my job

[pippi]

ugh I hate feeding the troll but guess what - my job stresses UNprofessionalism-yep

dont use business platitudes like we appreciate your business-they say it sounds stiff and unfriendly

using slang terms and no punctuation aka being "one" of the people is ENCOURAGED

dang i am so mad i reacted to this

[sjw]

sort of OT/OnT was watching some carlin after reading another thread here and came across this

comments?

He's half right -- just look at the 2008 fascist bailout. But I blame people for their own ignorance. Most people let politicians get away with it, and they like it that way. Fat, dumb, and happy. The want someone who will tell them what to think -- which is just what their leaders give them. They deserve what they get. Unfortunately we get sucked along with it.

Shayne

[pippi]

btw I agree it is lame and sloppy of this company to encourage it-it is just catering to the great unwashed clueless masses and further extending the problem but that IS what they want

[pippi]

sort of OT/OnT was watching some carlin after reading another thread here and came across this

comments?

He's half right -- just look at the 2008 fascist bailout. But I blame people for their own ignorance. Most people let politicians get away with it, and they like it that way. Fat, dumb, and happy. The want someone who will tell them what to think -- which is just what their leaders give them. They deserve what they get. Unfortunately we get sucked along with it.

Shayne

Thanks Shayne-I blame them too but voting for 3rd parties just doesnt get anything done either...not sure what the answer is.

I like objectivism alot but there are so many shades of grey in trying to live that way and Rand never addressed them imho (and i mean humble-I admire Rand greatly)

[william.scherk]

thanks everyone who responded in a helpful manner - I do appreciate it

Strip away Mrs Grundy's tone and the hectoring he is wont to use, and there is the germ of a reasonable inference that Mrs Grundy has taken from your initial post.

I will put it this way . . . how come you don't write in standard English?

The question was answered in Mrs Grundy's mind, and the unpleasant conclusion he drew was that you were lazy and slovenly and probably doomed to a low-paying job because you didn't give a shit about putting your best effort forth, that you are three hundred pounds of I-can't-be-bothered in a pizza-stained chenille housecoat, wondering why you cain't make ends meet and nobody will take you to Bingo any more.

That is probably not accurate, but it sure looks like you don't care about the impression non-standard orthography can make here.

-- forgive Mrs Grundy/Phil his fit of snarks. Nobuddy axes him ta Objekkiviss Binga any mo, and he jest cain't figger out why . . .

Edited January 5, 2011 by william.scherk

[sjw]

Thanks Shayne-I blame them too but voting for 3rd parties just doesnt get anything done either...not sure what the answer is.

I like objectivism alot but there are so many shades of grey in trying to live that way and Rand never addressed them imho (and i mean humble-I admire Rand greatly)

Voting's not the answer, changing minds is.

Shayne

[pippi]

thanks everyone who responded in a helpful manner - I do appreciate it

Strip away Mrs Grundy's tone and the hectoring he is wont to use, and there is the germ of a reasonable inference that Mrs Grundy has taken from your initial post.

I will put it this way . . . how come you don't write in standard English?

The question was answered in Mrs Grundy's mind, and the unpleasant conclusion she drew was that you were lazy and slovenly and probably doomed to a low-paying job because you didn't give a shit about putting your best effort forth, that you are three hundred pounds of I-can't-be-bothered in a pizza-stained chenille housecoat, wondering why you cain't make ends meet and nobody will take you to Bingo any more.

That is probably not accurate, but it sure looks like you don't care about the impression non-standard orthography can make.

-- forgive Mrs Grundy/Phil his fit of snarks. Nobuddy axes him ta Objekkiviss Binga any mo, and he jest cain't figger out why . . .

I understood his point and yours and decided from the start not to entertain them. Common courtesy would be quite appreciated. In other words-aka-please post "in this way or that-we would appreciate it" before calling someone slothful slovenly overweight and bingo playing would in the least be polite - btw why would someone like that even BE here? insults acknowledged and ignored accordingly.

Edited January 5, 2011 by pippi

[pippi]

Thanks Shayne-I blame them too but voting for 3rd parties just doesnt get anything done either...not sure what the answer is.

I like objectivism alot but there are so many shades of grey in trying to live that way and Rand never addressed them imho (and i mean humble-I admire Rand greatly)

Voting's not the answer, changing minds is.

Shayne

True

[pippi]

I cannot believe the way I have been insulted here-beyond unbelievable-I can understand a gentle correction because I am new but this is downright abuse.

I am completely unimpressed and disappointed.

[pippi]

forgive Mrs Grundy/Phil his fit of snarks. Nobuddy axes him ta Objekkiviss Binga any mo, and he jest cain't figger out why . . .

condescend much? btw that was racist if you didnt realize it-i will cite brer rabbit, uncle tom's cabin and tar baby if necessary mr headset

Edited January 5, 2011 by pippi

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pippi,

Don't get too upset with Phil.

He thinks poorly of everyone by default.

That's his manner of practicing Objectivism.

He's actually a good person, but he likes to be bossy for some damn reason. The presumptuousness gets irritating if you take it seriously, but it's entertaining if you don't. Most people don't.

btw - Are you an immigrant or are you a native speaker? Some of your usage indicates to me another culture, but I can't be sure. (I was a translator in Brazil for a while.) And the lack of caps indicates a lot of online chats. (Don't expect Phil to know about that. He is not friendly to the fast-moving changes and sometimes jumbled rules the Internet has brought.)

As to WSS, he's a good guy with a delightfully quirky manner of expression.

Michael

[pippi]

Michael

Thank you-

I do not find either quirky or delightful but that is me-I can see their point but since neither are admins and they came out with both guns blazing on attack mode especially ruthlessly - I took offense.

I was thinking about AtlasShrugged-would Dagny have expected her railroad men(women) to speak perfect english? No - they only wanted a good job well done with expertise and intelligence.

I apologize for my lack of decorum here I suppose - is there a FAQ where these grammar/spelling rules are outlined?

Thank you again.

(btw I AM a native english speaker - that made me laugh a bit when you asked that)

I still welcome any responses that aren't OT-if you want to write about my posting style I would appreciate it if you would start another thread and keep away from this one

Thank you

Edited January 5, 2011 by pippi

[caroljane]

hi pippi, not sure what "They require relocation" means or what more info you wd need, esl programs differ by locality and i only know the cdn/ontario system. pls ask or pm me if theres anything you think i might be able to help with from here.

it'interesting to see the Great Individualists urging you to conform to their textual rules instead of vernacular webspeak, of course we should all really be writing in classical latin anyway.

see you at bingo...

Michael

Thank you-

I do not find either quirky or delightful but that is me-I can see their point but since neither are admins and they came out with both guns blazing on attack mode especially ruthlessly - I took offense.

I was thinking about AtlasShrugged-would Dagny have expected her railroad men(women) to speak perfect english? No - they only wanted a good job well done with expertise and intelligence.

I apologize for my lack of decorum here I suppose - is there a FAQ where these grammar/spelling rules are outlined?

Thank you again.

(btw I AM a native english speaker - that made me laugh a bit when you asked that)

I still welcome any responses that aren't OT-if you want to write about my posting style I would appreciate it if you would start another thread and keep away from this one

Thank you

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pippi,

There are no grammar rules here. There is a presumption of basic intelligibility, but that's on any forum of ideas.

You will find that people who have devoted their lives to study feel pride in their skill at speaking and writing, so on a forum of ideas, it's reasonable to encounter some people urging others to improve their own skills. After all, the great ideas in the world generally follow basic grammar and syntax. (If I know Phil, this was a large part of his motivation. Like I said, he's a good guy. He just has a blind spot on how the "between-the-lines" of his words affect others. I.e., good intent, lousy presentation.)

Also, many people in this environment don't know Internet chat jargon and abbreviations. I don't say that as an indirect manner of saying don't use these things. I am saying that you might find it difficult to get people to understand you simply because of not speaking the same language.

You requested that further discussion of this to go on another thread. I'm afraid that this kind of thing is impossible on discussion forums.

At the very beginning of OL, I tried to maintain strict placement of ideas according to threads and discussions. But people don't follow them and it became a full-time job moving posts and threads around. I believe that this is because people all have their own contexts and priorities when they come to an online place. They come here to express themselves, not obey rigid rules.

I do know the frustration of wanting a thread to stay on one point and watching it veer off in another direction and take off that way. Setting control issues aside, this conflicts with my inner sense of tidiness.

But reality is what it is. People do this and they will continue to do it. And they talk about each other. That's our nature as rational animals.

The best thing is to think about a discussion forum as a place to hone better writing and interact with others--and not worry about how to keep a thread limited. Here is a place to work out ideas, not to present finished products or even finished thinking.

As forum traffic cop, I now try to strive for balance, not tidiness. This means that I increased the threshold of flexibility, but if things go seriously awry, I intervene. By doing this, I sleep better at night and don't go nuts anymore.

