On Taking Offense

fatcity66

Pretentiousness. He gotz it.

Maitria

As long as it's something I can understand and don't have to decipher, I don't care how anyone writes. Who knows... this may become the standard in the future. Afterall, that's one of the ways language evolves.

This! Too much text speak or excessively formal and I'm TL;DR. Moving on. Unless I have to read it. :ohwell:

RedArizona5

TL;DR

But do yous gots a recipe for dem SWEET TATERZ?!?!

hahahah bringing back the classics

can anyone repost it just for the memories?

I JUX HAD 2 FIND DIS 4 U

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/898529-wat-condiment-do-u-eat-wit-ur-sweet-potato-fries

:laugh: :happy:

RedArizona5

I do respect OP's thoughts but I think MFP is not the place or time..there is a place and time for things and wine will def. hinder that for the thirsty and I appreciated the elevated thoughts I had'nt read before. I am not a "grammar nazi" wish I was good at English-I do try, but, because I am not I relate to the rest. I can relate to the rest, but, just because I can doesn't mean I am less intelligent. I also don't believe your as pompous as you are coming across to everyone here. I actually do get frustrated with the texting lingoes but only because I don't know them and can't use them or define them.
It does irritate me when teenagers are trying to write essays in texting terms if thats even happening as much as it was and do agree with you regarding strictly that. But i agree with the ones who have suggested that in order to be effectively reached your use of words need to somewhat match to those with whom you are speaking with….
Did I use my words?
tBut den are duh street smartz- I know sum street marts

KrazyDaizy

You'ze got all the fancy.

mccindy72

OP waxed most eloquent, however, he was not speaking to us in English, but in American. (his mistake)

SwashBlogger

I am a published poet who finds you to be a pretentious *kitten*.

fitfreakymom

English is a whole new language now.

mccindy72

English is a whole new language now.

I'm pretty sure the population of England would be surprised to hear you say that.

DamePiglet

Observations:

Some of you have launched aspersions at my character. But I am not angry, for when one has nothing of real value to say, they attack the messenger rather than the message. And the wine has me somewhat mellow. Me: 1, You: 0.
.
Neither am I surprised some of you walked straight into the pit of logical fallacies I laid out when I announced from the start where they were in my initial post: "I am ready for your faux outrage, snark, and memes." I'm not surprised because reading comprehension and clear thinking are on the decline. Me: 2, You: 0

It is sad, overall, when social interaction involves mimicking some of the worst cable news shows, and with even less comprehension of the argument. You know the score by now--no need to tally further.

To those who have raised substantive issues with what I wrote, I salute you! Some valid arguments and my replies:

As such, I recognize that the way most people write is different based on the context. I'm not going to speak to you using high language and stiff prose on a forum. I also know that language evolves.

Such a "When in Rome" defense ignores the question of the value of a social context--to put it simply, what are the Romans doing? Put another way, the argument could amount to, "But my friends all jumped off a bridge."

Also, I would argue that there is value in resisting debasement and modifying the social context, For example, to the extent I have encouraged others to read or think clearly--I consider this a victory. I do not have to follow along with the sheep just because that's what the social context would have. The sheep may very well be walking into a butchery.

As to language evolving, this is true--Dante was criticized for writing "Inferno" in Italian rather than Latin. There is an opposite risk, however-- that of language devolving, and this risks social dissolution and political chaos. Abuse/misuse of language has led to all kinds of perverse outcomes (e.g. propaganda, wrongful convictions, etc.).

I like tripe as long as it's fried with a little egg, flour and salt.

A good way to enjoy it. I also suggest tripe parmesan (trippa alla parmigiana).

Just finished reading Frankfurt's, "On Bullsh!t"? Fun read.

An excellent book. Well-chosen. Also looking forward to "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," which another poster mentioned.

Finally--to those who think I am arrogant, pompous, trying too hard, a hipster, and so forth--I care not what you think of me personally. I will say I harbor no negative thoughts of you, personally. My interest is not in who you are, but the substance of what you are saying, if indeed you are up to that challenge.

Victory,
-G.e.C

Observation: you're STILL writing blog posts in the wrong area.
Seriously, it's not that difficult a concept!
Musings or editorials should be submitted to the blog area provided on this website.
Forum posts are for questions or to stimulate conversation.

Oddly, those you condemn seem to have comprehension of proper site usage that you lack.

FitOldMomma

There is just something so very attractive about proper use of the English language.
I will readily confess I can be a grammar snob.
In today's world of text messaging and social media website posting, it is maddening to see so many unable (or unwilling) to use correct spelling or sentence structuring.

Sometimes I want to applaud when I read a post that has no errors.

_Lovely77_

*scratches head in confusion* hmmm... I must be lost, I would have sworn this was MFP

girlinahat

Sometimes I want to applaud when I read a post that has no errors.

if only it were....


from the OP:

Rather, I would suggest, in the words of the great American poet Dylan Thomas, to "rage, rage, against the dying of the light."

if the Welsh could have back their superstar that would be great. Thanks.

ldrosophila

Sad there aren't more comments coming in from our friends in the UK. I just knew those would be rich.

jenilla1

Fuh realz!

P.S. TL;DR

fatcity66

Observations:

Some of you have launched aspersions at my character. But I am not angry, for when one has nothing of real value to say, they attack the messenger rather than the message. And the wine has me somewhat mellow. Me: 1, You: 0.
.
Neither am I surprised some of you walked straight into the pit of logical fallacies I laid out when I announced from the start where they were in my initial post: "I am ready for your faux outrage, snark, and memes." I'm not surprised because reading comprehension and clear thinking are on the decline. Me: 2, You: 0

It is sad, overall, when social interaction involves mimicking some of the worst cable news shows, and with even less comprehension of the argument. You know the score by now--no need to tally further.

To those who have raised substantive issues with what I wrote, I salute you! Some valid arguments and my replies:

As such, I recognize that the way most people write is different based on the context. I'm not going to speak to you using high language and stiff prose on a forum. I also know that language evolves.

Such a "When in Rome" defense ignores the question of the value of a social context--to put it simply, what are the Romans doing? Put another way, the argument could amount to, "But my friends all jumped off a bridge."

Also, I would argue that there is value in resisting debasement and modifying the social context, For example, to the extent I have encouraged others to read or think clearly--I consider this a victory. I do not have to follow along with the sheep just because that's what the social context would have. The sheep may very well be walking into a butchery.

As to language evolving, this is true--Dante was criticized for writing "Inferno" in Italian rather than Latin. There is an opposite risk, however-- that of language devolving, and this risks social dissolution and political chaos. Abuse/misuse of language has led to all kinds of perverse outcomes (e.g. propaganda, wrongful convictions, etc.).

I like tripe as long as it's fried with a little egg, flour and salt.

A good way to enjoy it. I also suggest tripe parmesan (trippa alla parmigiana).

Just finished reading Frankfurt's, "On Bullsh!t"? Fun read.

An excellent book. Well-chosen. Also looking forward to "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," which another poster mentioned.

Finally--to those who think I am arrogant, pompous, trying too hard, a hipster, and so forth--I care not what you think of me personally. I will say I harbor no negative thoughts of you, personally. My interest is not in who you are, but the substance of what you are saying, if indeed you are up to that challenge.

Victory,
-G.e.C

Oh, I missed this post! Now I like this guy. Keep em comin' OP.

euronorris

There's nothing to be gained from fighting the evolution of language, and no way to stop it. Just enjoy the ride!

AglaeaC

I do like this quote, though, from Fry:
"The free and happy use of words seems to be considered elitist or pretentious."

I'm back, couldn't stay away. Fry is not only intelligent, but wise.

It's not the individual words that people have a problem with, but it is how you've chosen to weave them together. There might be something intelligent here and there in that weave, but there isn't much wisdom, but rather insults. I don't smell much humility in there either.

I spoke of the general trend of debasing language through textspeak.

In return, I was personally called a hipster with compromised genitalia; pretentious; arrogant, and so forth.

And I'm the insulting one here? I think not.
-G.e.C

Edit: Also, you persist in wanting to make this about who I am--or rather your perceptions of my character--rather than the argument. This, I don't understand. Especially in a nation that elected a "likeable" guy such as George Bush, whose presidency was considered by historical experts to be a disaster. Bush won because he played the part of the "eiron"--the plain-speaking, non-pretentious guy. This is to be desired?

All I read are your words and how they are woven together. Once I step back and take a look at the weave, I don't see a message inviting gently and kindly to a respectful debate. It is character that chooses how to present the words. If you read with care many other contributions, I'm not alone in my assessment. In fact, some seem to feel that you were the first one to insult others, not the other way round.

Bush has never been my president.

As for personality vs. character, I'm not quite sure whether it's your personality or character that made you start this thread:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201104/personality-vs-character

ETA
I'm not sure whether you noticed, but I'm one of few to respond with something actually on topic and that contribution has been completely ignored. If you're keen on discussing textisms, why not push the train back on track?

CupcakeCrusoe

I do like this quote, though, from Fry:
"The free and happy use of words seems to be considered elitist or pretentious."

I'm back, couldn't stay away. Fry is not only intelligent, but wise.

It's not the individual words that people have a problem with, but it is how you've chosen to weave them together. There might be something intelligent here and there in that weave, but there isn't much wisdom, but rather insults. I don't smell much humility in there either.

I spoke of the general trend of debasing language through textspeak.

In return, I was personally called a hipster with compromised genitalia; pretentious; arrogant, and so forth.

And I'm the insulting one here? I think not.
-G.e.C

Edit: Also, you persist in wanting to make this about who I am--or rather your perceptions of my character--rather than the argument. This, I don't understand. Especially in a nation that elected a "likeable" guy such as George Bush, whose presidency was considered by historical experts to be a disaster. Bush won because he played the part of the "eiron"--the plain-speaking, non-pretentious guy. This is to be desired?

All I read are your words and how they are woven together. Once I step back and take a look at the weave, I don't see a message inviting gently and kindly to a respectful debate. It is character that chooses how to present the words. If you read with care many other contributions, I'm not alone in my assessment. In fact, some seem to feel that you were the first one to insult others, not the other way round.

Bush has never been my president.

As for personality vs. character, I'm not quite sure whether it's your personality or character that made you start this thread:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201104/personality-vs-character

ETA
I'm not sure whether you noticed, but I'm one of few to respond with something actually on topic and that contribution has been completely ignored. If you're keen on discussing textisms, why not push the train back on track?

Quoted for complete and utter truth. I don't think OP is interested in debate, just in finding people who think the way he does or finding people to praise him for his use of longer words when shorter ones would suit. No offense meant, OP, but you are on an internet forum, not at school giving a dissertation. Just because you can use more convoluted language doesn't mean you should.

AglaeaC

I do like this quote, though, from Fry:
"The free and happy use of words seems to be considered elitist or pretentious."

I'm back, couldn't stay away. Fry is not only intelligent, but wise.

It's not the individual words that people have a problem with, but it is how you've chosen to weave them together. There might be something intelligent here and there in that weave, but there isn't much wisdom, but rather insults. I don't smell much humility in there either.

I spoke of the general trend of debasing language through textspeak.

In return, I was personally called a hipster with compromised genitalia; pretentious; arrogant, and so forth.

And I'm the insulting one here? I think not.
-G.e.C

Edit: Also, you persist in wanting to make this about who I am--or rather your perceptions of my character--rather than the argument. This, I don't understand. Especially in a nation that elected a "likeable" guy such as George Bush, whose presidency was considered by historical experts to be a disaster. Bush won because he played the part of the "eiron"--the plain-speaking, non-pretentious guy. This is to be desired?

All I read are your words and how they are woven together. Once I step back and take a look at the weave, I don't see a message inviting gently and kindly to a respectful debate. It is character that chooses how to present the words. If you read with care many other contributions, I'm not alone in my assessment. In fact, some seem to feel that you were the first one to insult others, not the other way round.

Bush has never been my president.

As for personality vs. character, I'm not quite sure whether it's your personality or character that made you start this thread:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201104/personality-vs-character

ETA
I'm not sure whether you noticed, but I'm one of few to respond with something actually on topic and that contribution has been completely ignored. If you're keen on discussing textisms, why not push the train back on track?

Quoted for complete and utter truth. I don't think OP is interested in debate, just in finding people who think the way he does or finding people to praise him for his use of longer words when shorter ones would suit. No offense meant, OP, but you are on an internet forum, not at school giving a dissertation. Just because you can use more convoluted language doesn't mean you should.

If we really stretch it, this could be called University of Life, though.

I want to add that English isn't my first or even third language, so perhaps OP could take that into account as well in a place like this online. I produce it to the best of my abilities, but a vast vocabulary isn't my forte. Punctuation is my Achilles' heel and the occasional grammar mistake can also be found.