Censorship by mob rule

[ms_ann_thrope]

I use the Chicago Manual of Style, which says that my serial commas are just fine.

Nice to know that my posts are up to snuff, otherwise.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by wei yau

Well, well, it looks like Little Miss Angakuk is the teacher's pet. Frickin' apple polisher.

Just you wait, Ang. Me and the rest of the grammatically challenged are gonna kick your ass after school.

Bring it on dude. Bring it on! I'll tell you right now that I have been worked over by people who were much more ignorant than you can ever hope to be.

[Watser?]

But not quite as adept at ass kicking!

Hah!

HAH! I say!

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by democracy

Any of you who have read the original discussion multiple times may have noticed one obvious problem: Grammar.
For this installment I will try on the "Grammarian's Hat" and see what's what.

Ah, so that's the problem. The hat doesn't fit. Try pulling the brim upward. Then you might see more clearly.

Originally Posted by democracy

I have been writing and proofing the Grammarrians Report since January 1, (3 months).

I sincerely hope you didn't spend much of that time on this introduction. You should never put a comma directly before a parenthesis.

I used various online dictionaries to check spelling.

But not your own, apparently, Mr. GrammaRRian.

You may even find mistakes of my own in this report, that is likely. We all make mistakes. Please do not come flinging them back into my face.

You asked politely enough, but because your grammatical assessment of others is so egregiously faulty, I feel obliged to point out a few of your own errors. Such as your use of a comma rather than a semicolon in your first sentence, above.

Originally Posted by democracy

I don't know about this. You may be right but it sure sounds wrong. We don't have that kind of usage in English. Even though "types" and "threads/posts" are in the plural, we don't always put the verb in the plural if the noun is plural. I don't know if there is a solid grammatical rule or if it is only customary. Maybe another member can help here?

Of course there's a solid grammatical rule regarding verb-subject agreement. However, you have quoted only a fragment of the original sentence, so it's impossible to tell from this excerpt whether you've even captured the subject. My guess is that you haven't.

Originally Posted by democracy

What about this? "Make" or "makes"? Plural or singular? You can squeeze by with this usage. I don't see a big problem with it. Most people will not notice this. I certainly wouldn't but for the fact that I am wearing the "Grammarians Hat" for this moment. I am asking the group if anyone knows. If it is a misusage it is slight.

Now, this is just sad. The subject of the sentence is "series," not the plural noun "posts," which is part of the prepositional phrase that modifies the subject. I appreciate that you admitted you didn't know the rule, but this sort of grammatical confusion is pervasive in your entire report. Have you ever heard the following riddle?

What do you need to teach an old dog new tricks?

show spoiler

You need to know more than the dog.

Originally Posted by democracy

Correction: "couple of years"

Sigh. It's an idiomatic usage, perhaps technically incorrect, but entirely within the realm of acceptable and perfectly understandable usage.

Originally Posted by democracy

"to respond, in kind, to anything" requires an extra comma.

No, "to respond in kind" is a verb phrase with an adverbial component. It should be treated as a single verb phrase in this context.

Originally Posted by democracy

I am inclined to think that your parenthetical statements should be enclosed with parentheses.

That's a stylistic choice, not a grammatical concern. I often use appositives rather than parentheses for "parenthetical" statements, because I like it when my parentheticals can peer over the commas to see what they're commenting upon. The parentheses are too high for the shorter letters to see over.

Originally Posted by democracy

The first comma is misplaced. It should come after the word "and" since the "and" is needed to carry us over the parentheses and connect us to the word "I". You could then get away with using commas instead of parentheses.

Hogwash. The "and" connects two independent clauses, making the comma before it appropriate. Your variation works as well, but is not required.

Most of your commas do not degrade the sense. I can understand you but you tend to be slightly on the sloppy side. I wonder if it isn't because you are hurrying your posting in this thread? You seem to be very intelligent and probably a master of the language.

I appreciate the compliment. I have studied English grammar so intensively, in fact, that I am capable of confusing anyone. However, I believe your lack of understanding of stylistic variations is what leads you to deem my posting style "sloppy."

Originally Posted by democracy

The possessive is "other's". The apostrophe is misplaced.

Wrong. I was using a plural possessive. You have heard of such a thing, I hope?

