Cranky said:
“Now, I’m going to go back to making cookies. If you play nice, you can lick the beaters.”
[celestina runs into Cranky’s kitchen]
Mmmm. It smells SO good in here. Cranky, what kind of cookies are you making? May I have one when they’re done? I’ll make you a pot of tea, or a hot toddy, or whatever you’d like to go with them, if you’d like. Mmmm. I just LOVE cookies. 
Well, Jodi, I am not about to dictate or even form a definite opinion on when you should respond to a (perceived) asinine restatement of your comments. I think we both agree that such a thing is best handled on a case-by-case-by-poster-by-poster basis, and I think it wasn’t so much the rephrasing that got to you but that it was The Ryan who did it. Am I right? I suppose it doesn’t really matter either way: they’re your posts, its your call.
Eh? Opposite with respect to what? they definitely are opposite in the context of weighing with respect to a five pound weight. Do you see what I’m saying? In the thread you were cautious enough to demonstrate that the two were handled differently in the context of law with respect to freedom of speech. That is why I also said “literal” reading. I do think Ryan went out on an interpreted limb, but IMO I can see why one might draw such a conclusion. Do you still diagree?
You said it so clear originally I am not certain how I could rephrase it any better…
Y == original statement
X == rephrased statement
Question: Y == X?
When Y != X, as you imply, assert, and I am inclined to agree, it seems obvious that this is the case. But that doesn’t mean anything other than, “No, that is not a restatement of Y. This is because… et cetera.”
LOL, see, that just seems harsh to me. I think he really presses people to say what they mean. That’s in my experience of threads I’ve been in with him. But I am also willing to admit that I can see why people would think what you do.
I think it was the fact that it sounded like The Ryan was constructing a strawman, not actually asking for clarification. I think that that would be the rational interpretation based solely on the quotes, not the posters’ histories. Given jodi’s previous dealings with The Ryan, I think she simply decided against even considering the small possibility that he simply misunderstood.
Reminds me of this exchange.
I only read the first batch of exchanges in the posted thread since people said this was where The Ryan made his point most clearly. Which would be true if a point was made, or it was made clearly. Unfortunately, saying that sex is more of a taboo in America than violence is equivalent to there being no limits on violence is moronic. How anyone could read all this pedantry is beyond me. Jodi occasionally comes across arrogantly, however both her logic and debating seem sound. I should sound less arrogant given such provocation. Do I smell cookies?
Since we’re talking here about a difference of interpretation in a sentence, using the terms “hypocrite” and “blatant liar” seems a bit over the top.
This is a very silly argument.
Motion to fuggedaboutit.
Simply failing to call someone a moron is hardly a high standard of civility.
I didn’t say you said that, but that, in my opinion, you believe that.
This situation is in many ways a mirror of a previous incident. Then, you were misrepresenting my position (not just asking for clarification as I was in this situation, but actually putting words in my mouth), and I asked you to “keep your brain on track”. Remember that? You took offense at me daring to suggest that you actually pay attention to the thread, and arrogantly told me to stop it. In this current situation, I asked for clarification, not making any statements about your position, and you responded rudely. I then politely expressed my displeasure at the preceeding, and you as much as told me that you saw no reason to care about my feelings. Now, I certainly will agree that you have the right to demand that other people indulge you any time you feel slighted, but to ignore any complaints from other people. And I have the right to call you a hypocrite for doing so.
This sounds a lot like “I don’t like you, so the standards of civility don’t apply to my dealings with you”.
And yet you clearly did. While at first I thought it might be an innocent mistake, your refusal to own up to it when I pointed it out to you, and in fact saying that I was “obtuse”, establishes that you intentionally presented a false statement as true.
I found the difference between “desire to harm” and “desire see harmed” to be small enough to not be of concern, and in fact to be an example of the minutiae that you earlier accused me of obsessing over. It’s as if you were to say “aiding or abetting is illegal” and I were to say “so, aiding is illegal?” and you were to call me “obtuse”. But if you were really so concerned about my omission of “see harmed”, there was a very simple remedy: you could actually tell me that you are concerned about it. Did that ever occur to you? Instead you simply told me that I was misunderstanding me, without telling me how, leaving me to make wild guesses as to what you were concerned about, which in turn gave you another opportunity for you to kick and scream about how I was “misrepresenting” you. Your response to my first post was:
I don’t see anything in that restatement of your position about wanting to see children exploited. Apparently even you didn’t think it was important. You didn’t say anything about this “or” business until your next response, in which you also misquoted yourself. So how am I supposed to know what I missed if you first don’t mention it, and then mention it at the same time as you change what you said. From my point of view, the conversation went like this:
You: “A or B [where B is virtually the same thing as A].”
Me: “So, A?”
You: “No! How could you misunderstand me? I clearly said C [where C is yet another thing close to A]”
Me: “Umm, A, B, and C all look the same to me.”
You: “I don’t see how you could see ‘A or B’ and think ‘A’. BTW, I clearly said ‘A or D’.“
Me: “I’m completely confused. What are you saying?!”
You: “You’re too obtuse to understand.”
Me: 
But you see, there’s a bit of a Catch-22 there. If you don’t try to understand where someone is coming from, then they will make no sense to you. And if someone makes no sense to you, you won’t bother trying to understand where they’re coming from. Simply saying “I personally don’t see where that comment came from, therefore there is no legitimate reason to say it” is extremely arrogant. Can you name a single thread in which I have misunderstood you, and you have made an honest, polite, and nonconfrontational effort to understand to where I got my position? Just because you have failed to take option A, that doesn’t mean that you chose B either. I can’t recall a single time in which you politely corrected a misconception of mine. Maybe I’ve forgotten. But I’d think I’d remember something as unusual as that.
