Teachers

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Spartan_Marine88]

Like most of your arguments, that was weak and pathetic.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Not being beautiful is what initially caused you to begin this petty disupte. Until you show evidence towards the contrary, I stand by my assertion that I have only made breaches of convention.

No, what caused this dispute was you writing syntactically flawed sentences and then refusing to admit it. You could have gone with the "I know it's not correct but I use it for effect" argument and I'd have let you off, but when you try to play the "nothing is wrong with a poorly constructed sentences that rapes the conventions of commas and subject arrangement in the face" card, you're going to get laughed at.

Instead of owning up to it, you A) pretended that you needed "evidence" to be convinced despite the fact that your post, and the rules of conjunction usage/punctuation are obvious, B) tried to use "well all my english teachers think I'm the best so therefore I can't be wrong" and C) tried to go on the offensive, missing about twice as often as you hit.

Beauty had nothing to do with it. Your writing is not beautiful, it's in fact quite awkward and confusing. But that is not the fault being levied against it: it's being faulted for just being plain ignorant of sentence structure.

As for themself, there is a huge jump from "not widely used in the English language" to "no longer properly exists in the English language". Your own source references highly credible authorities that acknowledge the word has resurged in usage in the past century and that it is capable of being used, although public adoption remains tied to "they".

Read your source before you post it lazily.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I see you conveniently skipped over the quite pertinent remainder of my post.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I see you conveniently skipped over the quite pertinent remainder of my post.

Not bothering to argue with the more senseless parts of your post is not the same as conveniently skipping over something. I addressed your statement about "the issue being the beauty of your posts" and your careless use of a source that doesn't even support the literal translation of your point. The rest was you trying to rebrand your investment here.

Using the threadbare "I don't even care, honestly, I'm just amused!" line has to be the most downtrodden path anyone could imagine when they know their licked. You'd have to think we're idiots to buy into that nonsense, when everything else you're doing screams "My reputation here is really, really important to me".

You care a great deal about what you are saying in this thread, and what is being said about you. Who could blame you -- you're being treated with contempt, derision and mockery from a community whose opinion matters to you (enough that you regularily try to impress us, albeit unsuccessfully). Trying to pretend this argument is a game you find amusing, while at the same time going to great lengths to try and defend the indefensible, is a game you can't win.

[Sachaztan]

lol vermillion wouldn't know a run-on sentence if it ran him over in tank.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Once again, you bring wild and false accusations into the fold. If I ever did once do something on this forum with the intent to impress another, may I be slain on the spot. I truly find this, and by extent, you, to be highly amusing. One would think if I cared about my standing with others this discussion wouldn't exist in the first place.

You "not bothering to argue" is a fairly threadbare and downtrodden path as well when one knows they cannot back up their blatant extrapolations with any sort of reasonable argument.

The source does support my statement, as it said there is a resurgence in modern times (illiteracy is also on the rise, coincidentally), but it also recommends that the word not be used in the first place. Additionally, there is the part directly before that where it states one dictionary doesn't even acknowledge its existence, and the other acknowledging it only as an archaic word with no place in today's syntax.

Being such a stickler for the rules of the English language, as evidenced above, you'd think you'd know better than to go out and utilize this fringe element of the language... an element in the same grey area as, say, run-on sentences.

[EIRRMod]

I voted no.

While Vermillion has an air of a complete douche-bag, most of his posts are well constructed (if not well thought through).

So no, his english teacher is doing fine - Im just surprised he hasnt hulked up and torn Vermillions head off.

[Smokaz]

Katusha coming out of the shadows just to bowstring snap vermillion's verbal neck. Its the UFC of literate battle. Step up ya'll! Them guises are packing!

[TheWindCriesMary]

The source does support my statement, as it said there is a resurgence in modern times (illiteracy is also on the rise, coincidentally), but it also recommends that the word not be used in the first place.

No. Are you flat out crazy or something? How do you come up with these ridiculous arguments?!

 The source recommends that the word not be used in judicial rulings and or legal documentation in Canada.

How in the name of the world do you get off believing this is an official document about whether something is a word or not in the English language for the WORLD? Do you have no analytical intelligence?! Do you just live in a world of non-existant borders where anything, no matter how specific or isolated to context, can apply to the whole universe? Holy cow I've never encountered someone so lacking in critical thinking.

You cannot use this source to support your contention that the "word not be used in the first place" or that using the word is an error.

Do you even realize how ethically unsupportable what you just tried to do is? I mean you have to be pretty unscrupulous to think you can just use specific, isolated, out-of-context sources  (aka an internal document governing how a single government will use reflexive pronouns) to support huge, macro claims (that a certain reflexive pronoun no longer properly exists in the English language) by itself.

EVEN if it was good evidence, which no one in a right state of mind would conclude it to be on its own, the source itself agrees that gramatically the term is sound (see the section on grammar). It does say "themself" has fallen out of popular usage, but that is a far cry from  whether something is grammatically correct or not.

You said "themself" was an error. You were wrong. Get over it.


And for the love of  the number 42, stop saying that run-on sentences are something I am against. They are not on trial here. Run-on sentences can be used to great effect by careful and skilled writers. Get it through your skull: run-on sentences, with proper punctuation and conjunction usage, are perfectly fine. The sad, horribly disfigured things you employ are not. Don't create false confederacy to hide in.

The sentence you made was terrible, awkward and delineated a horrendously inadequate intelligence. Your claims that you were very intelligent don't somehow erase or contradict that -- especially when your actions continually contradict those claims.

I'm not even religious, but good god man you're arguments are divinely moronic.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

No. Are you flat out crazy or something? How do you come up with these ridiculous arguments?!

Using the threadbare "I don't even care, honestly, I'm just amused!" line has to be the most downtrodden path anyone could imagine when they know their licked. You'd have to think we're idiots to buy into that nonsense, when everything else you're doing screams "My reputation here is really, really important to me".

You care a great deal about what you are saying in this thread, and what is being said about you. Who could blame you -- you're being treated with contempt, derision and mockery from a community whose opinion matters to you (enough that you regularily try to impress us, albeit unsuccessfully). Trying to pretend this argument is a game you find amusing, while at the same time going to great lengths to try and defend the indefensible, is a game you can't win.

[EIRRMod]

Wind is correct with this statement:

No, just no. You don't even get effort points on this one. "Embarrass" is the verb, "themself" is a reflexive pronoun and both are used correctly considering the subject of the sentence is "someone".

Maybe you thought it should be "themselves", but you'd be wrong because that would not fit with the original subject: someone.

However, due to linguistic 'templating' both 'themself' and 'themselves' are ambiguous because they fit two (or more... I guess) templates.

Themself, is however, the more pure linguistic template.

(And by linguistic templatating I mean how would you say that you sent a text to someone:
I <insert templated text> them.
Which, some people argue 'I text them', while others say 'I texted them' or other variations.)

Linguistics is by far not my strong suit, and if Ladyvaloveer logged on, she'd schools ya'lls.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Not to mention following the logic of linguistics "themself" is anathema to itself, being created from an inherently plural word and a singular word, being Frankenstein-ed together in a style reminescent of my sentences, according to Wind.

[TheWindCriesMary]

The point from both those quotes still stands.

It is A) baffling how ridiculous your arguments are. Delusional doesn't even begin to cut it.

      B) I don't buy the "I'm just doing this for amusement" line for one second. You throw that in every now and then when you come to a brick wall, but when you think you're on to a good point suddenly you're all seriousness. Either own up to one or the other, trying to play both when convenient doesn't fool anyone.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Not to mention following the logic of linguistics "themself" is anathema to itself, being created from an inherently plural word and a singular word, being Frankenstein-ed together in a style reminescent of my sentences, according to Wind.

 I actually regret using the term "Frankenstein".  At least Dr Frankenstein invented something incredible, albeit terrible.

