1083: "Writing Styles"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Quicksilver » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:00 am UTC

Image
alt text: "I liked the idea, suggested by h00k on bash.org, of a Twitter bot that messages prominent politicians to tell them when they've unnecessarily used sms-speak abbreviations despite having plenty of characters left."

I know it's been like this for years, but the character limit on twitter was the first thing to spring to mind. It forces us to be "efficient" with wording. Regardless of how bad it gets, I always try to clear up all spelling mistakes and grammar before making any posts.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby jpk » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:03 am UTC

Did lolspeak ever have anything to do with saving characters?

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:05 am UTC

I'd like a Twitter bot that messages me whenever I use more than zero wink smileys per post. ;)

User avatar
glasnt
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby glasnt » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:06 am UTC

I like the twitter bot that automatically corrected your spelling (where you weren't sure, anyway)

JetstreamGW
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:22 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby JetstreamGW » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:15 am UTC

The forum button seems to have vanished again...

asdfzxc
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:04 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby asdfzxc » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:25 am UTC

JetstreamGW wrote:The forum button seems to have vanished again...

Yeah, it's been like that since yesterday.
jpk wrote:Did lolspeak ever have anything to do with saving characters?

Yeah, back in the 90's and early 00's when everybody still used text chat. Grammar generally tends to go to hell when there's 30 people in the room, the chatbox is so small that the post you're replying to is already gone in two seconds, and you also have to post in between getting shot at in Quake.

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby LtNOWIS » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:27 am UTC

A few Senators are notoriously bad on Twitter, but on balance they spell things pretty well.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby BAReFOOt » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:25 am UTC

Using Twitter is already irrefutable proof that you’re not a young person, but either a man in his midlife-crisis trying to be “hip” and “with the crowd”, or a marketing company.
It’s a indicator the size of a gamma ray burst through your eye. And about as cool as a politician trying to rap.

Not a single sane human being below the age of 30 has ever used Twitter. And no-one ever will.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby BAReFOOt » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:27 am UTC

asdfzxc wrote:
jpk wrote:Did lolspeak ever have anything to do with saving characters?

Yeah, back in the 90's and early 00's when everybody still used text chat. Grammar generally tends to go to hell when there's 30 people in the room, the chatbox is so small that the post you're replying to is already gone in two seconds, and you also have to post in between getting shot at in Quake.


I think you’re confusing lolspeak with chat abbreviations.
Lolspeak would be what the caption of a lolcat is written in.

ashes1032
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:36 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby ashes1032 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:10 am UTC

Is it bad that I knew exactly which quote the mouseover text was referring to?

User avatar
Linux0s
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Linux0s » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:25 am UTC

If you post: "It's getting late, I gotta wreck the economy and start unnecessary wars early tomorrow" you sound like a senator.

If you post "When are these idiots gonna reclassify weed off schedule I" you sound like a sensible teenager (and me).
If the male mind truly were a machine it would consist of a shaft and a bushing.

CatOfGrey
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:25 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby CatOfGrey » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:33 am UTC

Linux0s wrote:If you post: "It's getting late, I gotta wreck the economy and start unnecessary wars early tomorrow" you sound like a senator.

If you post "When are these idiots gonna reclassify weed off schedule I" you sound like a sensible teenager (and me).


Well, I think the Ronpaul is also supportive of statement #2 - you are definitely a teenager! But then again, that's kinda what I believe, and I haven't been a teenager for many years now.

Lodestar
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Lodestar » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:37 am UTC

ashes1032 wrote:Is it bad that I knew exactly which quote the mouseover text was referring to?

Seconded. I suppose that's a sign that I've been spending too much time on bash & qdb.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:50 am UTC

There is nothing weird about this. The Ron Paul quote sounds like a teenager not because of the grammar, but because of the (perceived, I guess) naivety and ignorance of the comment. The author seems to imply that he expects all good grammar to come from adults, and all poor grammar to come from kids, and there is zero basis whatsoever for that expectation.

EDIT: Why is there a code that changes Paul's name as two words with a space in the middle to "Ronpaul" on this board? If there is some kind of meaning there, I don't get it.
Last edited by blowfishhootie on Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby da Doctah » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:55 am UTC

Wait, Rosie O'Donnell sounds like a senator?

Cal Engime
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:41 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Cal Engime » Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:24 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:EDIT: Why is there a code that changes Paul's name as two words with a space in the middle to "Ronpaul" on this board? If there is some kind of meaning there, I don't get it.
It's a title of respect, like "the Rambam." Randall is such a huge supporter that he refuses to let anyone blaspheme against the Ronpaul by taking his name in vain.

CanadianNomad
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:06 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby CanadianNomad » Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:55 pm UTC

On the internet everybody sounds like a whiny teenager. This post included.

Yoduh
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:49 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Yoduh » Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:13 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:The author seems to imply that he expects all good grammar to come from adults, and all poor grammar to come from kids, and there is zero basis whatsoever for that expectation.


...really?

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:07 pm UTC

jpk wrote:Did lolspeak ever have anything to do with saving characters?


It was used over a century ago, by Morse code operators on the railroads to get messages down the line faster (photo from Steamtown National Historic Site, Scranton, PA).

Image

DaveInsurgent
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 4:28 pm UTC
Location: Waterloo, Ontario

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby DaveInsurgent » Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:44 pm UTC

I wrote a bot that corrected "your welcome" and "of coarse" as well as "of chorse".

It was banned very fast. I throttled it down to a rate similar to Stealth Mountain, and added variety to the corrections (Did you mean? I think you meant?) and created a new account. Banned within a few minutes.

Tried one last time, banned within seconds.

I don't know how Stealth Mountain gets away with it, presumably via some kind of whitelist.

SpiritOfRock
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:58 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby SpiritOfRock » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:00 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:There is nothing weird about this. The Ron Paul quote sounds like a teenager not because of the grammar, but because of the (perceived, I guess) naivety and ignorance of the comment. The author seems to imply that he expects all good grammar to come from adults, and all poor grammar to come from kids, and there is zero basis whatsoever for that expectation.

EDIT: Why is there a code that changes Paul's name as two words with a space in the middle to "Ronpaul" on this board? If there is some kind of meaning there, I don't get it.


I don't think it's very naive or ignorant to think that the Ronpaul is the only one who offers a real choice. When he was running in the Republican primaries, he was the only candidate who was against the PATRIOT Act, the Drug War, and the NDAA, and the only candidate who people could be sure wouldn't go invading other countries on borrowed money. That's the kind of choice that people really care about, and I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby flicky1991 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

SpiritOfRock wrote:I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.

Oh, yeah, ruining millions of people's lives by not allowing them to marry really doesn't matter... :roll:
any pronouns
----
avatar from chridd
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:19 pm UTC

SpiritOfRock wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:There is nothing weird about this. The Ron Paul quote sounds like a teenager not because of the grammar, but because of the (perceived, I guess) naivety and ignorance of the comment. The author seems to imply that he expects all good grammar to come from adults, and all poor grammar to come from kids, and there is zero basis whatsoever for that expectation.

EDIT: Why is there a code that changes Paul's name as two words with a space in the middle to "Ronpaul" on this board? If there is some kind of meaning there, I don't get it.


I don't think it's very naive or ignorant to think that the Ronpaul is the only one who offers a real choice. When he was running in the Republican primaries, he was the only candidate who was against the PATRIOT Act, the Drug War, and the NDAA, and the only candidate who people could be sure wouldn't go invading other countries on borrowed money. That's the kind of choice that people really care about, and I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.


That's fantastic, I really care about your opinions on Ron Paul. Honest*. The point is, the comic says the Paul sentence sounds like a teenager wrote it because the author perceives it as naive, ignorant, or otherwise uninformed as a result of youth and/or inexperience.

* - Not really.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:52 pm UTC

Yeah, it's just a very broad and unqualified claim. The only candidate? The only real choice? There have been, presumably, other candidates who would also have done things differently regarding things that people consider major issues.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby bmonk » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:27 pm UTC

JetstreamGW wrote:The forum button seems to have vanished again...