Originally Posted by democracy

Sock Puppet, I feel that you lend a conversational tone to your online thoughts through the use of commas. For the most part I would excuse you on those grounds. I mean, it is the Internet. But I think you do stretch it a bit here:

Is it necessary to use a comma and quotations? I seem to vaguely recall the rule and think you might be correct.

Yes, I am correct (as usual).

Originally Posted by democracy

Your structure is good for the most part. But what about these next 2 sentences?:

I am sure that the comma is not needed.

Here too:

Connective words used with with [sic] commas? I have a doubt about this usage.

Again, perhaps you should consult a style manual, or take a course somewhere. Your doubts are completely unfounded.

Originally Posted by democracy

Sock Puppet makes a nice play on words and I like this way of introducing a humorous touch. You are spicing the exposition without threatening it.

Thank you. I’m all about the spicing, and am only occasionally threatening.

Originally Posted by democracy

This post is also free of any errors.

Oops! I was wrong. This post is not free of any errors. The comma is placed before the quotation mark rather than after it.

Actually, you were right the first time. The little punctuation marks (commas and periods) always go before the unquote, whether they are part of the quoted passage or not. The larger punctuation marks (question marks, colons, etc.) go before the unquote if they are part of the quoted passage and after it if they are extraneous to the quote.

Originally Posted by democracy

Here I use a period with a connective and I want to tell myself that it's OK because it feels right to me. Now I wonder if that usage annoys anyone else because technically it is incorrect?

I think you’re the only one here who has a problem with conversational variations on standard usage.

Originally Posted by democracy

There are no less than 3 errors in this post. I think it should be "since the points raised in the rest of your posts have already been completely hashed out in this thread".

No, there’s just one error: the omission of "the." I was referring to the points you raised in ONE post, not all of them. As for "in" vs. "on," it depends on the way one views the text – the text is written on the thread, as well as in it.

Originally Posted by democracy

This is actually kind of ironic. Sock Puppet is telling me to read the thread. And s/he is correct. I hadn't read the thread. Do you know how I entered the discussion? I said to myself "Oh good, I know all about this. So I skimmed over a few pages to "double check" and then began posting.
After 5 readings I noticed the error here. This post is the perfect example of spellchecking without proofreading. We need to read our own posts. Really read them to make sure that they say what we mean. And I'm not just getting up on a soapbox to get even with Sock Puppet for reminding me to read in the previous post. The reminder is appropriate. I give you a thumbs up for that:

Actually, I never spellcheck. In addition, sentences tend to spring from my keyboard Athena-like, i.e., fully formed. As a former proofreader, I rarely make errors. When I do, they tend to be single word omissions, like the one you found above.

At any rate, thanks for the thumbs up; however, I would prefer that you actually follow the advice rather than merely voice your approval of it. You still have not demonstrated the slightest understanding of the content of this discussion. Given how poor you are at correcting grammar, perhaps you should give reading comprehension a whirl. You might find you have a talent for it if you ever actually attempt it.

Originally Posted by democracy

We have a future Grammarian in the house!

I realize you’re just trying to be cute here, but it’s utterly ridiculous for you to assess someone’s potential for becoming something at which you have failed miserably.

In conclusion, please don’t take my harsh words too personally. I’m just feeling a bit slighted that you gave such kudos to other posters’ use of grandiloquent expressions, yet gave me no props whatsoever for either “What the furry, flying fuck” or “mad as a golind at rutting time.” I should’ve gotten at least half a gold star for each of those.

[wei yau]

Oh, why the hell not. Sock's post was infinitely more entertaining and infinitely shorter than democracy's.

Take a whole bunch of stars, man!

[democracy]

Excellent! We have another Grammarian in the house.

We will need someone to assess the punctuation, spelling and usage of pages 6-10 (most of which is my own posting and even worse because it came before I had this experience of evaluating the grammar for this thread and thereby improving my own). You also may want to add a Proofreader for the final report.

You may want to wait until I have produced the report on Rhetoric and Logic. If anyone would like to join the Evaluation Team, I could use the help.

And whoever does the Grammar for pages 6-10, I suggest that you make a Grammar Team and split the duties up between Punctuation, Spelling and Usage. This will offer a responsibility to each of three members. You can give punctuation to a newcomer. This responsibility will be the opportunity for each member of the Evaluation Team to verify that they have read, what they have read and how they have read it.

