Nobody is perfect, but if we help eachother, we do move ever closer to the ideal.
The preferred spelling is "each other" :)
Sorry, I try not to be a nitpicker but the appropriateness was overwhelming.
And even being a native speaker I am such an anal-retentive perfectionist that I will frequently re-write and re-re-write posts...
And I should hope that you wouldn't consider a difference in opinion on 'community management' a reflection on intelligence. If you mean that I'm not seeing the 'humor' of this thread, I don't find it funny at all when someone in a position of power belittles someone below them.
I was actually referring to your assessment that Bisqwit was doing it in order to belittle AKA, rather than that he was doing it in order to try to increase the utility of AKA's future posts. It seems very clear to me that Bisqwit was trying to get AKA to put more effort into clarity of meaning in the future, while being humorous about it to try to keep people from feeling that he is too uptight about such things.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
I was actually referring to your assessment that Bisqwit was doing it in order to belittle AKA, rather than that he was doing it in order to try to increase the utility of AKA's future posts.
Knowing AKA, I'm sure it was both.
AKA has shown time and time again that he does not care about message clarity, which means that the only way to try to "reform" him is to offend him, something that will almost certainly not succeed.
Though I have nothing against correction, I have something against insincerity. Things like "Sorry, had to" (what Bisqwit wrote) or "No offense" imply precisely the opposite. Also, it was because of AKA. Bisqwit would never reply to xipo or parrot14green the way he did to AKA.
If Bisqwit made a response to AKA's message about the AVI complaint as well, even a rebuttal (rather than focusing only on his language), it may have been seen in a different light.
I don't bother to proofread after the fact. If I catch a typo, hey, great, but if I end up missing one or making some other error, I don't bother to fix it.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
FractalFusion wrote:
Also, it was because of AKA. Bisqwit would never reply to xipo or parrot14green the way he did to AKA.
The epic difference here is that AKA is a native speaker, whereas parrot14green and xipo are not. The fact that the latter two have grammatical errors is due to a lack of experience with the language. AKA's errors in prose, syntax, grammar, etc. are due to laziness and/or hastiness.
Bad analogy: If an MIT graduate writes 4x4=15, you would probably correct the slight mistake. Chances are, they didn't take the time to look at what they were doing, and they should be grateful that you caught an otherwise silly error on their part. If a 2 year old writes 4x4=15, you could correct them, but you would probably actualize that they made the mistake out of ignorance, rather than laziness.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Zurreco wrote:
Bad analogy: If an MIT graduate writes 4x4=15, you would probably correct the slight mistake. Chances are, they didn't take the time to look at what they were doing, and they should be grateful that you caught an otherwise silly error on their part. If a 2 year old writes 4x4=15, you could correct them, but you would probably actualize that they made the mistake out of ignorance, rather than laziness.
Continuing that analogy, how should we go about correcting an MIT graduate who acts like a 2 year old?
There's so such thing as proper grammar.
I use repetitive words to be true to how I thought the sentence in my head, which I feel to be more important than revision.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
mmbossman wrote:
Continuing that analogy, how should we go about correcting an MIT graduate who acts like a 2 year old?
Simple correction SHOULD be enough to hinder further blatant errors, assuming the graduate is responsible, respectable, and persuadable. Ridicule the graduate if it continues to lazily make stupid mistakes. Restrict the graduate's ability to publish mathematics works until it can illustrate proper/necessary/respectable levels of forethought/effort/diligence. Terminate the graduate if it attempts to evade restrictions.
I got to 13 but then realized that it's always the same damn sheep.
So the answer is 1 and a winner is me.
EDIT: I was going to remove this but then I thought it was kind of appropriate.
This is the off topic section, right?
EDIT 2: I bet mr. friend won't like that I'm explaining the gag.
