atw: Re: "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" [aside on aggression allegation]

Ken Randall:
You wrote:
>

> I would have thought that the email below is similarly somewhat aggressive - 
> are there
> some rules about this(?).
>
[snip]

I don't believe I have yet yielded to the temptations offered in this 
discussion to become aggressive, but I have to admit you tempt me that way.

Let's get this straight. Your contribution on this subject began with the words:

> "I have read neither the original grammar book nor Pullum's critique ..."

To which probably the best reply would have been:  "Then what the hell are you 
doing here?"

But you went on to add:

> .... but if the
> critique says that split infinitives are all right, then it is the critique 
> which is
> mistaken."

This is about equivalent in my mind of someone saying "I haven't actually seen 
a platypus or a drawing of it, but if the drawing shows that it both suckles 
its young and lays eggs, the drawing is wrong."

It was my response to this silly start to a "contribution" to a discussion 
which you find aggressive. Why is it aggressive to suggest that before you jump 
into a discussion about a critique or book, you should take the course of at 
least reading materials which are the subject of discussion?

I would have thought that rather than a venture into aggression, my response 
can be seen as an entreaty to the effect that you be polite to the person 
(Geoffrey)  who suggested the article was worth reading (a suggestion you 
promptly ignored).

These starting words on the subject of split infinitives displayed a blatant 
dismissal of the normal course of logical discussion, and clear evidence of a 
closed mind. It is usually expected on a logical discussion of a subject that 
you have bothered to inform yourself on the subject you are talking about and 
contemplate  arguments before you dismiss them out of hand.   Otherwise, you 
are open to the suggestion which you come close to proving -- that you are 
simply blithering.

How can you state with such certainty that someone is wrong if you haven't 
bothered to read their arguments or the subject matter to which their arguments 
are directed ?     This isn't even straight hubris, it's proclaimed ignorance, 
bordering on religious fundamentalism.


-Peter M
 peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).

To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go 
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: