Objectionable twaddle
Posted: 11 September 2013 10:45 PM   [ Ignore ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

Should objectionable twaddle be allowed to continue when it impacts on the viewing of the site as a whole or is freedom of speech more important?

[ Edited: 17 September 2013 03:25 AM by Dave Wilton ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 September 2013 04:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4716
Joined  2007-01-03

I’ve closed the thread (at least, the thread I think Eliza’s comment refers to). I’d forgotten that tool was available. (This is a really well-mannered site that requires little monitoring and correction, so it easy to forget the existence of rarely used tools.)

But I will say this in Richard’s behalf. He is well mannered in that he keeps his comments restricted to one or two threads. That makes him easy to ignore. I admit that I let it go on too long—and was somewhat guilty of throwing fuel on the fire myself—but the discussion never spread to the site in general. If it had, I would have quashed it much earlier.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 September 2013 06:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3477
Joined  2007-01-29

Thanks, Eliza, for bringing it up and Dave for closing the thread. I didn’t want to say anything more and be accused of trying to stifle discussion, but I did resent the site turning into a forum for one guy to endlessly express his proud ignorance. Talking about the history and usage of English words and phrases is fun; yet another go-around on the topic of the Decline and Fall of English, not so much.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 September 2013 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

Thank you, Dave and lh: I couldn’t agree more.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 September 2013 07:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3075
Joined  2007-02-26

I don’t think that the thread impacted the viewing of the site. If Richard were starting many threads on this topic, it may have had an impact, but as it is, there are only a couple of threads and given that we all know what Richard is about, we can simply choose not to view those threads, if they are likely to irritate us.

EDIT: having said that, I certainly understand why the thread was closed. I wonder what he’s like in real life: baffled and enraged by ordinary conventions many times a day, I suppose.

[ Edited: 12 September 2013 07:53 PM by OP Tipping ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2013 05:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3477
Joined  2007-01-29

Unfortunately, milum is taking up the mantle, providing less long-winded but equally objectionable twaddle in thread after thread.  I know you’ll tell me to ignore it, but it’s hard to ignore twaddle, especially when it’s not confined to one spot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2013 09:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Rank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2013-08-17
languagehat - 13 September 2013 05:09 AM

Unfortunately, milum is taking up the mantle, providing less long-winded but equally objectionable twaddle in thread after thread.  I know you’ll tell me to ignore it, but it’s hard to ignore twaddle, especially when it’s not confined to one spot.

Gee, hat, define “objectionable twaddle” and give me examples and reasons for your great displeasure and I’ll stop.

If you have a point.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2013 01:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  79
Joined  2012-12-28
languagehat - 12 September 2013 06:28 AM

Thanks, Eliza, for bringing it up and Dave for closing the thread. I didn’t want to say anything more and be accused of trying to stifle discussion, but I did resent the site turning into a forum for one guy to endlessly express his proud ignorance. Talking about the history and usage of English words and phrases is fun; yet another go-around on the topic of the Decline and Fall of English, not so much.

That is quite a civil observation from Mr.Languagehat, (such a hubristic name). I must assume that only on Dave’s forum must the rules of etiquette apply exclusively to prescriptivists, a nomenclature that I’ve been branded.  I must abide by the rules of etiquette: civil behavior and no ad hominem attacks, everyone else is exempt, especially Languagehat.

As I said before, he need not indulge me by reading my threads, but apparently he finds my “ignorance” irresistible.

Keep in mind that my ignorance is associated with minds conceivably with a little more acumen and commonsense than his, but most assuredly a superior accreditation. Furthermore, my ignorance, according to him, is predicated on resisting everyone’s beliefs on this forum; therefore, conversely his ignorance is based on resisting mine.

How imperceptive of him to claim that I am the one prolonging these, (I cannot define them as tedious, for they do create a certain amount of attention) endless threads. I am only responding and defending my position. An extremely precarious one on this forum, for not only am I excoriated, but I’m also disparaged and derided (two words that are synonymous, but I must intensify my point) and if it were a public forum those words would be substituted by accurately slung apples and oranges. However, I have to assume that Languagehat’s preferred choice of weapons would be daggers and arrows.

Mr. Languagehat’s knowledge is based on science, and on that science he’s established his ethics on language, but I just don’t agree with them.  However, when he defines my principles as ignorance it undermines his credibility.

Regarding the decline in English, yes, it is an ongoing debate, and there are articles written every day on its decline.  Many of those articles have merit, and those that do can stand up to Languagehat’s position rather firmly.

Concerning “objectionable twaddle”, I suggest that Eliza ignore them, for there are other people on this forum who might find these threads silly, or perhaps informative, but undoubtedly entertaining.

Dave if you’re insistent on terminating these prescriptivist and “ponderous” threads on language I would like to offer a suggestion; I have it prepared in my mind but I don’t have the time, at the moment, to transcribe it.

[ Edited: 15 September 2013 12:14 PM by Richard ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2013 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  79
Joined  2012-12-28
OP Tipping - 12 September 2013 07:44 PM

I don’t think that the thread impacted the viewing of the site. If Richard were starting many threads on this topic, it may have had an impact, but as it is, there are only a couple of threads and given that we all know what Richard is about, we can simply choose not to view those threads, if they are likely to irritate us.


EDIT: having said that, I certainly understand why the thread was closed. I wonder what he’s like in real life: baffled and enraged by ordinary conventions many times a day, I suppose.

Thank you for the ending single clause: yes, it is a supposition, albeit inaccurate. I am not at all enraged, perhaps frustrated, but enraged is a good example of hyperbole.

What are the “ordinary conventions”?  If I read you right you’re extremely accurate. I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

Excluding the above irritants, I’m your compatriot, a lover of words and literature.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2013 02:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

I’m confused. Your sentence could imply either:
1) that everybody here thinks within the box; or
2) that everybody here abhors conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2013 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  650
Joined  2011-04-10
ElizaD - 16 September 2013 02:35 AM

I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

I’m confused. Your sentence could imply either:
1) that everybody here thinks within the box; or
2) that everybody here abhors conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box.

Chalk one up for erosion of Englitch.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2013 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Rank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2013-08-17
ElizaD - 16 September 2013 02:35 AM

I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

I’m confused. Your sentence could imply either:
1) that everybody here thinks within the box; or
2) that everybody here abhors conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box.

Now, ElizaD. Stop teasing. Richard’s poorly constructed sentence shouldn’t confuse a sharp girl like you.  I think you are just kidding. I am sure you read his concluding line…

Excluding the above irritants, I’m your compatriot, a lover of words and literature.

See? Of course you do. All literate people read context .

Still I wonder. Why does Richard not like sentences that are short?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2013 09:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  79
Joined  2012-12-28
sobiest - 16 September 2013 09:27 AM

ElizaD - 16 September 2013 02:35 AM
I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

I’m confused. Your sentence could imply either:
1) that everybody here thinks within the box; or
2) that everybody here abhors conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box.

Chalk one up for erosion of Englitch.

I apologize, I thought everyone on this forum abhorred vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness, conventionality etc. How could that be when it is I who is the only non-conformist on this site. Am I excused?  After all, OP Tipping, our on site pro bono psychiatrist, evaluated my condition as borderline psychosis. 

Sobiest and Eliza, I thought we were compatriots?  Please, pardon these moments of delusion, for my psychosis materializes unwarranted and, voilá, I’ve metamorphosed into a descriptivist. But how can that be?  Descriptivists are exempt from grammatical scrutiny.  But Richard is branded a bona fide prescriptivist and he cannot hide from those markings.

My sentence was awkwardly constructed intentionally as a double entendre; the outcome was a little more than I expected, two birds with one stone,(Eliza and Sobiest). Two innocuous, pusillanimous provocateurs who could not hesitate a nano second to question my grammatical construction.

And by doing so clarified and confirmed my distasteful position: the importance of concise grammatical expression to avoid ambiguity, and the disingenuousness of descriptivists. 

As always, immensely grateful.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2013 11:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

All literate people read context .

No. They read what’s written.

Edit:

Two innocuous, pusillanimous provocateurs who could not hesitate a nano second to question my grammatical construction.


is straying into the realm of personal attack and does nothing to further your argument.
[ Edited: 17 September 2013 02:54 AM by ElizaD ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2013 03:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4716
Joined  2007-01-03

Closing this thread

Profile