Anybody else get this?

[Rian]

Because I like Tim so much, I peeked at his post in the atheist forum, and that reminded me of my well-meant but semi-fiasco of a grammar thread.

There were several posters here who were consistently using apostrophes incorrectly. I don't like it when people start pointing out other people's grammatical errors over and over, but I thought, hey, this problem might harm these people in their work if they have to do a lot of writing. So I came up with the idea of making a thread from a supposedly new poster called the Grammar Genie, and set out the basic rules for using apostrophes there.

I did this anonymously because I thought it was the best way to help those people without making them feel bad - they didn't even have to post in the thread, so no one would even know if they were reading it or not. And also, I didn't want to seem conceited, like I was trying to teach others. See, some people on message boards only point out grammatical errors to try to put down others / make themselves look good - it's always in a snarky tone, and usually in the middle of a heated exchange, and only to a person on the other "side". I wasn't doing this to try to make myself look good or to put down others; I was only doing this to try to help these people that were consistently making mistakes in a way that wouldn't embarrass them.

Anyway, it's here - let me know if you find it helpful. And anyone else can let me know if there are ways that I can improve it! I spent a long time on it to try to put it in a format that kind of flowed naturally and made sense, and was kind of light-hearted and funny.

So please pardon the brief excursion into the atheist section - it's just that I saw Tim's post and remembered my crazy idea and wanted to share it with him! I'll leave now, and I hope it helps!

[tirtlegrrl]

@Rian, thanks for the link; I might just take a peek. I certainly do not consider myself a grammar or spelling nazi but there are certain errors that affect me like fingernails on a chalkboard (pardon the cliche).

KTR wrote: Very often I find that the theistic arguments are far more rife with a hierarchy of problems than is anything I could ever argue. Invariably, theistic arguments conclude with the theist saying, "Okay, from this point on, everything I say is a requirement is not a requirement because it's about god."

Or what I call "punting to mystery"--they ignore the fact that those very mysteries are what people often take issue with in the first place.

The unique thing about the atheistic perspective is that we don't have any competitive ideology to promote. Theists will often insist the non-theistic worldview is also a promoting of "x" worldview, but I think consistently people who argue from a materialist mindset are primarily just deconstructing theistic assertions and arguments, or discussing scientific paradigms -- which are not ideologies (the Theory of Evolution is not an ideology, it's a scientific Theory.)

I'm mostly with you on this one, but it did strike me that the whole "religion is poison, it negatively influences people's lives and we should discourage it wherever possible" stance that I've run into on occasion looks like an ideology to me, particularly in that it is very difficult for believers to convince holders of said ideology that the presence of religion in their lives results in any net benefit whatsoever. At the moment I don't really know what I believe about God for certain, only that there are particular versions of God which are down pretty low on the worshipablity scale (see: Judges, Leviticus, etc).

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Thanks for the link Rian, that looks very useful.

[NH Baritone]

Apparently I am far from the only iPhone user thwarted by AutoCorrect: http://damnyouautocorrect.com/

[tirtlegrrl]

BAHAHAHAHA! I checked out the autocorrect site and haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Thank God my phone doesn't have that feature.

[Exrev]

I'm bumping into this "bible said it, that settles it" thing a lot lately. I find it interesting that some Christians will apply critical thinking and research to all manner of things that they are passionate about - should I buy a Honda or a Toyota, should I eat butter or margarine, should I immunise my kids, should I invest in forestry or managed funds - but when it comes to thinking about the bible the shutters come down. "You just gotta accept it."

Me too Kiwi. I have had the most difficult time with these "presuppositionalists" they have a term from them. I simply could not understand the mindset...don't they realize it's the same mindset that every cult uses? I just don't get them and they driv'n me batty

[darkumbra]

BAHAHAHAHA! I checked out the autocorrect site and haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Thank God my phone doesn't have that feature.

A personal example.
Writing a note to a client to inform them that a parcel would arrive Monday via feces.


I'd typed 'Fedex'

So glad i had checked before hitting send.

[NH Baritone]

BAHAHAHAHA! I checked out the autocorrect site and haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Thank God my phone doesn't have that feature.

A personal example.
Writing a note to a client to inform them that a parcel would arrive Monday via feces.

I'd typed 'Fedex'

So glad i had checked before hitting send.

The AutoCorrect may have been accurate, if you were smuggling cocaine.

[tirtlegrrl]

Good grief!!! Doesn't anybody TEST these programs before having them installed on hundreds of thousands of phones?

What I thought was funniest about the autocorrect site was how horrified the original texter would be, and then they'd frantically try to fix it, sometimes posting the same error 2-3 times in a row. Then they'd reference or curse a deity and/or the phone.

[tirtlegrrl]

exrev wrote: I have had the most difficult time with these "presuppositionalists" they have a term from them. I simply could not understand the mindset...don't they realize it's the same mindset that every cult uses? I just don't get them and they driv'n me batty

Oh. My. Gawd. I had a conversation with a Van Tillian presuppositionalist at a school event a couple of years ago and it was the most surreal conversation I've ever had. He seemed to think that Reformed Christian belief and reasoning was by definition the only valid type of thought process. So if you think that kind of fideistic argument is total B.S., it's because you don't believe. So their belief is beyond critique from non-believers because non-believers' brains have been proclaimed addled by "sin" by default. It's complete insularity from everyone outside their special predestined group.