Bronto's Rant Derails Thread

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

can't believe i'm so obnoxious that people side with the opponent even when i'm obviously right.

To be so critical about grammar, yet so lenient with punctuation makes your whole rant sound very silly. He made one grammatical mistake (the one in the title is an inconsistency error; the grammar is sound) and even admitted the fault.

How are you right? "Whom" is a valid word irrespective of how redundant/poncey you think it is.

What you saying is similar to me arguing that Americans should spell herb as erb because they never pronounce the fucking "h"; the "h" is redundant.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

To be so critical about grammar, yet so lenient with punctuation makes your whole rant sound very silly. He made one grammatical mistake (the one in the title is an inconsistency error; the grammar is sound) and even admitted the fault.

How are you right? "Whom" is a valid word irrespective of how redundant you think it is.

What you saying is similar to me arguing that Americans should spell herb as erb because they never pronounce the fucking "h"; the "h" is redundant.

no, "whom" is for the object. he uses it for the subject, repeatedly, just to cram more "whom" in there so we can hear gandalf read his posts for us.

making grammatical errors while pretending to have sophisticated, immaculate, formal language (especially when the errors are in the usage of the ornamental words themselves) is another thing than omitting punctuation because cba. thus you fail at making me look like a hypocrite.

i made a snide remark and thurlor hopefully learned something about grammar. not thread material.

and yes, "whom" is a real word and correct in some circumstances. nobody said anything to the contrary.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

i made a snide remark and thurlor hopefully learned something about grammar. not thread material.

learnt*

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

learnt*

concern appreciated.

(pretending "learned" is strictly incorrect, which it hasn't been for probably 200 years)

 

[Thurlor]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

A few things I have learnt from all of this;

- Edit future posts to replace 'whom' with 'who'.
- Other people think they know my motivations and thought processes better than I.
- Laziness in writing is more acceptable than honest mistakes.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

concern appreciated.

(pretending "learned" is strictly incorrect, which it hasn't been for probably 200 years)

Actually, learnt and learned are subtly different.

Learnt is the past participle of the infinitive verb "to learn"

Learned is an adjective.

Seeing as you used simple past-tense I had to inform you that you were incorrect.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Arguing over grammar.

I fucking love this place.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Actually, learnt and learned are subtly different.

Learnt is the past participle of the infinitive verb "to learn" and is used in simple past-tense.

Learned on the other-hand is the past participle of the infinitive verb "to learn" in the perfect past-tense.

Seeing as you used simple past-tense I had to inform you that you were incorrect.

you know this knowledge is one google-click away right?

"learned" has been used in place of "learnt" for a while, at least in the US.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

you know this knowledge is one google-click away right?

"learned" has been used in place of "learnt" for a while, at least in the US.

I have edited my post based on a dictionary. Google lied...

If you don't believe me, look it up

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

whatever your book says, that irregularity is stupid and should be defeated.

in america "learned" is already more common than "learnt", judging from my experience.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

whatever your book says, that irregularity is stupid and should be defeated.

in america "learned" is already more common than "learnt", judging from my experience.

Here you go:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/learned
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learned
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/learned?q=learned
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/learned?showCookiePolicy=true


You, like many others are using it incorrectly - just like many do using literally for figuratively...

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

meow

damn... you spoilt (not spoiled) my surprise.

Spoiler

I'm only doing it to give Bronto a piece of his own medicine. He'll obviously deny all those links, say it's bullshit and how he's right and I'm wrong. ^^

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Here you go:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/learned
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learned
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/learned?q=learned
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/learned?showCookiePolicy=true


You, like many others are using it incorrectly - just like many do using literally for figuratively...

no, literally/figuratively swap is a different thing, a fundamental misunderstanding of concepts. the stuff you're ranting about me doing is just eschewing some formal oddity which shouldn't have been there in the first place, like many grammar "errors".

you are allowed to pretend that i was merely correcting an arbitrary error rather than a pompous use of language, and that denoting past tense with "learned" (something many americans do) is as incontrovertibly wrong as using "whom" for grammatical subjects (something only own8ge and thurlor do).

 

[redbaron]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

How frail is your ego, that you get irritated by the perceived pompousness of the denizens of an internet forum, based on arbitrary grammatical errors?

