# Boomers: Are older people really more experienced (in a meaningful way)? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 7, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238 "2009-07-07T19:39:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/121 "2009-07-11T13:48:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Perhaps if you presented yourself otherwise, there’d be no reason to imply as much. As a famous man once said… “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action.” Stop playing "point and laugh at the retard and tell me exactly why you think I’m stupid. In reasoned, well-mannered steps of course. > [@](#): > > However, the point you really wanted to make was about know “everything” off the top of one’s head as opposed to the much lower, and more realistic standard, of just knowing something. Well Mr. Erudite Speaker, please translate this into English, because it feels like you were about to make a point about my point there and then you started posting gibberish. > [@](#): > > Undaunted with such petty concerns as being logically consistent with your own straw man argument, you imply that I lack the ability to do research because I know something from memory. Well, your point, as is usual, is completely without merit. As a person who values education, it should come as no great surprise that I, like all other scholars in the world, value research. And I, like all others, am obliged to do it. A lot. But there’s a curious thing about scholars of the world, we tend to have above average vocabularies. And we are often wont to use them. Take issue with that if you must, but it won’t do to deride someone for making use of their education (in a very minor way, might I add) while in the same paragraph espousing that you are educated and possessed of wisdom. You still can’t know everything (or where to find everything) sparky. And I would put my vocabulary up against anyone else’s. I suppose it would be entirely possible for me to write using very tiny words and > [@](#): > > still convey the same ideas. However, attendant to that would also be conveyed the idea that I’m a person of protracted language skills. I find that a silly way to address high-minded ideas inasmuch as big ideas aren’t best served by using a childlike ability to explain them. Small words have utility for all situations. Big words are only used aureate writers to ensure their message is heard by no one. > [@](#): > > Or should I just stick with words like “thingies” and “whatchamajiggers” in my daily life while discussing areas of abstract thought so not to put anyone off with having marginally large words appear alongside _extremely_ complex mathematical structures? I don’t know about you, but were I going to have surgery, I’d be less than confident in my surgeon’s skills if he referred to doing a whatchamacallit procedure on my hoozidoozit with the thingamabob while having me monitored by some newfangled gadgetry. Sorry. Thank you, no. Those who have done the work and well-learned their schooling are most assuredly free to speak as though they did, without being labeled arrogant as it’s completely not pretentious to speak as though one’s educated given that one actually is. Comparing complex medical procedures to day-to-day conversation is exactly the reason why people are looking down at you in this thread (and not the other way around as you so smugly believe). But for that matter, I challenge you to find a medical procedure that couldn’t be described using “common” words. I’d also be very curious to know exactly what your educational background is. It might give me something to shoot for in the future if I were to know about the exploits of my intellectual betters. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/122 "2009-07-11T13:55:41Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > That’s just not true. There are four relevant levels of language: > > 1. Simple language expressing simple ideas > 2. Complex language expressing simple ideas > 3. Complex language expressing complex ideas > 4. Simple language expressing complex ideas > > You seem to think you’re using 3, but from what I’ve read in this thread, you’re actually using 2. If you really want to be esteemed for your rhetorical skills, shoot for 4. The nature of experience, intellect, wisdom, language, in short -epistemology- is a simple idea? I was of the impression that such debates have raged for millennia without resolution. Moreover, I cannot for the life of me fathom how writing at the level of a high school student can honestly be considered “complex”. As I’ve said, and which you’ve apparently decided not to believe, I have really no care of being esteemed on here for anything. Whether people like me or not, respect or not, hate me or not, the value of my words remains the same. If people are going to reject out of hand my arguments because they don’t like me, then that says more about them than me. The corollary is that if people are going to warm to my views because they like me, then I have no interest in them either. My arguments, and indeed anyone else’s, should stand or fall entirely on their merit. In this thread, I think it’s particularly of note that some people disagree with me merely out of contempt and in the process of doing so show some rather foolish behavior. And this naturally begs the obvious question: if people aren’t able to understand this supposed complex language, then I don’t see much hope in their understanding actually complex subjects. In short, the language should be the least of their concerns. For my part, I think my language on here has been quite relaxed only because I tend to look at this more as passing notes in class than actual written work. This is roughly on par with how I just talk day-to-day in my ordinary conversations. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/123 "2009-07-11T14:01:38Z")
> [@](#): > > As I’ve said, and which you’ve apparently decided not to believe, I have really no care of being esteemed on here for anything. Whether people like me or not, respect or not, hate me or not, the value of my words remains the same. If people are going to reject out of hand my arguments because they don’t like me, then that says more about them than me. Respect brings with it a willingless to understand and debate ideas. No one wants to converse with a doucebag (not that I’m calling you a douchebag, but it is a succinct way of putting it). > [@](#): > > The corollary is that if people are going to warm to my views because they like me, then I have no interest in them either. My arguments, and indeed anyone else’s, should stand or fall entirely on their merit. In this thread, I think it’s particularly of note that some people disagree with me merely out of contempt and in the process of doing so show some rather foolish behavior. You are failing that mission as your arguments don’t stand on their own. As I and many others have pointed out in this and other threads. > [@](#): > > And this naturally begs the obvious question: if people aren’t able to understand this supposed complex language, then I don’t see much hope in their understanding actually complex subjects. In short, the language should be the least of their concerns. For my part, I think my language on here has been quite relaxed only because I tend to look at this more as passing notes in class than actual written work. This is roughly on par with how I just talk day-to-day in my ordinary conversations. Allow me to simplify my feelings on this to their basest level: Liar, liar, pants on fire. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/124 "2009-07-11T14:41:17Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > As a famous man once said… “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action.” Stop playing "point and laugh at the retard and tell me exactly why you think I’m stupid. In reasoned, well-mannered steps of course. I actually don’t think you’re stupid, for what that’s worth. But that’s not really relevant to the discussion. What is relevant, to my mind, is that instead of writing out a well-reasoned response, you choose to use logical fallacies and rhetorical devices. While that might garner support in a game of “Oh yeah, well you’re a\_\_\_\_”, it isn’t a way to persuade reasonable minds to any particular point of view. If your goal is to entertain the peanut gallery, or get points for a good “gotcha”, then your logically fallacious bits would do you well. This isn’t such a discussion; though, I will admit there has been plenty of “gotcha” type barbs to be had all around. I am as guilty of it as anyone else. But I would point out that my little moments of it are rolled in otherwise reasoned out points, and the “gotcha” tags don’t actually do away with my points. > [@](#): > > Well Mr. Erudite Speaker, please translate this into English, because it feels like you were about to make a point about my point there and then you started posting gibberish. If it’s gibberish, then you need to keep reading it until you understand it. One can’t be expected to understand something on the first read on each occasion. I’ll even throw you a bone. You made a statement in form that people like me walk around using our fancy words specifically with the intent only to show our purported intellectual superiority. That undermined your point straight away because 1.) it isn’t demonstrably true, 2.) you have no evidence that such is my intent, and 3.) it flies in the face of what I have said are my reasons. It was nothing more than rhetoric at best, and hubris at worse. The hubris, I’d add, is in thinking that you know more about my (or anyone else’s for that matter) reasons for speaking a certain way. So I noted that you take a view of peculiar importance in your role in my life, or anyone else’s. Which is to say, that it’s quite arrogant to presume that you hold such a high station in anyone’s life that they would fundamentally change their nature to address you. It has apparently escaped your notice, but many of us speak this way because it’s simply how we grew up speaking. I would also add that it’s not my responsibility to make sure everyone can understand everything anyone says at all times. There’s a certain onus on each person to make a good effort at it themselves. The reason these words, these “SAT words” are viewed by some to be uncommon is merely a symptom of the poor state of repair of our public education system. However, I refuse to speak as though my vocabulary is stunted merely because lots of people refuse to learn. Indeed, by my using them as a matter of habit, one might well reason that some people will take an interest and look one or some of them up thereby reducing the amount of ignorance in the world, if only a little. That still isn’t the reason I do it though; it’s simply my manner of speech. > [@](#): > > You still can’t know everything (or where to find everything) sparky. And I would put my vocabulary up against anyone else’s. Ok, sport. I would only point out that this either an aphorism for general purpose (belied by the fact it’s addressed specifically to me), or a straw man argument. You say that I can’t know everything and that I don’t know where to go to find everything as though the point has actually been argued. Outside of you, no one has argued that I think I 1.) know everything, and 2.) know precisely where to go to research everything. I do not, and I make no claim of it. Thus, to argue the point is quite silly since it’s not an issue in question anywhere here. You might as well have said, “You totally can’t talk and