One last point. You apologized for lack of decorum. I think apologies are great, but I can't find where you displayed any lack of decorum.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

(I wouldn't pick on you in particular if it weren't for the extremely bad literacy or writing skills: As this list has declined and 'lowest common denominator posters' have come to dominate, the sloth factor - laziness and sloppiness has increased. You are not the only person who posts on this list who displays these traits.

The form it usually takes is 'one-liners' and snarkiness as opposed to making an effort -- taking the time to think things through with clarity, effort, and attention to detail before firing off another brainless post.)

You are actually a teacher, if I correctly recall your saying so?

If that is so, I hope for your own sake you aren't in private practice, because even the more naive client would sense the nastiness (or at least sniffy-ness) of your approach, stop their lessons, stop paying you, and run for the fucking hills.

To inspire, Phil. To inspire. That is the prime directive for teaching. That is the fuel that fires all other things, including grammar usage.

I think our associates have done a pretty good job of running your sorry self up the flagpole (which you absolutely deserved), and for sure I know when a dogpile is a dogpile.

But your "case" (and make no mistake of this, you are a fucking head case when it comes to this) requires, apparently, outside-the-box/special exception rules, so I will gladly swoop down on yonder dogpile like a Professional Wrassler, and pile-drive you with my right elbow (I use the right one, because were I to use the left one, it would be too much for you<---trivia fun! Find the movie from where I launched the paraphrase!).

Let's BREAK IT DOWN, what you did in in your Powerful Phil Way<tm>; a way resembling a Samurai afflicted with Tourette Syndrome, or maybe Asperger's disorder, or some other such funk displayed specifically through the indiscriminate use of keystrokes.

I will make it simple for you, and leave you so many opens that you will be all-a-tickle and maybe even manage an erection upon contemplating the possibilities available.

You manage to locate a beginner, who has a SERIOUS GODDAMN PROBLEM. A beginner that has expressed her admiration and appreciation of Ayn Rand and Ayn Rand-related things. I would imagine that in your self-esteem-challenged world (and I can say this because your actions indicate it), you would think of this happening as some form of "fresh meat" for you to feast on, waterhead that you become, from time-to-time. I will also mention that this kind of behavior leads me to believe, for good reason, that you might also be a premature ejaculator, or maybe even a disorganized serial killer. Or both, for that matter.

So instead of coming up with a Useful Suggestion, you immediately do two things. To wit:

1. Attack grammar. (Yawn)

2. Use it as an opportunity to Scold Everyone, a-effin'-gain, as to your general discontent as to how we all function in the playground.

Nice, real nice, Oh Pariah of Pedagogues.

See how simple, Phil? This is what you do. Or, I should say, this is what you do not do, namely, inspire, and/or assist.

Now, moving past your disgusting Moment in the Sun, perhaps the rest of us could brainstorm and come up with a few viable ideas, and inspiring words, to aid our new friend. Perhaps how to explore new job opportunities. How to create your own job. How to capitalize upon hidden talents. Ask questions. Explain that you should generally ignore Phil when he spews rectal mucus, and that even e.e. cummings enjoyed lower case, now and then. That the rest of us understood what was asked. That sometimes lower case is kind of cute, even.

There, Phil. Tear at that one. I am sure it will improve your outlook, what with it being based upon a rugged (not) superior (not) empathetic (not) stance.

rde

[Selene]

> Care to kill a poet's style while you're bombasting from on high? [Adam]

Care to grasp the difference between a poem and writing prose?

Care to grasp why there are rules of grammar and punctuation?

Care to grasp why your school teachers taught you to capitalize sentences and put periods at the end?

Care to grasp why employers don't hire people who are obviously slovenly and lazy about basic English?

Care to grasp why pointing this out to a new poster is the BEST advice one could possibly give to him or her?

Care to grasp why Objectivism teaches reason and part of that is order, standards, clarity, precision in communication?

Phil:

My error. Here is another way to put it. Common courtesy combined with positive reinforcement is the best teaching paradigm.

In certain, carefully circumscribed teaching platforms, other methods are required.

This forum clearly falls in the first.

Adam

Post script: I sure hope that red section does not come back to haunt you in all your future posts Phil.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

Post script: I sure hope that red section does not come back to haunt you in all your future posts Phil.

I am sure red letters were a bit of overkill, but the sentiment is sound. One should try to be precise in communication. I am particularly sensitive to that issue. I am genetically condition to be literal minded. Much of my life has been spent trying to decode what the Neuro-Typicals meant to say, rather than what they did say. I is very tiring. Precision would save time and energy, yes?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

forgive Mrs Grundy/Phil his fit of snarks. Nobuddy axes him ta Objekkiviss Binga any mo, and he jest cain't figger out why . . .

condescend much? btw that was racist if you didnt realize it-i will cite brer rabbit, uncle tom's cabin and tar baby if necessary mr headset

Pippi:

Carlin and racism within three posts...nice!