Even if I thought Thurlor was using, 'whom' for the purpose of looking intelligent (not that I think he was), I can't see why anyone would even care.

Also, the word, 'learned' is not interchangeable with, 'learnt'. They have two separate meanings.

However I'm sure that our resident Ecclesiarch of Edginess will come up with at least 10 justifications for his lack of knowledge about some arbitrary facet of the English language, just to make sure everyone reading knows how efficient and non-pretentious he is.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

I've just done a check and Thurlor has used whom on this forum a whopping 9 times! The majority of which are in direct response to Bronto's moaning - oh the irony.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

rb: i dunno why this has more to with my ego than with yours, when the discussion continues. do you? also that's no arbitrary error. it's an error designed to make the author look impeccable. i.e. correct language is sacrificed in pursuit of the appearance of correct language. makes no sense.

yeah you're a thinker type, you don't know this "care" stuff do ya?

that can be argued. also the opposite can be argued. no worries.

I've just done a check and Thurlor has used whom on this forum a whopping 9 times! The majority of which are in direct response to Bronto's moaning - oh the irony.

backpedaling you are

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

backpedaling you are

Wasn't that the whole point though?

You were criticising him for over-using the word whom to make himself sound more bombastic. The fact of the matter is that he has hardly used it.

Or are you going to move the goal-posts?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Wasn't that the whole point though?

You were criticising him for over-using the word whom to make himself sound more bombastic. The fact of the matter is that he has hardly used it.

Or are you going to move the goal-posts?

there are no goalposts. no threshold value was set. one occurrence is sufficient.

 

[Absurdity]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Sup ya'll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FavUpD_IjVY

Carry on.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

there are no goalposts. no threshold value was set. one occurrence is sufficient.

One occurrence of what? I have no idea what you're issue is any more. You didn't answer my primary question either...

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

One occurrence of what? I have no idea what you're issue is any more. You didn't answer my primary question either...

occurence of misplaced "whom".

ok, then i don't think you did from the beginning. why the "you're" thing? i may have made that mistake a number of times, yes. i'm not saying i'm perfect. that'd be stupid.

your primary question: "wasn't that the whole point?" no, the whole point wasn't that this "whom" thing has happened ten or more times.

 

[Thurlor]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Don't worry about it. You will never get any sort of acknowledgment from individuals like Brontosaurie regarding false statements or assumptions they have made. It's a waste of time to even continue trying.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

wise words from gandalf

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Don't worry about it. You will never get any sort of acknowledgment from individuals like Brontosaurie regarding false statements or assumptions they have made. It's a waste of time to even continue trying.

Indeed. He's changed the argument from pretentiousness, to grammar, back to pretentiousness, to hypocrisy and finally back to grammar.

I'm not particularly bothered myself, as I have become learned in the uses of "learned" and "learnt".

However, I will say this, if he continues to use learned as a verb, he's not only a hypocrite, but a very silly goose.

[edit]

It's now back to pretentiousness xD

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

it was a pretentious hypocritical grammar error. i haven't been changing my accusation.

learned/learnt still has very little to do with this since it's not a clear cut error - and even if it was there'd be no immoral or conspicuous incentive to make it. the
grammatic violation wouldn't be driven by vain desire to sound esoteric but rather brought on by mere carelessness, or a sound laziness which serves as a means of natural selection for the evolution of languages.

 

[Grayman]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

It really is not a big deal that you corrected him but assuming you know what he was thinking, or the reason he did it, is treading a fine line of arrogance.

It is also silly that we are arguing about learned and learnt. language is dynamically changing. The rules are not the same as they were and will be different in the future. The point of mlanguage is communication and if you can communicate well with the rules you use, that is all that matters.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

i claimed to know what motivates him to write like that, not what went on in his conscious mind as he typed the word. does that qualify as reason? it's more of a mechanism to me. also it's the only available explanation as far as i can tell.

 

[Grayman]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

i claimed to know what motivates him to write like that, not what went on in his conscious mind as he typed the word. does that qualify as reason? it's more of a mechanism to me. also it's the only available explanation as far as i can tell.

You know the motivations of others? Most have issues determining their own motivations.

I doubt you can mind read his subconscious mind anymore than you can mind read his conscious mind.

