Dirty Old David Letterman: 'Treat a lady like a whore, and a whore like a lady'

[Town Heretic]

You have no proof each: of members writing to tell you that you're: "too stupid to bother with" who "declare their superiority".

I never said anyone literally said that, so I don't need proof. And I never said anyone aimed that at me, though it might have happened. :idunno: I was noting the rare instance when I'd be interested in a grammatical comment. I know it's happened a few times. That is, I recall making a point about saying, in essence, "If you're going to infer or declare your intellectual superiority you might want to run a spell check before you hit submit." That sort of thing. I suppose a few who read the Gazette and/or me regularly would recall the notion too, but it's not the sort of thing that I write in a margin somewhere to pull up. Mostly, fz decided that I regularly make a point of criticizing grammar. I don't, but I could think of an example where I'd make an exception and I recalled that sort of thing, generally. So I noted it.

Do you believe others thinks this of you?

I mostly find that people who read in an aggressive sort of intellectual superiority, as opposed to reading an expression of it like, "I won't waste my time on you idiots!" (and I have read something like that around here recently) aren't going to be reasoned out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.

If someone want's to lay a particular charge at my feet then they should set out the particular language that I used in support and I'd be willing to talk about it. Heck, I've apologized for some of the language I've used here over my years, so I don't believe I'm incapable of making an error on any number of fronts. I'm sure I make grammatical errors too, though not very often. It comes with writing online and in real time and, again, outside of formal papers not being particularly concerned with it. That is, you can't really argue someone out of a subjective impression. All you can do is speak to your intent and they'll either believe you or they won't.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So I wrote: I'm not really particularly interested in chasing people down with a red pen though...

I have my pen always at the ready...

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Don't use no double negatives.
17. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
20. The passive voice is to be ignored.
21. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
22. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
23. Kill all exclamation points!!!
24. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
25. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas.
26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.
27. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
28. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
29. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
30. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
31. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
32. Who needs rhetorical questions?
33. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

And finally...
34. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

:AMR:

AMR

 

[serpentdove]

[You have no proof each: of members writing to tell you that you're: "too stupid to bother with" who "declare their superiority". Do you believe others thinks this of you?] I never said anyone literally said that...

TH:
When I see someone write, "You're to stupid to bother with,"...
It's funny when someone proudly declares their superiority...

"...so I don't need proof."

Either you don't know proper grammar or :yawn: you intentionally misrepresent others (example 1, example 2). Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14). each:

 

[serpentdove]

I have my pen always at the ready...

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Don't use no double negatives.
17. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
20. The passive voice is to be ignored.
21. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
22. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
23. Kill all exclamation points!!!
24. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
25. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas.
26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.
27. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
28. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
29. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
30. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
31. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
32. Who needs rhetorical questions?
33. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

And finally...
34. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

:AMR:

AMR

Elaine, the exclamation point ~ Seinfeld

 

[Town Heretic]

...Either you don't know proper grammar or :yawn: you intentionally misrepresent others

Here's the easiest way to rebut that, name the person or persons I misrepresented. You won't because I wasn't quoting anyone, which is why I didn't attribute it. I was cobbling a general example of what would invite a grammatical comment by me.

Next, note the rule of grammar I violated in doing that.

Edit: working on nearly half an hour later...(mic drop).

 

[serpentdove]

[Misquoting others] Here's the easiest way to rebut that, name the person or persons I misrepresented.

You removed the examples from my quote (Eph 4:14).

See:

:yawn: misuse of ellipses

I wasn't quoting anyone...I didn't attribute it. I was cobbling a general example...

I'm not here to teach you English 101 (Pr 26:4).

 

[Town Heretic]

You removed the examples from my quote.

I didn't include them. One of them wasn't even on the point we were contesting and the other was a post I'd responded on. In any event it's a peculiar complaint unless you include everything from my posts in your own. You don't (see: your own post number 40).

Back on the point then. I take it you a) can't demonstrate me misrepresenting anyone in my use of quotes setting out the sort of general response that would invite me to consider grammar and b) that you can't cite to a rule being violated by using them.

See: :yawn: misuse of ellipses
I'm not here to teach you English 101

We weren't talking about the use of ellipses. And, again, I noted that I'm not overly concerned with grammar except in fairly limited (and funny) exception. This isn't a formal paper. If it was the form of your objection above would be problematic for you. You'd need punctuation, to begin with, after your ellipses remark.

 

[serpentdove]

…[Y]ou…can't demonstrate me misrepresenting anyone…

:yawn: Deceiver/gossip (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4) each:

…t's a peculiar complaint…

:yawn: It’s fallacious (Eph 4:14).

…[Y]ou can't cite to a rule being violated by using them.

:yawn: I’m not here to teach you English 101 (Eph 4:14).

 

[fzappa13]

Here's the easiest way to rebut that, name the person or persons I misrepresented.

mmmmmmmm ... yourself.

 

[Town Heretic]

So...Fzap can't make the point and SD can't cite the rule.

