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

[TheWindCriesMary]

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.

Dude if playing CoH decently, or writing with half-decent syntax escapes you, I don't recommend you try humour.

You need to have some kind of social awareness to pull off that kind of thing.

You've been called out on lying about "several" instances of you're. Own up or ship out.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Dude if playing CoH decently, or writing with half-decent syntax escapes you, I don't recommend you try humour.

You need to have some kind of social awareness to pull off that kind of thing.

You evidently need social awareness to get it, as well.

[TheWindCriesMary]

You evidently need social awareness to get it, as well.

Provide something remotely akin to a successful example of humour and we'll test your theory. Until then, stop trying to deflect -- you can run from this any time you want but as long as you decide to stay we're going to keep hammering you until you own up to the number of things you've been caught out on.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Provide some and we'll test your theory. Until then, stop trying to deflect -- you can run from your sinking ship any time you want but as long as you decide to stay we're going to keep hammering you until you own up to the number of things you've been caught out on.

Perhaps you are the delusional one here for thinking I am on anything resembling a sinking ship. Your own ego perhaps needs looking at as well.

Yes, there are several incidents of you using "you're" improperly. There was at least one in the previous thread, and there is for sure a second one in this thread. I would get them, but -

It was turning in to too much work!

If he doesn't know some of the basic principles of writing English by now, there is probably no hope for him.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Perhaps you are the delusional one here for thikning I am on anything resembling a sinking ship.

You're typing fast, so I usually leave these be  I focus on your syntax and your use of punctuation in sentences that you swear are fine. That's very different than picking out small typos that are the product of large amounts of typing. As dumb as I think you are, I know you're at least intelligent to spell "thinking" right. Which is why it's pointless to try and point out every small typo you make (ie. Using the wrong you're once when it has been used properly dozens of times in other posts (and in the same post))

You're not ready to live in a glass house, so don't throw the wrong kind of stones.

Yes, there are several incidents of you using "you're" improperly.

No there are not (that I can see) But  we've already seen both sides making silly, stupid typos. That was never the discussion. The discussion was about you flatly denying that something which was clearly an error was in fact an error. You've now tried to deflect from that by picking typos, while simultaneously making the same simple and easy typos.

Learn how to argue and stop making things up to deflect away from yourself. It's how people who are really bad at arguing attempt to subtly shift the narrative to inconsequential, unrelated things.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

On a cursory glance, I notice the one post in which the second instance of the improper usage occurred was edited fairly later after it was posted. Most interesting.

But this doesn't have to be hammered away at, just "own up or ship out" that you, a wannabe paragon of the English language, do not have the writing skill or experience to avoid these pathetic neophyte mistakes.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Learn how to argue and stop making things up to deflect away from yourself. It's how people who are really bad at arguing attempt to subtly shift the narrative to inconsequential, unrelated things.

World's most fascinating interpretation of sentence structure award goes to... Vermillion!

Grammar quotient: -2

[TheWindCriesMary]

But this doesn't have to be hammered away at, just "own up or ship out" that you, a wannabe paragon of the English language, do not have the writing skill or experience to avoid these pathetic neophyte mistakes.

Perhaps you are the delusional one here for thikning I am on anything resembling a sinking ship.

No one ever criticized you for typos. Typos are inevitable. Everyone is going to make them. You made them even while trying to point out my typos.


You were criticized for refusing to admit when you made a grammatical error.  When you tried to defend the grammatical error as something other than an error, you got solid, objective evidence.

Instead of having the courage to accept that and admit you were wrong, however, you tried a different tactic: bog down the discussion with typo spotting (while accidentally making your own). Even though you were getting the benefit of the doubt from me and others that only the errors you defended were the issue.


You are now adding disingenuous and unscrupulous pettiness to your litany of failures.

[TheWindCriesMary]

There is nothing at odds in those two quotes.

One points out a clear syntactical error.

The other chastises you, rightly so, for trying to deflect away from your unsuccessful defense of your syntactical error with attacks on typos (which you commit as frequently as anyone, and were never attacked for in the first place).


