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]njyoder
2007-05-12 02:18 am UTC (link)
I have submitted proof, both here and in the linked post, multiple times. You, on the other hand, have submitted no proof of your assertion.

I wasn't aware that something wasn't a word until the dictionary says it is. I'll have to take that up with the linguists I know, because that goes against everything in their field of study.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 02:53 am UTC (link)
You have not provided anything, other than proof that you do not understand how to read a dictionary, and on top of that, that you are resentful of people who can.

Please, find an Modern American English dictionary that recognizes "each" and "other" as one word, ONE WORD and NOT two. This does not mean search results, or group polls, or a long-winded argument about egos and predictability. "Common usage" means dick; if it's not in the dictionary, it's not common enough to be anything but a typo.

This means I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. You say "eachother" is a word and not a typo. Prove it. Find dictionary that says it is. Find some major and reputed authority on the English language as we speak it today to back you up.


PROVE IT, and prove it NOW, or shut up forever.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 03:02 am UTC (link)
"Common usage" means dick; if it's not in the dictionary, it's not common enough to be anything but a typo.

Care to back up this assertion? Oh wait, you can't. :-/ Must suck pulling shit out of your ass.

Millions of hits in Google. Interesting, but I guess millions = uncommon, lol

Prove it. Find dictionary that says it is.

You prove that it needs to be in the dictionary for you to be right. Oh yeah, you can't, because you're talking out of your ass AGAIN!

Out of curiosity, since you're the expert linguist, what does determine correctness of language? I have actually studied linguistics, so I know, but I want to hear your "highly informed" opinion.

Find some major and reputed authority on the English language as we speak it today to back you up.

And you don't have to find one to back you up? Interesting. You set higher standards for me than yourself, so that you don't have to back up what you say.

PROVE IT, and prove it NOW, or shut up forever.

I HAVE proven it. The fact that you have poor reading comprehension is not my fault. You, on the other hand, have presented no proof, which only further demonstrates what a small mind you have.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 03:13 am UTC (link)
Okay, let's examine those Google hits you value so much:

"Eachother": 4,380,000
"Each other": 239,000,000*

On Yahoo!

"Eachother": 6,360,000**
"Each other": 177,000,000

* The first result was a dictionary definition.
** Did you mean: "each other"


Even if we were to entertain the notion that "common usage" means what you think it means...it completely failed you here. Completely and utterly failed you.

"Common" does not equal "small minority".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 03:20 am UTC (link)
Ahhh, so you realized that I was right and abandoned your previous "it must be in the dictionary because I say so" line of argument.

Small minority of what? Of usages of all words combined? Compared to another, random word? What difference does it make if "each other" is more common than "eachother"? Since when does correctness rely on the _relative commonality_ of one random word/term (selected by cookie_love, the arbiter of correctness in language, of course) to another?

There are tons of words IN THE DICTIONARY that would get many less hits than that, FYI. Millions of uses is more than common enough. Perhaps you are bad at counting and the concept of 'millions' is over your head?

So out of curiosity, how many uses must a word have before it's consider correct? I know that you'll dodge, evade and refuse to try answering this. In case you do, I'll just pick out dictionary word that isn't common enough to meet your criteria of correctness.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]cookie_love
2007-05-12 03:43 am UTC (link)
Ahhh, so you realized that I was right and abandoned your previous "it must be in the dictionary because I say so" line of argument.

*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*HEADDESK*

No, no, NO you smug idiot. I'm trying to show you that even by your own faulty logic, you are WRONG!

There is nothing, NOTHING, in the results to prove your point. It means no matter how you slice it, you are wrong.

So out of curiosity, how many uses must a word have before it's consider correct?

Are you on crack? How many times to I have to tell you I'm not the only that's making you wrong here. Ask the experts why you are wrong. They're the ones shooting you down.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Talk about misleading...
[info]njyoder
2007-05-12 03:50 am UTC (link)
Oh, so you giving up that indefensible point was just coincidence? I DARE you to defend the points you gave up. Come on, I want to see you humiliate yourself more. ;)

I'm trying to show you that even by your own faulty logic, you are WRONG!

Really? My logic was "if one random word/term is more common than another, the less common one is incorrect"? Interesting. I don't remember saying that, could you please quote me?

I like how "millions" is nothing, though.

There is nothing, NOTHING, in the results to prove your point.

As opposed to you, with you "COME ON GUYZ IM RITTTTE THE EXPERTS AGREE WITH ME< REAALLY < I CANT CITE THEM OR ANYTHING AND I CANT DO ANYTHING BUT POINT AT THE DICTIONARY LIKE A RETARDED GORILAL< BUT IM RITE!!"

But you're right, millions = nothing significant.

How many times to I have to tell you I'm not the only that's making you wrong here.

HAHAHAHA--you did what I predicted you would do, YOU EVADED, you coward. AHAHAHAHAHA

Go look up arguentum ad nauseam, seriously. You aren't "making my wrong." You have presented no proof for your argument. As I said, you're just screaming like a retarded ape "IM RITE IM RITE" and then you threw a strawman argument at me--accusing me of saying something that I never said.

Ask the experts why you are wrong. They're the ones shooting you down.

ROFL HAHAHAHAHA What experts? Sources, please. You haven't quoted a single expert in support of you, Einstein. Here's a hint: if you actually asked some linguists about this, you'd realize how dead wrong you are. As you have never asked experts, nor studied linguistics, you wouldn't know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Talk about misleading...
(Anonymous)
2007-05-14 05:50 pm UTC (link)
I haven't seen Nathan wank this hard since he vehemently insisted that there was no way radiotherapy could possibly cause secondary cancers.

He's so much fun when he's insisting he's right and you're sitting there looking at proof that he's wrong.

madra_liath on LJ
-^)--)~

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map