I'll just leave you two to declare yourself silly...er then. lain:

 

[serpentdove]

[Basic writing skills: quotations, ellipses] ...SD can't cite the rule.

:yawn: I'm not here to teach you Writing 101 (Eph 4:14). Will this

go in your small observations thread? :freak:

More gems

 

[fzappa13]

So it was a call out post. The chuckle at the end was a mask? Or one of those self-satisfied bits a few people seem to enjoy....too bad. But, again, it's just not something I rush about the place doing, which is the reason examples aren't leaping to your fingertips. When I note grammar it's usually after someone has ridden the "smarter than you" high horse into the sunset while making the mistake.

And that just has to be done.

Ah, so you envision yourself as the Robin Hood of grammatical snarking? Well, I guess we all have our own predilections. That said, you might want to avail yourself of the mirror that is your fellow man. Though not always flattering, it is, as often as not, of greater value than those that we craft for ourselves.

 

[Town Heretic]

Ah, so you envision yourself as the Robin Hood of grammatical snarking?

No. You seem fairly invested in putting and seeing me in the worst possible light without much or any particular thing to hang that hat on. The only point in noting grammar at all, for me, is in relation to the declaration of intellectual superiority attending the goof failing on the point. That coupling alone is what makes it funny. It is as though someone has mounted a high horse only to find the saddle loose.

Well, I guess we all have our own predilections.

True enough.

That said, you might want to avail yourself of the mirror that is your fellow man.

I'm always interested in opinion rooted in my best interest. I'm not terribly interested in ax grinding or people who won't take my word for a thing set out clearly and honestly. And I find the distinction between someone who means me well and someone who is grinding for one reason or the other is usually found in supportive facts or their absence.

Though not always flattering, it is, as often as not, of greater value than those that we craft for ourselves.

What I know about people is that most are essentially honest and well meaning, but prone to mistake. So we should refrain from attempting the shine of a mirror unless and until we can be sure what it is we're actually reflecting.

Now I can't recall the two of us having anything but reasonably pleasant interactions so I didn't count your mistake on my approach to grammar as much more than either a stretch of a nudge launched in good humor or a peculiar mistake rooted in over extending a misreading of a particular. I knew it could be that given we haven't had that much interaction it was possible you'd taken something the wrong way and, seeing one assume more. That happens. It seemed to me an easy enough particular to discover, so I assumed the best and doubled down, rebutting gently enough by explanation and the returning the nudge by doing the thing I'd have done had I the predilection you'd attributed to me.

To me that should have solved it.

Instead you became a little aggressive on the point. Worse, you made your not having particular recollections in support evidence of my problem, somehow...anyway, I hope you think better of me in time and alter your own methodology when it comes to the burden of proof for your opinion on something like that. For my part, if I take a writing negatively and someone who has nothing to gain from being dishonest and no particular reputation for being that tells me I'm mistaken, I mostly respond with, "Glad to hear it."

For what it's worth.

:e4e:

 

[fzappa13]

No. You seem fairly invested in putting and seeing me in the worst possible light without much or any particular thing to hang that hat on. The only point in noting grammar at all, for me, is in relation to the declaration of intellectual superiority attending the goof failing on the point. That coupling alone is what makes it funny. It is as though someone has mounted a high horse only to find the saddle loose.


True enough.


I'm always interested in opinion rooted in my best interest. I'm not terribly interested in ax grinding or people who won't take my word for a thing set out clearly and honestly. And I find the distinction between someone who means me well and someone who is grinding for one reason or the other is usually found in supportive facts or their absence.


What I know about people is that most are essentially honest and well meaning, but prone to mistake. So we should refrain from attempting the shine of a mirror unless and until we can be sure what it is we're actually reflecting.

Now I can't recall the two of us having anything but reasonably pleasant interactions so I didn't count your mistake on my approach to grammar as much more than either a stretch of a nudge launched in good humor or a peculiar mistake rooted in over extending a misreading of a particular. I knew it could be that given we haven't had that much interaction it was possible you'd taken something the wrong way and, seeing one assume more. That happens. It seemed to me an easy enough particular to discover, so I assumed the best and doubled down, rebutting gently enough by explanation and the returning the nudge by doing the thing I'd have done had I the predilection you'd attributed to me.

To me that should have solved it.

Instead you became a little aggressive on the point. Worse, you made your not having particular recollections in support evidence of my problem, somehow...anyway, I hope you think better of me in time and alter your own methodology when it comes to the burden of proof for your opinion on something like that. For my part, if I take a writing negatively and someone who has nothing to gain from being dishonest and no particular reputation for being that tells me I'm mistaken, I mostly respond with, "Glad to hear it."

For what it's worth.

:e4e:

For what it's worth you are intelligent and not devoid of a sense of humor ... and you tend to carp about grammar when backed into a rhetorical corner and get a little forgetful on similar occasions.


From one mirror to another.

