Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Pointless Boy wrote:
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin,
I do not believe you came to this thread in good faith and with intent to express a constructive opinion about the matter put forth in the OP.
I've been reading your posts, and (especially from your last one) it doesn't seem like you're arguing in good faith either. The entire post is just a sesquipedalian way of saying "Your opinions are all invalid because my English is better than yours" and you're disqualifying other people's opinions regardless of whether they are even native English speaking or not. Actively listing and pointing out grammatical and spelling mistakes is also an entirely pointless attack to the opponent, as it doesn't actually have to do anything with what the discussion is about. i can tlak liek dis, and still have very good knowledge on English spelling and grammar, regardless of whether I actually apply it or not.
Also, your references to numerous "English experts" are entirely meaningless without other backup. "I consulted five experts and they all straightly agreed with me" doesn't exactly say much to me. I could easily say "I consulted 300 experts of American English and they say your experts are all wrong". It doesn't really mean anything, as it's too easy to make this all up.
Pointless Boy wrote:
Agreement and an interesting point from a friend of mine whose grasp of English is likely equivalent to mine or better:
(12:57:29 AM) : i like "just aren't enough" quite a bit better. "are just not enough" is either a stilted way to say the former OR it makes a false claim: that human skills can 'nearly' match a TAS
If I were you, I'd have probably derailed this guy's opinion because his capitalization is ass, and that there needs to be a period at the end. Then I'd claim that this invalidates his entire opinion on everything because clearly this guy's English expertise is not up to par.
Also, considering his grasp of English is according to you "equivalent to yours or better", that means that at best, you're as good as this guy, so clearly your English expertise must be equally bad as well.
Pointless Boy wrote:
And because he deserves it:
(12:58:44 AM) : lol Mr. Kelly R. Flewin is amazing
(12:58:48 AM) : what a horrible, horrible post
(12:58:49 AM) : lmao
Aaand thank you for the blatant ad hominem at the end. Way to derail your own argument.
Bottom line: Stop acting like the intellectual high ground, and at least give others the chance to make their points without immediately dismissing them. You're mostly just coming off as a smug, arrogant butthole here.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Edit by FractalFusion: Three posts merged. Images deleted for being disruptive and unnecessary to the discussion at hand.
Unnecessarily editing and merging my three posts is actually far more destructive and disruptive to this thread than my satirical use of these four small images:
The use of images on these forums is allowed, as is the use of satire. It's not as if I make a habit of filling my posts with pointless images, nor do I consider the images I used above to be pointless. They contributed to an overall tone was intended to convey a certain amount of exasperated derision. It is clear you have abused your position as a moderator on these forums to censor me because you have a personal grudge against me. This is evident from your mystifying overreaction to what amounted to a neutral statement of fact and some grammar and spelling corrections earlier in this thread, a thread which, I remind you, is essentially about preferred English grammar.
Multiple posting is also allowed on these forums. The Forum Rules mention "Disruptive posting is not allowed. This includes spamming, making multiple useless topics or posts, or repeatedly going off-topic in a topical thread. In extreme cases, disruptive members will be banned." My posts, however, clearly do not violate any of those rules. Each of my posts was lengthy and substantive, on-topic, and there was a significant delay between each of them. (You have conveniently concealed the timing of my posts by merging them.)
Furthermore, you have actually lowered the quality of this thread by making it harder to read. I separated my posts into "digestible bites" because each of them was fairly long, and they were responses to different people (or sets of people.) The now merged triple post is ridiculously long and much more difficult to parse. There is a reason text is commonly organized into various structures such as words, sentences, paragraphs, posts, chapters, and what have you. Organization serves as a guide to the reader and allows the writer to indicate pace, group related passages, suggest natural stopping points where a reader may take a moment to reflect, and more. I organized my posts the way I did because that is how I preferred to read them, and wanted them read.
I am honestly shocked and appalled at your abuse of power. If you have any regard whatsoever for inalienable human rights such as freedom of expression even and especially when you disagree with that expression, you must restore my posts. Of course, you won't, but that's because you are a petty, vindictive, power hungry despot. I dare you to prove me wrong, coward.
----
"This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance."
- Philip K. Dick
The idea of having all the site in perfect English is awesome, but it is simply unachievable. Just compare the amount of such "hard-coded" text, that can be fixed once and for all, with the amount of user-generated text. Do you have a bunch of "well trained monkies" to check the perfectness of every single wiki edit's English? If so, go ahead and clean up after all of us.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
First Pointless Boy ridges high/her high horse and dismisses everyone's opinion simply because they are not proficient and native speakers.
Now he/she complains that a moderator abused his/her power because he/she merged three posts. Right. Well, just know that triple posting is considered BAD on most forums. You can separate them even when they're merged into one post.
So, should we ignore Pointless Boy and settle on our own opinion on the logo matter? I find it difficult to separate them meanings of the two sentences, so I am either way...
... is that you, xebra?
e: also, nowhere in the thread topic does it say that this thread is about preferred English grammar, unless motto has some hidden meaning that I am unaware of.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Pointless Boy wrote:
Edit by FractalFusion: Three posts merged. Images deleted for being disruptive and unnecessary to the discussion at hand.
Unnecessarily editing and merging my three posts is actually far more destructive and disruptive to this thread than my satirical use of these four small images:
[destructive and disruptive images]
No, it's not. Merging posts does not have any destructive or disruptive effect. (Other than to your post count, but that's an entirely irrelevant factor).
These images, however, do. They're obnoxious, flashy, and serve no purpose at all.
The rest of the rant about this lowering the threads's quality by making it "harder to read" (WTF?) is also meaningless.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
I've been reading your posts, and (especially from your last one) it doesn't seem like you're arguing in good faith either.
It is hard to understand this viewpoint, as in every single one of my posts I make a carefully reasoned argument in support of my position (or refuting the position of another.)
The entire post is just a sesquipedalian way of saying "Your opinions are all invalid because my English is better than yours"
Yes! This is precisely my argument! My opinion -- in this instance, in this particular and specific area of inquiry -- is the most valid one (so far expressed in this thread.)
and you're disqualifying other people's opinions regardless of whether they are even native English speaking or not.
Not quite. I disqualify the opinions of other people (concerning what sounds most correct and natural to a proficient native speaker) on the basis of my perception of those peoples' mastery of English. In order to avoid this all being entirely too circular, and to allow people who don't have my mastery of English to nevertheless recognize bad English, I made a point of highlighting a few of the more egregious errors displayed by various people that posted in this thread.
Actively listing and pointing out grammatical and spelling mistakes is also an entirely pointless attack to the opponent, as it doesn't actually have to do anything with what the discussion is about.
It was imperative that I undermine the credibility of those people that disagreed with me, not because they disagreed with me, but because those particular people happened to lack a sufficiently advanced grasp of English usage and style, which is necessary to have a meaningful opinion about the suggestion in the OP. Demonstrating that someone lacks mastery of English is, in this context, a perfectly reasonable method of invalidating their opinion regarding English usage and style, and not at all a personal attack.
Tellingly, not a single person with an advanced grasp of English usage and style has disagreed with me. I am open to having a meaningful discussion on this front with anyone that doesn't obviously lack the necessary knowledge and experience.
i can tlak liek dis, and still have very good knowledge on English spelling and grammar, regardless of whether I actually apply it or not.
True, but I would advise against trying to obfuscate your expertise of any particular subject in a discussion about that subject. I don't see how that could be constructive.
Also, your references to numerous "English experts" are entirely meaningless without other backup. "I consulted five experts and they all straightly agreed with me" doesn't exactly say much to me. I could easily say "I consulted 300 experts of American English and they say your experts are all wrong". It doesn't really mean anything, as it's too easy to make this all up.
Sort of true, in that in the absence of your own sufficiently advanced experience and knowledge, you do require a certain amount of faith in my expertise, and that I'm not simply lying when I say I consulted other people. That being said, I am the only person here (so far) actually claiming any expertise in this area, I have no particular reason to lie about it, and no one has seriously suggested that I am not an expert, probably because it's fairly evident that, hey, my English is pretty good.
Therefore my opinions (and the opinions of other experts I have supposedly consulted) are perfectly valid inasmuch as you trust that I am acting in good faith with regard to this issue. Do you believe I am attempting to mislead?
If I were you, I'd have probably derailed this guy's opinion because his capitalization is ass, and that there needs to be a period at the end. Then I'd claim that this invalidates his entire opinion on everything because clearly this guy's English expertise is not up to par.
Also, considering his grasp of English is according to you "equivalent to yours or better", that means that at best, you're as good as this guy, so clearly your English expertise must be equally bad as well.
His usage of English is actually quite fluent there, and the point he makes is cogent. Lackadaisical capitalization and the missing terminal period are certainly not relevant critiques of a casual IM conversation. (Moreover his use of punctuation, even in that short excerpt, is actually quite adept.) Note that I have not criticized anyone here for trivialities such as capitalization, punctuation, or speaking informally.
Aaand thank you for the blatant ad hominem at the end. Way to derail your own argument.
Though it was definitely my intent to be scornful to Mr. Kelly R. Flewin (and rightfully so, in my opinion, as his post was execrable and he needed to be told more than once), it wasn't ad hominem. Subtle but relevant distinctions follow.
Please turn to page 2,939,314 of the English edition of the hivemind wikigod: ad hominem "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I was clearly not attempting to negate the truth of any claim, as Mr. Kelly R. Flewin didn't make one. At least, I don't see one. He certainly didn't say anything the least bit relevant to the suggestion put forth in the OP or the ensuing discussion. As such, while pointing out that his comments were utterly devoid of value was, perhaps, a bit childish, it was obviously not a component of my rhetorical argument, which I had expounded upon in excruciating detail prior, including in part within that very post.
Assuming, however, that Mr. Kelly R. Flewin intended his comments to be on-topic (forgive me if this assumption is incorrect), his words do constitute argumentum ad hominem, as he is clearly attempting to undermine my position, not with well-reasoned argument, but rather by expressing his opinion that I am a shit, or something of that nature.
Again, I think it is perfectly clear my jab at Mr. Kelly R. Flewin (by quoting my friend's opinion of him) was intended only to point out that he made a terrible post, which he did, and that he was generally a dick by extension. So, I may have derailed the thread a bit, but not my argument.
Bottom line: Stop acting like the intellectual high ground
I think you mean "stop acting like you have the intellectual high ground." If at any time I don't actually have it, I will.
and at least give others the chance to make their points without immediately dismissing them.
I only immediately dismiss those arguments that are immediately dismissible. Entertaining bad or obviously incorrect arguments is usually a waste of time.
You're mostly just coming off as a smug, arrogant butthole here.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
You're mostly just coming off as a smug, arrogant butthole here.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
It is my opinion, as well, and gathering from the replies in this thread, the opinion of many others, as well.
And yes, opinions weigh more than expertise in some areas...
The idea of having all the site in perfect English is awesome, but it is simply unachievable. Just compare the amount of such "hard-coded" text, that can be fixed once and for all, with the amount of user-generated text. Do you have a bunch of "well trained monkies" to check the perfectness of every single wiki edit's English? If so, go ahead and clean up after all of us.
Does the fact that perfection is impossible mean we should ignore all opportunities for improvement? In fact, we do have well trained monkeys, and I am one of them. I am deeply embroiled in the process of cleaning up after all of you at this very moment, or hadn't you noticed?
I saw an inaccuracy, was willing to fix it, and was not able to do so because only editors can make such changes. So then I made this thread in hopes that an editor would make the change. I did not expect it to be controversial as the change is minor and there is no reason to doubt my judgment (in this field), or my sincerity.
It is not your judgement that is doubted. It is the way you act which makes you come under fire and which is why people are mostly ignoring you rather than listening to you. That is what they mean by high horse.
I still don't know whether you are ignorant of this fact or just doing this on purpose.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Pointless Boy wrote:
I saw an inaccuracy, was willing to fix it, and was not able to do so because only editors can make such changes. So then I made this thread in hopes that an editor would make the change.
Actually, that particular image/text probably requires a site manager, not just an editor.
Also, why not ask to become an editor yourself then, if you do want to patch up the text on the site?
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
First Pointless Boy ridges high/her high horse and dismisses everyone's opinion simply because they are not proficient and native speakers.
Not everyone's opinion, only the opinions of those people that aren't proficient native speakers, and then only their opinions of what sounds most correct and natural to a proficient native speaker. How is this even an argument? This is tautology!
Now he/she complains that a moderator abused his/her power because he/she merged three posts. Right.
Because a moderator did abuse his power. My posts were substantive, unique in content, and not posted in rapid succession. There was no reason to merge them other than to make a show of exerting some control over the thread. Deleting my pictures and merging my posts was unnecessary, heavy handed, and a clear abuse of power aimed at stifling my expression.
Well, just know that triple posting is considered BAD on most forums. You can separate them even when they're merged into one post.
Needless triple posting is considered bad. As I said before, I made three separate posts for obvious and sensible reasons. It is not relevant that no one else responded in this thread over the course of me crafting multiple lengthy responses to many different people.
So, should we ignore Pointless Boy and settle on our own opinion on the logo matter? I find it difficult to separate them meanings of the two sentences, so I am either way...
Your opinion is not relevant. Your English isn't good enough for you to have a meaningful opinion about what sounds most correct and natural to a proficient native speaker.
Your opinion is not relevant. Your English isn't good enough for you to have a meaningful opinion about what sounds most correct and natural to a proficient native speaker.
My opinion is relevant. So is everyone else's opinions.
My grammatical structure may not be nearly 100% perfect enough for YOU to accept it as a valid opinion on what sounds most correct and natural to YOUR native speakers.
I highly doubt that YOUR opinion is the correct one. Find me people who can write 100% correct grammatical English and tell me that ALL of them (every single one) have the same opinion. I doubt you will find it.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Pointless Boy wrote:
Now he/she complains that a moderator abused his/her power because he/she merged three posts. Right.
Because a moderator did abuse his power. My posts were substantive, unique in content, and not posted in rapid succession.
They were nothing that would have necessitated additional posts. The edit button, use it.
I only consider multi-posts meaningful if either:
There's a significant time gap between the posts (at least 1 day or so, the timespan for your posts was definitely way too little)
It's an update with significant content (e.g. a new WIP in a game thread; just another response in a debate thread doesn't warrant a new post in short succession)
Your posts were neither.
Pointless Boy wrote:
There was no reason to merge them other than to make a show of exerting some control over the thread.
Reasons for merging multi-posts:
Make the thread easier to read (contrary to what you think, this is more convenient for the vast majority of people)
Restrict post count increase abuse
A "show of exerting control over the thread"? What are you even talking about? FractalFusion simply did his job as a mod, removing clutter from the thread. What is your problem with this?
Pointless Boy wrote:
Deleting my pictures and merging my posts was unnecessary, heavy handed, and a clear abuse of power aimed at stifling my expression.
The pictures were deleted because they were unnecessary and more distracting than anything. I don't see how merging posts is "abuse" in any way, shape or form. And it has nothing to do with "stifling your expression". Stop thinking it was done to target you. It wasn't.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
also, nowhere in the thread topic does it say that this thread is about preferred English grammar, unless motto has some hidden meaning that I am unaware of.
Huh? In the OP I suggest making an essentially grammatical change to the way the motto is phrased. That is what this thread is obviously about.
EEssentia wrote:
It is not your judgement that is doubted. It is the way you act which makes you come under fire and which is why people are mostly ignoring you rather than listening to you. That is what they mean by high horse.
I still don't know whether you are ignorant of this fact or just doing this on purpose.
Clearly my judgment is in doubt, or people wouldn't be arguing against it. People aren't saying, "That is a good suggestion, you are an asshole." I'd be fine with that, because my intent would have been realized. My intent is for the logo, title, subtitle, and motto to all be correct, natural, and aesthetically pleasing.
EEssentia wrote:
It is my opinion, as well, and gathering from the replies in this thread, the opinion of many others, as well.
And yes, opinions weigh more than expertise in some areas...
Is this one of those areas? I think it is self-evident the answer to that question is no. If someone who plausibly represents himself as a good judge of English comes along and mentions there is a minor issue with some phrasing somewhere on the site, suggests a change, and literally no proficient English speakers (of which there are many on this forum!) object, what is the problem? Why are Russians and Chileans and all manner of relatively inexpert (compared to me) speakers of English coming out of the woodwork to argue with me?
Is this one of those areas? I think it is self-evident the answer to that question is no. If someone who plausibly represents himself as a good judge of English comes along and mentions there is a minor issue with some phrasing somewhere on the site, suggests a change, and literally no proficient English speakers (of which there are many on this forum!) object, what is the problem? Why are Russians and Chileans and all manner of relatively inexpert (compared to me) speakers of English coming out of the woodwork to argue with me?
Because you are making it out to be,
"Because this doesn't sound right to me, it must be changed, unless someone can prove to me that this isn't correct English."
It doesn't matter if you are very good at English or whatever. You have stated an opinion, and this is a community, not some dictator faction or private group.
You dismiss everyone's opinions because they are not proficient enough in your opinion to matter. But that's just the thing. Who says that the logo must be 100% correct English, or just english that matters to you? No one. Only you are saying it.
This is a community, and as such, the community makes a decision if something changes or not. Not one individual.
No, it's not. Merging posts does not have any destructive or disruptive effect. (Other than to your post count, but that's an entirely irrelevant factor).
It has many destructive and disruptive effects:
1) It stifles my creative expression by needlessly forcing my posts to conform to the moderator's chosen configuration.
2) It stifles the expression of everyone on the forum by showing them that anyone's posts are subject to being censored by any moderator that disagrees with their content, even if that content is reasonable and posted in good faith.
These images, however, do. They're obnoxious, flashy, and serve no purpose at all.
Of course they served a purpose. They were supposed to convey exasperated disdain just so, by being obnoxious and flashy. Nowhere does it state in the forum rules that it is inappropriate to occasionally be moderately obnoxious or flashy for rhetorical purposes. The images were small in both filesize (so as not to interfere with the loading of the page) and physical dimension (so as not to overwhelm the thread by necessitating a horizontal scrollbar, for example.) In short, they were perfectly reasonable images to use for the purpose of visually expressing my annoyance.
The rest of the rant about this lowering the threads's quality by making it "harder to read" (WTF?) is also meaningless.
It's not meaningless, it's merely subjective. I personally prefer to have my posts separated for the reasons already mentioned, the primary one being I don't like reading or writing posts that are too long. Where my replies were short, I grouped them into one post. Where my replies were long, I made a separate post, as is my personal preference. You may disagree with my personal preference in that regard, but it would be ludicrous to say I was being unreasonable or abusive in my posting habits. Posts should never be edited by a moderator without compelling reason, and FractalFusion had no compelling reason. (As we've seen, his reasons were most likely, in fact, reprehensible.)
Mothrayas wrote:
They were nothing that would have necessitated additional posts. The edit button, use it.
I only consider multi-posts meaningful if either:
There's a significant time gap between the posts (at least 1 day or so, the timespan for your posts was definitely way too little)
It's an update with significant content (e.g. a new WIP in a game thread; just another response in a debate thread doesn't warrant a new post in short succession)
Your posts were neither.
Those are merely your preferences. The forum rules give no guidelines in this regard. My preferences are different, and clearly reasonable. I prefer to have my thoughts broken up into smaller chunks than you do. For example, I consider this post to be uncomfortably long.
Reasons for merging multi-posts:
Make the thread easier to read (contrary to what you think, this is more convenient for the vast majority of people)
Restrict post count increase abuse
More convenient for some, less convenient for others. I prefer smaller posts. In the absence of clear consensus, or guidelines in the forum rules, there is no justifiable reason to alter the posts of anyone who is posting reasonably, as I was.
A "show of exerting control over the thread"? What are you even talking about? FractalFusion simply did his job as a mod, removing clutter from the thread. What is your problem with this?
...
The pictures were deleted because they were unnecessary and more distracting than anything. I don't see how merging posts is "abuse" in any way, shape or form. And it has nothing to do with "stifling your expression". Stop thinking it was done to target you. It wasn't.
He did not remove clutter from the thread. In my opinion he made it more cluttered by making my posts harder to follow. Moreover he changed the meaning of one of my posts (by removing reasonable images that had communicative purpose), and made me feel uncomfortable through his needless exertion of authority, and in a thread in which his objectivity could obviously be called into question, no less! If he truly felt the formatting and pace of my posts was so egregious, he could have and should have alerted another mod (a mod that had not already weirdly chastised me in the thread) and asked him or her to make a determination and, if warranted, take action in his stead. He did not because his actions were not justifiable.
Mothrayas wrote:
Actually, that particular image/text probably requires a site manager, not just an editor.
So be it.
Also, why not ask to become an editor yourself then, if you do want to patch up the text on the site?
That is one option. Another option is the option that I chose: making the issue known and asking for it to be changed. I do not object to being made an editor, but I had various reasons for believing simply making a thread about it would be most efficacious.
Pointless Boy, when joining a community, you must understand that there are rule enforcers, just like the police. They have authority and can make decisions about rules, including things that are not explicitly stated in the rules, because a lot of things are subjective and writing rules to cover every little possible thing is just not possible.
If you dislike the change they've made, then PM another moderator or admin informing them that you think that their decision was faulty and explain your reasoning. They will investigate and notify you with their decision. Publically denouncing moderators is not going to work in your favor. It is going to make you look worse in everyone's eyes, which will make them less likely to listen to you.
You've already made your point. You want to change the logo. Fine. Let the community decide if they like it or not. You are going to get anywhere by continuing this argument. It will just make it less likely that your suggestions will get accepted in the future.
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
Why are Russians and Chileans and all manner of relatively inexpert (compared to me) speakers of English coming out of the woodwork to argue with me?
This site is built of contributions. Contributers are from all over the world. The comunity has its own unique spirit and attitude. The ones who never contribute are wellcome when they keep the same spirit and attitude. You do not wish to try to win any of these. Either because you're proud or because you're trolling. The quoted lunge implies that the latter.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Because you are making it out to be,
"Because this doesn't sound right to me, it must be changed, unless someone can prove to me that this isn't correct English."
That is the crux of my argument, yes, though "proof" is too strong a word for what would be required for me to change my mind. Simply, if a number of clearly proficient native speakers came forward and said they did not share my opinion, I would take note and, after further review, alter my understanding of what sounds normal. (It is telling that none have, and unlikely that any will.)
I also didn't say the motto "must be changed", I simply pointed out that the motto (and subtitle) seemed flawed to me, and if we agree correctness is generally more desirable than incorrectness, and natural speech is generally more desirable than unnatural speech, then it seems the motto (and subtitle) are ripe for minor modifications.
I also ended the post with a flippant remark and posted a picture of a kitten.
It doesn't matter if you are very good at English or whatever.
Absolutely it matters. Whether or not (the correctness of my opinion concerning) my suggestion is reasonable depends on my mastery of English. I think this is fairly obvious.
You have stated an opinion, and this is a community, not some dictator faction or private group.
Even in matters of opinion, it is not always appropriate to consider the opinions of an entire population. In this case, the reasonableness of my suggestion rather transparently depends on whether or not there is a consensus among subject matter experts. (It seems there is. Most nonexperts either weakly prefer the current phrasing, or express no preference at all, whereas experts strongly prefer my phrasing.)
You dismiss everyone's opinions because they are not proficient enough in your opinion to matter.
Correct. If you aren't an expert, you can't reasonably express an opinion as to what sounds best to an expert.
But that's just the thing. Who says that the logo must be 100% correct English, or just english that matters to you? No one. Only you are saying it.
No one is saying the motto must be 100% correct English, and I have invited people to express an opinion contrary to my stated one: "TASVideos, wherever it uses English (or any language), should endeavor to use the best sounding and most correct phrasing possible, in order to facilitate communication and so as not to needlessly promulgate erroneous usage."
If you disagree with that sentiment, then by all means let's discuss it. But you don't disagree. No one does. Endless hemming and hawing with various what-ifs and hypothetical scenarios isn't constructive if those scenarios don't actually seem to exist. Sure, someone could theoretically be opposed to the concept of generally communicating clearly wherever possible, but no one is. You either don't particularly care about further correctness (as long as something is "good enough") or you agree correctness is desirable, all other things being equal. If you don't care, why are you arguing in this thread, and why would you be so passionately resisting those that do? And if you do care, why are you, a nonexpert, arguing with an expert?
This is a community, and as such, the community makes a decision if something changes or not. Not one individual.
It is certainly appropriate for the community to make the decision whether or not more correct English usage and style is necessary or desirable, sure, and on that basis the community should decide whether the motto gets changed. It is not for the community to decide what is the most correct English usage and style. Only people who could reasonably be experts should determine that.
"Do we care that many native English speakers' first impressions of the site (from looking at the motto and subtitle) will be that it is poorly edited, and that we will be promulgating incorrect usage?"
- That is a question for the entire community.
"If we don't want native English speakers to have a negative first impression of the site on that basis, and we desire correctness, what changes should we make to the way the motto and subtitle are phrased?"
- That is a question only for experts. If you aren't an expert, your opinion doesn't matter.
The use of images on these forums is allowed, as is the use of satire. It's not as if I make a habit of filling my posts with pointless images, nor do I consider the images I used above to be pointless. They contributed to an overall tone was intended to convey a certain amount of exasperated derision. It is clear you have abused your position as a moderator on these forums to censor me because you have a personal grudge against me. This is evident from your mystifying overreaction to what amounted to a neutral statement of fact and some grammar and spelling corrections earlier in this thread, a thread which, I remind you, is essentially about preferred English grammar.
Multiple posting is also allowed on these forums. The Forum Rules mention "Disruptive posting is not allowed. This includes spamming, making multiple useless topics or posts, or repeatedly going off-topic in a topical thread. In extreme cases, disruptive members will be banned." My posts, however, clearly do not violate any of those rules. Each of my posts was lengthy and substantive, on-topic, and there was a significant delay between each of them. (You have conveniently concealed the timing of my posts by merging them.)
Furthermore, you have actually lowered the quality of this thread by making it harder to read. I separated my posts into "digestible bites" because each of them was fairly long, and they were responses to different people (or sets of people.) The now merged triple post is ridiculously long and much more difficult to parse. There is a reason text is commonly organized into various structures such as words, sentences, paragraphs, posts, chapters, and what have you. Organization serves as a guide to the reader and allows the writer to indicate pace, group related passages, suggest natural stopping points where a reader may take a moment to reflect, and more. I organized my posts the way I did because that is how I preferred to read them, and wanted them read.
I am honestly shocked and appalled at your abuse of power. If you have any regard whatsoever for inalienable human rights such as freedom of expression even and especially when you disagree with that expression, you must restore my posts. Of course, you won't, but that's because you are a petty, vindictive, power hungry despot. I dare you to prove me wrong, coward.
----
"This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance."
- Philip K. Dick
[/URL]