I've noticed that many of the forum discussions that TA has tweeted lately have contained glaring grammatical and spelling errors. I find this disappointing and even personally embarrassing as it inevitably reflects not only on the original poster but on the forum as a whole and, by extension, the larger atheist community. I know written communication isn't everything, and it certainly isn't a high priority among the public generally, but we should try to meet a higher standard. Given the unlikelihood that individual posters will suddenly take more care when writing, I think the operators of the site's Twitter feed should consider not tweeting discussion titles with serious errors.
That's one poster's opinion, for whatever it's worth.
It's a little-known fact that the Luthor's changed their name to Luther, just before little Martin was born - very little-known --
Ah, someone who enables my insanity - any chance you could help me out of this strait jacket?
RE: "too stupid, rude or ignorant to read their silly mythologies."
Actually most of them haven't thoroughly read their own silly mythologies.
Isn't your post worse then the subject matter?
Well played, Blaine - now we know what you did with YOUR day!
RE: "try being nice to someone with disabilities." - I'll have you know I'm nice to Unseen every time he deserves it --
Ok, Devil's Advocate Time. I don't have science to back me up, but I still challenge Thee to refute Mee, scientifically and unemotionally, see? Y'all please don't shoot me right away, but try to absorb some of this, yo.
I often sympathize with the language proletariat more than the boojzwhazee [i call accent on the 2nd syllable]. Let the language boojzWHAzee emotionalize, weep, and inevitably hug themselves perfectly (like a fricken straightjacket) for consolation.
I've said before, I think language elitism is natural, built into us thousands or tens of thousands of years ago when we were developing our new language(s). Back then, "in the beginning", it was profoundly more useful to constantly enhance verbal communications, and fervently enforce standards. It's still important, but I think it's wrong for language elitists (who used to be tremendously, nay, stupendously helpful) to now ignore the vast legacy of accumulated strange spellings, illogical semantics and sentence constructions, and other lingual and lexical inconsistencies caused by our ancestors' utilitarianish rush-jobs. Praise and enjoy Shakespeare and other superiors, but stop demeaning younguns who haven't yet learned the value of a more universal communication, above and beyond their own, adolescent cliques and cliches.
Now, has anyone noticed that it's the youngsters who invent the most language and body languange memes (as seen on MTV), and it's the oldsters who prefer to standardize language and reject the new or evolving language? In general, I mean. Well, this makes perfect sense in a language evolution-vs-standardization way. And it made even more sense, way back When, when there were fewer oldsters to hold back youngster-instigated language evolution.
Youngsters are inventive linguistically often more as a barrier to general communication than an aid. By this I mean they want a way of communicating with each other that's different enough from the way adults talk as to be baffling.
But that's not what this thread is about. It's about people who simply haven't yet absorbed the fundamental rules.
You're harshing my mellow, Man --
more as a barrier to general communication than an aid
Teens invent or appropriate language that feels more peer-level-expressive, or practical (as in text shorthand or emoticons). But it's not usually invented for the purpose of covert communication. So we agree (I think?) that that is not what this thread is about, nor is it about ESL or writers with other, genuine language disabilities.
I still think it's useful for people to understand more about where their language prejudices come from. You can disagree with me on that. I'll say no more about it (here, in your thread).
I'm with you in that I, too, will often skip a lot of people's careless writing, when it's not worth my time to decipher it to perchance discover its relevance. But, it's not worth my time to read a lot of the ad hom responses to writing errors. If a friendly correction or comment won't work (e.g. "I really don't understand most of your writing"), then I'd rather just move on to something more constructive.
But it's not usually invented for the purpose of covert communication.
Perhaps your youth was different from mine. My peers enjoyed expressing ourselves in ways that went over the adults' heads.