Semantics

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:24 pm

In my rather brief time on the internet, I've found myself drawn to a large amount of various forums. At first, these forums opened a gateway into ideas I otherwise would have never known. It was an exhilarating roller-coaster ride of unexpected and witty, and oftentimes hilarious, topics and responses. I'll often go to a few forums (Which I can't link because of forum rules) to discuss things I can't discuss here. Though lately, I've found the internet to be insufferable and full of whiny, emo, psuedo-intellectuals. I can safely say that every forum, major or minor, I visit has these people. The whiny, emo, loner who tries to display his intelligence through mundane and often unimportant points.

Within the past two or so weeks, I've noticed it more and more. I stop and think to myself 'Self, when will being a hipster become too mainstream so we can all be normal again?' The answer is often 'I don't know, Sir Self.' As I spend time lurking, I find my attention shifting from the rather large groups of people all posting music, games and shows no one has ever heard of, to the pretentious snobs who enjoy pointing out that the word you used in the context you used it doesn't make sense, in a minor sort of way that doesn't matter because everyone knows what you're talking about anyway.

I know my post may come off as abrasive. Good. That means I may get the answer so many other forums have failed to give me. Why are there so many petty arguments about petty topics that boil down to petty mistakes made by some person with a legitimate question? I suppose there's a part two to this question for those poor people who ask the questions; Why do you argue back? You get completely off topic, end up with a *Insert appropriate forum punishment here* and a head full of unanswered questions.
User avatar
neil slattery
 
Posts: 3358
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 4:57 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:29 am

Because when you can no longer attack a person's points, you resort to ad homniems. Slinging dirt is a valid way to discrediting a line of argument in academic circles but lacking the constraints of academic writing, people tend to get a little too enthusiastic in comparing their respective [censored] sizes, etc.

That isn't to say that academic writers can't get a little testy either. I'm reading a series of essays on the 'Continental Saxons' and there's one particular part in the historiography where the editors question the validity of an essayist's claim that Scandinavian runic writing does not constitutes a written language and therefore Scandinavian nomadic culture cannot be considered as a complex society. They get through it in the end but that particular little tiff was longer than the essay itself (which was about Jural relations amongst Saxons before and after Christianisation). Crazy, huh?
User avatar
RaeAnne
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:40 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:05 am

Because when you can no longer attack a person's points, you resort to ad homniems. Slinging dirt is a valid way to discrediting a line of argument in academic circles but lacking the constraints of academic writing, people tend to get a little too enthusiastic in comparing their respective [censored] sizes, etc.

That isn't to say that academic writers can't get a little testy either. I'm reading a series of essays on the 'Continental Saxons' and there's one particular part in the historiography where the editors question the validity of an essayist's claim that Scandinavian runic writing does not constitutes a written language and therefore Scandinavian nomadic culture cannot be considered as a complex society. They get through it in the end but that particular little tiff was longer than the essay itself (which was about Jural relations amongst Saxons before and after Christianisation). Crazy, huh?


Ya I find that people really get testy and the worst ones of all are the so called "Grammar Nazis" that exist out there. They will nit pick every single little sentence to whittle away at a person or they will try to "knock a person down" by picking away at their sentence structure. When it comes to the internet i've learned a few important facts.

1. If your argument isn't spaced appropriately people will say it's garbage and move on.
2. The argument must be precise and to the point with little facts backing it up. People want results not 5+ facts proving that you are right and they are wrong.
3. Sentence is important, but not as important as making sure your sentence isn't a run-on.
User avatar
Portions
 
Posts: 3499
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:47 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:03 pm

Ya I find that people really get testy and the worst ones of all are the so called "Grammar Nazis" that exist out there. They will nit pick every single little sentence to whittle away at a person or they will try to "knock a person down" by picking away at their sentence structure. When it comes to the internet i've learned a few important facts.

1. If your argument isn't spaced appropriately people will say it's garbage and move on.
2. The argument must be precise and to the point with little facts backing it up. People want results not 5+ facts proving that you are right and they are wrong.
3. Sentence is important, but not as important as making sure your sentence isn't a run-on.


This is a very valid point, most of the time anyways. Sometimes if find myself nerd-raging because I typed 'your' instead of 'you're'. Anytime I get a response that does nothing but correct some mistake(s) I might have made, I feel the sudden urge to throw my computer from the seventh floor of a Seattle building and laugh maniacally as it completely obliterates some poor guy's car.

Other times, I find people who seem to not have an 'Enter' key. I'll be honest and say I simply don't read what the poster wrote, and I genuinely feel bad for it. Then the Grammar Nazi comes in and fixes the little problem by appropriately inserting spaces between, what often are very valid, points. And I thank the Grammar Nazi 'Lite' group for that.
User avatar
Haley Merkley
 
Posts: 3356
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:53 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:29 pm

psuedo-intellectuals


This is why. A large percentage of people on the internet (many of them here, I've noticed) seem to think they are each individual geniuses who, I suppose, see themselves as smarter then everyone else because they can use Google quick enough to formulate an argument over the internet and many threads soon devolve into spewing random facts to try and out-factoid the other person as though they will beat them this way and everyone else will awe at their amazing fact-spewing ability.

whiny


Another important word in your post actually. This is the only forum I post in, but I've found lately that if one does not put a horde of smileys, jk's, and IMO's then people take your post as a personal attack against them and their mothers and their grandmothers and.... I feel that if you can't take a polite, but firm debating post on the internet, you are not ready to live in the real world where people will disagree with you to your face. I've posted a few things without the horde of smileys and I've had people respond quite angrily. I know things get lost in translation on the web, but still...

You'll find most people who disagree with you in this thread will be those self-acclaimed intellectuals.

.... IMO ;)
User avatar
Marina Leigh
 
Posts: 3339
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:59 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 pm

There is a distinction between ad hominem and correcting someone's grammar.

An ad hominem using someone's lack of proper grammar would be "You can't even string together a coherent sentence to express yourself with! Your opinion is worthless". Pointing out someone's grammatical mistakes does not necessarily follow that. The person doing it could honestly have had trouble reading it to the point they felt it needed corrections. So only when the lack of proper grammar is used in a manner as to say the person's point is not valid is it an ad hominem. If it is someone debating something and the other points out a mistake, it isn't necessarily one to detract from the argument, it could be they have a pet peeve about it or it's a common word in the debate where if they don't correct it, the improper usage will show up again and again.

Also "You're stupid because you're wrong" is not a fallacy, but "You're wrong because you're stupid" is. They are both ad hominems, but not all ad hominems are fallacies (granted, those both would be offensive, I just dumbed down the structure to it's basics to exemplify the differences between the two)

This is a very valid point, most of the time anyways. Sometimes if find myself nerd-raging because I typed 'your' instead of 'you're'. Anytime I get a response that does nothing but correct some mistake(s) I might have made, I feel the sudden urge to throw my computer from the seventh floor of a Seattle building and laugh maniacally as it completely obliterates some poor guy's car.

Is that reaction any better than the person doing nothing more than correcting your mistakes? Your reaction to their correction is just as out-of-place as them correcting your mistakes (assuming it is done in a snarky way). You don't know how their day has been, it may have been really bad and seeing that was the straw that broke the camel's back for them, or your mistake may be a big pet peeve of theirs.
User avatar
Miguel
 
Posts: 3364
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:32 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:06 am

There is a distinction between ad hominem and correcting someone's grammar.

An ad hominem using someone's lack of proper grammar would be "You can't even string together a coherent sentence to express yourself with! Your opinion is worthless". Pointing out someone's grammatical mistakes does not necessarily follow that. The person doing it could honestly have had trouble reading it to the point they felt it needed corrections. So only when the lack of proper grammar is used in a manner as to say the person's point is not valid is it an ad hominem. If it is someone debating something and the other points out a mistake, it isn't necessarily one to detract from the argument, it could be they have a pet peeve about it or it's a common word in the debate where if they don't correct it, the improper usage will show up again and again.

