<p>Touche, hereshoping!</p>
<p>
Clearly, that’s true, but I think my comment was clearly a suggestion, not a directive. I’ve been reading and/or posting on CC since S1 was a sophomore in HS. He’s now a college sophomore.</p>
<p>Over these last four years, posters have come and gone, and the forum has changed in many ways. Most of the changes have been good, but I do miss certain wise posters, such as Jamimom.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m out on a limb, here, but I’ve observed a change in the tone of interactions among posters – and I’m talking about the parents, since I don’t visit the student forums. In particular, the cafe seems to have become a very contentious and less civil place to visit, and the focus on stupid details detracts from the conversation. Sarcasm seems to be the communication method du jour.</p>
<p>Just my opinion, of course, but this is an opinion forum, is it not?</p>
<p>sjmom – It is indeed an opinion forum! </p>
<p>Do you feel that I am guilty of being “less civil”? I will admit to a bit of contentiousness, but please show me where I have been sarcastic. As for “focus on stupid details”, if that is directed at me then I would say that the stupidity lies with those who WILLnot accept correction for what surely MUST be a very important ability – that is effective communication — which is the ONLY way a civilzed people can beneficially advance. That is all.</p>
<p>Warning – OT post. 
I believe that focusing on issues like grammar and spelling detract from the conversations on CC.
This comment seemed a little aggressive to me. There are posters who offer interesting points of view who do not always use correct grammar or spelling, and I would not like to see them hesitate to post out of concern for being ridiculed. I’m not going to search the various threads on the cafe to isolate all the instances of sarcasm, but it seems to be an overused method of communication to me. </p>
<p>I’m not going to continue debating this with you. Frankly, I think I’ll be taking a little break for a while – if I want sarcasm, aggresive conversation or arguments about petty details, I’ll go talk to one of my teenage sons.</p>
<p>“The rest of your post is spot on, but I believe that Kerry FINALLY did sign the papers to reveal his record.”</p>
<p>FF, he said he was going to and then wimped out at the last minute.</p>
<p>Well, I certainly do not wish to offend anyone’s ego and I should think that, this being a “parents” forum, we are mostly adults here and therefore not so tender in psyche (as adolescents usually are) that we cannot take some gentle (well, okay, maybe not so gentle) correcting here and there. BESIDES, why is that any worse than being criticized for one’s thoughts – which happens regularly here?!</p>
<p>At least the “grammar police”, as you call them, do not attack the “content of your character” (okay, I may have said something about intellectual sloth) – only your mechanics in expressing that content, which is far easier to correct.</p>
<p>Peace be with you, madam.</p>
<p>"Rudy would be a tough choice for the GOP because they need to somehow keep a sense of political cohesiveness; his pro-choice, pro-gay stances are dangerous for a party that seems to have trouble defining itself outside of a few “hot-button” issues. "</p>
<p>I think that’s a total myth, propagated by hopeful democrats. The fact is that we realize that there is no perfect candidate (witness, Bush), but we will turn out for the better of the two candidates. Which will be whatever candidate is not the democrat. I am laughing my butt off at the “draft Bloomberg” movement here in NYC. Heck, Hillary is less of a whiny, condescending, stereotypical liberal than he.</p>
<p>
I completely agree. </p>
<p>There are posters from every perspective that, in their haste, frustration or inability will make these meaningless;) mistakes. Rarely do such mistakes rise to the level of incomprehensibility. There are, of course, a few exceptions–but, is it really considered edifying to point them out: of course not. </p>
<p>SJmom is right-on in saying this is either petty or mean spirited and it is most certainly not edifying. Let’s be real. Deal with the content of people’s posts, when possible (often enough there will be plenty to criticize), not the Schoolmarm’s grammatology–that would be a different site, with a completely different style and raison d’etre. </p>
<p>Whilst in the heat of an intellectual scuffle, in which your interlocutor calls your view or reasoning incompetent or misguided, it would hardly add much intellectual wattage to reply, ‘you pronounced “incompetent” incorrectly, dummy’. </p>
<p>It may take the wind out of someone’s sails, but it will not change the direction in which they are headed.</p>
<p>As a renowned poet and playwright once wrote, What a piece of work is [such a] man.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>[not directed at leanid–this is just a general observation about sailing such windless seas]</p>
<p>Okay, I will admit that it can be overdone. I also happen to think that if not done at all (in general, not just here) eventual grammatical anarchy will ensue, where “anything goes”, which is unacceptable – not because “this is the ONLY way to speak or write” – but because without a standard there is no unity – and unity is, after all, a rather important and highly desirable quality, if a society is to stay together. Furthermore, I do believe that language is window to the intellect, just as “eyes are window to the soul”.</p>
<p>There is nothing quite so attractive as a person who not only writes well but SPEAKS the language to its highest aesthetic effect, with not only a command of grammar, diction and vocabulary but also with a TONE that draws the listener to him/her. Such a person is indeed rare. Think about it, how many people have you heard who really made a lasting impression by the beauty of their spoken word? I may have heard or known a half dozen or so…maybe.</p>
<p>I agree we don’t need grammar and spelling police, if only because I would be the first one “arrested.” I hate to run across my past comments. There are always errors that make my teeth grind. Having said that, I do hope that we all - myself included - try harder to check our grammar and spelling before we post. I think good grammar, spelling, and a little editing helps the author convey his/her point more clearly.</p>
<p>DRJ4 – Thank you. That is all I am hoping for, that one considers how the message is conveyed in addition to the message itself.</p>
