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

Au contraire. You are proving my point.




--- On Fri, 17/4/09, Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: atw: Re: "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" [aside on aggression 
> allegation]
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Received: Friday, 17 April, 2009, 9:34 AM
> 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
> **************************************************


      Enjoy a better web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8 
optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.
**************************************************
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: