As many of you know, I delight in pointing out other people on LJ who are stupid.

Whether or not they are stupid is a matter of some debate, but please, don't take it personally if I think you are, that just means you are like the rest of the world.

Now, some of these people... okay, many of them... have less than perfect spelling in the original source. Whether or not I commented on the spelling to them or in my rantling, it's amazing how it improves when they head over here to complain about me to my face. Apparently, having your intelligence questioned makes you self-conscious.

There's a point here, and it's NOT "let's insult these people all over again". My point is that even those I've called out for being stupid, rightly or wrongly, understand that spelling makes an impression and that the worst way to appear intelligent is to forget that. So, why, dear god why, do other people insist it's wrong to judge them for using teh dreddud chtspk?

My attempts at changing the english language:

Gigglesnorts: most people who have seen this word seem to use it. That is still not very many people, but I will call this early, unintentional experiment an success.

FLAM: Not really my word, but again, it seems to be spreading around NC and beyond. Updates later.

Mihi: Only Phy and one or two latin geeks use it :(

New additions:

Iste: This disreputable, from latin.
Ipse: An intensifier. I ipse think that's bullshit. I myself think that's bullshit.

And a question. If I added a random dialectal word (meaning an uncommon word not in my dialect) to my internet language every week, how long until I got attacked by wild beasts? Would one a month be better?

*cracks up*

Featuring the obligatory puzzled remark from the crazed christians Defense of Marriage Coalition.

Man, that's some funny shit. And it's not like these people can't get married, they can just leave the county to do it. Pure symbolism here.

More politics

Some of you may remember my longass post about how the Pledge is stupid and the American's Creed is better. If not, you can no doubt find it in my memories (I'm at 200 now! Go me!)

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000630.html

I love this person. Seriously.

If any further evidence is needed that the purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance is to inculcate mindless loyalty to the state, it can be found in the fact that many children clearly do not understand what they are saying. This can be seen in the eggcorns that they construct. My mother tells me that as a little girl she believed that there was a thing called a legiance that she was pledging to the flag. She didn't know what it was. In today's column in the New York Times, entitled Of God and the Flag, William Safire reports that as a little boy he thought that the Pledge began "I led the pigeons to the flag". In a roundabout way, I think he understood it all too well.

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT! Or one of them, anyway. It's wrong, dead wrong, to teach children to say big words they don't even understand, especially if you're expecting them to promise something. If they don't understand it, why should they say it? You're making them lie, even if they'd mean the sentiment. So, of course, by the time they understand what it means, they're just numbly reciting pitterpatterbabble. Stupid, really. If you're going to say something and not mean it, it might as well be something personal, like "I love you" or "I'm allergic to mushrooms".

I don't know...

I feel I should've called troll in this post and just left it alone (after the earlier post I made on the subject, of course, but... is it possible the guy really is this stupid? I mean, sheesh, support your argument! Somehow!

Incidentally, since the first post I made on the subject, he's come up with such gems as "the fact remains that you hate all Jews", to which I reply that if he hated all Jews he'd consider anything that increases terrorist attacks in Israel to be a good thing.

(no subject)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/national/24CUST.html?pagewanted=2

( Article inside, you lucky people )

E, a medical administrator who declined to be interviewed, said in a statement, "I made it clear to her from the beginning that I wanted to be a single parent, and that I would accept her ovum donation only if it was truly a donation and I would be the sole legal parent."

"She functioned as a stepparent would function, and there's no question but that she loved the twins." But, Ms. Richmond said, granting shared custody would be "trampling" on E's rights and "giving this woman greater rights than stepparents have."

You live with this woman for five years. Your kids have known her as Mom for five fucking years, and you're going to move ALL THE WAY across the country and take them from their other mom because of... what, exactly? Spiteful, much? Trampling on your rights? What about your kid's rights, the right to not be separated from half their family, the right to know the person who helped raise them so far?

Ms. Weingartner and her lawyer declined to be interviewed, but in her petition she cited "the ages of the children, the fact that they are approaching puberty, the fact that they are girls, the fact that Mr. McGriff is now in a homosexual relationship with another man, the fact that Mr. McGriff has failed to deal with his homosexuality in a responsible and emotionally stable manner."

If they're girls, they have nothing to fear from gay men. And I think that being in a long-term relationship with somebody, regardless of gender, is dealing with your sexuality in a responsible and emotionally stable manner.