Re: Educational Levels (Was: "Re: I know...wrong group...i thought it was HFX.FORSALE")
G. Wayne Hines
>
>"Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
>news:clu0fr$93i$1...@News.Dal.Ca...
>> *** Without writing skills, how can they express their opinions well?
>
> There seems to be a lot of opinions discussed here daily, some in great
>length. I'd say the problem doesn't need adjustment from my end... I
>comprehend most of what I read. This is a newsgroup, not a classroom, and
>although I consider myself well-educated, far be it from me to point out
>another's error on this group again. It's just not the place for it, IMO
>:-)
Au contraire, mon frere! (I've always wanted to say/write that.)
If people are going to try to express their opinions here, they should
have enough respect for the readers to at least try to use correct
grammar and spelling, etc. If their posts are riddled with errors,
they deserve to have someone point out those errors. We have no way to
know if the error maker actually knows that he/she has done something
wrong. I'm getting to the point that, when I come across messages full
of grammar and spelling errors, I often don't bother trying to
understand what the %#%$ the poster was trying to say. I just figure
the poster doesn't have anything meaningful to say.
gwh
Brian Smith
"G. Wayne Hines" <w.d.hines@n(o)s(pam).sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:68c8o0dviepkvaj4n...@4ax.com...
>
> If people are going to try to express their opinions here, they should
> have enough respect for the readers to at least try to use correct
> grammar and spelling, etc. If their posts are riddled with errors,
> they deserve to have someone point out those errors. We have no way to
> know if the error maker actually knows that he/she has done something
> wrong. I'm getting to the point that, when I come across messages full
> of grammar and spelling errors, I often don't bother trying to
> understand what the %#%$ the poster was trying to say. I just figure
> the poster doesn't have anything meaningful to say.
Well said!
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
Yes, and all one paragraph :)
Yet, trying to explain the importance of proper grammar in usenet
posting.
Tim
Sweet Repeats Consignment Clothing - 446-4222
251 Herring Cove Road
Landscaping/Snow Removal/Carpentry - 440-6162
Rick Walker
"www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments" <st...@sweetrepeats.com>
wrote in message news:h25bo0hk2apivgs6e...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:16:30 GMT, "Brian Smith"
> <Hal...@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
> >Well said!
> Yes, and all one paragraph :)
>
> Yet, trying to explain the importance of proper grammar in usenet
> posting.
>
> Tim
Read the post, figure out what you can, and respond if you feel
inclined. Why waste the time to educate the great unwashed? Seems somewhat
futile to me.
- Rick
G. Wayne Hines
In most cases, it probably is futile, but there may be some posters
who are not opposed to learning something.
gwh
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
It is not a matter of being futile ... It is a mater of how many
people will be insulted before you find one that appreciates the
correction and actually did not know the difference.
It is rude to assume, that in this land of smileys, abbreviation and
net slang that the poster does not know the difference, not to mention
that it is also a violation of the same net faqs that the main person
who runs around correcting grammar and spelling, swears by.
What I personally find most insulting is that most of the people that
agree with doing that or the actual people that do it, cannot be
bothered to watch their own grammar or spelling, yet they feel as
though everyone else should.
They are hypocrites in the exact meaning of the word and that is what
I find so insulting.
What other interpretation of that can be made other than pure
arrogance?
Be honest with yourself ... these guys can not be bothered to watch
their own grammar and spelling, constantly make mistakes and feel they
are suited to educate the internet?
If you do not honestly see anything wrong with that, then nothing I am
going to say is going to change that I will surrender.
Rick Walker
And there are others that oppose it. I welcome it. But when I feel the
need to use an "Enigma" simulator to read a post, the desire to teach leaves
me. :-)
- Rick
G. Wayne Hines
Consignments <st...@sweetrepeats.com> wrote:
>
>It is not a matter of being futile ... It is a mater of how many
>people will be insulted before you find one that appreciates the
>correction and actually did not know the difference.
Who cares?
>It is rude to assume, that in this land of smileys, abbreviation and
>net slang that the poster does not know the difference, not to mention
And it's not rude to post almost unintelligible garbage because the
poster couldn't be bothered to try to write properly? Based on things
I've seen in recent years, in the print media and in business
correspondence, I don't think it's rude to assume the poster does not
know the difference.
>that it is also a violation of the same net faqs that the main person
>who runs around correcting grammar and spelling, swears by.
?
>What I personally find most insulting is that most of the people that
>agree with doing that or the actual people that do it, cannot be
>bothered to watch their own grammar or spelling, yet they feel as
>though everyone else should.
>
>They are hypocrites in the exact meaning of the word and that is what
>I find so insulting.
>
>What other interpretation of that can be made other than pure
>arrogance?
It's tough to be perfect.
>Be honest with yourself ... these guys can not be bothered to watch
>their own grammar and spelling, constantly make mistakes and feel they
>are suited to educate the internet?
>
>If you do not honestly see anything wrong with that, then nothing I am
>going to say is going to change that I will surrender.
Surrender duly noted.
gwh
G. Wayne Hines
I don't blame you. There has to be something that makes sense to give
you a starting point.
gwh
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
<w.d.hines@n(o)s(pam).sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:22:22 GMT, www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing
>Consignments <st...@sweetrepeats.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It is not a matter of being futile ... It is a mater of how many
>>people will be insulted before you find one that appreciates the
>>correction and actually did not know the difference.
>
>Who cares?
The people that are insulted by it care! If you or the person running
around correcting posters does not care then that is further proof of
arrogance.
>
>>It is rude to assume, that in this land of smileys, abbreviation and
>>net slang that the poster does not know the difference, not to mention
>
>And it's not rude to post almost unintelligible garbage because the
>poster couldn't be bothered to try to write properly? Based on things
>I've seen in recent years, in the print media and in business
>correspondence, I don't think it's rude to assume the poster does not
>know the difference.
You are talking about extremely unreadable posts and that is not what
gets corrected. That gets laughed at a ridiculed.
It is the slight grammar errors that like a space before the period,
at the end of a sentence or one typo in a long post that is obviously
a finger slip, or even my use of "..." to brake up points that I am
making.
These corrections almost always only occur when someone disagrees with
something the person posting is saying and is clearly used as a dig at
the poster to question their intelligence.
95% of the time it is petty errors.
This is not a source of business communication or Print Media
Reporting, It is the Land of Smileys, abbreviation and net slang.
There is a huge difference.
>
>>that it is also a violation of the same net faqs that the main person
>>who runs around correcting grammar and spelling, swears by.
>
>?
>
>>What I personally find most insulting is that most of the people that
>>agree with doing that or the actual people that do it, cannot be
>>bothered to watch their own grammar or spelling, yet they feel as
>>though everyone else should.
>>
>>They are hypocrites in the exact meaning of the word and that is what
>>I find so insulting.
>>
>>What other interpretation of that can be made other than pure
>>arrogance?
>
>It's tough to be perfect.
I seem to miss your point there? If that is a dig at me ... I have
never claimed to be perfect and that is exactly my point. These
people correcting these small errors correcting them while painting a
picture of their perfection, yet then can not be bothered to form a
correct sentence them self.
>
>>Be honest with yourself ... these guys can not be bothered to watch
>>their own grammar and spelling, constantly make mistakes and feel they
>>are suited to educate the internet?
>>
>>If you do not honestly see anything wrong with that, then nothing I am
>>going to say is going to change that I will surrender.
>
>Surrender duly noted.
>
>gwh
Sweet Repeats Consignment Clothing - 446-4222
G. Wayne Hines
Consignments <st...@sweetrepeats.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 01:02:40 GMT, G. Wayne Hines
><w.d.hines@n(o)s(pam).sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:22:22 GMT, www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing
>>Consignments <st...@sweetrepeats.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It is rude to assume, that in this land of smileys, abbreviation and
>>>net slang that the poster does not know the difference, not to mention
>>
>>And it's not rude to post almost unintelligible garbage because the
>>poster couldn't be bothered to try to write properly? Based on things
>>I've seen in recent years, in the print media and in business
>>correspondence, I don't think it's rude to assume the poster does not
>>know the difference.
<snippity snip>
>This is not a source of business communication or Print Media
>Reporting, It is the Land of Smileys, abbreviation and net slang.
>
>There is a huge difference.
There is a difference in application, but that does not necessarily
mean there is no difference in the knowledge base.
I think you missed something. If you read any amount of business
correspondence, or articles in the print media, you should notice that
spelling and grammar mistakes are not confined to newsgroups. It's
very easy to draw a conclusion that the letter/report writers, and
newsgroup posters, don't know the difference.
gwh
Richard Bonner
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:32:54 +0000 (UTC), ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> ## ->> When you are replying to these posts, the last thing anyone wants is someone
> goofball that
> ## ->> only appears to be trying to make them self look smart at the expense of someone
> else,
> ## ->
> ## ->*** This is not about myself. In fact, I would be happy to eliminate my
> ## ->name from such posts. It's also not about being smart, but about
> ## ->standardised education and the ability to communicate well.
> Here is a good example, the word is standardized and not "standardised" as you typed. Yet
> you want to educate posters on grammar and spelling?
> Well educate yourself before you educate others.
*** I have. "Standardised" is a correct and acceptable Canadian
spelling. "Standardized" is an American spelling. That comes from people
not knowing how to pronounce the letter `s'. So we end up with ridiculous
pronunciations like "fizzion" for "fission" and "grizzly" for "grisly".
When someone says "grizzly", a bear comes to mind, not a grim situation.
> ## ->*** Then how does anyone ever get any correct information? Should we
> ## ->allow people to believe the North Pole is at Zero degrees latitude? Should
> ## ->people believe that the Moon doesn't orbit The Earth? etc.
> My god Richard ... Do you really believe what you are saying ?
*** Completely, and I am not the only one speaking of this.
Reports in the newspaper have brought this up and I have run into
educators and journalists that feel the same way. The examples I gave
above are actual examples as heard on television.
> This is not an educational forum ... it is basically an exchange of ideas and beliefs
> forum. If anyone uses this forum as a means of education, then they need a whole lot
> more education than they think.
*** I understand that. However, the problem lies in those reading that
believe what they read and then pass it on to others. A weekly look at
American television shows this in action.
> Just a bunch of people posting in haste at times not watching or give a crap about their
> typos ... why should they ? We know what they are saying.
*** Do we? Do others? Typos and misspellings are usually easy to figure
out. Wrong words are less so. I will get some examples together and post
them here later.
> Again ... this is the land of Smileys, Abbreviations and Net Slang.
*** Sure, but smileys, abbreviations and net slang do not excuse
outright illiteracy. Smileys, abbreviations and net slang are fine. It is
word definition and those that do not understand them where the real
problem lies.
> ## -> I do now agree, though, that a thread should not be taken off topic
> ## ->for a grammar correction.
> It is also a violation of net etiquette to correct a posters grammar or spelling.
*** It is, in that it takes a thread off topic. I see this now and have
been putting such comments into their own threads, as I have done here.
> As a person that prides himself in educating people about everything and including net
> etiquette, if you do not practice what you preach then you are just a hypocrite.
> Tim
*** Understood. However, I don't see how understanding the meaning of
the words I use makes me a hypocrite.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:18:02 GMT, in hfx.general you wrote:
> >"Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> >> *** Without writing skills, how can they express their opinions well?
> >
> > There seems to be a lot of opinions discussed here daily, some in great
> >length. I'd say the problem doesn't need adjustment from my end... I
> >comprehend most of what I read. This is a newsgroup, not a classroom, and
> >although I consider myself well-educated, far be it from me to point out
> >another's error on this group again. It's just not the place for it, IMO
> >:-)
> Au contraire, mon frere! (I've always wanted to say/write that.)
> If people are going to try to express their opinions here, they should
> have enough respect for the readers to at least try to use correct
> grammar and spelling, etc. If their posts are riddled with errors,
> they deserve to have someone point out those errors. We have no way to
> know if the error maker actually knows that he/she has done something
> wrong. I'm getting to the point that, when I come across messages full
> of grammar and spelling errors, I often don't bother trying to
> understand what the %#%$ the poster was trying to say. I just figure
> the poster doesn't have anything meaningful to say.
> gwh
*** Yup. Right or wrong, people judge others by how they speak and
write. Those doing so in a poor manner, are often thought to be less
intelligent, and their opinions are taken less seriously.
Can you imaging if the Prime Minister of Canada spoke as do some of the
illiterate posts in Usenet? How about a lawyer you have hired to try an
important case? Speech & writing *do* matter, and those not employing
good speech & writing in an informal situation are not going to suddenly
become literate in a formal or more important one.
Richard.
Richard Bonner
> Read the post, figure out what you can, and respond if you feel
> inclined. Why waste the time to educate the great unwashed? Seems somewhat
> futile to me.
> - Rick
*** OK, let's close the schools. We could save a lot of money that way
and give it to the uneducated stuck on welfare.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> net slang that the poster does not know the difference,
*** The word is not "rude". It is "logical". Why would anyone want to
dumb himself down and use a word of a different meaning than the one
intended? Why would someone purposely want to sound uneducated?
> not to mention
> that it is also a violation of the same net faqs that the main person
> who runs around correcting grammar and spelling, swears by.
*** I do approve of Usenetiguette, but with illiteracy becoming the
norm, one must question some of that. I do.
> What I personally find most insulting is that most of the people that
> agree with doing that or the actual people that do it, cannot be
> bothered to watch their own grammar or spelling, yet they feel as
> though everyone else should.
*** Not quite. We all can learn something. I make typing mistakes, some
spelling errors, but rarely grammar errors. My typing has been pointed out
to me and I have been working to improve that. My concern here is the
growing level of illiteracy in Canada and the fact that there are so many
against fixing it.
> They are hypocrites in the exact meaning of the word and that is what
> I find so insulting.
*** Not so. If I made errors and said I did not want to fix them, then
yes, that would be hypocritical.
> What other interpretation of that can be made other than pure
> arrogance?
*** it is arrogant of those to want to keep others from learning. Why is
that? Are they afraid that others will learn and leave them behind?
Why are so many against education, or at least apathetic to it, in the
21st century?
> Be honest with yourself ... these guys can not be bothered to watch
> their own grammar and spelling, constantly make mistakes and feel they
> are suited to educate the internet?
> Tim
*** Correct corrections are still correct. We are all strong in some
aspect of learning. Let us pass on what we know.
Richard
Rick Walker
What a stupid remark. This isn't a classroom, Richard!
- Rick
Schooner
logic. Great how his mind thinks, if he doesn't correct even forum post we
may as well not have schools. I didn't realize education had to be all or
nothing. See he is teaching us new things again. Man he is a great mind.
Heck since not everyone has a car why not dig up the roads. If not everyone
gets sick why not close the hospitals?
He seems to confuse this forum with a classroom all the time. In Bonner
land you would have a nit picker following you 24/7 correcting everything
you said or wrote. Be nice if he gave it a rest eh?
"Rick Walker" <R...@WR.com> wrote in message
news:hlShd.170356$Np3.6...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Rick Walker
> G. Wayne Hines wrote:
> > Au contraire, mon frere! (I've always wanted to say/write that.)
>
> > If people are going to try to express their opinions here, they should
> > have enough respect for the readers to at least try to use correct
> > grammar and spelling, etc. If their posts are riddled with errors,
> > they deserve to have someone point out those errors. We have no way to
> > know if the error maker actually knows that he/she has done something
> > wrong. I'm getting to the point that, when I come across messages full
> > of grammar and spelling errors, I often don't bother trying to
> > understand what the %#%$ the poster was trying to say. I just figure
> > the poster doesn't have anything meaningful to say.
>
> > gwh
> *** Yup. Right or wrong, people judge others by how they speak and
> write. Those doing so in a poor manner, are often thought to be less
> intelligent, and their opinions are taken less seriously.
"Yup"? Well, hee-haw, Richard! You from the Old West? No, you'll
say... It's a common expression. I judge people on merit, especially in an
open forum. Typos and spelling errors are prevalent here because of the
time people have to spend, fat fingers and keyboard malfunctions.
> Can you imaging if the Prime Minister of Canada spoke as do some of the
> illiterate posts in Usenet? How about a lawyer you have hired to try an
> important case? Speech & writing *do* matter, and those not employing
> good speech & writing in an informal situation are not going to suddenly
> become literate in a formal or more important one.
I lived through Cretien's reign as Prime minister, and it didn't hurt my
French one bit! As for my lawyer, I pay him to understand me, and convey
that message to others. If he doesn't speak the King's English, would you
hire him?
- Rick
Rick Walker
"Schooner" <scho...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:DrShd.85005$9b.69692@edtnps84...
> No surprise coming from Bonner, but part of his typical slippery slope
> logic. Great how his mind thinks, if he doesn't correct even forum post
we
> may as well not have schools. I didn't realize education had to be all or
> nothing. See he is teaching us new things again. Man he is a great mind.
> Heck since not everyone has a car why not dig up the roads. If not
everyone
> gets sick why not close the hospitals?
>
> He seems to confuse this forum with a classroom all the time. In Bonner
> land you would have a nit picker following you 24/7 correcting everything
> you said or wrote. Be nice if he gave it a rest eh?
To pick apart other's mistakes is just plain rude, unless done in a
classroom by someone appointed to the position of "teacher". On this group,
many have excellent grammar, and many don't. That's just the way it is.
Pick a scab, and it bleeds. For this is merely a newsgroup, a place for
opinions.
- Rick
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
Bonner) wrote:
>www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments wrote:
>> It is rude to assume, that in this land of smileys, abbreviation and
>> net slang that the poster does not know the difference,
>
>*** The word is not "rude". It is "logical". Why would anyone want to
>dumb himself down and use a word of a different meaning than the one
>intended? Why would someone purposely want to sound uneducated?
>
That is a matter of opinion and not a correction. I think it is flat
out rude.
Do you honestly think that you have superior intelligence to everyone
in this group? You must because everyone in this group makes errors.
Show me one person who thinks that they do not and I will show you
another person that thinks they are better then they really are.
>
>> not to mention
>> that it is also a violation of the same net faqs that the main person
>> who runs around correcting grammar and spelling, swears by.
>
>*** I do approve of Usenetiguette, but with illiteracy becoming the
>norm, one must question some of that. I do.
Then you are a hypocrite! Please do not even try to claim that you
are not.
So you just pick and choose what parts of Netiquette as a matter of
convenience to you?
Ummm ... Here is a yet another example for you: Can you spell
Etiquette? Last time I checked it was spelled with a "q" and not a
"g".
Richard, You think you are a genius, but you make more spelling and
grammar mistakes then most people here.
Sober up bud ... you are no one who should be correcting the grammar
or spelling of anyone.
Do you sit there and run every post through MS Word to find errors?
>
>
>> What I personally find most insulting is that most of the people that
>> agree with doing that or the actual people that do it, cannot be
>> bothered to watch their own grammar or spelling, yet they feel as
>> though everyone else should.
>
>*** Not quite. We all can learn something. I make typing mistakes, some
>spelling errors, but rarely grammar errors. My typing has been pointed out
>to me and I have been working to improve that. My concern here is the
>growing level of illiteracy in Canada and the fact that there are so many
>against fixing it.
>
Bull crap! You make more errors than most people and 90% of the time,
you only correct the grammar or spelling of those who oppose you on a
topic.
Check your posting history ... I did!
You have no other motivation than to bring the intelligence of those
who oppose you into question.
>
>> They are hypocrites in the exact meaning of the word and that is what
>> I find so insulting.
>
>*** Not so. If I made errors and said I did not want to fix them, then
>yes, that would be hypocritical.
>
Hahahahah ... So you not only can not spell, you also have no
understanding of the definitions of the words too ?
>
>> What other interpretation of that can be made other than pure
>> arrogance?
>
>*** it is arrogant of those to want to keep others from learning. Why is
>that? Are they afraid that others will learn and leave them behind?
>Why are so many against education, or at least apathetic to it, in the
>21st century?
Give up the Bull crap. You are not trying to teach anyone, anything!
>
>> Be honest with yourself ... these guys can not be bothered to watch
>> their own grammar and spelling, constantly make mistakes and feel they
>> are suited to educate the internet?
>
>> Tim
>
>*** Correct corrections are still correct. We are all strong in some
>aspect of learning. Let us pass on what we know.
That is laughable!
>
>Richard
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
Are you on Welfare Richard ? You can not spell or form a complete
sentence most of the time.
>Richard
demibee
<ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>*** Sure, but smileys, abbreviations and net slang do not excuse
>outright illiteracy. Smileys, abbreviations and net slang are fine. It is
>word definition and those that do not understand them where the real
>problem lies.
But how do you distinguish between those using net colloquialisms and
those who Really don't know the difference? E.g., if you read this...
