# Dex, we're very unclear **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 16, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855 "2006-02-16T19:50:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/81 "2006-02-19T23:28:43Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > rather trying to impose **[his reading]** on you and me insert those words to make sense of my post ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/82 "2006-02-19T23:33:30Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > You call people you discuss poetry with in real life “junior”?. You know, I think even the Pit’s standards preclude me from confiding in you, **lissener** , the terms of abuse I would like to send in your general direction. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/83 "2006-02-19T23:34:23Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > . . . (and seemingly ever will). . . . Yeah, ain’t it annoying when someone you’re trying to get through to continues to make it clear that he’s more intent on aggressively defending his obtuseness and is determined to stay closed off to input of any kind? Almost everything you’ve said in this thread, Newt, is just freaking out my sense of irony. I’m almost ready for you to suddenly go, “Big gynt _whoosh_! This was all just a performance piece about hypocrisy! Haw haw haw!” ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/84 "2006-02-19T23:37:06Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > You know, I think even the Pit’s standards preclude me from confiding in you, **lissener** , the terms of abuse I would like to send in your general direction. So . . . you’re admitting that you have an entirely different standard for intellectual debate IRL than you have at SDMB? Is that–seriously–because your SDMB behavior would get you hit IRL? Or is it because you have more respect for the people you interact with IRL than you seem to have for people here? Serious question. If you have a different standard–if you would NOT in fact call someone “junior” for disagreeing with you IRL–WHY do you have a different standard? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/85 "2006-02-19T23:37:50Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > it was incumbant upon you to say what your reading is. Nah. I’d need to write a book, or a long chapter of a book at the dead minimum, just to begin to articulate what **Biffy** was getting wrong, and a modicum of sound principles he’d need to accept to start getting it right. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/86 "2006-02-19T23:41:32Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > Nah. I’d need to write a book, or a long chapter of a book at the dead minimum, just to begin to articulate what **Biffy** was getting wrong, and a modicum of sound principles he’d need to accept to start getting it right. And doesn’t this indicate to you that maybe he didn’t deserve such scorn for not knowing? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/87 "2006-02-19T23:42:37Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > You know, I think even the Pit’s standards preclude me from confiding in you, **lissener** , the terms of abuse I would like to send in your general direction. Oh and, thanks for responding the other 90% of my post. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/88 "2006-02-19T23:49:14Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > Nah. I’d need to write a book, or a long chapter of a book at the dead minimum, just to begin to articulate what **Biffy** was getting wrong, and a modicum of sound principles he’d need to accept to start getting it right. So ignorance is not faught. Even now now we have no idea of the “correct” reading of the line, at least according to you. At this point I would not even trust your judegment even if you were to give us a reading of the line. You seem more interested in asserting your own perceived expertise in metrics than trying to correct any errors you see. That and offering yourself up as a poor, misunderstood martyr. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/89 "2006-02-19T23:55:09Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > So . . . you’re admitting that you have an entirely different standard for intellectual debate IRL than you have at SDMB? > > Is that–seriously–because your SDMB behavior would get you hit IRL? Or is it because you have more respect for the people you interact with IRL than you seem to have for people here? > > Serious question. If you have a different standard–if you would NOT in fact call someone “junior” for disagreeing with you IRL–WHY do you have a different standard? I can’t tell you–well, I could but it would take me a long time–the depth of respect I have for SDMB posters. I’m totally amazed at how much learning I’ve been able to absorb just by reading the posts of the many, many, many Dopers whose knowledge far exceeds mine. That’s why it always pleases me on those occasions that I can contribute to a SD discussion, making me feel that I’ve given back just a little bit of the knowledge I’ve taken from this place. IRL, I just mostly ignore ignoramuses like **Biffy**. Too much damned trouble to set them straight, and they’re never properly grateful, anyway. So the best response IRL is to extend their ignorance by simply shutting up, which is a skill that I’ve mastered thoroughly IRL. Also IRL I get paid quite well to dispense knowledge, so on those rare occasions when I come across assertions of ignorance like **Biffy** ’s, it’s most economical to walk away, or write an “F” in the gradebook, or whatever the appropriate response would be. As I condescendingly told him, people learn when they’re ready to learn. No sense investing too much energy trying to teach a pig to sing. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/90 "2006-02-20T00:00:33Z")
> [@Helen's Eidolon](#): > > And doesn’t this indicate to you that maybe he didn’t deserve such scorn for not knowing? I don’t know that I gave him “such scorn.” I merely asserted that he had a lot of learning to do, which he did and does. The scorn I’m telling you I feel (in this Pit thread) was pretty understated, in my book, in the original response that got **Dex** ’s shorts all bunched up. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/91 "2006-02-20T00:23:38Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > So ignorance is not faught. Even now now we have no idea of the “correct” reading of the line, at least according to you. At this point I would not even trust your judegment even if you were to give us a reading of the line. You seem more interested in asserting your own perceived expertise in metrics than trying to correct any errors you see. That and offering yourself up as a poor, misunderstood martyr. Well, I’m still waiting for someone to show a little interest in my reading of the line. This Pit thread doesn’t seem to me appropriate for a lofty discussion of metrics and scansion, and the CS thread being referenced here was on an entirely separate subject, and I wouldn’t presume to impose on my fellow Dopers my views on scanning poetry without a sincere invitation to hold forth on a subject so dear to me. I get the feeling, from this thread at least, that people are rather dismissive of my so-called knowledge in the area, and would vastly prefer not to read what I have to say on the subject. Your post certainly confirms that intuition. And through a series of missteps, I seem to have engendered so much ill-will here that I may not be able to post my reading, or much of anything else, without encouraging a lot more free-floating hostility, as your post (again) assures me. Maybe this will all die down in a few decades, and I’ll be able to post again without all the hostililty. Until then, this is just an ass-whupping I’m prepared to take, just not all meekly and martyrly. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/92 "2006-02-20T00:29:37Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Oh and, thanks for responding the other 90% of my post. You mean the part about my head being too high up for you to smack, or the part about my need to get over myself? Like I said, I can’t begin to imagine an appropriate response to any of your incoherent ranting. I tried simply to respond to the parts that made any sense to me at all. Which, as you noted, was about 10% of your post, give or take 10%. ---
**Author:** ![Adoptamom\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Adoptamom\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Adoptamom_II)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/93 "2006-02-20T00:39:41Z")
Instruct - do not insult - the ignorant. Please print and tape to your computer monitor ---
**Author:** ![Idlewild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8491ac/32.png) [@Idlewild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idlewild)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/94 "2006-02-20T01:36:09Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > Well, I’m still waiting for someone to show a little interest in my reading of the line. Hello. Please please please please please share your reading of the line already. This pit thread will do fine in which to share it or perhaps you could be so kind as to open a CS thread but I will personally die of curiousity if I don’t read it soon. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/95 "2006-02-20T02:40:27Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > Well, I’m still waiting for someone to show a little interest in my reading of the line. Dude, IMO, your biggest offence in the CS thread was in NOT presenting your own reading of the line. If you’d done that to start with all would probably have been ok. The more you hold back from doing it, the worse you look. ---
**Author:** ![burundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burundi)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/96 "2006-02-20T03:01:57Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > I offered to discuss it in another thread (and have done so, quite without condescension, in the past, if you’ll care to to do a quick search) Why should I, when you don’t care to? If you’d simply linked to this previous discussion of metrics instead of being an insulting ass about it, you wouldn’t have gotten a mod smackdown. I’ve already posted my understanding of it in this thread. Near as I know, it’s accurate. If you’ve got a problem with it, and if you tell me in specific and civil terms what problem you have with it, I’ll listen and evaluate with an open mind whether I consider you to be correct. You probably know more about the subject than I do. “Probably” is the key word. I’ve previously seen crazed cretins on the Straight Dope claiming expertise in areas that it’s clear they know nothing about. So far, you’ve done nothing to distinguish yourself from these CC’s. No, I’m not going to beg you humbly with big puppy-dog eyes to give your hallowed and much-esteemed opinion. But I’ll dismiss you as a pompous blowhard if you don’t. And so, I suspect, will most other posters. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/97 "2006-02-20T04:12:25Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > I appreciate your clarification. I’m sorry this thread got so protracted, because I wasn’t ever (I don’t think) denying getting snarky with **Biffy** , Good, now that you’ve admitted that I see no reason for the rest of your post. You aren’t allowed to be snarky in CS. CS isn’t a place that is accepting of pompous assholism directed at other posters. If you were capable of reading and comprehending the CS rules you’d be aware that you’re held to a higher standard than in most other forums. The rules post goes a good bit further than just strictly saying no personal insults, it says you have to display _good manners_. In what world is being snarky good manners? Even if it’s justified it is still bad manners. The SDMB is one of the most rules-heavy and moderated message boards I’ve ever been on. It is chafing at times, but if you’re going to be a member of the forums it’s something you have to properly deal with or you will ultimately start down on the path of getting banned. You choose to be here, if you don’t like the rules you can leave and from reading through this thread I don’t think that would upset a single person here. > [@](#): > > and by the somewhat-too-stringent-for-my-taste standards of CS, I no doubt deserved **Dex** ’s intervention. I started this Pit thread with the intention that of pointing out that I (and maybe **Biffy** ) would have responded well to a simple “Guys, your tone is getting too personal to conform with CS standards. If you want to insult each other, please take it to the Pit.” Instead, you came down with Official Mod warnings, legal language, and in my case specific remarks as to who seemed mainly at fault. What you would have responded better to honestly shouldn’t enter Dex’s equation. I don’t know what measure of treatment you think you deserve when you break the rules, but you certainly don’t get to choose the manner in which the moderators decide how to deal with your bad manners which constitute a violation of CS rules. There also is no “seemed” about it, you started it. It doesn’t matter that Biffy was wrong you don’t get to direct bad manners towards other posters in CS. You did that. Prior to that, no one in the thread had made remotely disparaging comments about another poster, you did. > [@](#): > > I felt your tone was needlessly harsh, to my taste, and a more neutral, official tone (in an Official Mod warning) would have gotten better, faster, clearer results. Your “Are we clear?” and your countdown seemed condescending and overtly rude. If that’s your chosen tone for slapping people down, giving snarkmeisters a taste of their own medicine, with a little Mod-muscle flexing thrown in, so be it. In my case, it just fanned what was a fairly low flame, and seemed a little too much ammo for so small a target. Again, I hope you’re aware that coming from someone who doesn’t understand good manners in a forum where that is the mandated policy this is quite a piece of irony. You obviously don’t know what is or is not needlessly harsh, or you never would have started the fight that you started. > [@](#): > > The other issue I’d like to raise here is the misconception that all CS topics concern the arts and are therefore matters of taste, with no possible correct answers. If that were so then obviously no corrections of any kind could ever be offered. But of course certain things (dates, actor’s names, etc) are both artistic and factual. This misconception does not exist. The rules of CS openly state that _most_ of the issues in CS won’t have factual answers, the usage of the word most accepts that some of the issues will be factual in nature. > [@](#): > > 1. I have a lot of botanic learning to do. > > Now, number 3) might seem (does seem) excessively personal and insulting to some (not to me). To me, it is a substitute for not providing a lot of detail in items 1) and 2)–the expert botanist might be reluctant to provide a course, in the process of that hijack, in elementary botany, for my benefit, since I had impudently and ignorantly provided misinformation in the guise of discoursing on types of shade trees. Well, in the SDMB the mods get to determine what crosses the line, and almost every poster agrees with them. If you don’t want to provide a lot of detail that is fine, that is your choice. Be aware that no one on this forum will take you seriously if you assert you are right and refuse to give proof of the matter. If you wish to be held as an expert on something here at the SDMB that is something you can only earn by repeatedly showing your expertise. If you truly are what would be considered an “expert” in the real world, you could offer that as proof and it would probably result in you being considered an expert here. But aside from doing that, the only way most posters will come to regard any other poster as an “expert” in a given field is through seeing it themselves. And since you’ve both refused to support your status as expert with real life qualifications and via demonstrating expert-level knowledge here on the SDMB, don’t ever expect to be accepted as an expert. Just like in a court, you can’t claim you’re an expert-witness and expect people to just accept that because you call yourself one. > [@](#): > > I strongly suspect that most people on the Straight Dope, and virtually all posters in this thread, think my analogy is faulty because Botany is a scientific field, in which facts abound, while Metrics is just b.s.ing, in which one point of view is precisely as valid as another. I will ask you to take my word that metrics, while far short of a science, is an extremely subtle yet precise art that requires serious intent study to become competent at and a lot of hard work to master. Actually I think most people know that metrics can be quite precise. I’m also quite certain you must not know much about the SDMB if you think anyone will just accept anyone’s “word” on anything. > [@](#): > > I really don’t care to get into why I consider myself to be competent at the very least–it’s very easy to deride serious study and to claim falsely that one has or has not studied something seriously, since I can’t really provide evidence of my expertise and remain anonymous here. So I’m asking just to be indulged this far: there is expertise in metrics, and it is not just the ignorant spouting of random bullshit. No indulgence for you, sorry. > [@](#): > > When I studied metrics, however, with a world-class acknowledged expert in poetics on the doctoral level, I did have the experience of making a load of ignorant mistakes at first. At the time, I had two master’s degrees in Creative Writing (from institutions considered to be the very best in the U.S.) and had been scanning poems, in my fashion, for years–and I was routinely messing up the scansion of poems for the first few weeks of this doctoral-level course. It took me well over a month of serious effort to apply the complex and sometimes confusing (but ultimately rational) standards of scansion. By the end of the course, I got the highest grade this professor had ever given in “Metrics and Scansion.” More evidence of the kind of stuff that will actually make it less likely anyone will give two cents as to what you’re saying. This is more fluff with no substance, anyone can claim to be anything. You can offer proof via actively demonstrating high-level knowledge or qualifications aside from just your claims at qualifications. I’m also aware the thread developed a little bit after this post as I read the entire thread before posting. But this post in particular was so egregious in nature I had to reply to it in the manner it deserved. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/98 "2006-02-20T04:23:07Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > IRL, I just mostly ignore ignoramuses like **Biffy**. Too much damned trouble to set them straight, and they’re never properly grateful, anyway. So the best response IRL is to extend their ignorance by simply shutting up, which is a skill that I’ve mastered thoroughly IRL. Also IRL I get paid quite well to dispense knowledge, so on those rare occasions when I come across assertions of ignorance like **Biffy** ’s, \*\*it’s most economical to walk away, or write an “F” in the gradebook, or whatever the appropriate response would be. As I condescendingly told him, people learn when they’re ready to learn. \*\* No sense investing too much energy trying to teach a pig to sing. I currently go to school, with frequent classes in my school’s English, literature and mythology departments. I’m curious (and I’m not asking for identity revealing information here) where you teach. Please don’t give the name of the institution if you are not so compelled. Merely tell me the state in which the institution is located. (Please don’t let it be Illinois. Please don’t let it be Illinois. Please don’t let it be Illinois) > [@](#): > > Well, I’m still waiting for someone to show a little interest in my reading of the line. **This Pit thread doesn’t seem to me appropriate for a lofty discussion of metrics and scansion, and the CS thread being referenced here was on an entirely separate subject, and I wouldn’t presume to impose on my fellow Dopers my views on scanning poetry without a sincere invitation to hold forth on a subject so dear to me.** I get the feeling, from this thread at least, that people are rather dismissive of my so-called knowledge in the area, and would vastly prefer not to read what I have to say on the subject. Your post certainly confirms that intuition. This sounds suspiciously like the “lawyer” on another message board who kept avoiding discussion and debate on legal issues with, presumably, other lawyers because it was never the proper place, time, room temperature or moon phase. Although he had seemingly no troubles liberally discussing topics in all the other fora. (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/99 "2006-02-20T04:39:42Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > I’m not particularly interested in being perceived as an expert of metrics–I probably know more about metrics than other Dopers, but I hardly expect you to accept that just because I say so. Good. Because I don’t. I write extensively in meter. I’ve known many experts in meter. All of them are delighted to teach and, not only that, to learn. Experts aren’t so damned insecure that they behave as you are behaving. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855/100 "2006-02-20T04:52:13Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > I felt your tone was needlessly harsh, to my taste, and a more neutral, official tone (in an Official Mod warning) would have gotten better, faster, clearer results. Your “Are we clear?” and your countdown seemed condescending and overtly rude. One problem with online communication is that you can read any tone you want. I intended the countdown and “Are we clear?” to be humorous, friendly, lightening the situation. (I’ve been accused of being too formal and terse, so I’m trying to lighten up.) You choose to read it as an insult and condescending, then I apologize for you not being able to read my tone. I remember THE HOBBIT where “Good morning!” can mean everything from a cheerful greeting to a curt dismissal. All depends on tone. However, I think this is basically back-pedalling. Your OP starting this thread doesn’t mention my tone. You don’t mention tone until someone actually points out that you’re standing alone on the issue your raised. The crap about taste and fact is clearly just more smokescreen. No one is arguing that you can’t correct factual errors. It is possible, however, to correct someone’s facts without insulting them, calling their education into question, or leaping to conclusions about them having a canine mother. > [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > ]1) tulips and roses are not trees > 2) not do they provide much shade > and > 3) I have a lot of botanic learning to do. > > Now, number 3) might seem (does seem) excessively personal and insulting to some (not to me). To me, it is a substitute for not providing a lot of detail in items 1) and 2)–the expert botanist might be reluctant to provide a course, in the process of that hijack, in elementary botany, for my benefit, since I had impudently and ignorantly provided misinformation in the guise of discoursing on types of shade trees. Y’know, it is possible to just say (1) and (2.) For all the dispute in this thread about the validity of statement and cites, that is an option. You might be challenged on leaving out the detail, you might not. However… you think that insulting someone is a reasonable “substitute for not providing a lot of detail” in your factual corrections? ::: brief interruption as CKDH stops laughing and gets back on his chair ::: Please note the difference between: (3a) You might grab a good botany textbook to check this; and (3b) Your elementary education was sorely lacking, you hopeless twit. I got no problems with saying (3a.) An amazing revelation: it is possible to have good manners, even when correcting someone. [sub]Aside: Yes, that’s deliberate. I wouldn’t have said this as I did outside the Pit.[/sub] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-were-very-unclear/344855.md?page=6)