You can usually tell allot from someone's remarks

[William769]

But to be honest, you can tell more by their silence.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Well,

[Deep13]

2. .

[MADem]

3. *cough* .... rustle... NT

[Deep13]

11. .

[Swede]

4. You can always tell a truckdriver.

But you can't tell him much.

[Speck Tater]

5. Not to be a nit-picker, but that sentence makes no sense.

Now if you had said "a lot" instead of "allot" (to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.) then it would have made sense. And if you're going to say "alot of people" then you should be consistent and say "afew people" or "abunch of people" or "apound of sugar".

[William769]

6. you can definitely tell a massive amount by what certain people say.

:)

[Speck Tater]

8. Shouldn't that be "amassive amount"? ;-) (nt)

[JuniperLea]

10. You can tell a lot about people who are self-appointed

Grammar police too!


:silly:

[Deep13]

12. For instance, they care about standards.

:evilgrin:

[JuniperLea]

13. But not deeply enough to forgo the public floggings

:evilgrin:


I'd rather err on the side of compassion and etiquette any day.

[lonestarnot]

30. Not when it comes to bushitler's offspring/hatchlings.

[Jacobin]

17. Ilike to allot allot of dispensation

to posters whose postings have alack of grammatical precision. I was once a grammar nazi, but now I see the light and try to understand what is said as opposed to how it is said.

It still irks me though.

[jilln]

21. And yet if it were a factual error,

everyone would want to see it corrected.

The fact is that misspellings and bad grammar can alter or even keep communication from occurring, and whether it's fair or not, it also leads people to make judgments about the writer.

So instead of calling people who say something about it "grammar nazis", maybe we just tell people tactfully what is wrong so the communication stays clear.

The person who first mentioned it was a lot nicer than the ones complaining about the mention.

[Jacobin]

25. please re-read

It does irk me. I'm actually glad that some folks are willing to be 'grammar nazis'. I think for the most part, posts on DU are well written and clear, which helps with communication, unlike another site that shall remain nameless.

[jilln]

27. I saw that it irks you... and I saw the words "grammar nazi" although I have yet to see "fact nazi"

[JuniperLea]

37. Private messages of correction

Are so much nicer.

The main thing I fear is that many a good idea will not be posted for fear of spelling and grammar errors. That sucks. There are plenty of brilliant people who can't spell or conjugate a verb.

[JuniperLea]

35. That post was clearly making fun of another's mistake!

And it is crass!

The proper thing to do when one feels the need to be a Grammar Nazi is to send a private message to the poster in question. The poster learns the grammar rule, the Nazi gets the need to correct someone out of their system, and all is well with the world.

Public corrections (floggings) of another's spelling and grammar are crass and vulgar. There is simply no way to put lipstick on that particular pig.

[H2O Man]

7. "A conspiracy of silence

speaks louder than words." -- John Lennon

[helderheid]

9. And what they do can be even more telling...

[blm]

23. Which is why I favor open government. I don't trust lawmakers who refuse to even

mention the most serious corruption issues of our generation.

Secrecy and privilege are ruining this nation.

[EFerrari]

14. It's "a lot".n/t

[Madspirit]

18. I was going to say...it's "a lot"....n/t

[EFerrari]

22. Lol. I need an exorcism for the spelling and grammar police

in my head. Or, I need them to police me much more carefully. :)

[Madspirit]

26. A lot of folks...

A lot of folks don't know that "a lot" is two words. I see it everywhere. I didn't even know myself until Buffy died in Season Five and on her tombstone it said, "She Saved the World...A Lot". I looked it up and lo and behold... Now it bugs me to death when I see it wrong.
Lee

[JuniperLea]

36. Don't you think a private message is a kinder gentler way?

Seems the Grammar Nazis would get their urges off their chests just as well privately.

I hate public floggings!

[Clark2008]

15. Who's not saying anything about what?

:shrug:

[Deep13]

16. I'm not telling.

[helderheid]

20. snort!

:rofl:

[lectrobyte]

19. See everything for what it is.

[blm]

24. EXACTLY. That's why I've been so pissed after reading Clinton's book.

Not even ONE mention of the matters he inherited when he took office - matters like IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning.

This silence, even post 9-11, made me distrust Clinton.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. No You Can't.

[Jonathan50]

29. Yes you can..

Particularly when someone issues a challenge and then fails to show up.

Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence.

[lonestarnot]

32. Is someone challenged to a duel?

[Jonathan50]

33. A debate actually...

I don't want to get into details but someone issued a challenge to debate and then claimed they were tired and going to bed but would get back the next day.

Of course they never showed up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. ROFLMFAO!!!!!! OMFG Is That Was This Is About? ROFLMAO!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The fact is I had already slaughtered you in that thread and yet you kept acting as if you still had a valid point. You didn't. It was a ridiculous premise. Though I don't even remember what it was about anymore I do remember how absolutely silly I thought you were.

So yeah, when I woke up the next day the last thing on my mind was you. I had wasted enough time with you the night before and literally had no motivation to continue it the next day. It was time to move on.

Now if you want to take that as a sign of acquiescence, then that to me is as ridiculous as your premise was to begin with. The silence wasn't acquiescence, it was adhering to the concept of "Never argue with a fool, for one can't tell the difference". :rofl:

You are just too much. I just laughed so hard when I read your replies to the other poster. I mean, holy cow! LOL

So no, you can't tell a lot about someone from silence. In fact, as you've just shown, it can lead to amazingly ignorant assumptions to do so. In this case, you were actually silly enough to think for a second that the silence was sign of acquiescence, when in fact the silence was a sign of an utter lack of respect for your argument and a lack of care to waste any more time on such ridiculousness.

Too funny. You are just too funny. :rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

39. Were you the one that didn't show up for the debate?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. I Guess LOL Thread Link Is Below, Starting At Post 13.

There may have been a different thread too, I can't remember, but this is the one I found where at the bottom he put that he wanted to continue the debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x380225

[Jonathan50]

41. Riiiight........

Methinks thou dost protest too much..

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[notadmblnd]

31. You're absolutely right.

nt

[Catherine Vincent]

38. .