0
Chat wrote...
What's the prize for winning this?epeen. nate is the only one trying to win though.
He doesn't speak English and misunderstood someone, called him wrong, and has given us 15 paragraphs trying to defend his mistake; in one of which he claims "Unlike you, I wouldn't be a sissy and I can take it when people prove me wrong."
1
nateriver10 wrote...
No disrespect but it just makes you look biased which is understandable but suggests a cloudy judgement.Well said, perhaps you're right. What is right and what is necessary are two completely different things; The problem we have is that we manage to create the grey area in between the two. Just like pain, there's the pain that makes you strong and there's the pain that makes you weak. We manage to create a grey area in between those two points as well.
This discussion/debate could continue to end of time; The fact of the matter is that the world keeps spinning. I've got nothing more to add to this discussion and as such I'm retracting myself from it.
-GQ
-1
nateriver10 wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Okay, many of your sentences are not grammatically perfect, even in this quote. This is even not counting your improper spelling of "gramatical". It's not subjective, see?Why you come after other people's sentences when your own are hardly perfection is beyond me.
The problem is that your mistake was a structural one which made your point difficult to comprehend.
Quite obviously, to only you, so I fail to see how the issue lies on my end and instead on your understanding of English as a language.
And the incorrect spelling of "grammatical" is hardly the only grammatical issue with your sentences that I quoted. If you don't see the rest, I think that speaks volumes. Or that your grammar rules only trigger when it's other people making the mistakes. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
-1
Stenta wrote...
Chat wrote...
What's the prize for winning this?epeen. nate is the only one trying to win though.
He doesn't speak English and misunderstood someone, called him wrong, and has given us 15 paragraphs trying to defend his mistake; in one of which he claims "Unlike you, I wouldn't be a sissy and I can take it when people prove me wrong."
I don't speak English? There is no subjectivity here, that is simply a false claim as proven by... my posts.
I don't care about winning anything either. The guy's premises went nowhere and his conclusion was in the form of the present continuous. I quite clearly explained that I simply did NOT understand and yet, no one can come up with an explanation.
Also, in rhetoric, it is perfectly acceptable to call people the things they behave as. For instance, if you lie, the person you are debating with will call you a liar. And if you did say something false, the claim that you are a liar is, therefore, true. The same goes with sissy and any other word in the history of words too.
ecchigaijin wrote...
Quite obviously, to only you, so I fail to see how the issue lies on my end and instead on your understanding of English as a language.And the incorrect spelling of "grammatical" is hardly the only grammatical issue with your sentences that I quoted. If you don't see the rest, I think that speaks volumes. Or that your grammar rules only trigger when it's other people making the mistakes. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
I really don't see any other mistakes because, as far I can tell, they are not there. You make a claim that I have mistakes and then you don't show where the mistakes are. That's like a doctor telling a patient he has a tumor and not say where.
And mind you, your problem isn't grammar. It is (as I've said before but you didn't care to read) structure.
I took your word for it and reread my post to see if it had any mistakes. I then said English is not my first language so I admitted there could be things you know that I don't. I freely admit my ignorance when a subject presents itself in which I am indeed ignorant. Then you neglect to show me the mistakes. If I did make a mistake, I'll go about thinking I didn't. That is, in my view, a terrible thing to have in one's conscience which is why I like to teach people things I know and listen to things I don't.
I really don't see the problem here. I just wanna learn and teach. If you wanna go about making mistakes and having no one to tell you, that's fine with you but this isn't the playground anymore. Either prove me wrong or accept that I'm right. I would like to do the same with you but aside from a missing «m» I have nothing to work on... because you gave me nothing.
The reason, I submit, I'm seen as the bad guy around here is because people don't like to be proven wrong and when they realize they were wrong, they rather defend their ignorance rather than try to purge it.
0
nateriver10 wrote...
Stenta wrote...
Chat wrote...
What's the prize for winning this?So then your only reason to argue is to get your jollys off. This pretty much equates to masturbation. I don't mind masturbation, I'm commenting on porn site threads, but I don't really like seeing people do it unless they're cute. Try reading your porn before commenting, not after, and quit downvoting eachother when you're clearly having fun.
0
Chat wrote...
So then your only reason to argue is to get your jollys off. This pretty much equates to masturbation. I don't mind masturbation, I'm commenting on porn site threads, but I don't really like seeing people do it unless they're cute. Try reading your porn before commenting, not after, and quit downvoting eachother when you're clearly having fun.The joke of this whole thing comes from this:
nateriver10 wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
If you were suffering mental issues to come close to the heavier cases of symptoms caused by dealing with chemotherapy, you'd be committed, thus taking suicide out of the question.I could be wrong but your sentence seems ultimately broken... Thus taking suicide out of the question? Do you mean «Thus I'd be committed to taking suicide out of the question? Anyway, I don't get it.