"its ok cuz i dont plan to vote anyway..."
Does the poster know that "its" should be "it's"?
Does he know that "cuz" really means "because" or "'cause"?
Is he unaware that "dont" normally contains an apostrophe or is he
just being quick and casual with his typing -- no apostrophes, no
caps, etc.?
I'm all for good grammar & spelling, and I shudder when I see some of
the stuff that ends up in these groups -- mistakes that are
unintentional and, therefore, a result of ignorance. But if those
receiving advice regarding their spelling & grammar see that advice as
a display of arrogance or as a dig -- which they tend to -- they won't
be receptive to it. And if they're not receptive, I'm not sure
anything has been accomplished because they've discarded all that's
been pointed out to them.
db
Richard Bonner
> gwh
*** I agree. In fact, the point that the news media is now allowing
such articles to get past its editors illustrates the point being made by
educators in this country that educational levels are indeed spiraling
downward. It's pretty bad when print, radio, and TV reporters can't get
simple grade-school grammar correct. )-:
Richard
Richard Bonner
> "Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> What a stupid remark.
*** I was being sarcastic.
> This isn't a classroom, Richard!
> - Rick
*** Ahh, but it is. Now, it's not by intention, of course, but people
tend to speak and write they way they see others do, and if they see
poorly-written stuff, they emulate it.
This problem, as reported in newspapers and on television, has
now reached the very text books used to teach students. It's a sad affair
when the teachers themselves and the texts they use are wrong.
This is not just limited to the subject of English. Some time ago, I
had a local museum pull a booklet off its shelves because the colour
theory in it was an outdated one from the 1940s! It's sad when old,
discredited science theories show up in 21st century books. )-:
Richard
Richard Bonner
> No surprise coming from Bonner, but part of his typical slippery slope
> logic. Great how his mind thinks, if he doesn't correct even forum post we
> may as well not have schools.
*** I was being sarcastic.
> I didn't realize education had to be all or nothing.
*** It doesn't.
> See he is teaching us new things again. Man he is a great mind.
*** Thanks.
> Heck since not everyone has a car why not dig up the roads.
*** They are needed for those that do have vehicles.
> If not everyone gets sick why not close the hospitals?
*** They are needed for those that do become ill.
> He seems to confuse this forum with a classroom all the time.
*** No, but that does not mean that readers here don't get educated in a
variety of subjects every day.
> In Bonner
> land you would have a nit picker following you 24/7 correcting everything
> you said or wrote.
*** No, but what would be nice is if everyone would actually use the
education they were given in school.
> Be nice if he gave it a rest eh?
*** OK, I will.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> "Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> > G. Wayne Hines wrote:
> > > Au contraire, mon frere! (I've always wanted to say/write that.)
> >
> > > If people are going to try to express their opinions here, they should
> > > have enough respect for the readers to at least try to use correct
> > > grammar and spelling, etc. If their posts are riddled with errors,
> > > they deserve to have someone point out those errors. We have no way to
> > > know if the error maker actually knows that he/she has done something
> > > wrong. I'm getting to the point that, when I come across messages full
> > > of grammar and spelling errors, I often don't bother trying to
> > > understand what the %#%$ the poster was trying to say. I just figure
> > > the poster doesn't have anything meaningful to say.
> >
> > > gwh
> > *** Yup. Right or wrong, people judge others by how they speak and
> > write. Those doing so in a poor manner, are often thought to be less
> > intelligent, and their opinions are taken less seriously.
> "Yup"? Well, hee-haw, Richard! You from the Old West? No, you'll
> say... It's a common expression.
*** It is.
> I judge people on merit, especially in an
> open forum. Typos and spelling errors are prevalent here because of the
> time people have to spend, fat fingers and keyboard malfunctions.
*** I agree and I am not commenting against those. My comments are
directed at those words which have the wrong meaning for the situation.
People often don't know the meanings of the words they write.
> > Can you imaging if the Prime Minister of Canada spoke as do some of the
> > illiterate posts in Usenet? How about a lawyer you have hired to try an
> > important case? Speech & writing *do* matter, and those not employing
> > good speech & writing in an informal situation are not going to suddenly
> > become literate in a formal or more important one.
> I lived through Cretien's reign as Prime minister, and it didn't hurt my
> French one bit!
*** He had an accent, but he did not mangle the language itself. He
knew the meaning of the words he spoke.
> As for my lawyer, I pay him to understand me, and convey
> that message to others. If he doesn't speak the King's English, would you
> hire him?
> - Rick
*** He need not speak the King's English, but he better well be
literate. Otherwise how can he convey the message to others? Also, if he
can't learn simple grade school English, I would question his ability
to master much tougher legal concepts. This same idea came up when that
guy posted an illiterate advertisement for his electronics repair
business. That guy got a lot of flak, and deservedly so.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:49:36 +0000 (UTC), ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard
> Bonner) wrote:
> www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments wrote:
> Do you honestly think that you have superior intelligence to everyone
> in this group?
*** No.
> You must because everyone in this group makes errors.
*** Including myself. Again, I am not commenting on those. It is the
usage of wrong words, or the mixing of plural & singular verbs and
nouns, or misunderstanding the difference between adverbs and
adjectives. These make the meaning of one's words less precise, if not
uncertain.
> >> not to mention
> >> that it is also a violation of the same net faqs that the main person
> >> who runs around correcting grammar and spelling, swears by.
> >
> >*** I do approve of Usenetiguette, but with illiteracy becoming the
> >norm, one must question some of that. I do.
> Then you are a hypocrite! Please do not even try to claim that you
> are not.
*** How so? How does wanting to educate make one hypocritical?
> So you just pick and choose what parts of Netiquette as a matter of
> convenience to you?
*** Not at all. I am courteous and simply am pointing out that what is
typed is not necessarily what was meant. I don't see how wanting
people to post in a clear manner violates Usenetiquette. I do now agree,
though, that such things can take a thread off topic.
> Ummm ... Here is a yet another example for you: Can you spell
> Etiquette? Last time I checked it was spelled with a "q" and not a
> "g".
*** If I spelled it that way, then I apologise and will pay attention to
that word in the future.
> Richard, You think you are a genius,
*** No, I do not.
> but you make more spelling and
> grammar mistakes then most people here.
*** I disagree. My grammar is fine and spelling nearly so. My mistakes
are mainly typing ones.
> Sober up bud ... you are no one who should be correcting the grammar
> or spelling of anyone.
*** One need not be a professor to know that "garnished wages" or
"excepted to college" say something different from what was probably
intended.
> Do you sit there and run every post through MS Word to find errors?
*** It's unnecessary. Wrong words are easy to spot without the aid of a
computer program.
> >*** We all can learn something. I make typing mistakes, some
> >spelling errors, but rarely grammar errors. My typing has been pointed out
> >to me and I have been working to improve that. My concern here is the
> >growing level of illiteracy in Canada and the fact that there are so many
> >against fixing it.
> Bull crap! You make more errors than most people and 90% of the time,
> you only correct the grammar or spelling of those who oppose you on a
> topic.
> Check your posting history ... I did!
*** Can you cite some examples?
> You have no other motivation than to bring the intelligence of those
> who oppose you into question.
*** I disagree. Your interpretation of my motives is incorrect.
> >> They are hypocrites in the exact meaning of the word and that is what
> >> I find so insulting.
> >
> >*** Not so. If I made errors and said I did not want to fix them, then
> >yes, that would be hypocritical.
> Hahahahah ... So you not only can not spell, you also have no
> understanding of the definitions of the words too ?
*** How so?
> >> Be honest with yourself ... these guys can not be bothered to watch
> >> their own grammar and spelling, constantly make mistakes and feel they
> >> are suited to educate the internet?
> >
> >> Tim
> >
> >*** Correct corrections are still correct. We are all strong in some
> >aspect of learning. Let us pass on what we know.
> That is laughable!
*** Why are you so against education? Why is education amusing to you?
Are all those giving similar comments on this subject on television and
in the newspapers also laughable?
Richard
Rick Walker
> *** I agree. In fact, the point that the news media is now allowing
> such articles to get past its editors illustrates the point being made by
> educators in this country that educational levels are indeed spiraling
> downward. It's pretty bad when print, radio, and TV reporters can't get
> simple grade-school grammar correct. )-:
>
> Richard
I was watching some of Peter Mansbridge's (sp?) coverage during the
American Election, when he plainly said "We got to take a break..."
And Peter's not lacking any education or experience in the world of
words.
- Rick
firecat
does that make him right?
--
Date: Tuesday, February(II) 11th(XI),2004(MMIV)
*******************************************
Countdown till New Years
8wks 2dys 34mins 16secs
*******************************************
If it was easy, the hardware people
would take care of it.
*******************************************
Rick Walker
> > > *** Yup. Right or wrong, people judge others by how they speak and
> > > write. Those doing so in a poor manner, are often thought to be less
> > > intelligent, and their opinions are taken less seriously.
> > "Yup"? Well, hee-haw, Richard! You from the Old West? No, you'll
> > say... It's a common expression.
>
> *** It is.
Ding! You're correct, Richard! Next category...
> > I lived through Cretien's reign as Prime minister, and it didn't
hurt my
> > French one bit!
> *** He had an accent, but he did not mangle the language itself. He
> knew the meaning of the words he spoke.
I'm glad to hear that, because I'm Damn sure I missed a few. Hope
nobody important did :-)
> > As for my lawyer, I pay him to understand me, and convey
> > that message to others. If he doesn't speak the King's English, would
you
> > hire him?
> *** He need not speak the King's English, but he better well be
> literate.
That was my point.
- Rick
Rick Walker
"firecat" <m...@mine.com> wrote in message
news:Bxtid.93638$9b.47489@edtnps84...
> Rick Walker wrote:
> > "Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
> > news:cmde1g$gv8$1...@News.Dal.Ca...
> >
> >
> >>*** I agree. In fact, the point that the news media is now allowing
> >>such articles to get past its editors illustrates the point being made
by
> >>educators in this country that educational levels are indeed spiraling
> >>downward. It's pretty bad when print, radio, and TV reporters can't get
> >>simple grade-school grammar correct. )-:
> >>
> >>Richard
> > I was watching some of Peter Mansbridge's (sp?) coverage during the
> > American Election, when he plainly said "We got to take a break..."
> >
> > And Peter's not lacking any education or experience in the world of
> > words.
> does that make him right?
Not at all, fc. But it does show a "trickle-up" effect happening...
That's my point.
