TGIF
I have put the kids to bed and can now spend time addressing certain rude behaviour in this thread.
By kids, I am referring to my career responsibilities and many other obligations.
By rude behaviour I mean certain Monsters of society that has found their way into forums.
At present...
Dear TheMonster,
I have a problem with the correct use of who and whom.
I am not alone. Many people have this problem. Search the internet, you'll find many sites offering help.
You have interrupted other threads with this same nonsense. I have nicely acknowledged the problem then, and I promise to attempt to do better, even if only the attempt takes on the form of using
who in all cases because its more correct than not. lol
I suggested the solution that if my incorrect use of the two forms
wastes your time as you've stated then steering away from posts where you
know for certain that these inconsistencies lurk might be a reasonable solution to you.
Immediately you pulled in your horns and claimed a personal affront, by stating "You don't own this thread."
Out of all your assumed superiority of the use of the English language Mr. Houseman, you are now feigning ignorance in reading comprehension, by suggesting that I purport to own any thread
or that I have tried to deny any poster passage, or that I have not indeed went out of my way to welcome any poster to my threads by oftentimes
acknowledging and
responding in an attempt to give a poster positive feedback and satisfaction that his or her post has been read, by someone.
You are the one who threw out that your time was being wasted because I
don't take time to proofread.
Just why you think that someone who has a problem with the two cases is suddenly going to achieve mastery upon his second reading is beyond
me but certainly not unlike the illogical irrational thinking of a certain Houseman-type.
Since you put your almighty time up as a devout consideration, then I rightly suppose it would be down right inhospitable and rude of me not to at least give it a cursory consideration.
The result of that cursory consideration was an acknowledgement and a warning that I have a problem with the two forms and that I wasn't likely to pass my writings through a grammar checker because of considerations regarding my own time.
That is the only solution available to me of satisfying your superior sense of grammatical excellence, unless your solution was always to be that I not have use of the forum.
In which case I submit to
you Mr. Houseman, that you are the one who does not own the forum!
And no one appointed you to stand great grammatical guru at the gate, you pompous twit!
Ah, but his feelings are hurt when people call him names.
Actually, I am painfully aware that a lot of people think it's bad form to point out errors in grammar and spelling. Somehow it's not bad form to call folks like me names (of which "anal retentive" is probably one of the milder sort). Funny how that works.
Again, at the first sign that the prodded bull has its own horns, he feigns indignance and tries to justify his own faux pas--his own tactless acts that violate accepted social norms, standard customs, or rules of ettiquette.
I assure you Mr. Houseman, regarding your rudeness, crudeness and ill-advised social bedside manner you are not as
painfully aware of it as others are about you.
And if calling you names affronts you...leaves me completely and utterly unmoved!
One of my foreign friends, upon reading your post, took the time to ring me up to remind me of a conversation we had when I visited Romania. They were talking and one of their idioms came up. Upon asking what it meant they explained it...
Some foreign phrase which essentially translates to "deal with the duck."
Its actually very similar to an English phrase taken one step further.
"If it quacks like a duck, its a duck.
If it barks like a dog, its a dog.
If it bites like a dog, its a problem."She thought your rudeness was a perfect opportunity to conclude my understanding of that phrase.
With the invention of the internet, your rudeness has even traveled abroad to affront the sensibilities of very good people. And of course your rudeness, attempt to embarrass and offhanded brusque dismissal of accepted standard faux pas, is such an insignificant sleight as opposed to my misusing two
often misused and innocuous words like
who and
whom.
Once again you tried to reign in your horns after prodding the bull.
If I walk out of a restroom with three feet of toilet tissue stuck to my heel, I'd like someone to tell me about it rather than just giggling at me behind my back.
I am sure anyone would agree that they'd like to be told.
I doubt that anyone would want you to rudely scream it from across the way.
Interrupting a thread in that manner is essentially the same and satisfied nothing but your own sense of sick grandeur, and served to do nothing but kill what I and friends of mine was hoping to be a very good thread.
If your intentions truly were altruistic, and you truly were concerned about people laughing behind my back, you would have sought the more discrete path. Emails are available.
We all know what you were really trying to do, don't we Mr. Houseman, you were trying to
initiate giggles by casting your own aspersions on my education.
