*stretch* Personal policy here...

[conuly]

If you want to say that you think I'm wrong, it'd be nice if you could explain why. Let me clarify:

1. I think you're wrong about *issue* because you're an idiot.

This isn't cool. Don't do that, it really makes you look stupid.

2. I think you're wrong about *issue*. *wanders off*

This *may* be not-cool. Don't do this either, because you'll be met with me going WTF? at you.

3. I think you're wrong about *issue* because *completely irrelevant/untrustworthy source disagrees*.

This is just sad. Don't do that either.

4. I think you're wrong about *issue* because I've done research/a relevant source disagrees/I think you misunderstood this relevant source and it really means that/something else that makes sense.

This is good. This is useful. This is *interesting*. Go ahead, do this.

5. I think you're wrong, and I'm going to insult you now.

Don't do that either, 'k? Nobody listens to you when you do that.

So. Look at the list. Make sure you're in group four instead of one of the other groups. We'll all thank you for it.

Comments

Re: A somewhat delayed response.

[conuly]

I'm skipping past most of this. I do promise to read it more thoroughly later, but right now I'm 1. cold and 2. hungry, and therefore 3. unlikely to give it a reasoned response.

However, I do have... um, a few things to say.

1. The bigot comment didn't come from people calling that woman uneducated. Really, I agree, considering that she was smoking while pregnant. It came from the statement that using a double negative was a sign of mental retardation, or that it's a sign of laziness.
2. I don't actually believe in that tool of the oppressor stuff. That's why I keep a running count of how many times I've said it. It's a joke, much like my calling myself the Empress of the Universe is a joke (and people have taken that seriously too, which really shows how obscure my sense of humor is). I mean, yeah, I do want to take over the world, and I definitely don't like prescriptivism - but it's not intended as an actual statement of belief.
3. *shrugs* See, I *said* historical linguistics isn't my strong suit. I never can get all those names right in my head. How embarassing. The point, of course, still stands that Lawyer-ese isn't an example of purest English, even if my dateline was a bit skewed.
4. (You didn't say this, I think, but I will) People reading my journal really should know to take everything the same way they would if they were reading anything else. They need to do their own research. Among other things, it's more fun talking to people who know something about what I'm trying to talk about, and it helps keep me on the straight and narrow here, though I doubt my dating problems are going to go away. Alas.

I do promise to read your response more thoroughly, but now = not the time.

And a comment on ethics.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

I posted to your journal originally because I was annoyed at the poor treatment you afforded Threnody. While it is your journal to do with what you wish, I find it disconcerting to see so many people cowed by your arrogant, erroneous interpretations of linguistics. Most alarmingly, this cowering is often followed by some polite requests for enlightenment, which you readily provide in erroneous or highly biased form.

Normally I do not comment as a stranger onto anyone's journal; it's jarring, tacky, and usually rude. It's like walking up to a table in a crowded restaurant and adding two cents to a conversation that had been quite clearly private despite its public venue. Nevertheless, sometimes people do interject their opinions to those sitting in a restaurant; similarly, I felt it was appropriate to step forward and speak honestly about your errors in both interpretations and erroneous citations. The root cause of this interjection is the lack of a scholarly, academic element missing in every post you've returned to marrog and me: ethics.

If you're going to put yourself on the line as an authority to any degree of expertise, whether amateur or expert, you must be willing to spar with those that find your ideas flawed. By ignoring my post and blithely posting repeatedly to another (check your time stamps), you fail to adhere to your own ethics as posted in your general "Personal Policy, #1-5" above. By my count, you've violated some of policy #2 and #4, and by repeatedly replying to shorter (i.e. more manageable) posts after stating you couldn't possibly do so, you violate #5.

So let's review. You've now stated, "I'm not going to comment, but here's my comment anyway: I didn't mean that - it was a joke! Nevermind, I was right anyway, because you should look up my writing before assuming anything!".

I don't think you're an idiot, and I don't think you're completely wrong in what you say and post; nothing can be wholly wrong that stems from a good heart, which I believe you have. However, you actually lose most, if not all, of your threadbare scholastic credibility, by refusing to listen to others and contradicting yourself by your actions and your words. And from glancing through your other posts, you've badly needed someone to say this to you, because you've made up or convoluted so much shit it's like you've gotten away with linguistical murder.

Re: And a comment on ethics.

[conuly]

What post did I completely ignore? I replied in the order that they appear on my most recent comments page - newest to oldest. However, if I did not see a post, I am sorry.

As for saying "I couldn't reply", I didn't say that. What I *said* is that "I am not, at this time, able to give your post the consideration it deserves". Which really means that I didn't consider the other posts as worthy as attention. Yay.

Nor was that what my comment said. My comment said: look, I can't give your reply the attention it deserves, so I'll just take note of the few things I *can* reply adaquately to right now. For example, you misunderstood my statement, it's not meant seriously. Sorry about that.

I didn't say "oh, I can't comment, so I'll put the entirety of any reply you'll get here, and you should've paid more attention". That would make no sense.

I'm not going to attempt to take up your post at this time. Despite what you believe, I am *actually* not, at this time, capable of giving it the attention it deserves. I can give that attention to *other* posts, but not to *every* post. It's very easy to look at a short post and say "look, I'm sorry, I messed up there". It's not too difficult to say "hey, I'm confused, please explain what you mean". It's astonishingly simple to say "I'm not going to answer this question, it's either irrelevant or not public information". It is, however, difficult to take a long, detailed post and give it a long, detailed reply. Since I did not wish to insult you by giving it a pretension of a reply, I answered honestly: I can't do that right now, please wait until later.