- Rick
firecat
if i've been following this particular part of this thread correctly,
that's Richard's point as well.. but hey.. i could be wrong..it's
happened before.. :)
Cal
> Not at all, fc. But it does show a "trickle-up" effect
> happening...
> That's my point.
>
> - Rick
>
As an aside, I remember the newscasters in Calgary always used 'good'
instead of 'well', i.e. "The boy did good on his final exams." Used to make
me cringe to hear it from a group of people who are supposed to speak well.
But then again, at least it's better than hearing: "The boy done good on
his final exams."
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
these threads get to me and it is wrong of me to allow that to happen.
Just look through the group and find where you have corrected grammar
or spelling.
You will find that almost every instance is when someone disagrees
with you on a topic and your rebuttal includes a correction.
As for being a hypocrite ... To expect someone to do something that
you do not do because you feel it is wrong for them to do it is indeed
being a hypocrite.
There is no better definition.
Again Richard ... look at your own history.
If any person such as yourself felt that they should come in here and
pick apart the grammar and spelling errors made by posters, you may
not be on the top of the list but you would not be that far from it.
You should honestly work on your own comprehension of the English
language before you run around correcting other people ... or perhaps
show the same concern with your own posts that you seem to have with
other peoples.
I do not know which it is, nor do I care. But it is that which makes
your correcting grammar and spelling so insulting.
You must be able to understand that in the same posts that you make to
correct the grammar of another, you make many errors yourself and that
is not only laughable ... it is pathetic.
Even when you try to maintain correct grammar and spelling in these
threads, your posts are riddled with errors.
Do as I say ... not as I do? Think about it!
Tim
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:09:53 +0000 (UTC), ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard
demibee
Bonner) wrote:
>*** One need not be a professor to know that "garnished wages" or
The dictionaries I've checked say that "garnished wages" is fine.
Webster's, for example, says "Law - to bring garnishment proceedings
against; garnishee." Dictionary.com says the same. What's the error?
db
demibee
Consignments <st...@sweetrepeats.com> wrote:
>Even when you try to maintain correct grammar and spelling in these
>threads, your posts are riddled with errors.
They're not riddled with grammatical errors. There are spelling
mistakes that are obviously typos (e.g., "text boos"), but Richard's
grammar seems fine to me.
db
Schooner
other not grammatical excuses.
Lord forbid anyone else make an error, those are most certainly not typos as
only Bonner makes typos.
It is funny to watch him preach his BS while all the while being a poor
example of what he preaches.
"Bonner is a higher being than us mere mortals. We are not to question what
he does only live by his word." Books of Newsgroups 11:4
"demibee" <dem...@post.com> wrote in message
news:6mglo0hqg09sbfgej...@4ax.com...
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
Then you need to go back through his posts.
Not trying to be rude here ... I am stating facts.
If you do not see grammar errors, then I must have went to a school on
another planet.
Tim
Jim
>
> Not trying to be rude here ... I am stating facts.
>
> If you do not see grammar errors, then I must have went to a school on
> another planet.
>
> Tim
Richard keeps asking you for examples yet I see all you can offer is
advice for others to read his posts. I would like to see your point but
help us out here, give us a few examples of Richard's poor grammar.
Rick Walker
> if i've been following this particular part of this thread correctly,
> that's Richard's point as well.. but hey.. i could be wrong..it's
> happened before.. :)
No, you're right, fc. Richard is correct in saying that even the media
does it, and I was only agreeing with him. But it's sad, just the same.
However, I understood what he meant, and even if it is incorrect grammar,
which really bothers me on newscasts, I accept it knowing it's wrong. Just
because I picked it up doesn't mean I'll complain to the CBC about
"illiterate broadcasters"; I adapt to change, and accept things at face
value. Even if I don't like it.
- Rick
Bob Ashley
In lingustic science, there is no such thing as an 'incorrect' grammar.
That's a social construction, not a linguistic one.
To argue that someone is using incorrect grammar has about as much force
as saying that someone is wearing the incorrect tie.
The English we write today, including the Queen's English, would have been
considered an abomination of grammar by pundits of 16th-C English. Grammar
is what people actually do with the language, not what they are "told" to
do. There is no such thing as an authoritative prescriptive grammar. I
invite you to cite it, if indeed one exists. Good luck.
Ture illiteracy in this matter arrives in the form of prescriptive
criticism which has never bothered to open a text on grammar or
linguistics. Try Dineen's "Introduction to General Linguistics".
******************************
rib
John van Gurp
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Bob Ashley wrote:
>
> In lingustic science, there is no such thing as an 'incorrect' grammar.
> That's a social construction, not a linguistic one.
>
> To argue that someone is using incorrect grammar has about as much force
> as saying that someone is wearing the incorrect tie.
>
> The English we write today, including the Queen's English, would have been
> considered an abomination of grammar by pundits of 16th-C English. Grammar
> is what people actually do with the language, not what they are "told" to
> do. There is no such thing as an authoritative prescriptive grammar. I
> invite you to cite it, if indeed one exists. Good luck.
>
> Ture illiteracy in this matter arrives in the form of prescriptive
> criticism which has never bothered to open a text on grammar or
> linguistics. Try Dineen's "Introduction to General Linguistics".
>
> ******************************
> rib
OWNED!
Rick Walker
"Cal" <aa...@aaaa.aaaa> wrote in message
news:Xns9597943D...@198.161.157.145...
> As an aside, I remember the newscasters in Calgary always used 'good'
> instead of 'well', i.e. "The boy did good on his final exams." Used to
make
> me cringe to hear it from a group of people who are supposed to speak
well.
> But then again, at least it's better than hearing: "The boy done good on
> his final exams."
Most broadcasters still use common sense when it comes to pronunciation,
and wait a while before using expressions of today. But when I heard Lloyd
Robertson say "BigTime" in a newscast years back, I damned near pissed
myself laughing :-)
- Rick
Rick Walker
"Bob Ashley" <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
> In lingustic science, there is no such thing as an 'incorrect' grammar.
> That's a social construction, not a linguistic one.
>
> To argue that someone is using incorrect grammar has about as much force
> as saying that someone is wearing the incorrect tie.
>
> The English we write today, including the Queen's English, would have been
> considered an abomination of grammar by pundits of 16th-C English. Grammar
> is what people actually do with the language, not what they are "told" to
> do. There is no such thing as an authoritative prescriptive grammar. I
> invite you to cite it, if indeed one exists. Good luck.
>
> Ture illiteracy in this matter arrives in the form of prescriptive
> criticism which has never bothered to open a text on grammar or
> linguistics. Try Dineen's "Introduction to General Linguistics".
>
> ******************************
> rib
Basically, crack a book once in a while. You'll pass. Trust me.
Again, well said Bob.
- Rick
Rick Walker
> Rick Walker wrote:
> > This isn't a classroom, Richard!
> *** Ahh, but it is. Now, it's not by intention, of course, but people
> tend to speak and write they way they see others do, and if they see
> poorly-written stuff, they emulate it.
If they do, fine. You are an army of one, against a foe much, much
bigger than you are.
> This problem, as reported in newspapers and on television, has
> now reached the very text books used to teach students. It's a sad affair
> when the teachers themselves and the texts they use are wrong.
I don't argue these facts of yours, Richard. But I do accept things
that are out of my control.
> This is not just limited to the subject of English. Some time ago, I
> had a local museum pull a booklet off its shelves because the colour
> theory in it was an outdated one from the 1940s! It's sad when old,
> discredited science theories show up in 21st century books. )-:
Again, I agree with you. In this case, I would pointed out the mistake
to the proprietor of the museum, with true facts in hand. Although we're
talking about a museum here RB, not a library, so the value of the tome
might actually lie in the mistake contained within.
- Rick
Rick Walker
> *** I understand that. However, the problem lies in those reading that
> believe what they read and then pass it on to others. A weekly look at
> American television shows this in action.
Yeah, right! Look, I watch DaVinci's Inquest on CBC, the only real time
I spend on that channel (Newsworld aside), and the language is no better
than that of our neighbours south of the border.
- Rick
demibee
Consignments <st...@sweetrepeats.com> wrote:
>Then you need to go back through his posts.
>
>Not trying to be rude here ... I am stating facts.
>
>If you do not see grammar errors, then I must have went to a school on
>another planet.
Surely you mean "must have Gone" ;)
Sincerely, though, I'm sure Richard has misplaced a comma here or
there; but his overall sense of how words work isn't in question in my
mind. I'll agree that he does need to slow down when typing IF he
wants to continue pointing out others' errors. (But, by his own
admission, he's the impatient "Mr. Milliseconds"... Everything on his
PC must happen *NOW*!... not a second from now.... and proofreading
takes time.)
So I'll echo what Jim asked: Can you give an example of a grammatical
error (not a spelling typo) from one of his posts?
db
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
>www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments wrote:
>> Then you need to go back through his posts.
>>
>> Not trying to be rude here ... I am stating facts.
>>
>> If you do not see grammar errors, then I must have went to a school on
>> another planet.
>>
>> Tim
>
>Richard keeps asking you for examples yet I see all you can offer is
>advice for others to read his posts. I would like to see your point but
>help us out here, give us a few examples of Richard's poor grammar.
>
I deleted all the messages in this thread.
So I had to go to google and get them.
But in my short search .. what do I come across but Richard debating
and telling people how terrible it is for people to post off topic in
rec.roller-coaster.
Kinda Funny.
Anyway ... I was talking directly to Richard and he knows the times
that I have corrected him. Even in this thread he has one entire
paragraph as one sentence with no commas.
But if you guys want examples, here you go:
( These are random pieces from a google search on his name )
#1
" I have a rear, full-width bench seat with a fold-down back and
adjustable forward/back position via a track. Medium grey/blue in
colour."
#2
"*** I don't think it's the only way, but I do stress it to html
newbies. There is nothing wrong with using a page maker. This is
provided one has learned html basics to the point where one may go in
afterwards and fix the code generated by the page maker. Plus, one
should be able to add the necessary code those makers do not. "
#3
" Despite accessibility guidelines, too many page makers don't stress
them, or they outright ignore them. The Internet is supposed to be
platform-independent and accessible to all. Some page-maker software
authors snobbishly or lazily ignore this in favour of flashy features
which tire the viewer after the third visit. "
This is the first couple of posts I opened.
And Sorry Richard ... Seems that they are demanding I explain myself
to the group.
Tim
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
The errors that I speak of are his use or lack of use of commas.
That is what stands out to me.
These are grammar errors too.