I don't care if you make typos. I've let them slide because what matters to me are only the errors you don't admit when they are pointed out.. and thus try to defend. When I show you that you spelled "thinking" wrong, as moronic as I think you are I still know you know how to spell that. So there is no point bringing it up... unless you're for some reason trying to make it seem like typos are a big deal.

[TheWindCriesMary]

And please tell me this sentence was an accident. Tell me it is and I will be fine with it and I won't bother you about this particular sentence ever again. Try to defend it and I'll be convinced you're utterly hopeless.

"But this doesn't have to be hammered away at, just "own up or ship out" that you, a wannabe paragon of the English language, do not have the writing skill or experience to avoid these pathetic neophyte mistakes."

Yellow = Oh lawd stop torturing the periods. Don't contort them wildly to do things they aren't supposed to do. Sentence structure! Tell me this was an accident and you didn't mean it (like when you spelled thinking wrong, and I used the wrong "you're" once out of 20 times)

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Instead of having the courage to accept that and admit you were wrong, however, you tried a different tactic: bog down the discussion with typo spotting (while accidentally making your own). Even though you were getting the benefit of the doubt from me and others that only the errors you defended were the issue.


You are now adding disingenuous and unscrupulous pettiness to your litany of failures.

If that's the case, I suppose that would make you as unscrupulous and petty as I for committing hypocrisy.

I was receiving none of the sort, as a cursory glance towards the original thread would show. Perhaps instead of accusing me of diverting the conversation you should address my concerns of the obscene accusations against myself you made earlier, which I still have yet to receive anything resembling an answer on.

Additionally, regardless of whether it now only occurs once in your posts, perhaps you should acknowledge, as well, that typing "you're" instead of "your" is not a typo. Instead, it is a conscious grammatical error, as one does not simply slip on the SHIFT key in the middle of the proper word, insert an asterisk accidentally then hit the 'e' key on the way out as well. Don't delude yourself otherwise.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

And please tell me this sentence was an accident. Tell me it is and I will be fine with it and I won't bother you about this particular sentence ever again. Try to defend it and I'll be convinced you're utterly hopeless.

Yellow = Oh lawd stop torturing the periods. Don't contort them wildly to do things they aren't supposed to do. Sentence structure! Tell me this was an accident and you didn't mean it (like when you spelled thinking wrong, and I used the wrong "you're" once out of 20 times)

I don't recall a period being included in the yellow text. I'd also add, at this juncture, that sentence structure is purely conventional, and when it is forgone it is hardly a crime against the language. Sentence structure is, in literature, bent to the needs of the author. In my case, I construct sentences the way I would say them. They mirror my speech patterns. It is simple as that, and not gramatically incorrect, although perhaps ugly at times.

[TheWindCriesMary]

If that's the case, I suppose that would make you as unscrupulous and petty as I for committing hypocrisy.

And you would suppose, as usual, wrongly.

You were given clear and thorough evidence to support the accusations I made. Those accusations were:

a) you were absolutely incorrect in trying to defend your syntax in the original thread instead of just admitting it and moving on

b) your "i have tons of friends/teachers/hot babes/money IRL" argument is laughable, meaningless and sad

c) You were wrong for trying to divert attention away from the moments where you got pinned with petty, unscrupulous and thoroughly dismissed diversionary attempts


You've been given reasoning behind each of these accusations. I don't care if you don't want to accept them, but you're powers for self-delusion aren't going to keep me up.

Additionally, regardless of whether it now only occurs once in your posts, perhaps you should acknowledge, as well, that typing "you're" instead of "your" is not a typo. Instead, it is a conscious grammatical error, as one does not simply slip on the SHIFT key in the middle of the proper word, insert an asterisk accidentally then hit the 'e' key on the way out as well.

Actually, the very fact that there are 9 times more correct usages of "you're" would immediately discredit your faulty logic here. In fact, the very fact that I immediately agreed that it was the wrong use automatically disqualifies this as a parallel instance to you being reprimanded for incorrectly trying to defend a typo.