Also "You're stupid because you're wrong" is not a fallacy, but "You're wrong because your stupid" is. They are both ad hominems, but not all ad hominems are fallacies (granted, those both would be offensive, I just dumbed down the structure to it's basics to exemplify the differences between the two)


Is that reaction any better than the person doing nothing more than correcting your mistakes? Your reaction to their correction is just as out-of-place as them correcting your mistakes (assuming it is done in a snarky way). You don't know how their day has been, it may have been really bad and seeing that was the straw that broke the camel's back for them, or your mistake may be a big pet peeve of theirs.


You're great, you really are. I see you posting often in a very helpful manner, pointing hoards of people to useful software and hardware solutions that are affordable and accessible. But at the top there...I see that you're pointing out, erm, for a lack of a better way of putting it, semantics. We all knew what he meant, we all know what he should have said too. Yet you point it out and give a lengthy explanation. You're exactly who I want to ask my questions to. What makes you post things like that? I don't mean to offend, I'm honestly curious.

And you're right, my reaction is totally out of line. It's also an exaggeration. I suppose I could say 'I become immensely annoyed' but I didn't think it would paint the picture I wanted.
User avatar
Kill Bill
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:22 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:53 am

There can also be a line that is crossed when something that someone is asking takes on a completely different meaning based on the vocabulary or spelling used, and when the responders become confused or answer on different subject the OP can become annoyed, which can lead to arguments. Though, I find personally that I really don't want anything to do with someone who makes blatantly no effort to spell accurately.
User avatar
Chris BEvan
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:40 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:04 pm

I know my post may come off as abrasive. Good. That means I may get the answer so many other forums have failed to give me. Why are there so many petty arguments about petty topics that boil down to petty mistakes made by some person with a legitimate question? I suppose there's a part two to this question for those poor people who ask the questions; Why do you argue back? You get completely off topic, end up with a *Insert appropriate forum punishment here* and a head full of unanswered questions.

Because when a person has no way of achieving satisfaction in real life (s)he has to attempt to achieve it on-line (which itself is a part of real life, but you get the picture). Sometimes this manifests itself by the person trying to make other random people (s)he communicates to through the Internet as miserable as him-/herself. Seeking satisfaction in that manner makes the person unable to see near-future consequences and thus they do these things despite the fact that the obvious outcome of it will be the *appropriate forum punishment*. Yes, it's that simple.

As for how I deal with it, for example: relax, sit back, close your eyes and listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQo869a7VSY.
User avatar
Matthew Warren
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:37 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:49 am

You're great, you really are. I see you posting often in a very helpful manner, pointing hoards of people to useful software and hardware solutions that are affordable and accessible. But at the top there...I see that you're pointing out, erm, for a lack of a better way of putting it, semantics. We all knew what he meant, we all know what he should have said too. Yet you point it out and give a lengthy explanation. You're exactly who I want to ask my questions to. What makes you post things like that? I don't mean to offend, I'm honestly curious.

There are people who will take any form of grammatical correction as a personal attack, regardless of the situation that lead to it. There are many reasons that can lead to a person choosing to correct another's grammar, the least of which is to attack that person (there are far more subtle and clever ways to do that).

Say you are in a debate over something. It's been going on for some time now, and suddenly the other person corrects your grammar. You need to take a moment, look at it, and figure if that really is an attack on you, because it may be completely harmless in intended nature. However, in a heated debate feelings sometimes get a little mixed, and as such you can take something perfectly harmless as an attack. We've all probably done it.

The distinction between someone attacking you over grammar and someone correcting a mistake is much more than something that can be waved off as just semantics, and a difference that you can VERY easily overlook in a debate, especially if you see your opposition as "the enemy". Especially in the case where someone has a pet peeve about spelling (AKA: the grammar nazis). Their responses may seem very offensive, but they mean no harm about it, but rather it is something that is almost automatic for them (which is actually why such heavy-handed grammar correction is against the rules here, IIRC)

Edit: basically, my response was not directed at any one particular poster, but the thread as a whole. What you see as an attack may not actually be an attack. It is doubly-hard to make the distinction when you are clouded with a heated debate with the person in question.
User avatar
Nicola
 
Posts: 3365
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:57 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:35 am

Because when a person has no way of achieving satisfaction in real life (s)he has to attempt to achieve it on-line (which itself is a part of real life, but you get the picture). Sometimes this manifests itself by the person trying to make other random people (s)he communicates to through the Internet as miserable as him-/herself. Seeking satisfaction in that manner makes the person unable to see near-future consequences and thus they do these things despite the fact that the obvious outcome of it will be the *appropriate forum punishment*. Yes, it's that simple.