Tim
Bob Ashley
> OWNED!
Pretty dry, ain't it?
:-)
******************************
rib
Bob Ashley
> Basically, crack a book once in a while. You'll pass. Trust me.
>
> Again, well said Bob.
Yeah, I agree. Now you did one better; you said it well in less space!
******************************
Bob
John van Gurp
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Bob Ashley wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, John van Gurp wrote:
>
> > OWNED!
>
> Pretty dry, ain't it?
>
> ******************************
> rib
It was PERFECT.
John
Bob Ashley
> Sincerely, though, I'm sure Richard has misplaced a comma here or
> there; but his overall sense of how words work isn't in question in my
> mind. I'll agree that he does need to slow down when typing IF he
> wants to continue pointing out others' errors. (But, by his own
> admission, he's the impatient "Mr. Milliseconds"... Everything on his
> PC must happen *NOW*!... not a second from now.... and proofreading
> takes time.)
Punctuation is as fad-prone as the hemlines on skirts. The editorial style
these days eschews the comma in places that would have got your knuckles
the yardstick 25 years ago. One of the biggest changes I've noticed is the
near outright ban of the semicolon. A workaday mark of punctuation 50
years ago, the semicolon is now an editorial leper. Gone too is the
circumflex, formerly common, like over the 'o' in role.
I think internet discourse is having an effect on punctuation, loosening
it up in some instances, adding its own twist in others. Your liberal use
of the ellipsis is one such example. In my grade school that practice
would have earned you a detention after school.
> So I'll echo what Jim asked: Can you give an example of a grammatical
> error (not a spelling typo) from one of his posts?
The only true grammatical error he could commit would be a construction
that either blocked, distorted, or destroyed your understanding of his
intended meaning.
If the message succeeds in telegraphing meaning, the grammar is what it
is, which is perfect. The grammar you 'obey' is merely grammatical
manners, purely a social construct, not grammatical correctness. There are
hundreds of different varieties, dialects, registers of English, all of
which exhibit grammatical variances, all of which are equally and
legitimately English.
In a global village, the only correct grammar should be the grammar of
tolerance.
******************************
Bob
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
I agree with you.
I simply do not agree that someone who is far from perfect them self (
and I am not saying that I am any better), should be demanding
perfection from everyone else in such a laid back setting.
Tim
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 23:37:34 -0400, Bob Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca>
wrote:
Rick Walker
> Bob ...
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I simply do not agree that someone who is far from perfect them self (
> and I am not saying that I am any better), should be demanding
> perfection from everyone else in such a laid back setting.
>
> Tim
Bob makes sense, Tim. And he is one of the people who seem to
understand my way of thinking. Read it, understand what you can, and allow
mistakes to roll off your back. Bob doesn't criticize others; no one should
have that right. Unless a question is asked regarding the spelling, meaning
or translation of a word is required, let it rest.
Richard is very well-educated, and I suppose I'd make that cut too. But
I make mistakes all of the time. Hell, I was reading one of my recent posts
last night, and noticed I'd left out a word. The meaning was still able to
be gathered from the context of my sentence, so what's going to happen to
me? Do I lose marks on my paper? Not on this group.
Perfection can never be achieved here; I'd blame education, but that
inevitably falls down to the student's desire to learn. So I blame no one
for their mistakes, no matter who they are. Opinions and discussion, the
reasons for this *General* newsgroup, are what truly matter.
- Rick
Bob Ashley
Tim wrote:
> I agree with you.
>
> I simply do not agree that someone who is far from perfect them self (
> and I am not saying that I am any better), should be demanding
> perfection from everyone else in such a laid back setting.
And I agree with you!
***
Bob
Bob
Ashley
******************************
Bob Ashley
> Bob makes sense, Tim. And he is one of the people who seem to
> understand my way of thinking. Read it, understand what you can, and allow
> mistakes to roll off your back. Bob doesn't criticize others; no one should
> have that right. Unless a question is asked regarding the spelling, meaning
> or translation of a word is required, let it rest.
That's exemplary. Tolerance.
> Richard is very well-educated, and I suppose I'd make that cut too. But
> I make mistakes all of the time. Hell, I was reading one of my recent posts
> last night, and noticed I'd left out a word. The meaning was still able to
> be gathered from the context of my sentence, so what's going to happen to
> me? Do I lose marks on my paper? Not on this group.
I look at language like linguistic clothing. A newsgroup is just the
discourse of casual banter, party talk, bar jazz, old-sneakers
communication. The grammar police, however, look upon all language context
without subtle discrimination, that maybe there might be more than one way
to write/talk. To them, every situation is a Royal Ball.
So like swaggering bobbies, they show up tapping a nightstick in their
palm. They show up here at the scruffy gashouse of discourse, and write up
citations for "Illegal Grammatical Vestments: Failing to Wear
Tuxedo-Grammar in a Public Place." Meanwhile, the constable's own tunic
sports yesterday's mustard stain, and there's a shard of fish-n-chips
batter dangling from an unruly moustache. It's a comical scence, in other
words.
In comedic drama this stock character is sometimes referred to as a
"military braggart".
> Perfection can never be achieved here; I'd blame education, but that
> inevitably falls down to the student's desire to learn. So I blame no one
> for their mistakes, no matter who they are. Opinions and discussion, the
> reasons for this *General* newsgroup, are what truly matter.
And that spells tolerance! I'm in your corner.
******************************
rib
demibee
Consignments <st...@sweetrepeats.com> wrote:
>#1
>" I have a rear, full-width bench seat with a fold-down back and
>adjustable forward/back position via a track. Medium grey/blue in
>colour."
This looks like a for-sale item. The only thing that stands out to me
is the last sentence. Technically, it's not a sentence, since it
contains no subject. But for an item description, it's fine, I'd say.
What's missing is obvious: "[It's] [m]edium grey/blue in colour."
>#2
>"*** I don't think it's the only way, but I do stress it to html
>newbies. There is nothing wrong with using a page maker. This is
>provided one has learned html basics to the point where one may go in
>afterwards and fix the code generated by the page maker. Plus, one
>should be able to add the necessary code those makers do not. "
The addition of one word will make this clear: "I don't think it's the
only way, but I do stress it to html newbies. There is nothing wrong
with using a page maker. This is provided [that] one has learned html
basics to the point where one may go in afterwards and fix the code
generated by the page maker. Plus, one should be able to add the
necessary code those makers do not."
With the "that" in place, everything is fine. There are no errors
that I can see. And there are no missing or superfluous commas.
>#3
>" Despite accessibility guidelines, too many page makers don't stress
>them, or they outright ignore them. The Internet is supposed to be
>platform-independent and accessible to all. Some page-maker software
>authors snobbishly or lazily ignore this in favour of flashy features
>which tire the viewer after the third visit. "
I'd put a comma before "which tire...," but that's all. Do you see
other errors?
db
Rick Walker
> I'd put a comma before "which tire...," but that's all. Do you see
> other errors?
>
>
> db
As this is an open forum, and obviously some kind of test, I'd say that
Richard's usage of a certain hypenated adjective might be considered
out-dated (no pun), but I didn't have any problems with the crux of the
matter.
After a quick read, I'm left wondering about two things:
1.) Is it that important to dissect the Hell out of someone's posts?
And...
2.) Did you sell that seat, Richard? :-)
- Rick
demibee
wrote:
>In a global village, the only correct grammar should be the grammar of
>tolerance.
I agree. I prefer descriptive grammar to prescriptive grammar
because, to my mind, that's the way natural language works.
Ultimately, it's the brain that determines whether an utterance is
intelligible and, therefore, "correct."
There was a great documentary series on PBS a number of years ago
called "The Story of English" that emphasized this way of seeing
language. The language comes first, and the analysis comes after the
fact; so, prescriptive grammar, being merely a byproduct of the
analysis, doesn't represent the language in its fullest sense. The
series went into the details of the various Englishes (as you
described in one of your previous posts), covering American and UK
variants, Jamaican English, and new English slang coming out of places
like Japan. The companion book is still available in most bookstores.
Language is amazingly flexible. I once considered some kind of a
linguistics degree at Dal, but never followed through... Where would
I have found work, I wondered.
Richard's main beef isn't so much with spelling, comma placement, and
the like. If someone happened to make a post here implying, say, that
JavaScript and Java are essentially the same language, they'd quickly
be corrected. Their understanding is clearly off, and many would
politely enlighten the poster. (And, no doubt, some would do it
rudely.) As I understand it, it's when a poster displays a lack of
understanding of the word itself that Richard feels some enlightenment
is in order. E.g.,
"That's a total waist of time."
"Know one gives a rat's ass anyways."
"That shouldn't be aloud."
"Once you've past the fifth grade, ..."
It's true that anyone reading these would understand what was meant.
But the posters in these cases clearly don't understand the meanings
behind some of the words they're using. To be politely informed that
"past" and "passed" are two different concepts shouldn't be a big
deal, IMHO. But most reject it; nobody likes to be "told" how to
communicate.
db
www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing Consignments
No, I do not think it is that important to dissect someone's posts.
That the point I have been trying make :)
Richard knew what I was talking about but others challenged that I was
ignoring repeats requests to prove that Richard makes grammar errors
as much as the people he corrects.
Tim
Rick Walker
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:23:25 GMT, "Rick Walker" <R...@WR.com> wrote:
> > After a quick read, I'm left wondering about two things:
> >
> > 1.) Is it that important to dissect the Hell out of someone's posts?
> >
> > And...
> >
> > 2.) Did you sell that seat, Richard? :-)
> >
> > - Rick
> No, I do not think it is that important to dissect someone's posts.
>
> That the point I have been trying make :)
And I fully agree with you Tim.
> Richard knew what I was talking about but others challenged that I was
> ignoring repeats requests to prove that Richard makes grammar errors
> as much as the people he corrects.
I anxiously await his rebuttal, for Richard (although irritating at
times), has his ducks in a row.
He's just shooting in the wrong gallery; I know he's a marksman.
- Rick
Bob Ashley
> I agree. I prefer descriptive grammar to prescriptive grammar
> because, to my mind, that's the way natural language works.
> Ultimately, it's the brain that determines whether an utterance is
> intelligible and, therefore, "correct."
Yeah, that's one of Chomski's idea, I believe. Makes sense.
