Are they the same person?
Are they working with the Spanish Inquisition now?
Speaking as one of the so-called grammar Nazis, I will say that I did try to explain that my criticism was not made just to point derisively. The lack of punctuation and capitalization was making it difficult for me to parse the meaning. All I got in return was a spiteful comment saying I must have trouble in a world of signs. Since it didn’t appear that wiredbadger had any interest in trying to communicate, I ceased any participation in the thread. I found some of the responses to be interesting (and comprehensible) but still think wiredbadger is a nasty little twerp. (This is the Pit and I’m allowed to insult other posters, right? It’s not something I’ve done on a regular basis. I can’t recall ever calling anyone a name before, at least not in writing.)
That should be Nazi nazi.
Ladeeeees and gentlemen! Here for your viewing pleasure! A fight for the heavytroll Championship of the world!
Join date: June 2012
v
Join date: July 2012
Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!
I bid 50 quatloos on the newcomer.
DOes anyone rmember the phrase that “grammar nazi” replaced: "to break Prician’s head?"
Of course not, since it hasn’t been used since 1832. But, from now on I’ll use it as updated it for the youngsters: “to make Prician’s head assplode!”
Badger, I appreciate your enthusiasm but am going to suggest you switch to decaf. an abomination, yes, but desperate times…
as for the Grammar French Resistance, when you synchronize watches and meet up please let me know. I’ll bring hot scones and real coffee.
I’ll just say that I tried to read this guy’s posts, and I couldn’t figure out if he was actually pro-science or just some nut who thinks he understands science but doesn’t have a clue. I’m heavily leaning towards the latter interpretation.
Really, someone is bothered by the term grammar Nazi? As I understand, the generalized form of “___ Nazi” comes from the use of the name Soup Nazi on the well known Seinfeld. As a result, refering to someone in that context isn’t a Godwinization of comparing the person to Hitler or real Nazis but rather a comparison to someone who is exceptionally stringent about the rules.
That said, I would object to wiredbadger refering to people criticizing his grammar as grammar Nazis because, frankly, his posts are difficult to read and it’s a legitimate complaint. IMO, a grammar Nazi would be someone who berates someone for using “its” instead of “it’s” where the meaning of the post is still completely clear.
Bolding mine.
Heh.
Great- a Nazi nazi nazi.
I don’t really care what it started from. I, for one, do not appreciate being referred to as a [blank] nazi. Call me a martinet, call me a schoolmarm, call me a nitpicker, zealot, or fanatic, but don’t call me a nazi, thank you very much. And the people on Seinfeld are deeply unpleasant people. If anything, the fact that they do it on that show should be proof enough we should avoid it.
I have a new rule for myself and recommend it to others: do not respond to any posters with join date of the current month and if said poster does not use paragraphs, do not read either. This rule is helping a great deal with my blood pressure.
Yes, exactly! I can’t count how many times I’ve spotted minor errors and just shrugged, shed a tear for the demise of language skills, and moved on without comment. If I could figure out what was meant, I had no interest in being a grammar bitch (is that phrase more acceptable?). I only commented in wirelessbadger’s thread because it was so difficult to read. It seemed to me that the subject might be interesting, but not if it was almost impossible to make sense out of his post.
And when I saw the post to which Ambivalid linked wherein the wireless one actually admitted that he does this deliberately to cull out those who might criticize the grammar rather than discussing the topic, I lost any respect I might have had for him. In fact, calling him a nasty little twerp was probably too kind.
shrugs
I didn’t have any difficulty reading his posts.
Sooooo, what you’re saying is that you’re a Grammar Jew?
Oh, no - a Nazi nazi nazi nazi. Those are the worst!
I don’t call people ___ Nazis myself, because it’s unnecessarily inflamatory, I think if it’s used at all, it’s better used in a form of self-deprecation, as in admitting about oneself as being exceptionally nitpicky about a set of rules rather than simply claiming someone else is doing that as a defense against breaking those rules. Sure, the guys on Seinfeld aren’t pleasant people, but that is really beside my point. It’s that the derivation of the usage means one shouldn’t take it as a comparison to actual Nazis, just like how something being called “teh ghey” isn’t an insult to gays.
So sure, avoid it, but I just can’t see getting too worked up about it.
And this is something pit worthy. If a point is worth making, it’s worth taking the time and making it clearly and concisely. One shouldn’t need an extra layer of obfuscation to try to trick people into attacking one’s grammar rather than one’s point. That’s baiting into a red herring and it’s a dishonest debate tactic. Though, honestly, that sort of claim strikes me more as a post hoc justification after being attacked for the poor grammar rather than an intentional move.
I could read what that poster was saying, but it took more effort on my part, and likely on the part of everyone else. It’s inconsiderate for someone to not take the extra two minutes on their part to write well and expect each person who reads it to invest a little extra time interpretting it. Worse, it wastes more time by having each reader spend that time instead of just the writer, and it runs the risk of points being completely missed or misunderstood.
My grammar was not a nazi. She left Germany in the 20’s.