This will take the extraneous posters out of the main discussion, place them in a significant responsibility and allow us to focus upon the main presenters.

27 posters is way over the top!

[wei yau]

Well, I have to admit that I didn't see that one coming.

[Sock Puppet]

Or alternatively, we could sort of, y'know, actually discuss something.

[wei yau]

I can't even remember what we were discussing in the first place.

[Crumb]

show spoiler

Can I count smiley use?

show spoiler

[democracy]

I have read the original discussion (pages 1-5) 7 times. The Grammar Report made me do it. The great thing is that I became very familiar with the sense that is being conveyed through a careful inspection of the grammar. I am going to continue with the evaluation of the Rhetoric and Logic of pages 1-5.

The outline I used for the Grammar was Punctuation, Spelling, Usage and Awards. I did them in that order though I meshed them in the report.

Here is a possible outline for Rhetoric:
Modes of Speech: Deliberative Forensic Epideictic
Modes of Speech: Expository Narrative Dramatic
Figures of Speech
Discussion Leader
Overall Form

I've begun the work on each of the above items. If anyone has a clue about how to approach the logic, please contact me.

To insure objectivity, volunteers for Evaluator roles should not be main posters in the original discussion. Evaluators will need to read pages 1-5 approximately 5 times.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by wei yau

I can't even remember what we were discussing in the first place.

I think it was something about censorship by mobs.

It looks as though we've carried the thread on to "censorship by clueless niggling prigs."

Does anybody else get the feeling that the best part of this thread is not democracy?

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I think it was something about censorship by mobs.

It looks as though we've carried the thread on to "censorship by clueless niggling prigs."

Does anybody else get the feeling that the best part of this thread is not democracy?

Democracy is certainly the most creative troll I have ever seen

[Shelli]

I don't think that democracy is a troll. I do think he's being sincere.

[Crumb]

I believe he is sincere. Misguided, but sincere.

[Plant Woman]

I don't think he is sincere and definitely guided. Definitely.

[mickthinks]

Please forgive me if I awake this sleeping beauty of a thread.

Clutch Munny said

Put me down as one who finds that dogpiles tend to result from insulting posts …

I think we need to be careful how we distinguish between insults and criticism if we are to prevent this becoming a way of justifying mob suppression of all criticism of the mob.

Mick

[mickthinks]

Sock Puppet said;

Generally, most cases of so-called dogpiling have involved outrageous statements, or at very least, posts that were actively antagonistic to begin with.

I think we must take care to distinguish between antagonism and criticism if we are to avoid justifying mob suppression of all criticism of the mob.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Sock Puppet said;

Generally, most cases of so-called dogpiling have involved outrageous statements, or at very least, posts that were actively antagonistic to begin with.

I think we must take care to distinguish between antagonism and criticism if we are to avoid justifying mob suppression of all criticism of the mob.

This, along with your previous post, suggests that you think it is possible, on an internet discussion board, to censor by mob rule. Am I reading you correctly?

[ZEZOZE]

oops

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Sock Puppet said;

Generally, most cases of so-called dogpiling have involved outrageous statements, or at very least, posts that were actively antagonistic to begin with.

I think we must take care to distinguish between antagonism and criticism if we are to avoid justifying mob suppression of all criticism of the mob.

Thanks for quoting this, Ang; I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. I think we must also take care to distinguish between criticism and disingenuous, greased-weasel horseshit if we are to avoid justifying that which mick emits as "criticism of the mob."

This thread just keeps on giving. I love it to pieces.

[mickthinks]

Thanks Angakuk

… you think it is possible, on an internet discussion board, to censor by mob rule.
No, I wouldn't call it censorship, but I do think the mob suppresses unpopular ideas and opinions.

Mick

[Crumb]

Which definition of suppress would you say is the closest to your meaning, mick?

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster

1 : to put down by authority or force : SUBDUE
2 : to keep from public knowledge: as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of
3 a : to exclude from consciousness b : to keep from giving vent to : CHECK
4 obsolete : to press down
5 a : to restrain from a usual course or action b : to inhibit the growth or development of
6 : to inhibit the genetic expression of

[Sock Puppet]

Help! Help! I'm bein' suppressed!