To kurwamac: Physician, heal thyself!!
You take me to task in #24 for writing “drunk’s”, and thereby supposedly offering an illiterate’s version of the plural, “drunks”, in my comment, #16. Actually, kurwamac, with beautiful, karmic appropriateness, YOU in fact turn out to be the one who might consider mastering grunting instead of tackling English.
To quote the portion of my post where you spotted my supposed error: “...while they regard the typical bloke’s relationship to language as more like the town drunk’s to the Thunderbird he guzzles from the bottle (and dribbles on his shirt in the process)”
Do I really have to explain to you, kurwamac, that the possessive “drunk’s” was entirely correct in that context? Obviously, the word “relationship” was understood. But since your ability to process even slightly complex English sentences is in serious question, let me spell it out for you.
“...while they regard the typical bloke’s relationship to language as more like the town drunk’s (relationship) to the Thunderbird he guzzles from the bottle (and dribbles on his shirt in the process)”
Do you finally get it, kurwamac?
But this little incident is actually an irony within an irony. First, there’s the irony of kurwamac presuming to correct me when he’s the one in error. But there’s an additional irony: in the sentence before his display of grammatical ineptitude, he rebukes Richard for “pontificating about correct and incorrect writing” when he (Richard) is himself making errors. And then in the very next sentence he does it himself!!!!
God MUST exist to have provided such swift and perfect retribution for a person whose principal ambition in life seems to be cruelly and gratuitously disparaging and humiliating others. Watching kurwamac hoist on his own petard--- has justice ever been more beautiful?
And speaking of people who (laughably) consider themselves sophisticated scholars of language, what about the Abbott and Costello of this site, sobiest and Faldage? Did everybody catch their vaudeville act? Top-banana sobiest required a stern verdict from a word- and letter-counting analysis to finally grasp that Richard and I are two different people, and second-banana Faldage needed sobiest’s assurance that the results were statistically significant before he appeared to grudgingly assent. These two fancy themselves word-fanciers! Yet how stunningly insensitive must a person be to the use of language to fail to instantly differentiate between Richard’s writing and mine!!!! Gentlemen, may I recommend you go back to “Dick and Jane at the Beach” and progress very slowly from there--perhaps in thirty or forty years you might have an opinion on language somebody might be interested in.
And bear in mind: instead of sobiest, Faldage and their confreres-in-mocking actually using their minds to fashion reasoned arguments against me and Enlightened Prescriptivism or Richard and his point of view, they are engaged in pathetic attempts to destroy the Arguers rather than the Arguments.
But the kurwamac “drunk’s” incident has me musing in a very sober way: surely, on a site inhabited by many fanatical grammarians, I’m not the only one who noticed kurwamac’s absurd and ironic error. And yet none of these observers saw fit to point it out, content to let someone be mocked by kurwamac for a non-mistake—an example of peer pressure corrupting even those “on the sidelines”.
As I’ve watched the gang of regulars (note: Dave’s conduct has been an admirable exception) on this site bully and assault with mockery and disparagement a new target (Richard), I’ve had many thoughts. A few pertain to the active participants, who now of course are serial offenders. But their psychopathology is too severe to be discussed in the few words permitted here. Instead I want to address, once again, as I did in my own “MacDonald’s“ thread a couple of weeks ago, all those of you out there silently watching this gang of regulars mock and belittle their new target, Richard.
People lie to themselves. They think, “Hey, if an incident reaches truly outrageous proportions, of course I’d take some action to stop it.” Really? Why must you Silent Ones wait for ugly and immoral behavior to become “truly outrageous” to speak up? Maybe that’s just a rationalization, to mitigate the cowardliness of your current inaction. It’s likely that truly outrageous behavior would only make you more frightened to intervene than you already are.
I really don’t think most of you Silent Ones are “bad” people, just incredibly afraid of defying the crowd. Human beings’ greatest flaw may be exactly that. I remember in college reading about Asch’s experiments on group pressure and conformity, and being truly sickened by my fellow inhabitants of the planet, and even more so by the thought that I might be just like them.
I resolved then never to be intimidated by the “group” (more properly termed ‘gang’ or ‘mob’ in most cases, including this one), and more importantly, whenever possible to act on behalf of anyone being bullied, mocked, or otherwise victimized by a gang. And so I call out the regulars of this site who have bullied and mocked instead of debating, I revile you as despicable people who clearly need to disparage others in a (probably futile) attempt to elevate yourselves. Go read about the pre-Civil War South, where the strongest supporters of slavery were the lowest status whites who didn’t own any slaves at all! But they desperately wanted somebody in society they could deem “inferior” and mock and deride. Read about it, you regulars, and see yourselves!!
And more importantly, to all you witnesses choosing to remain mute as you observe the gang’s latest disgraceful acts: you may not recognize it, but your soul is paying a price for your silence.