Does connections really make a difference?

[DistanceDan]

<p>

Yes, of course it is “easier” to go willy-nilly while writing on a mere internet forum. But the question is: Why should we? If we are educated, aren’t we always so? Why pretend to not be? Is there some shame in it? Lowest common denominator is a bore.

</p>

<p>Time to climb down from that high horse, buddy. Consistent perfection of linguistic expression is by no means an applicable gauge of intellectual capacity. Anybody who believes so is a pretentious loser who misconstrues their “superior” grammatic usage as an excuse to antagonize others who do not feel the need to excercise such a drastic degree of Grammar Nazism. You aren’t impressing anyone, and no one thinks any less of jun for using appropriate internet jargon on an INTERNET forum. It’s akin to using slang in casual conversation: it doesn’t indicate a dearth of intellectualism, it just demonstrates the common tendency of humans to adapt their means of expression to the context of a given situation.</p>

<p>“LOL grammar mistake, you’ll never get into Harvard!”</p>

[lobgent]

<p>leanid. “why pretend to not be?” split infinitive. your english sucks. end of story.</p>

[leanid]

<p>Thanks for catching that, lobgent. </p>

<p>DistanceDan – To me grammatical sloth (for those who know better but can’t be bothered) tells me that if a person is disinclined to be precise about language (which is an easy discipline compared to some others that our faculties must grapple with) then that person’s integrity of thought is also suspect, thus rendering his/her pronouncements less than true. It’s just a gut feeling I have. I will always listen with some skepticism to those whose command of the language is not readily apparent.</p>

<p>MSauce – </p>

<p>“It seems like every generation thinks they’re smarter than the one that came before them and the one that comes after them.” </p>

<p>In other words the younger generation thinks the older one is idiotic. That is too laughable, especially in view of the woeful lack of experience of the younger set.</p>

[DwightEisenhower]

<p>

To me grammatical sloth (for those who know better but can’t be bothered) tells me that if a person is disinclined to be precise about language (which is an easy discipline compared to some others that our faculties must grapple with) then that person’s integrity of thought is also suspect, thus rendering his/her pronouncements less than true.

</p>

<p>You should work on that. There’s no connection between the value of someone’s ideas and the language that he/she employs.</p>

[schrodingerscat]

<p>leanid’s statement sounds as though it’s been lifted from the Whorf hypothesis… which brings up another debate about the influence of language over thought. </p>

<p>Standard syntax is essential in some contexts, but not all. Personally, I think that non-standard conjugations are perfectly acceptable in an online community provided that they don’t obfuscate the intended semantics. I also disagree with the notion of judging individuals on small, grammatical errors that in some instances diminsh the social distance (such as the replacement of ‘as’ with ‘like’).</p>