I asked a question with the intention of learning.  I could do no right in some eyes!  Miscommunication is a bugger. 

Was her question not, word-for-word, a perfect example of the second type of question you just mentioned?

Or were you saying that being ridiculed is less to do with asking a question than the manner in which you ask it?

I find that this website is a useful exercise that may help.  I just scanned through it.

Asking a question, no matter how much initiative you are attempting to show at improving the level of your grammar, apparently doesn't protect you from the wrath of those who know better than you do.  Bear that in mind.

The whole sentence can't be a misplaced modifier, surely?  The only thing in that sentence which I would have thought could be a misplaced modifier would be "in the first place" but as has been discussed ad infinitum, I'm no grammatical expert.  It strikes me that unless you know your stuff, you'd best leave this kind of thing to those who do.

This needn't degenerate into a torrent of insults and personal arguments.  I really couldn't care less about the execution of correction but this is becoming more about who is right and their authority in correcting me, even their motives behind correcting me, rather than just getting on with it.  This was never a personal issue between rohina and me.  My sentence was incorrect.  Simple as.

This is wrong.  This is why.  This is correct.  It's a simple protocol to follow. 

So, "That was my reason for asking" instead?  "This is why I asked"?  "It is because of this I asked"?  "I asked because of this?"

Am I any closer?

I see how ambiguous that was now, I understand the confusion.  I will paraphrase more clearly.

Perhaps because it is a phrase I'm so used to hearing on a daily basis, I'm not entirely sure how it is wrong.  I'm sure it will be pointed out to be in meticulous detail, however.

You weren't ignored - I acknowledged your response.  What further concession would you have liked?  I then simply corrected the misconception that I believed you to be incorrect in what you had said.  I agreed whole-heartedly.

As for why I was giving you my life story, no, there was no point to that.  I thought somebody in a parallel dimension cared.  I was talking at whoever would listen.

As for Math, DrNerd, don't even get me started.  We were left to teach ourselves the remaining two chapters of the book as we were seen as "capable".  The teacher focused her efforts on teaching algebra, simple x+y=z formulae, for the third or fourth time that year.

Au contraire.  What I am saying is, for somebody who obviously has a firm grasp on the technicalities of the English language and especially with regard to grammar, you would probably find it shocking that it's something we weren't even taught.  Pointing out, in rather a poor manner it seems, that less attention was paid to actually learning how to read and write English at my school than at yours.  It was barely even seen as important.

This being the reason for asking in the first place.  It's never too late to learn.

Indeed.  Funny you may think it but we were never taught any kind of grammatical terminology beyond what nouns, verbs and adjectives are.  We got a brief intro on adverbs and most everything else consisted of learning the difference between a metaphor and a simile, learning how to write short stories, persuasive texts or newspaper articles and snazzy but generally useless things such as alliteration and mnemonics.  Never mind sentence structure, tenses or even something as basic as being taught how to speak and write our country's predominant language.  No word of a lie, I still see people spell babies as baby's or more annoyingly, would have as would of.

I remember my A-level French class consisting of ream after ream of conjugated verbs, not only having to memorise them but having to know how to conjugate any verb we wanted.  Although I adore the English language, at times it can be a shame that it is not bound by so many rules and restrictions such as gender agreement.  Maybe if communication depended on it, more people would be encouraged to at least make the effort to learn it. 

Better to have questioned my own understanding of grammar before I questioned somebody else's.

I am sure it would be within my power to forward such matters to a person of higher authority but being as quality of education has never been a primary concern for that particular school, I doubt it would be well received.  There was more than one occasion where students had to correct teachers, not to mention that I'm hardly a favourite of the current headteacher.  (Apparently I am not within my rights to object to being placed in a GCSE English Language class barely weeks away from the exam to be taught how to use a full stop correctly in a sentence alongside lesser beings who needed this instruction.)

Also, I appreciate your clarification.  I'd mistaken the strikethrough for an exclamation mark and naïvely assumed that the apostrophe had been added.

Bugger, contraction, yes.  At least a conjunction is a grammatical element, to lessen the pwn of my epic fail.  Noted.

Indeed Roflganger, I knew only one answer could be the correct answer; it was knowing who to trust between an English teacher and a grammar Nazi that I was unsure of.  In this case, both parties were wrong since "the dog and it's bone" and "the dog and its' bone" are both incorrect.  I knew you would not fail me, MATY.  You did not disappoint.

However, it was this post of yours which stumped me.  Perhaps I misunderstood your intention - my brain has a habit of malfunctioning on me at times, resulting in mindfuck.

Being as I know I can rely on the highly-refined grammar knowledge presented in this here forum, I was hoping that somebody may be able to shed some light on correct apostrophe use before I slip up and make a royal tit of myself.  (Granted, it's possible that I have done so already unbeknownst to me.  I do try, but I'm equally as eager to learn.)

I was taught consistently throughout high school that "it's" is apostrophised only when used as a conjunction of the phrase "it is".  Similarly I was taught that possession is indicated by use of an apostrophe: the man's telephone, the animal's cage.  When "it" is used as a personal pronoun - "the dog and its bone" - I am completely lost.  It seems the ranks are divided completely evenly and only one can be correct.  Does its always take an apostrophe afterwards?  Its'?  I've not seen that before.  I was told that apostrophe use is determined by whether the subject is referred to in the sentence already but I'm no linguistic expert. 

Having seen people correct its as its' within the forum when various other websites contradict this usage, I'm now even more confused than I was previously.