<p>FS - One more thing, if one has had “the wind taken out of one’s sail”, one can reset the sail to catch whatever wind there is – which will often alter one’s course, at least for a while.</p>
<p><besides, why=“” is=“” that=“” worse=“” than=“” being=“” criticized=“” for=“” one’s=“” thoughts…=“”></besides,></p>
<p>Because it shows disrespect. I remember very clearly a teacher of mine in elementary school who cautioned us, as she was teaching us grammar, NOT to correct our parents’ grammar if/when they made mistakes. Many (most) of our parents did not have college educations, and many of us were the children of immigrants. I was very impressed with the sensitivity and insight of that particular teacher, and I (obviously) never forgot the day she said that.</p>
<p>zoosermom,</p>
<p>I can’t disagree more, unfortunately. The discussion I’m reading regarding Rudy’s inelectability per the primary is coming largely out of the mouths of GOPers themselves. I do believe that the GOP is in a bit of a sticky position at the moment, where having wedded itself to the “religious right” (or whatever you want to call it) it has to go the safe route with them, as they are the harder group to woo.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that I’m working on a couple of assumptions here:</p>
<p>– I do not believe that primaries are entirely democratic or open, and that political bigwigs exert a large amount of hidden control
– I do not believe that the bigwigs always aim to elect the “best” candidate, but the most electable in November</p>
<p>That being said, Rudy is probably a better example of the “traditional” Republican leader. Strong, fiscally-conservative, leaning-libertarian. That doesn’t make him electable.</p>
<p>“That being said, Rudy is probably a better example of the “traditional” Republican leader. Strong, fiscally-conservative, leaning-libertarian. That doesn’t make him electable.”</p>
<p>That’s ok, we can have a nice chat without agreeing. I enjoyed your post a lot and do agree with much. I don’t think Rudy is a sure-thing by any means, but I don’t think his candidacy is impossible, either. I’m pretty active in the republican party and consider myself a conservative, so I do talk to a lot of people. It’s just my opinion that the right is better at (how do I put this?) being less idealogically pure than the left. If Rudy looked like the best bet to win (particularly if That Woman is the dem nominee), then I think he could get the nod. Whereas I don’t think a pro-lilfe candidate could ever be chosen by the democrats. Sometimes people forget that Bush is not beloved on the right by any means. I guess what I’m saying is that I think we are more pragmatic and have a bigger tent. But not always. I can’t imagine any circumstances under which Romney gets the nomination. Personally, I like Newt, but I think McCain will be nominee. Know why? It’s his turn.</p>
<p>zoosermom,</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily believe in ideological purity when it comes to primaries. I think it’s a very pragmatic sort of “who can get 50% +1” exercise. That’s where the GOP has the Dems beat.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that parties tend to become a bit more ideological and zealous when they’re the minority. The GOP has done it as well, but it’s been a while so it’s not on most people’s minds.</p>
<p>I’m not saying Rudy’s a no-go for sure. But he has some serious barriers to overcome if he wants that nomination. McCain would be a safer bet if only he hadn’t managed to tick off so many influential Republicans in the past, oh I dunno, lifetime. :p</p>
<p>Good points, zoosermom.</p>
<p>hereshoping - I agree that when it comes to how we treat our elders, respect for them is more important than correcting – certainly if one knows that they did not have the benefit of a complete education. But, here on this forum, I make the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that we all have enough “book learnin’” (at least) to allow us to constructively correct each other with no offense intended and none taken.</p>
<p>Hmm…I guess I’m a bit odd that I believe that respect is earned, no matter how elder the person in question is.</p>
<p>Oh, and something that crossed my mind about 2008: I’ll be interested to see if Rove gets involved, and how.</p>
<p>leanid: FWIW, I could not disagree more. It is rude and condescending to correct another’s grammar on this board or anywhere else, unless a person has asked you to do so. No one on this board is in dire need of having their grammar/spelling etc. corrected. You did not correct the OP’s grammar to be “constructive.” BTW, I am not familar with the OP, so my point is not to defend his/her views.</p>
<p>UCLAri - Maybe where you come from respect must be earned. Where I come from it is bestowed by virtue of one’s age.</p>
<p>hereshoping - On the one hand you are right, it is rude and condescending – I am guilty of that. On the other hand it is presumptuous of anybody to post on here without presenting it correctly, and as such, should be called out on it.</p>
<p>I know there are international posters here, and I think there are a few for whom English is not their first language. That alone is one reason I won’t police grammar and spelling, let alone send the condescending message that I am competent to correct another adult. My point is that I hope we all re-read our comments before posting to increase the likelihood they are understandable. Even with great effort, there will be misunderstandings and mistakes but that’s inherent in an internet forum. Still, I would like CC to remain a forum for thoughtful exchange rather than devolve into a free-wheeling Daily Kos or Free Republic wannabe.</p>
<p>I admit to problems with one commenter in particular, clearly a bright person but one that I find difficult to understand due to poor spelling, grammar, sentence structure and organization. I would like to benefit from this person’s thoughts but I find myself increasingly unable to wade through the flotsam and jetsam to find the underlying content. We all know how we write, however, so this is the closest I will come to critiquing another person’s efforts.</p>
<p>Now, to the important issue. I think Rudy is a far better GOP candidate than McCain both in electability and temperament. Maybe it is McCain’s turn but I don’t think the money will flow for him the way it would for Rudy. That’s why I like Rudy’s chances in the primaries.</p>