EDIT:

also it's the only available explanation as far as i can tell.

There are always explanations to things that we are incapable of seeing. Just because it is the only one we can come up with, does not mean it is true. In this case you could have asked why instead of assumed.

it's more of a mechanism to me.

The only reference for motivation I have in seeing motivation in others is my own motivations. It is harder to determine motivations in others based on a historical analysis than it is a self reflection. I wonder how you determined this was his motivation.? Was it self reflection?

 

[Thurlor]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

At last we can finish this silliness as once again it is pointed out that Brontosaurie's insistence that he knows my motivations better than I do is wrong.

Done.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

At last we can finish this silliness as once again it is pointed out that Brontosaurie's insistence that he knows my motivations better than I do is wrong.

Done.

I think at this point his ego is too bruised for him to overtly consider the possibility he could be wrong.

He went full retard, everybody knows you never go full retard.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

I think ya'll don get Bronto and that you are the ones bringing a buncha ad-hom content into the shit to begin with

so what if Thurlor doesn't go all whom all the time, it is a fact that there are whom'ers in the sense described by Bronto. Theirs is the habit of stylin with overly formal language, and theirs is the error in stylin so hard that they fall off their skateboards crash and get bruised.

Theirs is also the burden of being seemingly oblivious to all these cuts and bruises; bleeding all over the place is not a desireable thing to do. Now how is Bronto not providing proper medical care? Sure the alcohol to kill the bacteria stings, but that's gotta be there before the bandaid's put in place man.

Granted in the case of Thurlor the scenario was more like a guy making a small slip followed by Bronto calling the ambulance. A case of projection perhaps.

In any case all this talk of "ego" is redundant, and you're ignoring what Bronto is writing plus claiming he doesn't admit faults or back down, which he has.

///supportwhore

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Bronto took his "psychic" assumption of Thurlor's typing style to be a certified fact. It was shenanigans from there on.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

What does it matter if someone takes another to be part of phenomenon because that another acted in a way that indicates it so? It's just a regular case of generalizing, it's never accurate. Just because Bronto didn't quite hit the mark in this one case that don't mean what his aim wasn't set on something deserving to be hit bullseye.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

What does it matter if someone takes another to be part of phenomenon because that another acted in a way that indicates it so? It's just a regular case of generalizing, it's never accurate. Just because Bronto didn't quite hit the mark in this one case that don't mean what his aim wasn't set on something deserving to be hit bullseye.

That would be fine if he were generalising, but he wasn't. He was being very, very specific.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Arguing over grammar.

I fucking love this place.

Smy o velastuous hammy li capronious melastrafy, vozoo yight plackerrd crightly srully alzun.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avbfd_OkLoU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCbf-pKtkhU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaqJ4SKdRL0

 

[Grayman]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

What does it matter if someone takes another to be part of phenomenon because that another acted in a way that indicates it so? It's just a regular case of generalizing, it's never accurate. Just because Bronto didn't quite hit the mark in this one case that don't mean what his aim wasn't set on something deserving to be hit bullseye.

Generalizing is a dangerous thing, with consequences if you are wrong and you will be eventually. I am not a believer. It should not be used to judge a single individual else one is subject to making false assumptions. It is better to simply get to know the person and refrain from such assumptions. Save the generalizations for the general populace.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Bronto, Bronto, Bronto.

Why does every thread derail have to focus on Bronto? There are other derailers here who need some love and attention as well, you know.

 

[Grayman]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

Bronto, Bronto, Bronto.

Why does every thread derail have to focus on Bronto? There are other derailers here who need some love and attention as well, you know.

I am glad you noticed me. It was getting a little lonely over here. Come on over and bite my ear.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

I am glad you noticed me. It was getting a little lonely over here. Come on over and bite my ear.

*CHOMP*
muncha munch munch

Hmmm... Needs some horseradish.
Whom should I ask?

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

^^

 

[Grayman]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

*CHOMP*
muncha munch munch

Hmmm... Needs some horseradish.
Whom should I ask?

I always fantasied about being Mike Tyson's bride. Thank you so much Jenny.

I bet Cavallier has horses since she is a girl and all. Girls love horses.
Hawkeye probably has some radishes. He sounds like a farmer.
Being a feeler, CC probably has a mincer.