drink at the same time.” It’s true, of course, but completely out of place since no one has suggested it. It’s just filler which has the impression of being something more than what it can ever be. > [@](#): > > I suppose it would be entirely possible for me to write using very tiny words and > > Small words have utility for all situations. Big words are only used aureate writers to ensure their message is heard by no one. Despite your assertion, what I have said here has been heard. Some people even correctly understand my point. And then there are the yous here who read what I write and then, what I can only surmise is the case, intentionally misconstrue it. This is another bad thing about you using all those logical fallacies; it undermines my ability to take you in earnest because it doesn’t show an inclination on your part to argue with integrity. And I haven’t suggested otherwise. But high-minded discussion on larger issues, to my mind, isn’t served by reducing the language to the abilities of the least common denominator. If people want to have adult conversations about big ideas, they should do the grunt work to be at an appropriate level to meaningfully engage in it. Or, they can get accustomed to having it explained later on by someone who’s inclined to do so. I’m rarely that person, however. I think it’s also worth mentioning that much of what I say here is reasonably well sanitized to be rather widely accessible. But I can only go so far. Among my friends, we don’t use the common explanations of logical fallacies; I’d use the actual names. Here, however, that would be needlessly pedantic. And it wouldn’t really serve to carry the conversation very far, not that this one has made such progress. Moreover, the words I use here aren’t particularly large. Indeed, the largest word I’ve to date used in this thread is intellectually. I used one, apparently, very obscure word which resulted in a lot of shit being thrown my way. That’s fine. I’ll concede the point. One word I’ve used in all of this thread has been obscure. Fuck, I’m such a prick for using one obscure word. Goddamn me, how dare I?! > [@](#): > > Comparing complex medical procedures to day-to-day conversation is exactly the reason why people are looking down at you in this thread (and not the other way around as you so smugly believe). Again, you presume to know what I do and don’t believe. Whether I believe it the case or not simply isn’t relevant. That you think your opinion of what I believe holds a position of authority, on the other hand, is highly relevant. For what it’s worth, I don’t particularly believe that to be the case, nor do I particularly care. It’s curious though that you think anyone here is in a position to look down on me. I wasn’t comparing a complex medical procedure. You haven’t differentiated the predicates being addressed. I analogized a person whose position is predicated on their education. I chose a surgeon because I think it’s reasonably accepted that doctors spend considerable time in school, even more so when they elect to have a specialty. Since surgeons fit that bill, I went with it. From that, I asked a question about the degree of confidence you’d have in a surgeon who spoke like an idiot. My confidence would be highly diminished by dealing with such a doctor. So much so that I’d question his ability to do the procedure in question when he fails to demonstrate he has a mastery of definitions in question. If he can’t master the simple stuff, then I’m surely not going presume he’s mastered the far more complex issue of being able to do it. Of course, he might be a wonderful surgeon who simply sounds otherwise. That his air of authority in the field is wrought only through education and experience, I would take issue with him speaking as though either of the two is somehow infirm. > [@](#): > > But for that matter, I challenge you to find a medical procedure that couldn’t be described using “common” words. All of them can be described as such. But to avoid having to do so, procedures, techniques, instruments and all the other relevant issues are given specific names. For that matter, for every concept in the world we have some term which defines it. Why is it necessary to forgo the words in favor of quoting the definition when that’s the very purpose of the words in the first case? It makes little sense to me to spend the effort of creating dictionaries if people aren’t going to make good use of them. As such, I spent a lot of time earlier in life learning many of them. For those reasons, I tend to use them provided I think they’re not obtuse or very obscure (except in my scholarly writing). > [@](#): > > I’d also be very curious to know exactly what your educational background is. It might give me something to shoot for in the future if I were to know about the exploits of my intellectual betters. I’m sure would you. I guess as long as I don’t tell you, then I can rest comfortably knowing that you will never know everything, huh? ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/125 "2009-07-11T14:50:09Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Respect brings with it a willingless to understand and debate ideas. No one wants to converse with a doucebag (not that I’m calling you a douchebag, but it is a succinct way of putting it). I think you’d have a mighty hard time arguing that I lack the willingness to understand or debate someone’s position. That my responses are crafted specifically to their assertions indicates that I’m at least willing to try to do both. > [@](#): > > You are failing that mission as your arguments don’t stand on their own. As I and many others have pointed out in this and other threads. That some people are immune to reason isn’t evidence supporting your claim. Then again, you can’t differentiate between a reasonable point and a logical fallacy. So, I won’t put a great deal of stock into your estimations of much anything until you show that introductory critical reasoning skills are within your grasp. You have thus failed to do so. And it isn’t just that you don’t reasonably argue your points. It’s also that the points you argue aren’t issues being discussed. You would do better, I would submit, by at the very least addressing the particular topics and indicating an ability to analyze those instead of creating a separate argument, a straw man if you please, and then poorly attacking that. > [@](#): > > Allow me to simplify my feelings on this to their basest level: Liar, liar, pants on fire. And yet another assertion devoid of any reasoning, or evidence. Curiously, it’s worth making note that in a discussion about experience, wisdom and intellect, your feelings are of no relevance. No one cares how _feel_ about a subject; we want to know what you _think_. Do try harder to make that very necessary distinction. And with that, I’m all but finished with you. Respond if you must, but given your complete inability to reason things out, there is no further\* point in my replying to you. \*unless you start making a token showing of using reasoning instead of this, whatever you want to call it, current trend of yours. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/126 "2009-07-11T15:09:18Z")
> [@](#): > > I think it’s also worth mentioning that much of what I say here is reasonably well sanitized to be rather widely accessible. But I can only go so far. Among my friends, we don’t use the common explanations of logical fallacies; I’d use the actual names. Here, however, that would be needlessly pedantic. And it wouldn’t really serve to carry the conversation very far, not that this one has made such progress. I would love to read the non-sanitized conversation you would have with your friends. You guys must be the hit of the hipster coffee house scene. > [@](#): > > Moreover, the words I use here aren’t particularly large. Indeed, the largest word I’ve to date used in this thread is intellectually. I used one, apparently, very obscure word which resulted in a lot of shit being thrown my way. That’s fine. I’ll concede the point. One word I’ve used in all of this thread has been obscure. Fuck, I’m such a prick for using one obscure word. Goddamn me, how dare I?! In this thread you have continued to misconstrue our objection to the word “penetralia” as some comment on its length. That was never the case and your continued show of “How dare you!” shows that you’re the one who’s not reading the thread carefully and fighting the battles you want to fight (i.e. you think we will all be wowed by your polysyllabic rantings). Secondly, you have yet to address my assertion that penetralia is not used in your average everyday speech. Instead, you get the vapors over our “failing” public school system. Which has been a staple of the editorial pages since the 50s. At some point we’re going to have to admit that our public schools have failed (which is obviously false as public schools produce hundreds of thousands of students a year that go on to college and then go on to further scholarly pursuits) or we’re going to have to admit it was just a crutch used by ivory tower assholes to bitch about the proles. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/127 "2009-07-11T15:21:59Z")
One wonders how our intrepid reader here manages to assert that I haven’t addressed his point despite the evidence to the contrary: “Moreover, the words I use here aren’t particularly large. Indeed, the largest word I’ve to date used in this thread is intellectually. I used one, apparently, very obscure word which resulted in a lot of shit being thrown my way. **That’s fine. I’ll concede the point. One word I’ve used** in all of this thread has been obscure. Fuck, I’m such a prick for using one obscure word. Goddamn me, how dare I?!” ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/128 "2009-07-11T15:22:53Z")
[QUOTE=ashman165] I speak like this because I was raised to speak in a manner which wouldn’t on first glance indicate that I’m mentally vacant. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ashman165] However, attendant to that would also be conveyed the idea that I’m a person of protracted language skills [/QUOTE] But > [@ashman165](#): > > As I’ve said, and which you’ve apparently decided not to believe, I have really no care of being esteemed on here for anything. ? Get a grip! ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/129 "2009-07-11T15:30:39Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > One wonders how our intrepid reader here manages to assert that I haven’t addressed his point despite the evidence to the contrary: “Moreover, the words I use here aren’t particularly large. Indeed, the largest word I’ve to date used in this thread is intellectually. I used one, apparently, very obscure word which resulted in a lot of shit being thrown my way. **That’s fine. I’ll concede the point. One word I’ve used** in all of this thread has been obscure. Fuck, I’m such a prick for using one obscure word. Goddamn me, how dare I?!” You did say that… In a mocking tone after beating your chest for three pages about penetralia being a common word that everyone should know… except you italicized it precisely because it was uncommon and then gave us a lecture when you were called on that… And if you think you’ve only used one obscure word in this thread, your large vocabulary has crowded the common sense out of your head. Penetralia is the only obscure word you’ve gotten shit for. I’m sure if I were bored, I could point out a few others, but I’m to go sit down a play a few video games now. You know, like a good mouthbreathing, lower-class unintellectual person. Right Mr. ashman? ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/130 "2009-07-11T15:40:03Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > But > > ? > > Get a grip! Get a clue? Wow, isn’t this fun? That is how I was raised to speak. I don’t see your argument (well, you didn’t present one to be fair to me) that because it’s how I was raised (my parents’ beliefs) somehow requires that it be my belief today. Having my words betray my thoughts by implying that I’m mentally vacant would seem to be self-defeating. So, let’s recap: 1.) I was raised to speak as though I’m not an idiot 2.) Conveying the idea that I lack an adult vocabulary would surely indicate that ~1 is the case 3.) Being considered not an idiot isn’t exactly the same as being held in esteem. Or is your situation different such that being considered not “mentally vacant” or possessed of “protracted language skills” is a positive move in your reputation? I hadn’t before considered that simply not being considered an idiot would be a step in the right direction, but it is food for thought. At any rate, nothing up there is inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![Parenchyma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Parenchyma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parenchyma)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/131 "2009-07-11T22:30:44Z")
Perhaps **ashman** will become an opsimath. [spoiler] opsimath (plural opsimaths) 1. A person who learns late in life. [/spoiler] ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/132 "2009-07-12T02:07:07Z")
> [@Parenchyma](#): > > Perhaps **ashman** will become an opsimath. > > [spoiler] opsimath (plural opsimaths) > > 1. A person who learns late in life. [/spoiler] That would handy to add to him being a polymath considering he has no plans to stop learning late in life. It’s worth noting that opsimath isn’t a term which excludes people who have learned earlier in life. Specifically its definition allows for such type of people because an opsimath is one who either: a.) begins or b.) _continues_ to learn late in life. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/133 "2009-07-12T14:08:03Z")
Tsk tsk. You mean, “…\*his \*being a polymath…” ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/134 "2009-07-12T14:32:26Z")
> [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](#): > > Tsk tsk. You mean, “…\*his \*being a polymath…” Ordinarily, I do not make that mistake when I write, but it’s not exactly outright wrong. It’s just an accepted way of informally addressing the gerund participle. But, it wasn’t my intent to use it. Of course, I also meant to write, “That would _be_ handy . . .” That post is a sure sign that I’m not nearly as pedantic as people would make me out to be. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/135 "2009-07-13T00:08:13Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > The last part makes little sense considering they use the word to be defined as part of the definition. But in any event, I’m not a public official. Did you SERIOUSLY just confuse the EXAMPLE OF USEAGE with an actual definition when enumerating why you’re not anything described in a dictionary definition? Sorry, bro, you just outed yourself as not having the EXPERIENCE to know what a “:” means in a dictionary. Kudos on making fun of me for a braino, by the by, that really just shores up your entire argument. I’m with the poster above and the “good-natured laughter”. You’re either going to think about this thread in five years and laugh, or you’re going to have one sad, angry life. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/136 "2009-07-13T00:10:43Z")
Also, is anyone else reminded of The Architect from Matrix Reloaded when they read **ashman165** ’s posts? Now I know why I have deja vu. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/137 "2009-07-13T09:34:52Z")
Ashman-- dude… you lose. Epic fail. And I DO mean epic. All those PhD’s and you still can’t see you’ve made a fool of yourself. Perhaps when you’re a bit older… a bit wiser… But then again… nahhhhh. Some folks never truly catch on. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/138 "2009-07-13T10:00:14Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Ashman-- dude… you lose. Epic fail. And I DO mean epic. All those PhD’s and you still can’t see you’ve made a fool of yourself. > > Perhaps when you’re a bit older… a bit wiser… > > But then again… nahhhhh. Some folks never truly catch on. Well, there’s nothing like scholarship in one’s work. Alas, this is nothing like scholarship in one’s work. Mere assertion devoid of all reasoning doesn’t amount to anything. In the future, if you haven’t in mind a goal other than showing off your second grade writing skills, you needn’t bother posting to me. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/139 "2009-07-13T13:14:59Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > In the future, if you haven’t in mind a goal other than showing off your second grade writing skills, you needn’t bother posting to me. It would appear one needn’t bother posting to you regardless of the goal, content, or writing skills involved. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238/140 "2009-07-13T13:16:48Z")
> [@Gary\_T](#): > > It would appear one needn’t bother posting to you regardless of the goal, content, or writing skills involved. It’s amazing and counter-intuitive that what people perceive and believe to be the case oftentimes is not. It’s almost like many things in the universe aren’t readily discernible at a first glance or something. Experience should bear me out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boomers-are-older-people-really-more-experienced-in-a-meaningful-way/502238.md?page=8)