The difference? If I say to you "that sentence you wrote was gramatically flawed" and you say "oops, well everyone makes mistakes I didn't mean that sentence to come out that way", the conversation moves on.

If you try to say "there was nothing wrong with that sentence" DESPITE the fact that there clearly is, then we have a problem.

You got roasted because you didn't know why your sentence was wrong. When I pointed out "thinking" to you, I know you know better. When you pointed out "you're" and I immediately go "that was an isolated typo mistake that I accept", you know I know better.

That's the difference. And playing dumb to that difference just makes you seem more petty and obtuse than you're typically fond of portraying yourself.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I don't recall a period being included in the yellow text. I'd also add, at this juncture, that sentence structure is purely conventional, and when it is forgone it is hardly a crime against the language. Sentence structure is, in literature, bent to the needs of the author. In my case, I construct sentences the way I would say them. They mirror my speech patterns. It is simple as that, and not gramatically incorrect, although perhaps ugly at times.

Notice how you have a comma instead of a period in that sentence? That sentence that so badly needs a full stop in order to be syntactically correct?

That's called sarcasm. That's me trying to tell you to use a period instead of writing really, really shitty sentences that no one who wrote well would ever use. You clearly didn't contort a period into weird and unusual spaces. Why? Because for some reason you'd rather write really bad sentences then use periods properly. So I make fun of that by making an obviously reversed statement. It's called sarcasm.

You're not writing English just because you have English words in them. Your speech patterns are not the same as how you write.

You can either say "I write incorrectly, but I write the way I like" and do as you wish, but you don't get to say "I don't write in improper English, I just write the way I want".

You have really, really bad sentence structure. It leads to awkward, disjointed and weird sentences that work against your overall goal: communication.

You can keep writing that way, but don't be stupid enough to try and defend it when someone challenges it on an objective English basis. You're trying to play in the very arena you then claim, in the 11th hour, to be forgoing.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Once again, you avoid the issue I have spoken about time and time again. You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. The telltale exclusion of the all-important midpoint of my post ratifies this.

You still call it syntax, learn that sentence structure is generally considered convention. Refer to my addition in my above post.

[TheWindCriesMary]

You're either the most stupid person in the world, or you're in serious need of mental care.

You have been shut down AGAIN, destroyed, ruined. I don't even know how many times you can say something and I can flatly, easily, and completely show it to be completely inaccurate...

You still call it syntax, learn that sentence structure is generally considered convention. Refer to my addition in my above post.

syn·tax   [sin-taks]  Show IPA
noun
1.
Linguistics .
a.
the study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language.
b.
the study of the patterns of formation of sentences and phrases from words.
c.
the rules or patterns so studied: English syntax.
d.
a presentation of these: a syntax of English.
e.
an instance of these: the syntax of a sentence.
2.
Logic .
a.
that branch of modern logic that studies the various kinds of signs that occur in a system and the possible arrangements of those signs, complete abstraction being made of the meaning of the signs.
b.
the outcome of such a study when directed upon a specified language.
3.
a system or orderly arrangement.
4.
Computers . the grammatical rules and structural patterns governing the ordered use of appropriate words and symbols for issuing commands, writing code, etc., in a particular software application or programming language.

Via http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax

[TheWindCriesMary]

Thank you for coming everyone.  With that last post ending his last ditch effort, I now conclude that Vermillion the fool is done.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

...As is the case with many aspects of writing, sentence structure is conventional: the rules that govern the structure of English sentences are neither absolute nor arbitrary.

You're not out of the wringer yet.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Uh, yes I am (and I was long ago).

You just publicly stated Syntax isn't related to sentence structure. You were immediately (in record time) shown to be talking completely out of your ass.

That's about as serious a blow as anyone can take.

You've been completely discredited now for the final time.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

you're powers for self-delusion aren't going to keep me up.

I'd also like to present this. I'm hoping it was a joke. Of course, one needs to prove social awareness to attempt humour, though, right?

My quote still stands.

I also love how you delude yourself that you have an audience. Tragic.