By the way, this is out there today...

"Huck Finn Gets Some Changes

By Mike Krumboltz mike Krumboltz Tue Jan 4, 3:34 pm ET Acclaimed by critics, scholars, and -- of course -- readers, Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is one of the great American novels. The book has been reprinted countless times, adapted into movies, and translated into just about every language under the sun. But should it be updated for today's times?

News that the manuscript would undergo some changes sent shockwaves through the Search box. According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books plans to release a version of "Huck Finn" that cuts the "n" word and replaces it with "slave." The slur "injun," referring to Native Americans, will also be replaced.

[Read more: 10 banned books you might not expect]

It's important to note that in using the words, Twain was critiquing racism, not endorsing it. Also important: These changes affect just one version of the classic novel, and won't apply to all the printings. Regardless, public response has been swift. Almost immediately, Web searches on "huck finn censored" and "huckleberry finn changes" spiked into breakout status.

The reponse on Twitter has been equally thunderous. Many of the comments appear to be against the changes. One person sarcastically writes, "I love when people erase racism and pretend it never happened." Still, not everyone is outraged. One respondent writes that it is "awkward being the only black kid in class and having to read it." Another points out that the original is in the public domain and still available to anyone who wants to read it.

[Rewind: Talk show host's racial slur creates First Amendment controversy]

A popular column for Entertainment Weekly asks whether this is all such a bad thing. Is it so different, the column asks, from editing "The Godfather" so it can be shown on network television? With this new version of "Huck Finn," more people, including young readers, will be able to enjoy it. Does that make the changes worth it?

We don't know the answer, but it's a question worth thinking about. Either way, the novel will survive the controversy. "Huck Finn" was first published in 1884, and it was just a year later when people began to wonder if the book should be banned. The more things change..."

Folks:

The reason that I ran for my local school board when I was twenty five (25), had no children in the system and was living with my future wife, in sin so to speak, was because the NY City local school board banned Piri Thomas' Down These Mean Streets. In my opinion, it was an awful book, but I hate censorship, so I ran and won. My first vote repealed censorship.

And now, we do not censor, we just newspeak*** it!

*** Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The term was also used to discuss Soviet phraseology.^[1] Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix^[2] in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking—"thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak—impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Three Points - Clarification, Advice, Racism

1. > the unpleasant conclusion [Phil] drew was that you were lazy and slovenly and probably doomed to a low-paying job because you didn't give a shit about putting your best effort forth

WSS, none of those would be my conclusion based just on one post. I'm sorry if I didn't write my original post clearly enough - I did draw negative conclusions about other frequent posters on the site whose mental processes are lazy and slovenly and make little effort, as I indicated.

I thought it was clear -- if you read my precise wording -- that I was making the more sweepingly negative conclusions about those people whose posts I've seen across a very long period of time. (If I was imprecise, I apologize.)

My point with Pippi's lack of caps and 'text message' style is that it might be easier or more appropriate for a chat list, but it would *appear* in an employer's mind to suggest a -general- laziness and anti-effort. She? he? may not be that way in general as a person, but that's reason enough to develop a new habit.

I made the analogy to personal appearance and grooming and how people judge the book by how neat and orderly the cover is because they don't really yet know you or have anything much to go on.

2. I was actually giving VERY USEFUL ADVICE!!!! (And it can actually be treating someone with respect to assume they will accept a tough-minded or brutally frank criticism.)

.........

3. By the way Pippi, WSS's use of 'street English' was -not- racist. Nor were the Uncle Remus stories, Brer Rabbit and the tar baby, etc....but that would require its own thread. In fact, Uncle Remus himself was quite an inspiring figure, quite wise and benevolent and clever...and, if I recall from "Song of the South", the wonderful Disney movie, a lot smarter than the white people around him.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> It's important to note that in using the words, Twain was critiquing racism, not endorsing it.

Adam makes an excellent point here about Huckleberry Finn. I've taught the book and it is a very clever, very sly undercutting of racism.

Especially by making the slave, Jim, the most admirable character in the book.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Philip Coates

[sjw]

I'm sorry if I didn't write my original post clearly enough - I did draw negative conclusions about other frequent posters on the site whose mental processes are lazy and slovenly and make little effort, as I indicated.