Nate doesn't realize that "committed" has multiple definitions, one in particular being "to be put in one's custody." This has ultimately lead to a shitstorm where people try to explain this to nate, and he responds with twenty paragraphs of "I'm smarter than you."
0
Surprised to see a lot of people not really looking at suicide that badly but I think even if times are bleak we cant possibly predict whether the future is gonna be good or bad. Even if theres a 99% chance for bad then doing our best to try to get a grasp of that 1% good is what it means to be alive. We only get one life thats it, we cant look at suicide as an early escape cuz its only a waste of one very valuable life.
0
nateriver10 wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Quite obviously, to only you, so I fail to see how the issue lies on my end and instead on your understanding of English as a language.And the incorrect spelling of "grammatical" is hardly the only grammatical issue with your sentences that I quoted. If you don't see the rest, I think that speaks volumes. Or that your grammar rules only trigger when it's other people making the mistakes. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
I really don't see any other mistakes because, as far I can tell, they are not there. You make a claim that I have mistakes and then you don't show where the mistakes are. That's like a doctor telling a patient he has a tumor and not say where.
And mind you, your problem isn't grammar. It is (as I've said before but you didn't care to read) structure.
I took your word for it and reread my post to see if it had any mistakes. I then said English is not my first language so I admitted there could be things you know that I don't. I freely admit my ignorance when a subject presents itself in which I am indeed ignorant. Then you neglect to show me the mistakes. If I did make a mistake, I'll go about thinking I didn't. That is, in my view, a terrible thing to have in one's conscience which is why I like to teach people things I know and listen to things I don't.
Now I'm supposed to tell you every mistake you can't see, and undoubtedly explain why it's a mistake and how you can improve your English?
A freebie, then. It's a terrible thing to have ON one's conscience, not IN it. There. I feel better already.
1
ecchigaijin wrote...
It's a terrible thing to have ON one's conscience, not IN it. There. I feel better already.You may as well do a good job, if you're gonna do it.
This is why no one can tell what the hell you're saying
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
0
Depends i guess. Those who commit suicide for trivial reasons such as being unpopular with girls in school are retards, but if its to defend your own honor or to prevent some very very bad things from happening to you (like rape, torture, very long prison terms, very painful terminal/chronic illness etc) then by all means yes, it is a legitimate and sometimes the ONLY worthy solution.
Well, thats just my opinion.
P.S: If anybody is planning to off themselves, please dont use a firearm, because that would give the gun grabbers more chances to tighten gun control laws, which would suck.
So to all concerned, please look into alternative and preferably creative (when possible) methods, such as bungee jumping with dental floss substituting the bungee cord. That way, if you DO somehow survive, you will have a worthy story for the gran kids, rather then having a very boring obituary
Well, thats just my opinion.
P.S: If anybody is planning to off themselves, please dont use a firearm, because that would give the gun grabbers more chances to tighten gun control laws, which would suck.
So to all concerned, please look into alternative and preferably creative (when possible) methods, such as bungee jumping with dental floss substituting the bungee cord. That way, if you DO somehow survive, you will have a worthy story for the gran kids, rather then having a very boring obituary
0
Just dropping my two cents in here. I think suicide is a poor solution. I understand the feelings of depression and loneliness, I was alone for the first 16 years of my life. But my views on suicide are this; (not sure if i used that semicolon right, don't know really when you're supposed to) Why end life when in the end nothing really matters? In the grand scheme of things your life is insignificant. So is mine, the guy's up the street, the women's who lives 3 counties away, and everyone else's. Nothing anyone does in their lifetime really affects the Universe as a whole, in 100,000 years,less then a 1/10,000 of the percent of the time the earth has existed, no one will remember you or me or anyone, ANYONE, that is alive today, so why be upset when someone makes fun of you? or when you didn't get the girl? or when the girl left you? or when you get beat up and called a fag? or when anything. Life is worthless. So what should we do? Enjoy it. If what you, or anyone else does, doesn't affect anything important, the earth isn't important in the eye of the universe, we should just focus on doing the things that make us happy. Because that's all the matters. Our lives are short. Live while you're alive.
0
Stenta wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
It's a terrible thing to have ON one's conscience, not IN it. There. I feel better already.You may as well do a good job, if you're gonna do it.
This is why no one can tell what the hell you're saying
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
The only problem is I can only upvote this once. Would have taken more time than I have readily available, so thank you for doing that.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Spoiler:
The only problem is I can only upvote this once. Would have taken more time than I have readily available, so thank you for doing that.
I lol'd.