As for how I deal with it, for example: relax, sit, back, close your eyes and listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQo869a7VSY.


Your mix of wisdom, memorizing avatar, and calm music are a much welcome piece to this place I call the interwebs. Even if I have never heard of that band (Singer? I'm not sure, it's not in English. Very soothing, none-the-less.) This is the exact same conclusion I came to many times before deciding that it can't be just that simple. But it might be, that's why I'm here.

There can also be a line that is crossed when something that someone is asking takes on a completely different meaning based on the vocabulary or spelling used, and when the responders become confused or answer on different subject the OP can become annoyed, which can lead to arguments. Though, I find personally that I really don't want anything to do with someone who makes blatantly no effort to spell accurately.


Very VERY good point. There are always circumstances that can bend the general opinion of a specific topic, and this is one of those. I point again to the Grammar Nazi 'Lite' group, as I've seen them pull through in times like these, but more often than not, the thread becomes useless in the end. I can only hope that as time goes on, threads like that can be better translated by the Interdock Saints.

There are people who will take any form of grammatical correction as a personal attack, regardless of the situation that lead to it. There are many reasons that can lead to a person choosing to correct another's grammar, the least of which is to attack that person (there are far more subtle and clever ways to do that).

Say you are in a debate over something. It's been going on for some time now, and suddenly the other person corrects your grammar. You need to take a moment, look at it, and figure if that really is an attack on you, because it may be completely harmless in intended nature. However, in a heated debate feelings sometimes get a little mixed, and as such you can take something perfectly harmless as an attack. We've all probably done it.

The distinction between someone attacking you over grammar and someone correcting a mistake is much more than something that can be waved off as just semantics, and a difference that you can VERY easily overlook in a debate, especially if you see your opposition as "the enemy". Especially in the case where someone has a pet peeve about spelling (AKA: the grammar nazis). Their responses may seem very offensive, but they mean no harm about it, but rather it is something that is almost automatic for them (which is actually why such heavy-handed grammar correction is against the rules here, IIRC)


This is a valid point, very valid. And no matter how pure that correctors intentions are, I still sympathize with the correctee. I'm guessing it's because their pet peeve is the opposite of mine. That simply can't be helped. It's been a long time since I realized the exact point you're making here and I'll admit, way back when, I would get offended (unfairly) when corrected.

I do completely agree with you here. I can't help but wonder, in the middle of a heated debate, why someone would get sidetracked like that? Perhaps a Grammar Nazi could clear it up? (I'm not saying it's wrong to correct people's grammar or spelling, but I've personally never felt the need to do it. And more times than not, I see such corrections used to try to invalidate any prior arguments. Usually not by the Grammar Nazi himself, though.)

Slipping this in down here...

DEFRON -
Edit: basically, my response was not directed at any one particular poster, but the thread as a whole. What you see as an attack may not actually be an attack. It is doubly-hard to make the distinction when you are clouded with a heated debate with the person in question.

I understand that it can be difficult to distinguish between pure intentions and trolling. It's something I do try to keep in mind. I notice a 'lost in translation' sort of deal through the interwebz that often comes up at the worst possible times. So your edit is something I hope everyone keeps in mind through this, and all other, discussion out there in the wild wild webasaur.
User avatar
Alyce Argabright
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:11 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:52 pm

This is a valid point, very valid. And no matter how pure that correctors intentions are, I still sympathize with the correctee. I'm guessing it's because their pet peeve is the opposite of mine. That simply can't be helped. It's been a long time since I realized the exact point you're making here and I'll admit, way back when, I would get offended (unfairly) when corrected.