Neurotik:
Dr_Paprika:
I take it neither of you noticed the irony of making strawmen while complaining about others’? I didn’t bend anyone’s position to an illogical extremes, I definitely did not “claim victory”, and I never said that “sex is more of a taboo in America than violence is equivalent to there being no limits on violence”.
In case anyone is interested in what I was actually trying to say, here’s (an approximation of) the thought process that went into my first question:
Hmmm We’re discussing the filming of children engaged in sex acts. Jodi says that violence is not analogous to sex. But I think that if we were discussing the filming of children having violent acts performed on them, people would be against that, just as they’re against the filming of sex acts being performed on children. That looks like an analogy to me. Jodi isn’t saying that people wouldn’t be against the filming of violent acts being performed on children, is she? I’d better ask her.
Sauron:
She has said that I should take into account her feelings. She has said that she feels no obligation to take into account mine. Hence, hypocrite. She incorrectly quoted herself, and when given an opportunity to admit it refused. Hence, liar.
Seconded, I suppose, but as a point of order, I think we’re still in the middle of discussion on the previous motion, that Jodi is a drooling evil demon liar from the depths of hell. Or something.
Who’s Sergeant at Arms around here?
Well, IANAL, but I think a Motion to Fuggedaboutit supersedes any previous pending motions. We’ll have to check with Sua.
Yes, a Motion to Fuggedaboutit does indeed take priority. However, Motions to Fuggedaboutit are, in most jurisdictions, considered waived if not brought prior to other determinative motions. Here, we have too many issues of venue and timing for me to make a ruling right now. I’ll review the case while on my trip to Maui and get back to you next year.
You can take your sick perversions and head over to my place. Rowwrrr.
As for this dispute itself - Yes, Jodi can overparse, and The Ryan can (at least appear to be) deliberately obtuse in order to score a point. I like both of them, even though both on occasion can irritate me.
In this case, I would rule Jodi the winner on points - The Ryan was jerkier in the linked thread.
Sua
Silly goose… Lynn, John, and Alpha.
If one is going to be a pedant, one may as well do it correctly.
There is no accusative case in English. To call the direct object “me” an accusative is a barbarism imposed on English by ignorant Latinists or used by linguistic theorists who don’t like switching grammatical terms between English and other languages they analyze.
Maeglin, I think you may have written your own sig line.
Funny, I thought the knives would really be out on this one, but I must confess to being a little let down…
Interesting assertion. Do you have a cite?
Although, as I said, my comment on Jodi’s expression was mainly a light-hearted attempt to contrast a slight clumsiness with her apparent (to me) sense of infallibility, I think my terms were well enough chosen. Refer to Fowler, H. W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd ed., London: Oxford University Press, 1968, 77-78).
Fowler discusses the status of case at some length, [li]acknowledging that grammarians are overly zealous: ‘We know that grammarians are often accused, and indeed often guilty, of fogging the minds of English children with terms and notions that are esential to the understanding of Greek and Latin syntax, but have no bearing on English’. But he also says,[]’… the difference between the nominative and accusative (or subject and object) is indicated mainly by the order in which it arranges its words’, and, []'Mistakes occur chiefly, though not only, with (a) the few words having case-forms, mostly personal pronouns, and (b) the relative pronuns.[/li]
So the use of ‘accusative’ to describe the personal pronoun ‘me’ would seem to be acceptable to one respected writer at least. To say that there is no accusative case in English seems to me to be as misguidedly ‘pedantic’ as saying one must not split an infinitive.
Huh. And here I always figured that a habit of not splitting infinitives greatly improves comprehension. Now I find it’s merely “misguidedly pedantic.”
Gawrsh.
Understood, but I can hardly pass up a chance to engage in a grammatical discussion, myself. As monumental a work as Modern English Usage is, it must be remembered (gerundive) that Fowler was a “schoolman” and a classicist to boot. While I have not performed a stringent survey of his work nor documented every instance where he privileges classical grammatical jargon over “native” English, I don’t think it is a huge stretch to assert that his work is slanted. The degree of the slant is open to discussion.
As for cites, I have pulled some from the internet as I am currently at work.
The University of Ottowa Writing Centre calls our pronoun friends [objective personal pronouns](HyperGrammar | The Writing Centre | University of Ottawa personal pronoun).
Jack Lynch, professor of English at Rutgers, argues here that:
The alt.english.usage faq, in which some of the mightiest pedants in the world participate, has the following to say:
This is quite true. Though I do try not to split infinitives. 
There is an accusative in English if grammarians desire there to be one and are able to convince everyone else of its existence. I would contend merely that it is a throwback to a less enlightened age and is no longer the most appropriate term to describe the morphemes we are discussing.
[sub]He he he…he said morpheme…he he he[/sub]
And Billdo, you never cease to amuse me:
This is definitely true. Pedantry: no job too big, no task too picayune. But hearing it from the man who memorizes the model numbers of subways…
Regards,
MR
Jodi: Why on earth would you deign to argue with one who insists on picking fly-shit out of black pepper? The Ryan’s whole debating style reeks of “ME, ME, ME, pay attention to ME!” I have no doubt people such as this obtain sexual gratification from observing the fact they are consuming huge gobs of your time with their insane quibbling. You had it correct when you termed such behavior trolling… the question is, why are you feeding one? AKA, “Cast not your pearls before swine.”
(And yes, I read the whole schmear, and cannot believe I actually digested this complete waste of time, let alone had the audacity to comment).
Gee, Jodi, you’re curiously silent on the question of where you’ve ever chosen option B. Could that have been yet another honesty-deficient statement on your part?
I don’t think the silence is curious.
I think Jodi’s honesty is intact.
Perhaps she has a headache. Banging your head against the wall will do that to you.