You feel superior to everyone who isn't a perfect grammar master. Because that's enough for you to know, without knowing any thing profound about the person, to make that assumption.
You knew exactly what you were doing, and your initial condescendingly confrontational tone made it quite clear.
Let me congratulate you on your attempt to embarrass me. You succeeded. Though not in the manner in which you think. I was embarrassed for Americans that one of us could think so much of our own self importance that they could do such a thing.
That post was specifically set up for my foreign friends. They are interested in American thoughts about the social, religious, emotional and other unseen effects of living significantly longer. They are all medical doctors and their interest is purely clinical. They also wanted me to list political as a consideration but I explained to them that political discussions had its own forum.
You destroyed that thread right from the start, as was your intention. The social rules of society and the rules of the forum fail to matter to you, rather your own importance.
Your type was probably cheering from Houseman's own indulgence in self importance. It's obvious you didn't
learn anything from its aftermath.
Incidentally,
Andreea perceived of the connection between you and Houseman.
Reel in your horns once more and feign concern.
If I post something that egregiously wrong on, say, a German-language forum, I'd hope someone would let me know rather than letting me get in the habit of error.
Apples and oranges, and you damn well know it. Insult my intelligence even more, thank you.
I am not trying to learn English as a foreign language.
Egregious? Which means abominable, appalling, frightful, shocking?
Surely Reginald Houseman shit you right out of his self important ass.
Yes you knew exactly what you were doing, and your initial condescendingly confrontational tone made it quite clear.
Well, maybe when people live to be more than a century, they'll have time learn that "alot" is not a word. (There is a word spelled "allot", but it has a completely different meaning from "a lot". When you allot the cookies, if one child gets a lot and another does not, expect a lot of complaining.) If this were the first time you'd typed that, it would be easy to think you just forgot to hit the spacebar or your fingers slipped, but I've seen you do it, well, a lot. Since you brought up education, I can take the opportunity to school you on grammar and spelling.
Obviously any side-effect of prolong would be more advantageous and desired if it were to erase humanity's grammatical errors rather than its rude, condescending, self important social miscreants--the socially inept.
Sure.
I challenge you to find any social gathering that would be more concerned about a person's grammar than their manners. I certainly know which would be laughed behind their back, right after they're shown the outside by the nape of their neck and the seat of their pants. Just one social setting other than your own back yard.
Since you brought up education, I can take the opportunity to school you on grammar and spelling.
So you won't mind if I take a moment to school
you?.
Alot is not a word. There is a distinct difference of using existing words incorrectly rather than using words that are not words.
I personally like alot. I will campaign for its use. Let's examine it.
A and lot, separated by a space. Can and not, separated by a space. What and ever, separated by a space. Counter and clockwise, extra and ordinary. They all represent commonly used dual word combinations that have been simplified to one form. Compound words. They have evolved. The phenomena represented by the big word called etymology.
Now I am sure that a and lot represents an egregious use of alot.
The English language is not static. No language should be.
Language learns itself. It is ever changing.
Our experiences shapes our need to reassemble language to its original form. In the beginning there was just one language, before peoples were scattered.
It is why we as people, in our ever need to communicate come to use words as a means to this end.
Words are not meant to use us.
I was with a group of irate women, angry over an older boy that had gotten away with rape with one of their young daughters. He was 15, she was 14. Since they had been going out for a few weeks he felt like she owed him. Apparently the justice system did to.
One of them said "We should bobbitt his ass."
Bobbitt, I asked?
"Yes, Lorena Bobbitt."
Ah, you see, experience creates new words.
And one of my favorites. "She Jap Slapped him."
To Jap Slap someone, is to slap them when they are not aware of the incomming slap. (I.E Sneak attack) Comes from when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor
-Urban Dictionary
Please don't try and force your self proclaimed importance and assumed mastery and understanding of the English language on us mere mortals. And before you send off your next post, perhaps you should spend less time proofreading your work for correctly placed quotation marks rather than the substance between them.
So you think that appearing young somehow empowers sexual predators. I don't know how a 15-year-old boy taking advantage of a 12-year-old girl is any better than a 23-year-old pretending to be a 15-year-old doing the same thing. Either she's competent to consent to sexual congress or she isn't. And if Prolong allows a 30- or 40-year-old to look as young as a 23-year-old today, I'm not sure that one of them pretending to be 15 is any worse than the 23-year-old doing it.