>
> There was a great documentary series on PBS a number of years ago
> called "The Story of English" that emphasized this way of seeing
> language. The language comes first, and the analysis comes after the
> fact; so, prescriptive grammar, being merely a byproduct of the
> analysis, doesn't represent the language in its fullest sense. The
> series went into the details of the various Englishes (as you
> described in one of your previous posts), covering American and UK
> variants, Jamaican English, and new English slang coming out of places
> like Japan. The companion book is still available in most bookstores.
Yeah, I read it a few years ago. Entertaining and instructive.
> Language is amazingly flexible. I once considered some kind of a
> linguistics degree at Dal, but never followed through... Where would
> I have found work, I wondered.
I did an honors BA in linguistics. My thesis address the language of
conflict in ngs. I analyze the grammar of several flame wars in several
different groups. The data collection was onerous to say the least,
thousands and thousands of bits data. I found that contrary to popular
opinon, most flame wars don't descend into the flinging of foul language.
In fact, while the vitriol was certainly potent, the language is often
quite elegant, quite cleverly constructed, quite creative. The strangest
result concerned the elevated frequency of interrogative forms when people
got angry with each other. I can remember the exact numbers, but it was
significant, like 15-30% higher incidence of questions. I tentatively
theorized that in western culture, the most potent form of aggressive
discourse is symbolized by the courtroom cross-examination or the
interrogation of prisoners. That is, in our cultural consciousness we
perceive the very best thing to do in conflict is to 'discredit' or
'destroy' the testimony of a hostile witness.
Lawyers or cops do this by asking questions, grilling the witness, with
the aim of publicly humiliating him/her.
If my theory holds any water, it should also explain why name-calling and
the use of obscene language, or the imperative commands are not the first
choice of weapon (though it doesn't exclude these). Name-calling is weak
because it is publicly perceived as puerile, adolescent, the mark of a
weak intellect. Obscenities run the risk of the hurler being held by the
public to be base, boorish, and again weak of mind. Commands are weak in
this media because they have no teeth, that is, the commander can't exact
any punishments. Finally, and this is the key point, only the the question
for of the English clause is a direct entreaty to ENGAGE the addressee. In
a text-based (or oral) environment, a good way to humiliate your opponent
is engage them, get them to say something stupid. That's the whole point
of teh cross-examination, to ask questions that entrap the addressee.
Hence, it makes sense that in a flame war, we should expect to see an
escalation in the incidence of question forms. Now, of course, this isn't
always the case. But I do think I discovered 'tendencies' and thought
those tendencies be interesting. Another thing I noticed is that an angry
poster tends to increase his/her word count above their average (a rough
measure the way I did it). The "spew" syndrome. Once spewed, though, word
count drops off dramatically, often suddenly as posters adopt an
aphoristic style of short, dart-like quips, the aim, I presume, quick
closure of the conflict.
> Richard's main beef isn't so much with spelling, comma placement, and
> the like. If someone happened to make a post here implying, say, that
> JavaScript and Java are essentially the same language, they'd quickly
> be corrected. Their understanding is clearly off, and many would
> politely enlighten the poster. (And, no doubt, some would do it
> rudely.) As I understand it, it's when a poster displays a lack of
> understanding of the word itself that Richard feels some enlightenment
> is in order. E.g.,
>
> "That's a total waist of time."
I see your point, and it's fair up to a point. I'd never quibble with the
'waist/waste' thing, however, because the syntax, along with the co-text,
the word order, the homophonous pronunciation, the overall logic-starved
state of English spelling in general, and the familiarity of the cliche
('total waste of time') deliver a completely perfect semantic of meaning.
In essence, then, the crabber is saying, "While I understand your meaning
perfectly, I shall nevertheless exit the subject of our dialogue,
arbitrarily and unilaterally to tangentially point out that your spelling
of 'waste' as 'waist' betrays you as an undereducated dolt."
The true, overwheening vulgarity, as I see it, resides in the crabber, not
crabbed at.
> "Know one gives a rat's ass anyways."
Same deal. "No" and "Know", are phonetically identical. Meaning is still
perfectly delivered. Anyone can swerve from convention quite easily for
that very reason. Language permits the swerve without undermining the
message.
> "That shouldn't be aloud."
Same deal.
> "Once you've past the fifth grade, ..."
Interesting because 'passed' and 'past' are exactly the same pronunciation
wise, but so differently spelled. This example, by my lights, points out
mongrel nature of English spelling.
> It's true that anyone reading these would understand what was meant.
> But the posters in these cases clearly don't understand the meanings
> behind some of the words they're using. To be politely informed that
> "past" and "passed" are two different concepts shouldn't be a big
> deal, IMHO. But most reject it; nobody likes to be "told" how to
> communicate.
I'd argue that the misspellers understand exactly what message they are
delivering. All of the above examples are make perfect sense,
semantically. Your argument would hold if the examples were something
like:
Once your put some fifth grade
Knew too gives a rats ass
That's the total ass of timeliness.
Were you speaking to this person, you'd have no grounds for saying he/she
didn't understand the words used in the examples you cite. You are merely
pointing out writing 'conventions', all of which are arbitrary, lacking
logical ground, and entirely derivatives of speech.
Check out some of the spelling from Old English. The greatest scholars all
of them 'spelt' things they way they heard them. It was institutionalized
schooling that colonized spelling. With that, they also institutionalized
grammatical 'snobbery'.
Spelling should be the least of our worries, lest you make a living at it
or with it. My greater concern would be to hear someone go mute, not get
to say anything at all.
I agree with the conventions, however, in the publishing of books and so
forth. But that's a differnt register, and hardly universal. Read
America's greatest novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Who will
take the great Huck, the great Twain to task for his idiosyncratic
spelling?
Not I.
******************************
Bob
Richard Bonner
> "firecat" <m...@mine.com> wrote:
> > Rick Walker wrote:
> > > I was watching some of Peter Mansbridge's (sp?) coverage during the
> > > American Election, when he plainly said "We got to take a break..."
> > >
> > > And Peter's not lacking any education or experience in the world of
> > > words.
> > does that make him right?
> Not at all, fc. But it does show a "trickle-up" effect happening...
> That's my point.
> - Rick
*** ...and my point. The "trickle up effect" coincides with the falling
educational levels in this country. When 40% of high schools graduates
can't pass a literacy test, something is wrong. )-:
Richard
Richard Bonner
> I remember the newscasters in Calgary always used 'good'
> instead of 'well', i.e. "The boy did good on his final exams." Used to make
> me cringe to hear it from a group of people who are supposed to speak well.
*** I agree. People have little concept of the usage of adjectives and
adverbs anymore.
> But then again, at least it's better than hearing: "The boy done good on
> his final exams."
*** Of course. Verb tenses have gone down the illiteracy vortex, too.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> these threads get to me and it is wrong of me to allow that to happen.
*** No apology necessary, Tim. I was not insulted by any of your
remarks. I think it's good that you are impassioned by a subject. I also
must applaud you for not descending into profanity or name calling.
> Just look through the group and find where you have corrected grammar
> or spelling.
> You will find that almost every instance is when someone disagrees
> with you on a topic and your rebuttal includes a correction.
*** If that is the case, then it is only by coincidence.
> As for being a hypocrite ... To expect someone to do something that
> you do not do because you feel it is wrong for them to do it is indeed
> being a hypocrite.
*** I expect that people should use the grammar they were taught in
school and I do use such grammar. My problem is poor typing. I readily
admit that.
> You should honestly work on your own comprehension of the English
> language before you run around correcting other people ...
*** My comprehension is fine. I did well in English in grade
school. It was my best subject after science.
> or perhaps
> show the same concern with your own posts that you seem to have with
> other peoples.
*** I have taken this suggestion to heart and now spend more time
proofreading my posts for typos.
> You must be able to understand that in the same posts that you make to
> correct the grammar of another, you make many errors yourself and that
> is not only laughable ... it is pathetic.
>
> Tim
*** I see that, and thanks to yours and other's comments, I am striving
to improve.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:09:53 +0000 (UTC), ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard
> Bonner) wrote:
> >*** One need not be a professor to know that "garnished wages" or
> The dictionaries I've checked say that "garnished wages" is fine.
> Webster's, for example, says "Law - to bring garnishment proceedings
> against; garnishee." Dictionary.com says the same. What's the error?
> db
*** "Garnished" means "adorned". "Garnisheed" is the correct word.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> Yes but all Bonner's mistakes are simple typos, keyboard malfunctions, and
> other not grammatical excuses.
> Lord forbid anyone else make an error, those are most certainly not typos as
> only Bonner makes typos.
*** We all make typos. My comments are directed toward those that
don't know the meaning of the words they type, and toward those that don't
know the difference between an adjective and an adverb, or have little
concept of verb tenses.
"I should of..." or "The helium balloon raises." are not typographical
errors.
Richard
John van Gurp
Time to change the standards! ;-)
Richard Bonner
> "Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> > *** I understand that. However, the problem lies in those reading that
> > believe what they read and then pass it on to others. A weekly look at
> > American television shows this in action.
> Yeah, right! Look, I watch DaVinci's Inquest on CBC, the only real time
> I spend on that channel (Newsworld aside), and the language is no better
> than that of our neighbours south of the border.
> - Rick
*** That is exactly my point. American illiteracy has influenced
Canadians. Worse than that is that a lot of text books used in this
country are now *American* and they are horrible! They are littered with
errors.
On a similar topic: Do you realise that GED exams in Canada are now
only American and they are sent to the U.S. to be graded? Canadians must
now have an *American* education to pass a *Canadian* exam. )-:
Richard
Richard Bonner
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 01:51:03 GMT, www.sweetrepeats.com - Clothing
> Consignments <st...@sweetrepeats.com> wrote:
> >Then you need to go back through his posts.
> >
> >Not trying to be rude here ... I am stating facts.
> >
> >If you do not see grammar errors, then I must have went to a school on
> >another planet.
> Surely you mean "must have Gone" ;)
*** I did not want to anger Tim by pointing that out, but "gone" is the
past participle of "go". "Went" is past tense.
> Sincerely, though, I'm sure Richard has misplaced a comma here or
> there; but his overall sense of how words work isn't in question in my
> mind.
*** Thanks.
> I'll agree that he does need to slow down when typing IF he
> wants to continue pointing out others' errors. (But, by his own
> admission, he's the impatient "Mr. Milliseconds"... Everything on his
> PC must happen *NOW*!... not a second from now.... and proofreading
> takes time.)
*** It does. However, I have taken those comments to heart and am
striving to take more time to proofread my posts. Unfortunately, it means
that I now often get behind in my posting. )-:
Richard
Richard Bonner
> >> Then you need to go back through his posts.
> >>
> >> Not trying to be rude here ... I am stating facts.
> >>
> >> If you do not see grammar errors, then I must have went to a school on
> >> another planet.
> >>
> >
> >Richard keeps asking you for examples yet I see all you can offer is
> >advice for others to read his posts. I would like to see your point but
> >help us out here, give us a few examples of Richard's poor grammar.
> But in my short search .. what do I come across but Richard debating
> and telling people how terrible it is for people to post off topic in
> rec.roller-coaster.
*** That's correct. That newsgroup was hijacked by scores of people
posting American election stuff in dozens and dozens of threads. Many of
the regulars on that group spoke out against that, and I was one. The
worst hijackers were veering legitimate threads into politics.
> But if you guys want examples, here you go:
> #1
> " I have a rear, full-width bench seat with a fold-down back and
> adjustable forward/back position via a track. Medium grey/blue in
> colour."
*** I don't see the problem here unless you are citing the sentence
fragment "Medium grey/blue in colour".
> #2
> "*** I don't think it's the only way, but I do stress it to html
> newbies. There is nothing wrong with using a page maker. This is
> provided one has learned html basics to the point where one may go in
> afterwards and fix the code generated by the page maker. Plus, one
> should be able to add the necessary code those makers do not. "
*** ?? Can you point out the error? If this is wrong, I would be happy
to improve.
> #3
> " Despite accessibility guidelines, too many page makers don't stress
> them, or they outright ignore them. The Internet is supposed to be
> platform-independent and accessible to all. Some page-maker software
> authors snobbishly or lazily ignore this in favour of flashy features
> which tire the viewer after the third visit. "
*** Error?
> And Sorry Richard ... Seems that they are demanding I explain myself
> to the group.
> Tim
*** No apology necessary, Tim. After all, I *did* write those words
and you are only repeating them here to make a point. I don't feel you
have misrepresented me, as was done in rec.roller-coaster by one poster.
If there are problems with those posts, I would like to know what they
are so that I might improve my writing skills. Given that I don't see the
problems, these could be examples where I may learn something of which I
am currently unaware.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> Punctuation is as fad-prone as the hemlines on skirts. The editorial style
> these days eschews the comma in places that would have got your knuckles
> the yardstick 25 years ago. One of the biggest changes I've noticed is the
> near outright ban of the semicolon. A workaday mark of punctuation 50
> years ago, the semicolon is now an editorial leper.
*** That's unfortunate. The semicolon can tie two like thoughts
together, yet make them separate enough so as not to confuse the reader.
It's also great for separating a series of items that have comments or
descriptions in which commas are used.
> Gone too is the
> circumflex, formerly common, like over the 'o' in role.
*** I can see this being a consequence of the fact that so many people
today type from computer keyboards that don't have that on one key. To
create it usually requires an extra step or two.
On a similar note, I lament the opening single quote disappearing,
despite the fact it *is* on the keyboard. It's usually located on the same
key as the tilde.
> I think internet discourse is having an effect on punctuation, loosening
> it up in some instances, adding its own twist in others.
*** I agree. As an example, I have adopted an asterisk before and after
a word to denote stress. It is less than that represented by having the
same word in all-caps. I got the idea from seeing other posters on Usenet
making usage of it.
> Your liberal use
> of the ellipsis is one such example. In my grade school that practice
> would have earned you a detention after school.
*** It was to denote omissions, but I often see it used now as a bit of
a separator and as a substitute for "and so on".
> > So I'll echo what Jim asked: Can you give an example of a grammatical
> > error (not a spelling typo) from one of his posts?
> The only true grammatical error he could commit would be a construction
> thatQ either blocked, distorted, or destroyed your understanding of his
> intended meaning.
*** I can't completely agree. If one considers standard grammar texts
in use in Canada, I could have used a wrong verb tense, used "less" when
"fewer" was required, typed "break' when I meant "brake", etc.
Tim seems to dislike my placement of commas. I use commas as I would a
pause when speaking, and I also use them where I wish to separate two
thoughts or items.
> If the message succeeds in telegraphing meaning, the grammar is what it
> is, which is perfect. The grammar you 'obey' is merely grammatical
> manners, purely a social construct, not grammatical correctness.
*** I see them as one in the same, much as with social manners.
Using standard grammar ensures that one's meaning is understood by the
reader. It is an insult to make a reader read and reread a sentence, or
even an entire post, in order to infer meaning. I cite the famous
"Kennywood" illiterate post as a prime example. I have posted it here
several times.
> There are
> hundreds of different varieties, dialects, registers of English, all of
> which exhibit grammatical variances, all of which are equally and
> legitimately English.
> In a global village, the only correct grammar should be the grammar of
> tolerance.
> ******************************
> Bob
*** I can't fully agree when tolerance takes us down a road to
lower education. I mean that not only in regards to grammar but with other
subjects, as well. "Oh, it doesn't matter that Johnny doesn't know Grade
Three; have tolerance and send him to Grade Four, anyway."
Richard
Richard Bonner
> I simply do not agree that someone who is far from perfect them self (
> and I am not saying that I am any better), should be demanding
> perfection from everyone else in such a laid back setting.
> Tim
*** Whether I am perfect or not does not change that fact that a person
pointing out that two ls two is five is wrong, is irrelevant to that
person's math skills.
I am also not demanding perfection or that people be absolutely
formal here. All I am asking is that people at least use words for which
they know the meaning, and at most learn elementary school verb tenses and
the difference between adverbs and adjectives.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> "demibee" <dem...@post.com> wrote:
> > I'd put a comma before "which tire...," but that's all. Do you see
> > other errors?
> >
> >
> > db
> As this is an open forum, and obviously some kind of test, I'd say that
> Richard's usage of a certain hypenated adjective might be considered
> out-dated (no pun), but I didn't have any problems with the crux of the
> matter.
*** Which one? "Fold-down" ?
Otherwise, after reading again, I decided that "platform-independent"
should not have been hyphenated in that instance.
> After a quick read, I'm left wondering about two things:
> 1.) Is it that important to dissect the Hell out of someone's posts?
*** In this case, yes. Tim brought it up, and any grammar discussion in
the illiterate 21st century is a bonus, in my opinion.
> And...
> 2.) Did you sell that seat, Richard? :-)
> - Rick
*** No. )-:
Perhaps I should dumb the ad down with wrong spellings and incorrect
verb tenses to appeal to the masses. (-:
Richard
Richard Bonner
> There was a great documentary series on PBS a number of years ago
> called "The Story of English"
(Snip)
*** That was a great series. Recently, CBC had a program on about
Canadian English, which was interesting, too.
> Richard's main beef isn't so much with spelling, comma placement, and
> the like. If someone happened to make a post here implying, say, that
> JavaScript and Java are essentially the same language, they'd quickly
> be corrected. Their understanding is clearly off, and many would
> politely enlighten the poster. (And, no doubt, some would do it
> rudely.) As I understand it, it's when a poster displays a lack of
> understanding of the word itself that Richard feels some enlightenment
> is in order.
*** Ahh, finally! Someone that understands my point. Thanks, db.
> E.g.,
> "That's a total waist of time."
> "Know one gives a rat's ass anyways."
> "That shouldn't be aloud."
> "Once you've past the fifth grade, ..."
> It's true that anyone reading these would understand what was meant.
> But the posters in these cases clearly don't understand the meanings
> behind some of the words they're using. To be politely informed that
> "past" and "passed" are two different concepts shouldn't be a big
> deal, IMHO.
*** It isn't, but people here make it out to be. If someone corrected
the JavaScript/Java poster, there'd be no flack, but when basic education
comes into play, don't ever tell that girl that Earth's Moon doesn't orbit
the sun.(*)
> But most reject it; nobody likes to be "told" how to
> communicate.
>
> db
*** Interestingly, it only seems to be here that there is a big backlash
to education. On other groups where I have seen this has happen, regulars
shrug it off.
Richard
(*) Speaking of basic education: In the 1980s in The U.S., there was a
"town meeting" regarding disposal of nuclear waste. One suggestion was
that the U.S. use it space technology to launch the waste off Earth and
into the sun. One woman got up and essentially said "What? This waste is
polluting Earth and now you want to pollute the sun with it!".
There was stunned silence in the room...
R.
Richard Bonner
> I did an honors BA in linguistics. My thesis address the language of
> conflict in ngs. I analyze the grammar of several flame wars in several
> different groups. The data collection was onerous to say the least,
> thousands and thousands of bits data. I found that contrary to popular
> opinon, most flame wars don't descend into the flinging of foul language.
(Snip)
*** Hmm, that reminds me. Here is:
The ULTIMATE FLAME
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. I'll
bet you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer
than be seen with you.
You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a
cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a
revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared
richly with the effluvia & offal accompanying your alleged birth
into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody,
abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then
killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.
I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the
very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid
you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a
fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive
its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to
fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink
shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing
nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you.
You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land
that reality forgot.
And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us?
What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted
tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat,
spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meat-slapper.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow
wherever you go.
You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off,
pillock. You grotty wanking oink artless base-court apple-john. You
clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker.
You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole
ponce. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead
cockup prattling naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb.
You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.
You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are
degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of
stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on
itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so
dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot
mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.
You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a
year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our
universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that we know.
I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After
this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough
strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments
about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
Eric d'Entremont
"> Bob Ashley wrote:
>> I did an honors BA in linguistics. My thesis address the language of
>> conflict in ngs. I analyze the grammar of several flame wars in several
>> different groups. The data collection was onerous to say the least,
>> thousands and thousands of bits data. I found that contrary to popular
>> opinon, most flame wars don't descend into the flinging of foul language.
Rick Walker
"John van Gurp" <j...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.10...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
> Time to change the standards! ;-)
Make 'em Metric! LOL! }:-)
Rick Walker
"Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:cmo2ue$568$8...@News.Dal.Ca...
> Rick Walker wrote:
> > Yeah, right! Look, I watch DaVinci's Inquest on CBC, the only real
time
> > I spend on that channel (Newsworld aside), and the language is no better
> > than that of our neighbours south of the border.
>
> > - Rick
> *** That is exactly my point. American illiteracy has influenced
> Canadians. Worse than that is that a lot of text books used in this
> country are now *American* and they are horrible! They are littered with
> errors.
But I have no problem understanding what's being said, Richard. And I
make the corrections in my head, if I'm clear at the time. So you're
blaming this on America? LOL, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!
