Anyone with a simple way of getting "infer" and "imply" correct?
I don't have a tip, although the differences between both are quite subtle. Dictionary.com states as a usage note:
Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: [for example] 'The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government'. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean “to suggest” usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers.
There are some contexts where one word seems clearly correct and not interchangeable, for example:
As the board of directors studied the graph, they inferred that the new business plan was working successfully.
That man was not implying that we should rise up in a coup, despite his vitriolic tone against the government.
Actually your post bought to mind another factor of correct grammar, a grammatically correct sentence should contain both a subject and a verb.
And don't get me started on the habits of some who like to use extensive CAPITALISATION to emphasise their POINT.
I think the whole CAPITALISATION thing was more common about 20 years or more ago, when word processors were not very common, or at least the production of machined documents which either used typewriters and/or minimal formatting, limited to sometimes only underlining (and some of that underlining was hand drawn!). Without bolding or italics, this seemed like another way of getting the point across.
It also appeals to younger kids because they see the emphasis without trying to appreciate the subtler points of formatting. Frequent formatting of bolded words in a passage without explicit purpose also leads to an undesirable "chocolate chip effect" (italics is preferred in this case, but too much italics also looks odd). This is all likely changing now with our much more computer savvy younger generations.
People would still use all caps to make a point if formatting abilities are lacking, but it's used sparingly as we're taught that all caps means one is shouting, which is frowned upon. Partly thanks to IRC and Microsoft Word (I think), using asterisks (i.e. *....*) is another way to emphasise something subtly if no formatting is available. Even some style guides have advocated that all caps should not be used for headings, and instead if all caps is used, then to use small capital letters in place of lower case (most word processing programs can do this). Some of those guides even advocated that this should be extended to acronyms, e.g. instead of UNICEF, type U
NICEF, but I think this is unnecessary and going too far.