Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



cookies taste better with funneh ([info]cookie_love) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2007-05-10 22:34:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
I was checking my friends page over at LJ, when at the top I spot a post by nyjoder over at stupid_free. After some link checking, I think I've got the gist of why "twatwaffle" has his knickers in a twist.

You see, stupid_free linked to a post over at thequestionclub where njyoder was being a dick informing the OP that her icon was most misleading. It didn't show, in his tactful words, "how fat you truly are." Needless to say, there is wank (and a mod smackdown), which is why it was on stupid_free.

But that's not the only thing that made it to the community, as everyone's favorite long-winded wonder shows up himself. He's determine to help the stupid people of the world understand the true meaning of "misleading":

mis·lead /mɪsˈlid/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-leed] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -led, -lead·ing. –verb (used with object) 1. to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray. 2. to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgment. –verb (used without object) 3. to be misleading; tend to deceive: vague directions that often mislead

Clearly, people with icons of anime characters and animals are intending to deceive people into think that they're not actually live human beings! And just look at all the people who fell into the deception...all, 0 of them. And people using real pictures of themselves on the internet that deliberately try to hide their ugliness? Not deceptive at all. People never try to do that anyway. Prediction: many stupid, unrelated and uncreative insults to this post, because they lack the ability to defend their ignorance of the word 'misleading.'


Did anyone defend their ignorance of misleading? I honestly don't know. Did everyone and their brother poke/mock the troll? You bet your sweet ass they did.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]onyxnoir
2007-05-12 02:13 am UTC (link)
Look it up before you embarrass yourself further.

I call Troll.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 02:19 am UTC (link)
I did and I determined that I was completely right. It is, in fact, common usage. You can attempt to prove otherwise, if you wish. Go read my comments in the linked post before you humiliated yourself further.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 03:00 am UTC (link)
I want to call troll...but he seems to be completely serious.

It's like he's broken through to a whole different level of internet stupidity.

It reminds me of Pokemon evolution.

Flamer < Troll < ???

Is there a name for that next level?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 03:22 am UTC (link)
I wouldn't pursue this, if I were you. You already abandoned your "it MUST BE IN THE DICTIONARY11!11!!!!1! CUZ I SAY SO" line of argument, even after insisting so strongly that it's right. You also realized your hypocrisy in demanding that I quote some linguistic authority when you have never done so yourself.

Look. If you have to keep backpedaling and changing your argument (moving the goal posts), you don't exactly look intelligent.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 03:46 am UTC (link)
You already abandoned your "it MUST BE IN THE DICTIONARY11!11!!!!1! CUZ I SAY SO" line of argument

No, twatwaffle, I haven't. I attempted to show you, using your own logic, that you were wrong, because even your so-called "proof" made you wrong. Merriam-Webster pwned you and you can't stand it.

Why? Because there IS NO ARGUMENT. I mean...there's you arguing, but there is no we. You are making an ass of yourself, and I'm helping, but that's about it. That's not a debate. That's being owned.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 03:53 am UTC (link)
You didn't use my own logic. Again I challenge you: quote me where I said that one random word/term being more common than another makes the other incorrect.

And yes, you DID abandon that line of argument. You've replied to me several times after that, and you still refuse to back it up. Simply repeating "ITS RITE ITS RITE" is not the same as backing it up. In this comment, yet again, you screamed "BUT ITS IN MERRIAM WEBSTER LOLOL IMRITE LOOK AT ME IM RITE," without any evidence whatsoever that a word needs to be in a dictionary to be correct.

I could see if you disagreed with my argument, but stating that there hasn't been one just makes you look illiterate.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 04:23 am UTC (link)
Again I challenge you: quote me where I said that one random word/term being more common than another makes the other incorrect.

*Yawn*

Oh no, twatwaffle. You have yet to bring me a dictionary that backs up your claim that "eachother" is a word.

No challenge for you, grasshopper.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 04:26 am UTC (link)
Why would I even need to? You keep repeating that I need to, but haven't specified why it's necessary to prove my argument.

Seriously, have the voices stopped yet? If you're hearing experts in your head, you need help.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 04:46 am UTC (link)
Why would I even need to?

1.) Because you are wrong.
2.) Because you have yet to prove you aren't wrong.
3.) Because I made my challenge first.
4.) I'm still not your drug buddy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 04:53 am UTC (link)
The sad part is that you don't even realize that this comment is circular logic.

"You need to present this evidence because you are wrong. You are wrong because you won't present this evidence."

I also like the "you have yet to prove you aren't wrong," which is called an "argument from ignorance" (look that up--it's an actual term). It's not true anyway, but if it were, you'd still be committing an atrocious fallacy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading... - (Anonymous), 2007-05-12 04:59 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]njyoder, 2007-05-12 05:02 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - (Anonymous), 2007-05-12 07:44 pm UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]cookie_love, 2007-05-12 05:07 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading...
(Anonymous)
2007-05-14 05:40 pm UTC (link)
Have you learned to ride that unicycle yet, Nathan the Clown?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]silrana
2007-05-12 03:41 am UTC (link)
I plugged eachother into several search engines, and he is right, there were many hits for it. In web posts, blogs, bad poetry... strangely enough, none from magazine or newspaper articles or other outlets where the writing is supposed to be correct. Funny, that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 03:45 am UTC (link)
I wasn't aware that magazines and newspapers are the sole arbiters of correctness. I would have thought the people who speak the language, as a whole, do it, rather than having an elite few decide how language should artificially naturally evolve.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 04:06 am UTC (link)
Oh. My. GAWD.