Specifically, you accused Ninth Doctor, Brant, and myself. If I didn't think it was purely dishonest posturing on your part, I'd ask how you think you know that our mental processes are lazy and slovenly, and how you think you know that we make little effort.

I think you're a true blue Objectivist who is at the end of the road, and now your only choice is to check your premises, or to go insane. Probably the only thing I have in common with both Ninth and Brant is that we all decided to check our premises.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

> I'd ask how you think you know that our mental processes are lazy and slovenly, and how you think you know that we make little effort. [sjw]

First let me say that being lazy is something we all are from time to time and doesn't mean one is evil, a monster, dishonest, etc.

(Even I - perfect phil the schoolmarm - was lazy once for about fifteen minutes in the fall of the year 2000.)

Second, I get my evidence of laziness and slovenliness by actually having read the posts of each of you for quite a long period of time. (I would not have such evidence if there were not a pretty consistent pattern.)

1. In your case, the mental laziness is lashing out at people and calling them 'dishonest' (or psychotic or some other similarly inaccurate adjective) as sort of a general purpose accusation without evidence. And because you are unwilling to take the time to state more precisely and factually the exact nature of the disagreement or to think through the mental flaw in what your opponent seems to be doing. Also you have rage issues when someone insults you, you time after time jump to a character attack. This displays a certain lack of *psychological and emotional* control --- which would take significant(non-lazy) effort to monitor for this and catch it before you hit 'send'. It's emotional self-indulgence (a trait shared by others...see below.)

2. In the case on ND, he has a good mind (as do you), but is prone to fire off a humorous video clip or a one-liner rather than take the time to think something through precisely. He also resorts to the lazy tactic of dealing in personalities too much.

3. In the case of Brant, I sometimes get the feeling he is posting drunk. If so, it would not be so much mental laziness but lack of self-control as regarding when one exchanges ideas with others. If not, he simply can't be bothered very often to go beyond the cryptic, the subjective, the unexplained, and the perennial one-liner. Or he launches into an unedited, stream-of-consciousness and bitter diatribe against the harm done by Objectivism.

4. In the case of Jonathan, I have repeatedly seen a great deal of malice - toward myself, toward Newberry, toward Rand, toward others. (I wouldn't call him lazy or a 'slothful poster' though.)

Each of the above people is capable of good insights and is intelligent.

And (with the exception of one of them), despite my bitter exchanges and personal animosities with them, I don't have reason or evidence to suspect any of them are "bad people" or unsavory or of poor character: The lazy, slovenly habit among the intelligent and well-read simply is something that personally *irritates the hell* out of me.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

I also want to give due respect and air time to another individual, "Mr. Bojangles".

When he "goes after me" in his inimitable, outrageous, slangy, madcap, steam-of-consciousness style, he can be quite funny. And I often get huge entertainment from the humorous manner of his devastating sarcastic put-downs of me.

(PhilQuiz for Wednesday: Does anyone know who Mr. Bojangles is on this list?)

[william.scherk]

(PhilQuiz for Wednesday: Does anyone know who Mr. Bojangles is on this list?)

Rich Engles fer shure!

I do recall that one of my own slovenly rants seemed to hit your funnybone back in those halcyon days at the old SOLO:

Phil, Galt love you, I admire your stance and your persistence and the essential wisdom of all your posts (which I read carefully), but a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions.

If I was your student, and was treated that way, I would write "Wonderful, wonderful educator, my favourite lecturer. Would attend his seminar even if held in a Bombay meat market's offal depot during communal rioting. Hat too tight. Needs to get laid. More than once."

Edited January 6, 2011 by william.scherk

[sjw]

1. In your case, the mental laziness is lashing out at people and calling them 'dishonest' (or psychotic or some other similarly inaccurate adjective) as sort of a general purpose accusation without evidence. And because you are unwilling to take the time to state more precisely and factually the exact nature of the disagreement or to think through the mental flaw in what your opponent seems to be doing. Also you have rage issues when someone insults you, you time after time jump to a character attack. This displays a certain lack of *psychological and emotional* control --- which would take significant(non-lazy) effort to monitor for this and catch it before you hit 'send'. It's emotional self-indulgence (a trait shared by others...see below.)

You speak of evidence, then provide none. You pretend to know my motives (in a sweeping number of cases), but as I am actually aware of them, I'm in a good position to discern hasty jumping to conclusions on your part.

So, this is all lazy jumping to conclusions on your part (or faking conclusions with fantasies bearing a ring of plausibility). Very ironic.

Speaking of emotional indulgence, why do you flounce out of OL saying you're not posting anymore, and then come back and post a week or so later?

Shayne