> On a similar topic: Do you realise that GED exams in Canada are now
> only American and they are sent to the U.S. to be graded? Canadians must
> now have an *American* education to pass a *Canadian* exam. )-:
Just because it's graded in the States means it's an American test? I'd
look into that if I were you... A Canadian GED has always been just that;
Canadian. Are you telling me that if I spelled "colour" instead of "color",
that I'd be marked incorrectly? I don't think so, Richard!
- Rick
Rick Walker
> Rick Walker wrote:
> > As this is an open forum, and obviously some kind of test, I'd say
that
> > Richard's usage of a certain hypenated adjective might be considered
> > out-dated (no pun), but I didn't have any problems with the crux of the
> > matter.
> *** Which one? "Fold-down" ?
>
> Otherwise, after reading again, I decided that "platform-independent"
> should not have been hyphenated in that instance.
That's the ticket!
> > After a quick read, I'm left wondering about two things:
>
> > 1.) Is it that important to dissect the Hell out of someone's
posts?
>
> *** In this case, yes. Tim brought it up, and any grammar discussion in
> the illiterate 21st century is a bonus, in my opinion.
Tim only brought up your insistance on correcting grammar as being
irritating, and I'm on his side. I'm not saying you're wrong, my friend,
I'm saying you're pissing in the wrong pool!
> > And...
>
> > 2.) Did you sell that seat, Richard? :-)
>
> > - Rick
>
> *** No. )-:
That's too bad. I've seen that seat, and it's in immaculate condition.
:-(
> Perhaps I should dumb the ad down with wrong spellings and incorrect
> verb tenses to appeal to the masses. (-:
LOL! Give it a shot! Works for Peter Mansbridge! :-)
- Rick
Rick Walker
> *** Whether I am perfect or not does not change that fact that a person
> pointing out that two ls two is five is wrong, is irrelevant to that
> person's math skills.
I've read that three times. Maybe because it contains Math, that's the
reason it seems awkward to me; however, I think it's just poorly worded.
> I am also not demanding perfection or that people be absolutely
> formal here. All I am asking is that people at least use words for which
> they know the meaning, and at most learn elementary school verb tenses and
> the difference between adverbs and adjectives.
You ask a lot, Richard, in a public forum. Be thankful you can read what
you can :-)
- Rick
Rick Walker
> (*) Speaking of basic education: In the 1980s in The U.S., there was a
> "town meeting" regarding disposal of nuclear waste. One suggestion was
> that the U.S. use it space technology to launch the waste off Earth and
> into the sun. One woman got up and essentially said "What? This waste is
> polluting Earth and now you want to pollute the sun with it!".
>
> There was stunned silence in the room...
... Followed by much laughter, as those knowing the difference glanced
at their watches and wondered when refreshments would be served... :-)
Rick Walker
> demibee wrote:
> > I'll agree that he does need to slow down when typing IF he
> > wants to continue pointing out others' errors. (But, by his own
> > admission, he's the impatient "Mr. Milliseconds"... Everything on his
> > PC must happen *NOW*!... not a second from now.... and proofreading
> > takes time.)
> *** It does. However, I have taken those comments to heart and am
> striving to take more time to proofread my posts. Unfortunately, it means
> that I now often get behind in my posting. )-:
>
> Richard
Yes, it's been four days since your last post, and things are improving.
Keep up the good work, and try the pork! :-)
- Rick
Schooner
read their own sentences.
Hard to trust the teacher that doesn't know how or cares to proof read their
lesson.
"Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:cmo2be$568$7...@News.Dal.Ca...
Schooner
> striving to take more time to proofread my posts. Unfortunately, it means
> that I now often get behind in my posting. )-:
My christ does it take you a week to proofread 2 sentences? Pretty sad when
simple proofreading slows you down so much, then again you never did think
proofreading was important, slop down the words as fast as possible, typos
and all, just as long as the grammar is correct eh.
"Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:cmo3kj$568$9...@News.Dal.Ca...
Richard Bonner
> "Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> > Rick Walker wrote:
> > > Yeah, right! Look, I watch DaVinci's Inquest on CBC, the only real
> > > time I spend on that channel (Newsworld aside), and the language is
> > > no better than that of our neighbours south of the border.
> >
> > > - Rick
> > *** That is exactly my point. American illiteracy has influenced
> > Canadians. Worse than that is that a lot of text books used in this
> > country are now *American* and they are horrible! They are littered with
> > errors.
> So you're blaming this on America?
*** Not entirely, but the influence is undeniable and has been cited in
written articles regarding more than just education. In fact, whole
countries are going against American influence in a variety of fields
and subjects.
I also blame the school systems for not policing their own text books,
and the educators for not speaking out more about this problem. I also
blame an apathetic public that says "so what?". They obviously don't care
that their kids get an education anymore, and many of the kids themselves
don't care.
Speaking of that, in Florida, parents there were complaining that their
kids were being held back due to them not being able to pass a final
literacy exam! Yow! Don't they realise that assembly-lining their kids
through school whether they deserve to be promoted or not, does not give
their kids an education? I see this same attitude appearing in Canada,
now. )-:
> > On a similar topic: Do you realise that GED exams in Canada are now
> > only American and they are sent to the U.S. to be graded? Canadians must
> > now have an *American* education to pass a *Canadian* exam. )-:
> Just because it's graded in the States means it's an American test? I'd
> look into that if I were you... A Canadian GED has always been just that;
> Canadian. Are you telling me that if I spelled "colour" instead of "color",
> that I'd be marked incorrectly? I don't think so, Richard!
> - Rick
*** I don't know whether those marking tests would carp about the
spelling or not.
My point is that a test is hardly Canadian if one must learn from
American texts and be graded my Americans. I have not looked all the way
into this, but I am under the impression that one must know U.S. history
to pass the history course. However, don't quote me on this point. It's
hearsay until I get my hands on a GED history text.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> "Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> > *** Whether I am perfect or not does not change that fact that a person
> > pointing out that two ls two is five is wrong, is irrelevant to that
> > person's math skills.
> I've read that three times. Maybe because it contains Math, that's the
> reason it seems awkward to me; however, I think it's just poorly worded.
*** I too, thought the same thing after reading it several times,
but I could not come up with an alternate method of expressing this
that wasn't more awkward. )-:
> > I am also not demanding perfection or that people be absolutely
> > formal here. All I am asking is that people at least use words for which
> > they know the meaning, and at most learn elementary school verb tenses and
> > the difference between adverbs and adjectives.
> You ask a lot, Richard, in a public forum. Be thankful you can read what
> you can :-)
> - Rick
*** I don't see that asking for writing simple English that was taught
in junior high school, if not before, is any great task for a poster.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> "Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> > (*) Speaking of basic education: In the 1980s in The U.S., there was a
> > "town meeting" regarding disposal of nuclear waste. One suggestion was
> > that the U.S. use it space technology to launch the waste off Earth and
> > into the sun. One woman got up and essentially said "What? This waste is
> > polluting Earth and now you want to pollute the sun with it!".
> >
> > There was stunned silence in the room...
> ... Followed by much laughter, as those knowing the difference glanced
> at their watches and wondered when refreshments would be served... :-)
*** I actually don't remember how that story ended. As I vaguely recall,
one of the panel of scientists briefly explained the size of the sun and
that it was one big nuclear furnace, so the pittance of waste we would
throw into it was not a problem.
Richard
Richard Bonner
> > *** It does. However, I have taken those comments to heart and am
> > striving to take more time to proofread my posts. Unfortunately, it means
> > that I now often get behind in my posting. )-:
> My christ does it take you a week to proofread 2 sentences?
*** Well, you did ask me to slow down. (-:
Actually, last week, I was working too much to get on the group very
often.
> Pretty sad when
> simple proofreading slows you down so much, then again you never did think
> proofreading was important, slop down the words as fast as possible, typos
> and all, just as long as the grammar is correct eh.
*** Not quite. I read all my posts again, unless I get interrupted at
work. Even then, I will usually save the post for later. However, if I am
very rushed, I would speed read the posts and miss items that the
spell-checker would pass.
I am now taking the time to read more times and more slowly. Thanks
to you and others for prompting me to improve.
Richard
Schooner
now you are saying it is because of work. As usual making up facts to suit
the needs of the moment.
What I find odd is that you say you speed read and thus miss typos in your
own posts, yet you nit pick other posts to death, as if you went over every
line with a magnifying glass and dictionary looking for word misuse. Again
focus more on your own problems before you start pointing the grammar finger
Bonner.
You seem the type that finds fault in all but yourself.
"Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:cmqpid$763$5...@News.Dal.Ca...
Bob Ashley
> Perhaps I should dumb the ad down with wrong spellings and incorrect
> verb tenses to appeal to the masses. (-:
Just joking, you might 'smarten up' and widen the scope of your linguistic
range to include 'variant' (not wrong) spellings and 'nonconventional (not
'incorrect' verb tenses to appeal the masses. We could think of as
repertoire-building. Beats the 'downsizing' modus vivendi.
By the way, I don't believe there is any such thing as the 'masses', only
ways of thinking about people as such.
******************************
rib
Rick Walker
> Rick Walker wrote:
>
> > "Richard Bonner" <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> > > *** Whether I am perfect or not does not change that fact that a
person
> > > pointing out that two ls two is five is wrong, is irrelevant to that
> > > person's math skills.
>
> > I've read that three times. Maybe because it contains Math, that's
the
> > reason it seems awkward to me; however, I think it's just poorly worded.
>
> *** I too, thought the same thing after reading it several times,
> but I could not come up with an alternate method of expressing this
> that wasn't more awkward. )-:
So awkward is allowed, yet I couldn't understand it. On the other hand,
if a person types a word with the wrong meaning, I can grasp what they're
talking about. And you're correct? Think "Big Picture".
> > > I am also not demanding perfection or that people be absolutely
> > > formal here. All I am asking is that people at least use words for
which
> > > they know the meaning, and at most learn elementary school verb tenses
and
> > > the difference between adverbs and adjectives.
> > You ask a lot, Richard, in a public forum. Be thankful you can read
what
> > you can :-)
>
> > - Rick
>
> *** I don't see that asking for writing simple English that was taught
> in junior high school, if not before, is any great task for a poster.
If it was, in fact, taught in junior high or before. I was reading
before I hit elementary school, Richard, as were many others. I don't have
children, but if I did, they would have been just as well-read as I was for
that age. Times have changed, and we must grow to accept that fact. I
don't agree with it, but I accept it.
- Rick