You are not attempting to make that argument after trying to pass off the "elite few" as "common". Tell me you are not. Please. Convince me. :D

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 04:11 am UTC (link)
Who passed the "elite few" off as "common"? Are you confusing people with words?

P.S. Have the voices in your head stopped?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 04:44 am UTC (link)
Who passed the "elite few" off as "common"?

I was referring to your attempt to pass off an obvious minority of search results (and obvious typos/spelling errors [I'm doing that for the LOLs]) as a common means of saying "eachother".

I mean, from what you've been pushing, the "elite few" that made a mistake in their typing are really just the overlooked "common" users of a word you're totally convinced is correct.

I just found it funny, is all.


P.S. Have the voices in your head stopped?
Don't confuse me with your druggie friends, please.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 04:51 am UTC (link)
Oh, so you were confusing people and words. Gotcha.

You see, we have over a billion English speakers in the world, so it's fair to say that they are an 'elite few.'

I already asked you about this and you just evaded. This is a 'minority of search results' compared to what? Of all possible search results for all English words? That would be analogous in this regard--the entire population of English speakers vs. all English words.

There are billions of pages indexed by Google, so any individual search would be a 'minority of the search results.' Any given word would also be a 'minority of the search results.' Compared to the massive amount you get from the aggregate of all searches for all English words.

You compared the search results of 'each other' and 'eachother,' and I previously asked how this comparison determines correctness. That is, what difference does it make if one happens to show up more than the other? You never answered.

I expect you to read this, engage in cognitive dissonance and then act as if it went over your head.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]cookie_love, 2007-05-12 05:04 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]njyoder, 2007-05-12 05:06 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]cookie_love, 2007-05-12 05:19 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]silrana
2007-05-12 04:07 am UTC (link)
Well, I must say that by your standards my writing will be much easier. No more worrying about little things like getting their/there/they're correct, or its/it's. I'm not writing poorly, I'm evolving the language!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 04:14 am UTC (link)
There's some other criteria here I didn't mention because I didn't want to make it any more difficult for cookie_love to understand, but I'll state some of it here just to be nice.

Usage exists within different contexts. If we are talking about writing informal writing, such as on a blogging/fora medium (like LJ), we are only held to the usage standards of informal writing.

Another criterion is coherency. Obviously a usage can't be correct if it intrinsically makes no sense. Substituting homonyms with distinctly different meanings to eachother creates incoherency and confusion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]silrana
2007-05-12 04:27 am UTC (link)
Oooooh, a number of boards I frequent would eat you alive for saying something like that. Of course, they are crammed full of pro writers, editors, agents and such.

There is a difference between slang or lingo, which would cover leet speak or emoticons, and incorrect use of standard English. To say that an LJ or JF community is too informal for correctness is to say that you simply don't give a crap about putting effort into your post. And if that is the case, then why are you arguing so hard about it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 04:35 am UTC (link)
They would try, but they'd fail. The problem with prescriptivists is that they don't have a real understanding of how language works. I've argued with them before and ultimately their argument goes one of two ways: either they state that they _do_ believe that there are an 'elite few' who dictate language for everyone else or they suggest that there is some complex criteria that exists, while refusing to specify what it is (because even they don't know what their own criteria is in any conscious sense).

I never said they were too informal for correctness. I'm being generous, so please read more carefully.

Correctness changes depending on the usage within the linguistic context that you're in. In an informal context, some things are correct that might be incorrect in, for example, a (formal) newspaper context. My usage of 'everyone' was quite correct within the context. There are different formal and informal contexts. Things correct in newspapers aren't even necessarily correct in books.

Let's consider a different example. 'Hacker' in common usage, even in many formal writing contexts (including newspapers), is used to mean a malicious person who breaks into computer systems. The original definition of the word hacker, as created by the computing community itself, is one of a skilled programmer who understands the inner workings of computer systems well--with no particular good/evil connotation.

Now, if we go into a newspaper context and use the former definition (which is also the colloquial definition), it would be acceptable. But if those same newspaper writers, who more often than not don't know the true origins of the word, were to try using is former way in, lets say, an ACM (computing) publication--they'd be very wrong.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]silrana, 2007-05-12 04:50 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]njyoder, 2007-05-12 04:59 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]silrana, 2007-05-12 05:18 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]njyoder, 2007-05-14 04:46 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - (Anonymous), 2007-05-14 05:44 pm UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]greenling, 2007-05-12 06:36 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading... - [info]njyoder, 2007-05-14 04:49 am UTC
Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 03:59 am UTC (link)
WOAH. I wouldn't be defending this guy if I were you. He just got done proclaiming that 'typo' and 'spelling error' were synonymous. He didn't know what the word 'typo' actually meant and he was fervent in accusing me of making one. I cry for teh stoopids :(

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 04:29 am UTC (link)
I hope you don't choke on your own snot or anything.

BTW, I'm a "she", you condescending twit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]onyxnoir
2007-05-12 03:41 am UTC (link)
Troll 2.0?


You latch onto a trivial insult I said when I was bored for this?


Because nothing says troll to me like someone who insults random people on the internet just because he's bored.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 04:03 am UTC (link)
Well, at least he's not doing it for the lulz. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map