None taken; though I have to wonder how not liking 'sneaked', 'pleaded', 'bleeded' in favor of functionally equivalent and equally correct words (snuck, pled, bled). English is a rather screwed-up language when it comes to consistency/regularity*; if you want consistency in a language then Japanese is much better (it only has two irregular verbs, IIRC).
* Noah Webster didn't go far enough in simplifying/standardizing spelling! [;)]
Dropped part of the sentence should end with: "makes someone uneducated" at the asterisk.
!1) For "sneak," the accepted past tense is "sneaked"; "snuck" is a dialect and vulgar, and is not generally accepted as standard American or British English.
(2) "to bleed" is an irregular infinitive with the past tense being "bled"; using "bleeded" for the past tense indicates limited formal schooling.
(3) For "plead," both the regular "pleaded" and the irregular "pled" are commonly acceptable forms of the past tense.
So "sneaked, "pleaded," "pled," and "bled"are correct and acceptable insttances of the past tense; "snuck" and "bleeded" are not--they are degrees of dialect that ignore common usage.
You might want to revise your last, incorrect response in view of the above, eh? And regarding Noah Webster and his work that is continually being revised for accuracy, is not my "Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged)" (1981) a good and sufficient authority upon which to rely for the above statements?