7 ms·

Why did you omit capital letters and periods and misuse ellipses in a post which attacks academic English? These choices would be annoying enough in any post bu

Why did you omit capital letters and periods and misuse ellipses in a post which attacks academic English? These choices would be annoying enough in any post but for this one in particular they undermine your credibility.

thaumaturgy 10y ago
You've just called into question a race car driver's driving ability because you saw them not use their turn signal. Capitalization and punctuation shouldn't be your signals for quality in a comment on Chaucer and Shakespeare and literary history. I'm demonstrating one natural outcome of your criticism here by using proper punctuation, capitalization, and other grammatical minutiae while knowing not the damnedest thing about the quality or literary history of Troilus and Cressida.
- jjoonathan 10y ago
  > You've just called into question a race car driver's driving ability because you saw them not use their turn signal. Note that I used the word "choice," indicating that I understood it to be a conscious decision rather than a lack of competence. > Capitalization and punctuation shouldn't be your signals for quality in a comment on Chaucer and Shakespeare and literary history. What makes you think I used them as exclusive signals? My claim wasn't that bad grammar made the parent post bad, it was that bad grammar had a negative contribution towards the overall credibility of the post. > I'm demonstrating one natural outcome of your criticism... Your reading comprehension might leave something to be desired, but the fact that a weak building may be built on a strong foundation does not imply that a strong building may have a weak foundation. To be clear: I am referring to your "example," not justifier's post, because I do not believe that justifier has a weak foundation, at least not with respect to grammar, which brings us back to the question of why. Purposefully employing bad grammar in a post about English is a signal both that the writer holds strong and nontraditional opinions about English and that (s)he lacks the persuasive tact to fight one battle at a time. The way I see it, either quality alone could have led to a justified failing grade on an essay for reasons that have nothing to do with the veracity of its core claim.
  - drdeca 10y ago
    Honestly, I didn't notice that they didn't capitalize things, until it was pointed out.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Why would you waste your time on advertising your disapproval to obviously intentional cutesy capitalization when there was content to the post? That's like getting fixated on the color of the ink that something was written in. Or not listening to someone who stuttered, or had an accent. > Purposefully employing bad grammar in a post about English If this post was about English, everything said in English is about English. The post was explicitly about meaning.
  - thaumaturgy 10y ago
    Alright, I wrote my reply to you in good humor, but you've clearly taken it personally, so I'll write more plainly. You're essentially bikeshedding [1] here. 'justifier' wrote an interesting comment that had some actual substance to it, and now you and I are engaged here in a pissing match over the value of its grammar and punctuation, and we're doing that because neither of us is well-enough educated on the actual topic of 'justifier's comment to respond substantively to it but yet we both want to express an opinion about it. It's an ugly, ugly habit that I see a lot in HN comments, whether it's in reply to a long-form essay or in reply to a newly announced startup or a new programming language. It discourages comments and participation from more thoughtful people because they can expect whatever they write to get henpecked by other people who, having no mastery of the actual subject matter, turn instead to the most trivial-to-understand bits and pieces. I picked on you at random to try to discourage that behavior a little. And since I'm contributing to that problem now myself, this'll be my last word about it today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
- mcphage 10y ago
  > You've just called into question a race car driver's driving ability because you saw them not use their turn signal. They're calling into question the driving ability of a self-professed race car driver, who seems to be struggling with the basics of driving.
  - AlexCoventry 10y ago
    > seems to be struggling with the basics of driving The writing was so clear that I didn't even notice the lack of punctuation until it was pointed out.
- bryanrasmussen 10y ago
  didn't he rather call into question someone's claim to be a race car driver based on seeing them not using their turn signal in conditions where use of the turn signal is generally expected?
pcl 10y ago
I'd say it reads pretty well. I didn't notice the atypical punctuation until I read your comment.
justifier 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13251451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13251451 i also avoid negative constructions.. look through my comment history you will find it is completely devoid, except now for this comment, of any instances of using: no, not, never, none do you think plato lacks credibility? have you ever read classics(o) in their original languages? theywereflippantinevenusingspacesbetweenwords(i) i would ask that if you care to develop an opinion as to my credibility that it be based on my content rather than if i can correctly utilise a ruleset someone else created that i disagree with but i can respect that some people are unwilling to do so (o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics (i) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua
- jjoonathan 10y ago
  Did you fail the essay because the teacher disagreed with your core claim or because you used the essay as a vessel for an irrelevant grammatical crusade?
  - justifier 10y ago
    honest answer to your question: i followed grammar you would have been proud of for this submission so i assume my grammar had little affect on the grade but seriously, is that how you want to judge? and how you think people should be judged? am i the crusader? i am just writing how i like to write, and instead of engaging with the material people question how i present my opinion? if i were commenting on every comment: why are you using this tired grammatical dogma that is ill suited for the immediacy of our main contemporary publishing platform; then i could agree with your sentiment, but instead this effort to uphold an assumed status quo seems the real crusade here i am sorry my punctuation offends you, i wish there was a way that i could write how i want to write and you could read it how you want to read it
    - severine 10y ago
      > i wish there was a way that i could write how i want to write and you could read it how you want to read it Heh! Maybe they could peruse http://wiki.languagetool.org/adding-a-new-language http://wiki.languagetool.org/adding-a-new-language
ansgri 10y ago
considering the correct circonflexe on « benoît », it just might be that their primary language is more tolerant to avoidance of capitalization or they might as well had to use some crappy inconvenient input method, like a sensor keyboard, which makes you want to minimize keystrokes. Anyway, I'd also like to know the answer, I just wouldn't add that part about credibility.

thaumaturgy 10y ago

You've just called into question a race car driver's driving ability because you saw them not use their turn signal. Capitalization and punctuation shouldn't be your signals for quality in a comment on Chaucer and Shakespeare and literary history. I'm demonstrating one natural outcome of your criticism here by using proper punctuation, capitalization, and other grammatical minutiae while knowing not the damnedest thing about the quality or literary history of Troilus and Cressida.

jjoonathan 10y ago
> You've just called into question a race car driver's driving ability because you saw them not use their turn signal. Note that I used the word "choice," indicating that I understood it to be a conscious decision rather than a lack of competence. > Capitalization and punctuation shouldn't be your signals for quality in a comment on Chaucer and Shakespeare and literary history. What makes you think I used them as exclusive signals? My claim wasn't that bad grammar made the parent post bad, it was that bad grammar had a negative contribution towards the overall credibility of the post. > I'm demonstrating one natural outcome of your criticism... Your reading comprehension might leave something to be desired, but the fact that a weak building may be built on a strong foundation does not imply that a strong building may have a weak foundation. To be clear: I am referring to your "example," not justifier's post, because I do not believe that justifier has a weak foundation, at least not with respect to grammar, which brings us back to the question of why. Purposefully employing bad grammar in a post about English is a signal both that the writer holds strong and nontraditional opinions about English and that (s)he lacks the persuasive tact to fight one battle at a time. The way I see it, either quality alone could have led to a justified failing grade on an essay for reasons that have nothing to do with the veracity of its core claim.
- drdeca 10y ago
  Honestly, I didn't notice that they didn't capitalize things, until it was pointed out.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Why would you waste your time on advertising your disapproval to obviously intentional cutesy capitalization when there was content to the post? That's like getting fixated on the color of the ink that something was written in. Or not listening to someone who stuttered, or had an accent. > Purposefully employing bad grammar in a post about English If this post was about English, everything said in English is about English. The post was explicitly about meaning.
- thaumaturgy 10y ago
  Alright, I wrote my reply to you in good humor, but you've clearly taken it personally, so I'll write more plainly. You're essentially bikeshedding [1] here. 'justifier' wrote an interesting comment that had some actual substance to it, and now you and I are engaged here in a pissing match over the value of its grammar and punctuation, and we're doing that because neither of us is well-enough educated on the actual topic of 'justifier's comment to respond substantively to it but yet we both want to express an opinion about it. It's an ugly, ugly habit that I see a lot in HN comments, whether it's in reply to a long-form essay or in reply to a newly announced startup or a new programming language. It discourages comments and participation from more thoughtful people because they can expect whatever they write to get henpecked by other people who, having no mastery of the actual subject matter, turn instead to the most trivial-to-understand bits and pieces. I picked on you at random to try to discourage that behavior a little. And since I'm contributing to that problem now myself, this'll be my last word about it today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
mcphage 10y ago
> You've just called into question a race car driver's driving ability because you saw them not use their turn signal. They're calling into question the driving ability of a self-professed race car driver, who seems to be struggling with the basics of driving.
- AlexCoventry 10y ago
  > seems to be struggling with the basics of driving The writing was so clear that I didn't even notice the lack of punctuation until it was pointed out.
bryanrasmussen 10y ago
didn't he rather call into question someone's claim to be a race car driver based on seeing them not using their turn signal in conditions where use of the turn signal is generally expected?

pcl 10y ago

I'd say it reads pretty well. I didn't notice the atypical punctuation until I read your comment.

justifier 10y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13251451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13251451 i also avoid negative constructions.. look through my comment history you will find it is completely devoid, except now for this comment, of any instances of using: no, not, never, none do you think plato lacks credibility? have you ever read classics(o) in their original languages? theywereflippantinevenusingspacesbetweenwords(i) i would ask that if you care to develop an opinion as to my credibility that it be based on my content rather than if i can correctly utilise a ruleset someone else created that i disagree with but i can respect that some people are unwilling to do so (o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics (i) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua

jjoonathan 10y ago
Did you fail the essay because the teacher disagreed with your core claim or because you used the essay as a vessel for an irrelevant grammatical crusade?
- justifier 10y ago
  honest answer to your question: i followed grammar you would have been proud of for this submission so i assume my grammar had little affect on the grade but seriously, is that how you want to judge? and how you think people should be judged? am i the crusader? i am just writing how i like to write, and instead of engaging with the material people question how i present my opinion? if i were commenting on every comment: why are you using this tired grammatical dogma that is ill suited for the immediacy of our main contemporary publishing platform; then i could agree with your sentiment, but instead this effort to uphold an assumed status quo seems the real crusade here i am sorry my punctuation offends you, i wish there was a way that i could write how i want to write and you could read it how you want to read it
  - severine 10y ago
    > i wish there was a way that i could write how i want to write and you could read it how you want to read it Heh! Maybe they could peruse http://wiki.languagetool.org/adding-a-new-language http://wiki.languagetool.org/adding-a-new-language

ansgri 10y ago

considering the correct circonflexe on « benoît », it just might be that their primary language is more tolerant to avoidance of capitalization or they might as well had to use some crappy inconvenient input method, like a sensor keyboard, which makes you want to minimize keystrokes. Anyway, I'd also like to know the answer, I just wouldn't add that part about credibility.