing as "tribal points" here. If you believe that, you are an insult to rocks (google it). 3. You have, more or less, worked your way through everyone's good graces at this point. 4. I bore you no ill will, and in fact, I still don't. You are, however, quickly becoming my next Disco Pickle. 5. Your apparent hard-on for Roger and Nigel, and your lack of actually addressing criticisms leveled against you 80% of the time, or writing them off as "tribalism" or as anything other than valid criticism from an outside observer, is no way to actually improve your reputation, nor your apparent lack of communication skills (Don't take that as saying you have none, I should hope you do possess more than you display, but you have, so far, failed to demonstrate all but the most rudimentary command of language and reading comprehension in any of your posts, and certainly no understanding at all of the people to whom you are speaking). 6. You really DO have an opportunity for all this to be forgotten, but given your track record for holding onto the past and er... doing exactly what you have in this thread, i doubt many of us still hold out such a hope.
Stand on your hind legs or fuck off.