Except, @goofy, in the example given, "me" is not an object of anything. "My writing" is the subject.

I was all set to say the same thing as mshades; they're more or less a series of stops along a line of judgment from more objective to more opinion-based/emotional.

I would except in the case of spoiled food, because, if you say "the milk is bad," you don't mean you don't like milk. but that's context-specific and idiomatic. You can just say "spoiled" and duck the issue.

Ah, so there is a reason it sounds wrong. Thanks Jayles.

oh, dear. The grammatical issue here MIGHT be splitting the infinitive "to proactively address" as "to boldly go (where no man has gone before)." Adverbs may go before or after, but if it were MY article, I would go with "to address the issues proactively" because "address proactively the issues," while technically correct, sounds like Yoda-speak to my ears.

Yeah, "I want it IN that way" would imply something other meaning, it's so alien to the American English idiom. (I refuse to speak for other English-speaking countries.)

Everyone's pretty much said it. In written stuff, it's redundant, somewhat informal, etc., and probably not recommended usage.

But in speech, it's ordinary, common idiom, nothing to worry about. Oddly, until now, I'd assumed it was Southern, cuz that's where I stay. :)

yeah, the first sentences are wrong. The verb "do" is generally used for command or emphasis. The "recommend" and "do" are redundant to each other so, leave out "do."

Also, I do not know what that sentence is doing @joham. It does not make any sense to have that do/should construction, which is also awkward.

It's simply unnecessary.

Oh, that's annoying. I assumed I could give you a reason I thought the former sentence was more correct than the latter, but I cannot seem to articulate it. Yet, I'm sure the former is more correct. If I come up with anything, I'll let you know. I agree with Jayles that if the time framing in the beginning of the sentence were NOT there, it would NOT be necessary to use past perfect.

I prefer the first one. It's the one I was taught, and the second one looks noisy and hard to read, to me. I agree that there may not be a hard-and-fast rule on this, however.

To lie only requires that the speaker not tell the truth. If the liar misleads, that involves what the person they are lying TO believes. They are only misled if they believe the lie. So, no, to lie does not NECESSARILY indicate misleading, but it indicates an intention to do so.

Was that pedantic enough for the forum? :)