You’re right to an extent. It looks like the OP in that thread did mistakenly believe THK was aware of LBs teaching experience (although why, I have no idea). BUT, the original title of the thread said that THK said teaching wasn’t a real job, not just that she impliedit. No matter how you slice it, the original title was misleading. Now, if the OP had originally used the current title, that would have been o.k. considering the OPs ignorance in the matter. But in retrospect, it’s still wrong, because THK neither SAID nor IMPLIED that teaching isn’t a real job.
I think half the thread titles in this forum will have to be changed…
I agree more than disagree with you. The way I see it the orginal title was misleading. Thats not the same as wrong. Wrong is a matter of opinion. If we were to get rid of all the thread title I thought were wrong you would have to wipe out most of the Pit. Maybe if we used you as the gauge you would find fewer objectional titles. Doesn’t matter, if you think the poster is wrong let him know. If the OP is misleading then it should be removed or changed, not if its just wrong.
I don’t think you guys are following. The title was changed because it was misleading. THEN, Lib made a nitpick about whether “infer” or “imply” should be used. THEN, I said,
“since we’re already on this infer/imply sidetrack, does “implying” something not require intent?”
I never said titles should be changed just because someone is wrong. I simply made a comment about what would be the most appropriate title, since the subject was already broached. The title is ALREADY changed. Talking about what the OP did or didn’t know at the time he/she wrote it is irrelevant.
You are said that it still wasn’t right after it was changed to “imply”. I disagree it changed the title from something that was misleading to something that was wrong, inviting debate. I think I’m following.
If I understand it correctly, the Pit is for fighting/roasting, and the idea is that it isn’t as regulated as the other fora. The other fora are supposed to remain harmonious, while this one is supposed to contain the whole SDMB’s worth of fights and meltdowns. (Or am I wrong?)
While I agree that the thread title in question is misleading, it would seem that threads such as these and replies to the misleading threads should be enough.
I specifically said I wasn’t asking for it to be changed. In fact, that’s the very first thing I said in that post. However, I don’t see the point in making a title deliberately wrong just to foster argument.
Sorry, that’s not clear at all. Did you mean for there to be a period after “I disagree”, and having your position follow, or are you stating that with which you disagree?
I think you’re wrong. C K Dexter Haven already said misleading titles are wrong, even in the Pit.
Yes, and therefore my whole argument tumbled to the ground. Convinced or not, I’ll have to learn to live with it. And give up my idea for a “blowero thinks This Year’s Model is perfect” thread.
With the change to “imply” and the question mark at the end, I think that Dex has resolved the issue. It is no longer an accusation.
Lib, The correct uses of imply and infer are something I’m a little picky about. My source was The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. It’s a delicious little weapon to use in family squabbles too:
(Cue sibling bewilderment…)
Two more deliberately inflammatory ones right now in the Pit, front page:
This just in: most Bush supporters too stupid to breathe, much less vote
and
Democrats are good, Republicans are evil
I assume out of fairness and honesty those would be included in the complaint as well.
Annoying as those titles are, they don’t feature the same level of dishonesty as the one Zoe brought up.
On the one hand a thread titled
Anthracite Fueled Power Plants Will Destroy Our Planet
would be both lame and annoying, but a thread titled
Una Says Anthracite Fueled Power Plants Will Destroy Our Planet
(when Una said no such thing) Is lame, annoying, and a dishonest attribution.
In the first case, you can go into the thread and tell them that they’re full of gypsum (or similar substance). In the second, you’re forced to go into a whole song and dance about how Una said no such thing, before you can tell them that they’re full of gypsum. That gives an unfair advantage to the dishonest jerks who start that type of thread.
I too would like it if the opinions expressed in thread titles were a little less grotesque, but I think we can eliminate dishonesty in factual matters, much more readily than we can the expression of a twisted worldview.
Hmm. I understand and appreciate the difference you call out in your good examples; however, in the cases I cited:
-
It’s clearly and patently false that Bush, or any candidate’s supporters are too stupid to breathe. That’s a deliberate hyperbole or lie.
-
It’s also patently false that an entire politcal party is “good” and the other “evil”. Another deliberate hyperbole or lie.
That is where I believe there is a difference.
That’s also the point at which I thank my lucky stars that I am not a moderator. “Deliberate hyperbole” doesn’t usually cross a line for me, but I can easily see where your opinion could differ.
Did you read the OP? I gave two examples and then made this point:
Don’t start with that patronizing attitude towards me - you won’t win that one, I assure you. Obviously I did “read the OP” or I wouldn’t have posted. In fact, one thread I noted was started after you started yours.
What I said was actually not only straightforward, it didn’t require any comment from you. It was:
I assumed out of fairness and honesty that the threads I noted would “qualify” in the same way as the ones used as examples in your OP, moreso perhaps since they were ludicrously hyperbolic or just plain partisan lies. And thus would be worthy of the same attention from a Rules standpoint. Since your complaint in the OP was with respect to the Rules, wasn’t it? That was the point of your OP, and your other thread you posted in ATMB, right?
If you disagree and think that examples which happen to demonize conservatives are somehow different or protected, then feel free to tell us all why. Otherwise, you might note I was agreeing with you.
Oh right. I forgot. No one ever posts without reading the OP.
I’m not in the habit of waiting until a comment is required in a thread, especially one that I started. And I don’t need a cue from you to “feel free.”
If you had written with clarity, there would have been no misunderstanding.
So glad you agree with me. Terribly, terribly glad.
Bored now.
Straight Dope Science Advisory Bored
Oh, well I’m just glad you’re not being overly defensive or anything. :rolleyes:
Agreed. As the Usage Panel indicates, the difference is useful.