The really big issue is that there are about 40 errors in 8 lines, averaging to 5 errors per line, and 100 errors in a single post, and that doesn't include numerous tense errors I can't correct without rewriting the whole thing. Because of this, it's very difficult to understand what he's trying to say.
I've been thinking of making a guide on grammar, where the focus is on making easy to understand, concise, and correct sentences, while keeping the guide simple to understand by abstracting the concepts of grammar to be more readable and easy to use. My only issue about it, is that I feel like I would be wasting my time.
0
Stenta wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Spoiler:
The only problem is I can only upvote this once. Would have taken more time than I have readily available, so thank you for doing that.
I lol'd.
The really big issue is that there are about 40 errors in 8 lines, averaging to 5 errors per line, and 100 errors in a single post, and that doesn't include numerous tense errors I can't correct without rewriting the whole thing. Because of this, it's very difficult to understand what he's trying to say.
Ignorance is bliss, though. He can't see any of them.
0
Stenta wrote...
Spoiler:
If you can correct his post on your own, then you get nothing out of telling him to write better. Most of his problems come from him trying to be too wordy anyway, so you're really not helping with your "praise grammar!" attitude. I once again ask you what exactly you get out of this. I would like to understand.
King Dingaling wrote...
If anybody is planning to off themselves, please dont use a firearm, because that would give the gun grabbers more chances to tighten gun control laws, which would suck.Shots fired
*badum-tss*
0
Chat wrote...
Stenta wrote...
Spoiler:
If you can correct his post on your own, then you get nothing out of telling him to write better. Most of his problems come from him trying to be too wordy anyway, so you're really not helping with your "praise grammar!" attitude. I once again ask you what exactly you get out of this. I would like to understand.
Nate specifically asked what was wrong with his post grammatically. The response was a quite thorough answer.
At least this way Nate can see where his mistakes lie. From there he should probably make the choice to use simpler sentences, but that's his choice to make.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Nate specifically asked what was wrong with his post grammatically. The response was a quite thorough answer.At least this way Nate can see where his mistakes lie. From there he should probably make the choice to use simpler sentences, but that's his choice to make.
I can understand since Nate asked.
That said, look at your last two posts for a moment
ecchigaijin wrote...
Ignorance is bliss, though. He can't see any of them.ecchigaijin wrote...
At least this way Nate can see where his mistakes lie.First you joke about how he won't get anything out of this, then pedal back and act like grammar fuhrer is doing nate a favor? You litteraly said "he can't see" then "at least he can see" a post later. Switching your demeanor a little quickly, ya think?
0
Chat wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Nate specifically asked what was wrong with his post grammatically. The response was a quite thorough answer.At least this way Nate can see where his mistakes lie. From there he should probably make the choice to use simpler sentences, but that's his choice to make.
I can understand since Nate asked.
That said, look at your last two posts for a moment
ecchigaijin wrote...
Ignorance is bliss, though. He can't see any of them.ecchigaijin wrote...
At least this way Nate can see where his mistakes lie.First you joke about how he won't get anything out of this, then pedal back and act like grammar fuhrer is doing nate a favor? You litteraly said "he can't see" then "at least he can see" a post later. Switching your demeanor a little quickly, ya think?
Yes, and one was a joke, and the other was not.
You even GOT that I was joking, and then called me out on it. Are both not allowed in the same thread? By joking once, do I take away my right to be serious ever again or something?
Rules fuhrer.
0
*Cracks knuckles* Let's see if my grammar skills are still up to par.
I think that's it. Also, if you think that looking at Shakespeare for grammatical support, you'd be hard pressed: the man didn't use who/whom correctly all the time.
Although I did take into Stenta's change of "that's like a doctor..." simply because of how semicolons connect related material, I wouldn't have otherwise thought of it.
Brackets are personal preference.
Parentheses are for optional adjustments.
Structure and grammar are pretty similar. Grammar helps with structure because it (grammar) is a set of rules. If they weren't similar, I shouldn't be able write Proustian sentences, but I can and do.
Stenta, I disagree with your rearrangements of the adverbs "really" and "then"; could you explain why you chose to change their positions? I'm just curious and like to learn from my mistakes as well, if there are any. I found this for "then":
"It can go in either place. But it seems to me that if you put it after the subject, that's a bit more formal. In day-to-day speech I think people would tend to put it at the start of the sentence."
I also see nothing wrong with beginning a sentence with a (coordinating) conjunction.
I don't speak English well. There is no subjectivity here. That is simply a false claim as proven by my posts.
I don't care about winning anything either. The guy's premises went nowhere, and his conclusion was in the form of the present progressive. I quite clearly explained that I simply did NOT understand, yet no one can come up with an explanation.
