Olentzero, it’s OK to be wrong

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.

What does this mean? If it is a pun, it is too subtle for me.


I was wondering about that myself. “Cereal coma” ?

There are some subjects that are almost impossible to have reasoned discussions about. Wars are started about them. The big three are probably politics, religion, and punctuation. The war of 1812 started when King George III received a letter from James Madison that put the period inside the quotation marks, rather than on the exterior.

This infuriated the King, so he burned Madison’s house down.

I think it’s some sort of joke about serial commas.

Serial comma/cereal coma. Not quite a pun (not quite good enough for that). More of an allusion to the inane fights people get in over using/not using it. Kind of like TP direction or shoes on/off in a house.

Well, he went to Jared.

No comment on the OP, but I will continue to “put my periods outside quotation marks”, and you can’t stop “me”.

Missed edit window: I don’t give a shit where the punctuation goes (no wars here), except to be in line with what my client would want. If they specify British usage, that’s the convention I’ll follow. If they don’t specify, but I know it’s going to a European audience, I’ll follow the British convention. If I’m posting on the Dope or working with an American client, guess which convention I’ll follow.

My umbrage isn’t in the convention or whether or not it’s applied. It’s in the shitty attitude upon being corrected with an easily verifiable and widespread usage – especially when one of the initial statements included an unnecessarily shitty snark.


Now that was funny. (It’s also why I have proofers on staff.)

My eyes! MY EYES!!!

Which board have you been reading?:wink:

Funny. And I hate those radio spots for that place. Painful singing.

I would assume that the most productive members of the board don’t post at all. 'Cause I post a ton, and I never get any damn work done. :wink:

I haven’t been peripherally involved in such a major controversy since the Sino-Prussian Dangling Modifier Crisis of 1837.

Yeah, but that was before scientists split the infinitive. Whole new ballgame now – one with a whole new set of “’”“rules”."’;"¿

ellipses with tails,

Brown paper packages tied up with string ~ ~ ~

Is this how you punctuate a pregnant pause?

Fun. Fun Worry worry worry?

I understand* that the ‘Oxford Comma’ is so-called because Oxford was partially burned to the ground in the 12th century, due to a punctuation dispute gone horribly awry.

  • I understand a lot of stuff that is complete bullshit, though.