Note for the spectators:
*This is a response to an interaction with Olentzero in an IMHO thread. It’s here because poster-directed sentiments such as you’re a fucking idiot and a you have a pathetically fragile ego aren’t allowed in other forums. *
Olentzero, you’re a fucking hypertool with a pathetically fragile ego who is too obstinate and/or stupid to realize they were wrong. Do a search on a phrase like “ignorance fought” and you’ll see that most productive members of the board don’t desperately hold out in the face of being wrong, most don’t cling like pitiful toddlers to the notion that they were right. The sad part is that you tried pulling on your big-girl panties and snarking at friedo, losing any pretence at your later claims of just arguing how it should be and lamenting your oppression by made-up pendants.
Abject stupidity enters because you had a perfectly reasonable out/explanation, but instead of realizing it you chose to get those big-girl panties all in a bunch. Letting it go would have been so much easier — and so much more correct — than putting your lack of reading comprehension on display.
Sorry to make this longer, but it might be worth it to try one more time to get through the defences your poor ego has put up to protect you from yourself.
Here’s the original statement:
Here’s your wrong correction:
Not “I think it should,” not “it would make more sense if,” nothing more than a blatant factual error in the form of a statement about what a rule is. The reported speech rule is British usage, not American.
Freido re-corrects:
You make an ass out of yourself with a pretentious snark, but fail miserably – he and stratocaster were correct:
I go on to provide relevant cites from Chicago, you go on to move goalposts, dodge, weave, and do your best to spread ignorance. This is my favorite bit:
So, in the world according to Olentzero, the Chicago Manual of Style is a weak, marginally supported cite? Are you fucking kidding me? I can maybe see a couple people out there debating Chicago versus AP (not me), but weak and marginally supported? If that’s a **weak **source (you certainly didn’t mean I made a vague reference to it because I included section numbers), then there must be a guide for American usage that dwarfs it, right? Fuck it, is there a guide in widespread use that even contradicts it?
Here’s another fun bit: you hop around shouting (and misusing) PEDANT PEDANT PEDANT! as if that would make a difference. No, it doesn’t. It would be no more pedantic to correct you than if you told someone to capitalize all verbs. You tried to correct someone with incorrect information and you got called on it. Simple as that. No appeal to an esoteric source, no pointing to Byzantine rules of usage. No attempt (or need) to say why, just accurate information to correct your wrong post. You weren’t being corrected on your usage, you were being corrected on your incorrect statement of fact. You fucked up a widespread convention. You made an assinine comment to freido. You were wrong.
Go play with your cereal coma.