 

[Town Heretic]

It began with:

... said the resident grammarian. :chuckle:

A pretense of good humor. But why call it pretense? Because not even you will defend it for its appearance in a moment. What’s clear to me is that at some point I gored your ox. I don’t know if it was an issue or a friend, but it got under your skin sufficiently that you reached out with a strained complaint. Met with an example of how someone who was what you thought would approach...

Oh, come on now big boy ... if you can dish it out you can take it.

Now that hostility was harder to miss, especially given you went back and literally corrected the goofy points I made about the grammar in your post, blowing by the point of doing it and the things surrounding it that should have told you what I was illustrating. Instead you continued to beat the drum:

Ah ... but you so often do when stripped of a defensible rhetorical position ... and I guess that would be my point.

Now I’m not only the resident grammarian, I’m habitually so and then, necessarily, habitually being stripped of a defensible position or I couldn’t routinely jump on the grammar wagon in defense. That’s an interesting corner you’ve painted for yourself.

I don’t even believe my worst enemies have ever said that. I note my actual, infrequent usage and...

No, actually you routinely gripe about grammar ... usually when you've run out of rhetorical ammo. That is okay. We each have our quirks and I'm not suggesting that is inherently bad.

And now it’s when I’m out of rhetorical ammo. In your world I routinely gripe about grammar after, it necessarily follows, routinely running out of ammo and having been stripped of a defensible position.

Asked for quotes and examples to support that fairly strong observation…

Another aspect of your online participation that I have noted is that you seem to suffer from amnesia when confronted with past offerings and want others to remind you of what you have said ...

Not actually confronted by anything more than declaration. You seriously made my request for support of a claim that should be as easily called to mind as you do the circumstances, about my memory instead of your inability to produce them. That’s brass. :thumb:

And this bit of polish:

and I don't think you are old enough to offer that for a defense just yet in the court of public opinion or the Big One. I'm not your Court Reporter but you do have one. Something you might want to consider ... or not. Up to you.

Consider how dramatically out of proportion the nature of this thing is for you to drag the Judgment Throne into it and how personal the root of this must be for you to hide a lack of ability to illustrate a thing that should be on the tip of your tongue behind yet another accusation.

By the next you’re not even believing your beginning was as advertised:

I call you out for your grammatical niggling when confronted with an indefensible point and then you grouse about my grammar in another thread ... I think the point sufficiently made. The defense rests.

A call out post. A reading of the response that misses the point of the response and a feeling in lieu of actual example.

And your latest?

For what it's worth you are intelligent and not devoid of a sense of humor ...

Yes, I’m particularly well known for not being devoid of a sense of humor. lain:

and you tend to carp about grammar when backed into a rhetorical corner and get a little forgetful on similar occasions.

So I have a habit of carping or niggling about grammar, habitually enough to make it the rule in your mind, even though you can’t actually recall it happening particularly, let alone repeatedly, which is obviously my problem for expecting you to provide evidence in support because you aren’t a Court Reporter…only a judge without evidence of much beyond that dead ox.

And that, fzappa, is how you use a mirror. Hold a person to what they say, offering proof on the point, not declaration slathered in the pretense of humor or helpfulness and masking, thinly, ire.

 

[fzappa13]

And that, fzappa, is how you use a mirror. Hold a person to what they say, offering proof on the point, not declaration slathered in the pretense of humor or helpfulness and masking, thinly, ire.

Nah, that's how you be a lawyer. Pretend you don't remember what you have said and hope the latest forum purge has removed enough of what you have said that anyone who calls you on it can't dredge it up anymore and offer it in the court of public opinion.

Just remember ... there is a God and we will all account for every idle word ... and that means those that we own as well as those that we don't. Regardless of whether or not they may still be dredged up on TOL.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nah, that's how you be a lawyer.

It actually was. I noted and quoted you. That's the actual mirror, instead of your declaration in lieu of substantiation.

Pretend you don't remember what you have said and hope the latest forum purge has removed enough of what you have said that anyone who calls you on it can't dredge it up anymore and offer it in the court of public opinion.

It isn't my memory that's in question...I make a charge that goes to character I set out the why. People like you, who just declare and then invent reasons why they shouldn't have to (I'm not a court reporter) or can't (inferred in the purge bit above) are just making noise to suit whatever ax they're dragging around. Apparently yours has a bit of lawyer stuck to it. lain:

Just remember ... there is a God and we will all account for every idle word .

And here it is for the second time...the judgement throne...that just screams perspective on the point of grammar. Well, I suppose if any of us was above nonsense and uncharitable motivation from time to time, if we always got a thing right and acted the way we should we wouldn't need grace.

Good news for both of us imperfect doofi then.

 

[ok doser]

A pretense of good humor. But why call it pretense?

:think:
because you're pretentious?

 

[Town Heretic]

:think:
because you're pretentious?

Like having your BMI critiqued by Chris Christie. lain:

 

[ok doser]

now that's pretentious! :thumb:


and contrived! :thumb::thumb: