I am certainly not trolling. Shane seems to have forgotten that I spent more than social science five years studying this field. Honestly, he can take his little opinions and hang them from a tree branch. The fact that I haven't bothered to comment on the previous arguments is simply a reflection of how much I despise this constant witch hunt against Dee, and the supposedly "civilized" discourse happening in this corner of the internet.
If he considers himself an expert, then I clearly know nothing about language. You be the judge of which scenario is more plausible. 😉
In any case, I would be more than happy to post the private messages from certain "distinguished" users who actually kicked this whole mess off. That way, everyone else can enjoy the fruits of their particular brand of "culture."
And frankly, instead of making these veiled threats, why don't you just show me exactly who I supposedly insulted? Since you seem to have overlooked the post I directed at my own insignificance. 🙂
Jesse Cooper97 The user states: Please don't take this personally. If anyone else were behaving exactly like you, I would feel compelled to give them the same warning. 🙂
You certainly have a sharp eye; we're truly fortunate that you notice everything.
Jerry Roberts15 said:Once upon a time, even in the rugged stretches of the North America or amidst the gloom of socialist wasteland eras, education almost always implied culture. At the very least, some semblance of social grace—a certain standard of civilized communication. In this brand-new Arvacka, however, "education" seems to be breeding nothing but arrogant cannibals and frustrated experts in cloning and other conspiracy theories.
Real men 🤣 used to prove themselves through action, not through impotent, hysterical outbursts.
Looking at your post, I see two distinct things: first, a classic case of ad hominem argumentation; and second, what psychology refers to as projection—a hallmark trait of all those internet quasi-experts.
That post tells me absolutely nothing about who I am. But it reveals quite a lot—perhaps everything, in fact—about you. ☕
Perhaps you should take a moment to wonder if you aren't becoming a bit tedious, yourself, along with your cohort of equally tiresome clones. ☕
Bellwether, while you're busy auditing everyone else, would you be so kind as to run a quick check on the IP address of Jacob Thompson76’s tireless attorney? Since she seems so visibly shaken, please verify immediately whether her anxiety is actually warranted. I suspect it is, though my own psychic abilities are admittedly far less refined than hers—after all, she possesses the uncanny knack of not only predicting the future but also accurately profiling every single soul over on Social Science after a mere fifty posts. (We were discussing moderator objectivity, the good intentions of the old guard, or perhaps the motives of those recent arrivals who have sprouted up like weeds after a spring rain, despite the fact that their post counts and registration dates make their true purpose quite obvious.) Regardless, do investigate the validity of my assumption. And if she turns out to be right, do reward her for the effort.
Jerry Martin19 said:Look, here's the thing. It’s not a problem when someone calls out a typo during a serious, high-level debate. The issue is that trolls almost always weaponize grammar as an "argument," turning a standard discussion into a cheap ad hominem attack. They pull that move once they run out of actual points to make, just typing stuff like, "Look at this guy, he can't even spell XYZ correctly."
There’s another scenario where this happens too. It’s pretty stupid to lecture someone if, say, a guy from the Deep South insists on writing change instead of chang'n. Most of the time, they know exactly how it's spelled and said; they just feel more relaxed using their local dialect while typing. I mean, if some guy in America doesn't realize that chang'n is actually change, he basically needs a PhD just to understand regional slang...
We seem to be on the same page here; what we're seeing is clearly a provocation.
Jerry Martin19 said:Look, here's the thing. It’s not a problem when someone calls out a typo during a serious, high-level debate. The issue is that trolls almost always weaponize grammar as an "argument," turning a standard discussion into a cheap ad hominem attack. They pull that move once they run out of actual points to make, just typing stuff like, "Look at this guy, he can't even spell XYZ correctly."
There’s another scenario where this happens too. It’s pretty stupid to lecture someone if, say, a guy from the Deep South insists on writing change instead of chang'n. Most of the time, they know exactly how it's spelled and said; they just feel more relaxed using their local dialect while typing. I mean, if some guy in America doesn't realize that chang'n is actually change, he basically needs a PhD just to understand regional slang...
I have nothing against dialects, quite the contrary. However, if someone chooses to write in a regional vernacular, they should be consistent about it. You shouldn't have chang'n in one sentence and then use standard English like milk in the next. That kind of linguistic hybridity is just grotesque.
The same applies to those with a Midwestern drawl. I don't know if you ever read Brankov's blog, but it was brilliant from start to finish, despite being occasionally incomprehensible. 😁
Dialects are part of our heritage and should be cherished. 🙂
Everything you're saying makes perfect sense—just not on every single sub-forum. ☕
If you wander into the Social Science section intending to debate linguistics, yet you can't decide whether to spell a word correctly or incorrectly, or if it's an option or an objection—well, that lack of basic knowledge renders you incompetent for any serious discussion. It’s akin to someone attempting to lecture on mathematics without being able to solve a simple equation, or discussing medicine while insisting the human body consists of 237 bones.
And frankly, I will always call out such individuals, regardless of how you feel about it, the moment I spot them. It’s the sheer audacity of those who refuse to master the basics yet insist on acting like experts. Trying to compete with true scholars—that is the primary issue.
Secondly, this forum is a medium of the written word. In this space, your grammar serves as your personal ID card. It speaks volumes about your education and your level of culture. Therefore, it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more careful here and there. Because as much as being corrected might irritate you (not that I do it often myself!), it raises the blood pressure of others just as much when people stumble over basic spelling or punctuation rules and nuances (or whatever else), making themselves look ridiculous. Moreover, it shows a lack of respect for others. I have realized this countless times, and if you actually took a moment to reflect, you would see the truth in it. Communication is a two-way street; if you expect concessions from others, you must be willing to make them yourself. Let's flip the script: why should anyone here have to struggle through your sloppy, half-baked ramblings? Is it really too much to ask to think for a second or two before hitting a key? Are we on the same page, or what? 😉
Finally, it is telling that those who grumble most loudly against proper writing are exclusively the uneducated. For the learned—or at least those who actually bother to learn something on this forum—it is never an issue. On the contrary, they are grateful for every lesson.
The absolute pinnacle of parody in my estimation is The Hollywood Walk of Fame, which happens to be Carpenter's debut. It’s a masterpiece from start to finish and stands as one of the finest entries into the realm of art I've ever encountered. It really is a door kicked wide open. 👍
Douglas Long2 said:It's known as the Electra complex—though, if we are looking at the broader psychological development, the term "Oedipal phase" is generally applied to both genders (which, I should note, was Freud's original concept).
That simply won't hold water. If we're acknowledging an Oedipal complex, then logically, there must be an Electra one as well. 😉
Quick question for the moderators: what exactly do all those various symbols next to users' names on the main page signify? For instance, I’ve noticed I have an asterisk next to mine, and I find myself wondering about the logic behind it. 😬
Well, it is. There’s an old rule of thumb for determining the ideal vocal weight: just take your height in centimeters and subtract 110 for women, or 100 for men. Does anyone actually still follow those kinds of metrics? 😉
Gerald Rivera60 said:From what I can gather, the film doesn't carry much weight among the cinephile crowd (not that such things really matter)... it doesn't even have a significant rating on IMDb.
What kind of criteria are those? Honestly, I couldn't care less about what IMDb thinks.
quietdriver3 said:I found the movie decent enough, but there’s actually a much more fascinating reason why I enjoyed it:
It hit theaters just a single year before Star Wars, yet it feels decades older by comparison. Honestly, the battles look significantly better—and I assume they cost a fortune 😲 too.
George Lucas has always been obsessed with investing heavily in special effects. After all, he even owns his own production company dedicated to it.