*stretch* Personal policy here...
Dec. 28th, 2004 06:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
Re: further to ratmist's comment
Date: 2004-12-28 07:54 pm (UTC)Re: further to ratmist's comment
Date: 2004-12-28 08:11 pm (UTC)You might not think it's fair, and that's your perogaive. But, for now at least, there is a standard grammar of English, and you would do well to at least respect the opinions of those who would encourage others to use it.
I've said it before, and I say it again: You are repeatedly presenting your opinion as fact when it is only that: an opinion.
Your behaviour towards those who bring up completely reasonable points against is reprehensible - you make light of your own mistakes by passing them off as "jokes", and you blind folk with "facts" that they cannot prove to be false because it's not their subject - and you don't cite your sources or evidence, though you expect them to.
Furthermore a lot of the information you impart is bollocks; for example your "short history of English" was almost totally erronious - I don't care if you aren't so hot on it, what's wrong with checking a basic timeline in one of your numerious linguistic texts?
My opinion? Some dialects of English murder the language, and I will fight tooth and nail to prevent alternative grammar systems from ever being accepted by education etablishments, in the press or in educated society at large. I do not ask you to agree with this. Merely accept it as an alternative viewpoint, rather than dismissing it out of hand as the mad ramblings of a stuffy old grammar-nazi bigot, and I'll be satisfied.
Re: further to ratmist's comment
Date: 2004-12-28 08:27 pm (UTC)And for the history of the English language, as I posted that I said it's not my subject at all, that I really don't consider it "my thing". You're very much underestimating my inherant laziness if you think that I'd say that and then proceed to do research right then and there, or even get up to clean my room to find a book. If I wanted to do that, I'd just post a link to somebody else's timeline. If you can read that disclaimer (this subject isn't my thing) and then proceed to think that I am talking about something I understand greatly, that is not my problem. That's really the exact same disclaimer I'd put up if I were talking about quantum physics or Christian theology. I certainly doubt anybody actually believes I know much about the Bible, and I talk about it often.
Re: further to ratmist's comment
Date: 2004-12-28 08:39 pm (UTC)Why do you simply disregard others' views rather than respecting them as every bit as valid as your own?
Re: further to ratmist's comment
Date: 2004-12-28 08:42 pm (UTC)