The sentence that started this was more like a mutated lab rat with four asses, breathlessly moaning "kill me" in the hopes of sweet, sweet relief from its agony.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

The point from both those quotes still stands.

It is A) baffling how ridiculous your arguments are. Delusional doesn't even begin to cut it.

      B) I don't buy the "I'm just doing this for amusement" line for one second. You throw that in every now and then when you come to a brick wall, but when you think you're on to a good point suddenly you're all seriousness. Either own up to one or the other, trying to play both when convenient doesn't fool anyone.

Yet you conveniently leave out the ridiculous point you make about me caring about my reputation. Cute.

I only ever play one argument, and it is amusement, whether I say it or not.

The source is, inherently, dealing with the internal scripture of the Canadian government, but the subject which it must first examine is the place of "themself" within the English language.

I'm not even religious, but good god man you're arguments are divinely moronic.

I'm still loving that butchery of the English language that you're committing. The "you're" thing has occurred several times now, please stop pretending you care about grammar.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

For further documentation:

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/themself

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=themself

Refer to entry #3 on the Urban Dictionary.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Am I drunk, or did you just try to use the Urban Dictionary as supporting evidence in an argument about the English language?

"Hey I'm right because my imaginary friends and teachers IRL said I was. Also Perez Hilton wrote on his blog that I'm right!"

+2 to argument

Also "most people consider this form incorrect" is called  an anecdotal statement. The Macmillan dictionary is not saying "this form is incorrect" it's citing an unfalsifiable contention as additional context for the entry. The very fact that the word is in the dictionary is, in and of itself, confirmation that it is a word in the English language.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Yet you conveniently leave out the ridiculous point you make about me caring about my reputation. Cute.

Dude you post in a forum for a game you are extremely bad at and barely ever play. You make posts about how many friends you have in real life, how smart you are (despite the fact that you are widely maligned for being anything but) and then use "the evidence that I'm smart is how much my professional, paid teachers say I am" as if that's evidence? As if you would do any of those things if you weren't obsessed with your perception? We'd all love to write our own reviews. In actuality, I'd rank you as one of the most masochistic people on the internet to willingly subject yourself day in and day out to a constant stream of ridicule from a community that, from all appearances, sees you for the most part with contempt.

The source is, inherently, dealing with the internal scripture of the Canadian government, but the subject which it must first examine is the place of "themself" within the English language.

The article has one purpose: determine which word will be used for the Canadian justice department. Not for the Canadian government, not the English language as a whole, and not for anything beyond that. They even discuss how it is grammatically correct (which is the complaint you made initially. You've only changed the "that was an error" line to "the word is not commonly used in english anymore" recently. Gramatically, just as I said before, it is correct. You were wrong. Others have now told you that you were wrong. Your own source tells you that you were wrong. What does it take for you to admit it?

The "you're" thing has occurred several times now, please stop pretending you care about grammar.

I count 1 instance of the mistake. That's strange, you said "several times". Hmmmm....

This is called lying. Do you know what lying is? It's when someone makes something up and tries to pass it off as truth.

Find the "several times" that this has occurred please. Otherwise I want you to stand tall, and admit you just tried to bullshit. You've been doing it all along, but now you're going to get nailed on it out in the open.

[Spartan_Marine88]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=themself

Refer to entry #3 on the Urban Dictionary.

1.    themself    64 up, 13 down
   
pron.
Single form of word themselves, used when refering to person whose sex (male or female) is not known or identified. Often used where the word them is used as a single form as well.
A person that looks at themself hella long in the mirror may be selfsexual.

The commonly accepted version

number 3 is not commonly accepted, and thus does not prove your point. It also has more votes against then it does for it.

Next time try not trying to prove your point while being angry that your boyfriend gave you a Darth Vader and a Superman.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

In case you were wondering, jokes don't always have to take the form of an absurd statement mocking a certain aspect of a person, as those are the only ones you've been able to turn out thus far.

It was merely for comedic effect, but I suppose you are too far-gone to understand that.