Walla! Horse radish

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

rb: there's not even a 'wrong ' to talk about here. thing is: why the helle wouldeth somewhom spake likesuch if naught to appeare in a certainedstdth waye? it's not just some random mistake, but a very telling one. pointing it out isn't the smoothest thing, sure, but neither by any means sinister enough to warrant two pages worth of resorts to skepticism, strawmen and broken analogies dispatched in vain hopes of terminating a perceived threat.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

I always fantasied about being Mike Tyson's bride. Thank you so much Jenny.

All praise is to Allah, I'd bite the ear of any man, any animal, and if Jesus were here I'd bite his ear too!

I bet Cavallier has horses since she is a girl and all. Girls love horses. Hawkeye probably has some radishes. He sounds like a farmer.
Being a feeler, CC probably has a mincer.

Walla! Horse radish

By jove. I think we are onto something here.

I hope I just don't get a little too much horse in my radish.

 

[Grayman]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

rb: there's not even a 'wrong ' to talk about here. thing is: why the helle wouldeth somewhom spake likesuch if naught to appeare in a certainedstdth waye? it's not just some random mistake, but a very telling one. pointing it out isn't the smoothest thing, sure, but neither by any means sinister enough to warrant two pages worth of resorts to skepticism, strawmen and broken analogies dispatched in vain hopes of terminating a perceived threat.

You've already stated this as your view and I already said why I disagree. I am not changing my mind because you stated the same opinion twice.

Edit:


I suppose it more than possible that you could care less about what I think and there is another reason we are having this debate. Is there something I am missing in your most recent statement that I am overlooking.

 

[Coolydudey]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

I purport that, having attained sublime communion with our holiest father, I learnt upon hearing his mellifluous voice that:
1) He who belittles the grammatical ability of others, whom I will refrain from directly naming, will be punished,
2) Any further deliberation on this topic will be deemed an inelegant and intolerable misuse of the time of all parties concerned,
3) This is literally the most futile, senseless and laughable debate to have materialized on this communal web-space, in the sense of the word endorsed as correct by the divine entity our father.

 

[Grayman]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

I purport that, having attained sublime communion with our holiest father, I learnt upon hearing his mellifluous voice that:
1) He who belittles the grammatical ability of others, whom I will refrain from directly naming, will be punished,
2) Any further deliberation on this topic will be deemed an inelegant and intolerable misuse of the time of all parties concerned,
3) This is literally the most futile, senseless and laughable debate to have materialized on this communal web-space, in the sense of the word endorsed as correct by the divine entity our father.

I don't limit my world to your subjective opinion.

Fi all the way baby!

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

I purport that, having attained sublime communion with our holiest father, I learnt upon hearing his mellifluous voice that:
1) He who belittles the grammatical ability of others, whom I will refrain from directly naming, will be punished,
2) Any further deliberation on this topic will be deemed an inelegant and intolerable misuse of the time of all parties concerned,
3) This is literally the most futile, senseless and laughable debate to have materialized on this communal web-space, in the sense of the word endorsed as correct by the divine entity our father.

You do comprehend that the series comma has been back in vogue and the preferable choice of punctuation since the 1990's? Understand that existence sans that last, minute, almost-insignificant comma is just too perplexing for the typical reader to long endure.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

You do comprehend that the series comma has been back in vogue and the preferable choice of punctuation since the 1990's? Understand that existence sans that last, minute, almost-insignificant comma is just too perplexing for the typical reader to long endure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_i1xk07o4g

I <3 grammar, but I like this song.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M94ii6MVilw

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Thread derail by whom?

What sort of mincer are we talking about here? I do own a mincer. I also mince about when I walk. I sorta mince when I talk as well, but in a pretty blunt way so I don't think it counts.

And about generalizing.. yeah tis a dangerous thing but come on if Thurlor just so happened to show a symptom of a phenomenon without himself partaking in said phenomenon, then I should think that it be more sensible to focus on said phenomenon rather than he who erroneously deemed the agent of the symptom one of the phenomenon.

T'was a small misstake after all, and let's not forget those who would if in place in the accused have been found guilty on both charges. For they do exist, and they are an abomination after all.

All in all, ya'll.