I do completely agree with you here. I can't help but wonder, in the middle of a heated debate, why someone would get sidetracked like that? Perhaps a Grammar Nazi could clear it up? (I'm not saying it's wrong to correct people's grammar or spelling, but I've personally never felt the need to do it. And more times than not, I see such corrections used to try to invalidate any prior arguments. Usually not by the Grammar Nazi himself, though.)

That's just the way life is. Very rarely is it that an event can be viewed from just one perspective. Every person involved in an event has their own concept of what is going on, and rarely do they line up. Something that is obvious to one (in this example: how a grammatical correction is not meant offensively) is completely obscure to another. If you can teach me a sure-fire way to be able to view any event through the eyes of the other party, do tell. Until then, though, we each just have to do our best and use our own judgement, as faulty as it may be. This, of course, applies to both sides. The person who says something that is not in-line with a conversation needs to realize that what they say can very easily be taken the wrong way, but like I said, it isn't easy to do: What is obvious to us we often just expect to be obvious to others.
User avatar
Chris BEvan
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:40 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:08 pm

Your mix of wisdom, memorizing avatar, and calm music are a much welcome piece to this place I call the interwebs. Even if I have never heard of that band (Singer? I'm not sure, it's not in English. Very soothing, none-the-less.) This is the exact same conclusion I came to many times before deciding that it can't be just that simple. But it might be, that's why I'm here.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Goggi It's in Italian. There's even a quote from that song at the top of the article, heh.

Also, you're welcome. :foodndrink:
User avatar
Latisha Fry
 
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:42 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:12 pm

You'll find most people who disagree with you in this thread will be those self-acclaimed intellectuals.

.... IMO ;)

Now I am not picking on you, but just what you said.

The little blanket statements that are tacked on after some elaborate points have been made are exactly what destroy discussions. In general, much like Jerhicco pet peeves, this is the bit that pisses me off in conversations. It serves no purpose.

*And if you happen to disagree you can find another thread.*




* See?
User avatar
Tiffany Holmes
 
Posts: 3351
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:28 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:53 pm

http://xkcd.com/610/
User avatar
Brittany Abner
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:48 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:39 am

Semantics can be important. I saw this happen not too long ago on an anime forum. Person A was arguing that X character was evil while Person B said that X was not. Person A refused to define "evil". Person B tried to list some points that would make a character evil but Person A just said it was a "feeling" and couldn't be defined. They couldn't find common ground on what the word even meant so the argument basically was pointless.

That's pretty rare though, semantics isn't usually a big deal as people will know what was meant. In those rare cases though... the walls of text were so large, yet nothing was said.
User avatar
Laura-Lee Gerwing
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:46 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:40 pm

It would have been brilliant if the OP was deliberately poorly worded and crammed full of spelling and grammatical errors.

Oh well, a man can dream.
User avatar
Aman Bhattal
 
Posts: 3424
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:01 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:04 am

easy answer. Every person thinks they are right. No matter how much you prove them wrong, they will still think they are the right person. I myself have argued stupidly because I thought I was in the right. I just try to stay out of as many arguments as possible and let other people just bicker. Too many things in the world to be worrying about then arguments on the forums.
User avatar
Jessica Phoenix
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:49 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:19 am

easy answer. Every person thinks they are right. No matter how much you prove them wrong, they will still think they are the right person. I myself have argued stupidly because I thought I was in the right. I just try to stay out of as many arguments as possible and let other people just bicker. Too many things in the world to be worrying about then arguments on the forums.

ur wrong. :P
User avatar
Jessica Stokes
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:01 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:15 am

ur wrong. :P


haha thank you.
User avatar
Brian Newman
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:36 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:41 pm

I know my post may come off as abrasive. Good. That means I may get the answer so many other forums have failed to give me. Why are there so many petty arguments about petty topics that boil down to petty mistakes made by some person with a legitimate question? I suppose there's a part two to this question for those poor people who ask the questions; Why do you argue back? You get completely off topic, end up with a *Insert appropriate forum punishment here* and a head full of unanswered questions.

