Ooh, linguistic ignorance!

[conuly]

Fun!

I'm going to be sick. There's no more justification for being prejudicided against speakers of a non-Standard dialect than to be prejudiced against practicioners of a minority religion, but here it comes again! And yet, when I point out that it doesn't mean that this woman is retarded, I get yelled at, and words get put in my mouth. Because, of course, it's so much easier to contest what I didn't say than what I actually *did* say.

I need to hie me to Jenn's. I'll talk later. Djusk' a.

Comments

[marrog.livejournal.com]

???

I cannot believe you just did that. You have, on no less than three occasions, stated as fact that the double negative was once part of Standard English. This is wrong, wrong wrong, and then you just pass it off as a mix up? How can you demand sources and citations from other people when you don't actually check your own before saying something so fundimental to your argument?

Zero points.

[conuly]

That's not really fundamental to my argument, though. My argument is: people shouldn't judge others on things which are, at most, tangentially important. Whether or not this feature or that was part of standard English (and I would certainly say that being part of Shakespeare or the KJV counts) doesn't change "judge not others on things which are inconsequential".

And I can demand sources and citations from others because I want to learn. *shrugs* If you don't want to provide, that's good. If other people want 'em from me, I'll do my best to find 'em. Or, if I can't, I'll apologise. What else do you expect? This isn't an essay, or a thesis. It's my journal. I should hope people reading it know enough to research anything I say.

An aside on what was apparently inconsequential to you.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

If you really wanted to learn, you could've picked up beautiful pearls of wisdom from Threnody's above posts. Instead, you pontificated and ignored the points of her posts completely. No wonder she removed you from her friends list. I find it sadly ironic.

Re: An aside on what was apparently inconsequential to you.

[conuly]

What pearls of wisdom, exactly? Since I clearly missed them, you should really restate them.

Re: An aside on what was apparently inconsequential to you.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Well, considering the perfunctory fobbing off she got from you to her long, involved, meaty and well-placed argument on your most recent entry, I think perhaps you should look for yourself rather than burdening her further to waste time on someone so clearly incapable of listening to anyone other than her own voice.

Re: An aside on what was apparently inconsequential to you.

[conuly]

Second most recent. And I do intend to read that more carefully, after I have had time to calm down, warm up, and eat. It's 21 degrees in my room. You need to wait for the fuel guys to come to expect me to be serious about anything.