The only meaningful difference between the 15 year old boy and the 23-year-old is eight years of experience in manipulation tactics. If girls are taught to be on guard about such tactics only when used by boys who seem to be a lot older than they, they're being taught the wrong lessons. Prolong letting that "boy" continue to pass as 15 through his 30s just underscores how wrong it is.
All over America, rapists are getting off. High powered tactical legal jugglers are getting them off. These legal jugglers begin by seeking out accomplices--people to sit on the jury. People with thinking sympathetic to their plight. People just like...well,
you, Monster.
At what age in a man's life can he, should he, unequivocally be held [absolutely] responsible for his actions? Thirty to forty years old and beyond, is certainly that time!
Sure, the justice system has its problems and uncertainties distinguishing that point of time in a man's life that he should be considered mature. Mature and responsible. Absolutely.
We'll visit some of those hideous inconsistencies later.
You don't understand, the unspoken premise that as a man matures he should become more responsible?
Should be held morally more accountable?
Two men are on trial for taking indecent liberties with a minor, one 23 and the other 40.
The 23 yr old will be convicted, but probably with a lighter sentence.
The 40 yr old will be convicted, but with a heavier sentence.
The difference ranges from 1-5, to 25-60 years depending on circumstances. Class A-D Felonies.
What plays an important role, is the attitude against the two perpetrators, all else being equal.
The jury is thinking, the 23 yr old hasn't grown up yet, but still must be punished. Too bad he's thrown his life away. At least that's what a good lawyer will have them thinking.
To the 40 year old..."That SOB, they should hang his sorry ass."
I know this first hand.
What's the difference?
The perceived notion that an undisputed adult, physically and mentally should be held one hundred percent accountable. Someone 30 - 40 years old, you're a grown man and should
definitely know better!
[Sentence them both...but castrate the one before sentencing. The filthy SOB!]
You don't understand that?
Have you ever sat on a jury for this type case? It's an eye opener.
The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an "infant" are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. After reaching the initial age, there may be levels of responsibility dictated by age and the type of offense committed.
Under the English common law the defense of infancy was expressed as a set of presumptions. A child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing a crime. The presumption was conclusive, prohibiting the prosecution from offering evidence that the child had the capacity to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of what he had done. Children aged seven to fourteen (13 years, 364 days 23'59'59" aged) were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what he was doing and that it was wrong.[1] Children fourteen and older were presumed capable of committing a crime. However, the child could rebut this presumption by establishing that because of his immaturity he was incapable of understanding what he had done or the wrongfulness of his conduct.[2]
The spirit of this law is to protect criminals who don't know any better.
The mentally challenged, etc.
It is this type thinking that allows many to walk. That opens the door. A 23 year old isn't long out of High School, he hasn't let go yet. Hasn't completely grown up. Hogwash! But that empathy is used.
But a 30 year old and a 40 year old, should definitely know better.
But people like you, don't believe its any worse. That's why you are picked as a juror by the defense.
No wonder children cannot count on the legal system to protect them. Too many cancerous minds.
Legally, on paper it may not be any worse...the same lascivious infractions.
But if you think, seriously think, that in the minds and hearts of the average human, and especially to the victim's' family, that it isn't worse, that the average loved one doesn't want to castrate the 40 year old, then you really have issues.
And if you yourself don't feel that way, then I really wouldn't feel comfortable with you within 300 yards of my niece.
And at Honor Con, she will not leave my sight.
Your rudeness is appalling to people. You are aware of it, as this is not your first time to interrupt my threads, and you indicated that other people also think your habit is in bad taste which implies you've exerted your self importance over others as well and subjected them to your rudeness, and have been told. Yet the rudeness continues.
Only your time is important, not any of the other people that may actually have wanted to discuss the topic.
Is that why you name yourself TheMonster because that's what you intend to be?
You're rude, you're disrespectful and a malignant growth to society.
And if any aspersions were cast in your direction. You cast them yourself.
If my calling a quacking duck a duck offends you.
I am left completely and utterly unmoved.
Trataţi cu raţă