Also, in rhetoric, it is perfectly acceptable to call people the things [that] they behave as. For instance, if you lie, the person with whom you are debating will call you a liar, and if you did say something false, the claim that you are a liar is, therefore, true. The same goes with sissy and any other word in the history of words too.
I really don't see any other mistakes because, as far I can tell, they are not there. You made a claim that I have made mistakes and then didn't show where those mistakes are; that's like a doctor telling a patient he has a tumor and not saying where.
And mind you, your problem isn't grammar. As I've said before but you cared not to read, it is structure.
I took your word for it and reread my post to see if it had any mistakes. I then said [that] English is not my first language; thus, I admitted [that] there could be things [that] you know and that I don't. I freely admit my ignorance when a subject presents itself in which I am indeed ignorant. Then you neglected to show me the mistakes. If I did make a mistake, I'll go about thinking [that] I didn't. That is, in my view, a terrible thing to have on one's conscience; this is why I like to teach people things [that] I know and listen to things [that] I don't.
I really don't see the problem here. I just want to learn and teach. If you want to go about making mistakes and having no one to tell you, that may be fine with you, but this isn't the playground anymore. Either prove me wrong or accept that I'm right. I would like to do the same with you, but, aside from a missing «m», I have had nothing to work on... because you gave me nothing.
[I submit that] the reason why I have been seen as the bad guy around here is that people don't like to be proven wrong, and when they realize [that] they were wrong, they would rather defend their ignorance than try to purge it.
I don't care about winning anything either. The guy's premises went nowhere, and his conclusion was in the form of the present progressive. I quite clearly explained that I simply did NOT understand, yet no one can come up with an explanation.
Also, in rhetoric, it is perfectly acceptable to call people the things [that] they behave as. For instance, if you lie, the person with whom you are debating will call you a liar, and if you did say something false, the claim that you are a liar is, therefore, true. The same goes with sissy and any other word in the history of words too.
I really don't see any other mistakes because, as far I can tell, they are not there. You made a claim that I have made mistakes and then didn't show where those mistakes are; that's like a doctor telling a patient he has a tumor and not saying where.
And mind you, your problem isn't grammar. As I've said before but you cared not to read, it is structure.
I took your word for it and reread my post to see if it had any mistakes. I then said [that] English is not my first language; thus, I admitted [that] there could be things [that] you know and that I don't. I freely admit my ignorance when a subject presents itself in which I am indeed ignorant. Then you neglected to show me the mistakes. If I did make a mistake, I'll go about thinking [that] I didn't. That is, in my view, a terrible thing to have on one's conscience; this is why I like to teach people things [that] I know and listen to things [that] I don't.
I really don't see the problem here. I just want to learn and teach. If you want to go about making mistakes and having no one to tell you, that may be fine with you, but this isn't the playground anymore. Either prove me wrong or accept that I'm right. I would like to do the same with you, but, aside from a missing «m», I have had nothing to work on... because you gave me nothing.
[I submit that] the reason why I have been seen as the bad guy around here is that people don't like to be proven wrong, and when they realize [that] they were wrong, they would rather defend their ignorance than try to purge it.
I think that's it. Also, if you think that looking at Shakespeare for grammatical support, you'd be hard pressed: the man didn't use who/whom correctly all the time.
Although I did take into Stenta's change of "that's like a doctor..." simply because of how semicolons connect related material, I wouldn't have otherwise thought of it.
Brackets are personal preference.
Parentheses are for optional adjustments.
Structure and grammar are pretty similar. Grammar helps with structure because it (grammar) is a set of rules. If they weren't similar, I shouldn't be able write Proustian sentences, but I can and do.
Stenta, I disagree with your rearrangements of the adverbs "really" and "then"; could you explain why you chose to change their positions? I'm just curious and like to learn from my mistakes as well, if there are any. I found this for "then":
"It can go in either place. But it seems to me that if you put it after the subject, that's a bit more formal. In day-to-day speech I think people would tend to put it at the start of the sentence."
I also see nothing wrong with beginning a sentence with a (coordinating) conjunction.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Chat wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Ignorance is bliss, though. He can't see any of them.ecchigaijin wrote...
At least this way Nate can see where his mistakes lie.First you joke about how he won't get anything out of this, then pedal back and act like grammar fuhrer is doing nate a favor? You litteraly said "he can't see" then "at least he can see" a post later. Switching your demeanor a little quickly, ya think?
Yes, and one was a joke, and the other was not.
You even GOT that I was joking, and then called me out on it. Are both not allowed in the same thread? By joking once, do I take away my right to be serious ever again or something?
Rules fuhrer.
When I said you were joking about him not getting it, I meant you were joking because he couldn't get it, not that you pretending he couldn't get it actually was the joke. I coulda been more clear. I thought you legitimately believed he couldn't understand, and that was why you were making cracks.