No it isn't. You're just being snippy.
You'll forgive me if it seemed insincere after you insulted me, my field of study, and my profession.
But I'm glad to hear that this isn't really your life's work or anything like that. The way you appealed to your credentials as a way of ending the argument just made it look that way.
I think you misunderstand me. Grammar per se is not my life's work, but it is a part of it. I'm getting a degree in English language with a minor in editing.
Studying grammar is a part of that. And I only "appealed to my credentials" because it seemed like the only way to convince you that I know what I'm talking about.
All I'm really saying is that I can understand Brinestone's loss of faith in the ideal of a fixed and logically consistent grammer. Or rather, I'm saying that I laud it, really...anyway, just throwing in my vote on the side of those that don't want to be bothered with grammer.
Who said she ever had such a faith? I think you're reading too much into her first post. She was being a little dramatic and expressing frustration that she didn't know who the real authority was—or if there even was one.
And anyway, you're the only person here talking about a fixed and logically consistent grammar. You're arguing against something that doesn't exist and that no one else is even talking about.
Clearly, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument over whether or not the study of grammer actually has any value, but I really didn't know that anyone here was that invested in grammer for its own sake. I was just expressing the position I hold on the language, that English is not highly systematic and therefore it cannot be fully described by the rules of its grammer. And I really am sorry that it caused such a fuss, I just thought it would be best if I explained exactly what I was saying.
You're just further convincing me that you don't really understand what grammar is. English is highly systematic and can be described very well by grammatical rules (because language is so variable, no language can be fully described grammatically). English actually has a much simpler grammar than most other languages; it doesn't have cases, and except for the verb "to be," each verb has a maximum of eight forms. Compare that to any other European language, where each verb may have a few hundred forms.
Of course, since no one here seems capable of understanding English... 
I'm kidding, of course.
What I mean is that since nobody here seems willing to understand what I'm saying, and since Brinestone has appealled to be readmitted into the faith, I don't have anything more to say on the grand philosophical subject.
No, the issue is that you clearly don't know what you're talking about. You're using the term "grammar" in an inaccurate and imprecise way to try to support an untenable argument. And what's this about Brinestone appealing to be readmitted into the faith? I honestly have absolutly no idea what you're referring to here.
On lesser subjects, I still think that "more important" serves as a shorthand for "which is more important" or something similar. But that argument would go into a more etymological type area of tracing the history of a phrase's morphology and usage. On a similar note, I don't think that "feel" was a copula yet back when "I feel bad" came into currency. Or rather, you can use any verb as a copula, it just sounds wrong until people get used to the usage. But that's getting back to larger questions that we don't feel like discussing.
You're at least partially right about "more important." From one point of view, it's an ellipsis for "what is more important." From another point of view, though, it's merely a sentence adverb. Both of these views simply
describe the construction; that's what grammar does—it describes how native speakers of the language use the language. (By the way, "etymology" refers to the history of words, not phrases, and morphology is the study of word forms. I'm not sure what word you intended there; maybe "syntax.")
"Feel" as a copula has been around for at least 700 years, while as far as I can tell, the expression "feel bad" has only been around for 100 years or so (though it could be significantly older than that).
This argument is getting really old. You keep getting your facts and terms wrong, and you keep making strange and inaccurate assumptions about me and my wife. You're acting like you're some sort of crusader against a corrupt and oppressive regime, but it doesn't even exist.