People inherently disagree about things, some put more value on a subject than others. Even with the largely dull, repetitive and bogged down discussion here thanks to excessively heavy-handed rules, I don't ever see that going away. People who are going to argue are going to argue no matter the subject at hand. The reason for that is the world is not full of people who are passive and one-dimensional. I'm glad there are people who disagree and argue, because it means there's still a pulse.
User avatar
Mrs Pooh
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:30 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:04 am

I see this thread slowly moving towards why people argue on the internet instead of why people argue semantics on the internet. I know the difference is is small and could be considered semantics in itself. I know this. I'll try to address some points that popped out at me here.

Guy says (Sorry guy, didn't look at your name.) people argued over the definition of evil to decide whether or not a character was evil. It does seem insignificant, but it's as valid as semantics can get, me thinks. But it's a good example of those outliers that break the norm. Sometimes semantics make all the difference. Often, they don't.

@Third Eye - I agree. I think disagreements are interesting and it's an easy way to either learn something new, or realize you were wrong (or right) and still, you'll learn something new. As long as the debate stays on track, the potential of a thread is enormous, regardless of the original topic.

@Guy who thought it'd be hilarious if I made a poorly written OP with grammatical and spelling errors all over the place - I did consider this, but I was afraid someone would take it to seriously. I might post this same question at The Escapist and let it sit just to see what happens.
User avatar
Project
 
Posts: 3490
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:58 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:14 am

Maybe we should as well consider that a lot of arguments on the internet, linked to semantics, are due to the facts that we talk all in a pretty impoverished lingua franca. I am french. We have US people here, english, irish, kiwi, aussies etc... The same words, even among english speaking people, can mean different things, can have different connotations.
In addition, on the net, there are 3 dimensions of communication missing:
1/ The body language
2/ The intonations of the voice
3/ The level of sophistication of the written language which is more often SMS or oral style.

So, the poverty of this language is bringing misunderstandings that could be very easily forgotten with the oral or written communication.
User avatar
Ludivine Poussineau
 
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:49 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:20 pm

Maybe we should as well consider that a lot of arguments on the internet, linked to semantics, are due to the facts that we talk all in a pretty impoverished lingua franca. I am french. We have US people here, english, irish, kiwi, aussies etc... The same words, even among english speaking people, can mean different things, can have different connotations.
In addition, on the net, there are 3 dimensions of communication missing:
1/ The body language
2/ The intonations of the voice
3/ The level of sophistication of the written language which is more often SMS or oral style.

So, the poverty of this language is bringing misunderstandings that could be very easily forgotten with the oral or written communication.


This is very true and something I wasn't factoring in. I learned recently that the word 'Shattered' can be used in a plethora of different ways, from literally shattered and broken into a million pieces, emotionally shattered and feeling broken inside, or some in England use the term to say they're tired.

Merci Makandal
User avatar
Dawn Porter
 
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:17 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:10 pm

Typical argument. Guy A, Grammar Nazi and Everyone Else are in a forum.

Guy A: I hate cheese cake because it's is bad for my dog.

Grammar Nazi: > I hate cheese cake because it's is bad for my dog.
"It's" stands for 'it is'. Which means your saying 'it is is bad for my dog'.

Notice the wrong 'your'? You're a damn reading ninja.

Everyone Else: LOLOLOLOL U SAYED YOUR NOT YOU'RE WOW U NOT PASS 3RD GRAYED OR WAT. LOLOLOL

Guy A takes this opportunity to round up the troops and charge.

Guy A: Typical cheese cake hater. Stupid and dumb. It's like three bad things.

Everyone Else: YA WHO DOESNT LIKE CHEESE CAKE U RILLY R STUPID

Grammar Nazi: I hat you all!

Everyone Else: LOLOLO WAT HAT U R DUM MAN

Cheese cake is elected mayor and invades a neighboring town.
User avatar
Max Van Morrison
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:48 pm

Next

Return to Othor Games