And yet, here we are.

In accordance with prophesy.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

sotanaht
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby sotanaht » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:30 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Yeah, it's just a very broad and unqualified claim. The only candidate? The only real choice? There have been, presumably, other candidates who would also have done things differently regarding things that people consider major issues.


Is and Offers are both present tense. He isn't saying the Ronpaul is the only candidate who has ever offered people a real choice. That means that he only has to compare the Ronpaul with a rather short list. It is more than possible to make broad, absolute statements about that kind of comparison. The lack of qualifiers is only apparent by not stating anything along the lines of "on major issues", because there are certainly choices for some issues between only the regular democrats and republicans. Simply stating "on major issues" is vague and in need of elaboration, but it also leaves enough room for the main statement to be absolutely correct.

I personally have a bit of an issue with qualifiers. Taking the statement "the Ronpaul is the only candidate who offers of a real choice on major issues" is so totally dependent on the writers definition of "major issues" that it could mean anything and therefor no longer says anything concrete. I would personally rather a statement, especially one expressing feelings and opinions (even through facts), that is technically wrong, over one that is so vague it cannot be wrong. "the Ronpaul is the only candidate who offers of a real choice" is a statement of fact, but it's usefulness is taken as "I feel that the Ronpaul is the only candidate who offers of a real choice," which is far more telling than "I feel that the Ronpaul is the only candidate who offers of a real choice on major issues" which can be twisted later.


Jackpot777 wrote:
jpk wrote:Did lolspeak ever have anything to do with saving characters?


It was used over a century ago, by Morse code operators on the railroads to get messages down the line faster (photo from Steamtown National Historic Site, Scranton, PA).



It certainly made sense for Morse code because of the time issue. For a simple character issue however I think people should focus more on shorter, to the point comments. With Morse code, you could be writing the most efficient messages ever and still save even more time by abbreviating, but you don't need to abbreviate efficient messages on twitter. For example, the "senator" sentence doesn't need to say "it's getting late" at all. That piece tells us almost nothing. The time can be learned by other means, and it still doesn't give much of a reason. People are still going to assume "it's getting late" means "I have to go do X soon," which is exactly what they were going to assume without that information. The remaining part of the statement "I'll be here for probably two more hours" works, or you could emphasize the upper limit by saying "I might be here for up to two more hours" and use even fewer characters.
Last edited by sotanaht on Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:56 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:37 pm UTC

SpiritOfRock wrote:I don't think it's very naive or ignorant to think that the Ronpaul is the only one who offers a real choice. When he was running in the Republican primaries, he was the only candidate who was against the PATRIOT Act, the Drug War, and the NDAA, and the only candidate who people could be sure wouldn't go invading other countries on borrowed money. That's the kind of choice that people really care about, and I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.


The trouble is, every real choice involves losing more votes.

A lot of Republicans support the PATRIOT act. There are terrorists trying to kill us, and we need to stop them. They think it's more important to stop the terrorists than keep our little conveniences.

A lot of Republicans -- not all the same ones -- support the drug war. You don't want more Americans to turn into drug-crazed addicts who're no good to themselves or anyone else, do you?

NDAA? The military budget? Sure it's bloated, a whole lot of Republicans like it that way. The loss of all legal rights? Remember about those terrorists, it's the PATRIOT act all over again.

Invading other countries on borrowed money? Lots and lots of Republicans back that, and they're chafing at the bit to attack Iran, thinking there won't have to be an actual invasion. We can just bomb iran from the air and then when our objectives are achieved we can go home and it will be over. Any attack on Iran will be over when we say it's over, because it's 100% sure after we finish kicking their ass they aren't going to do anything at all to ask for more. 100% guaranteed. We can do the whole thing in about 2 weeks without ever invading them. (And if you believe that I have a couple more wars to sell you.)

Every time Ron_Paul offers people a real choice, he loses votes. And now I think it isn't all that unlikely that if he runs as a third party candidate he'll take more votes from Democrats than from Republicans. Obama said 4 years ago he was going to bring change. But it turned out he didn't have the votes in Congress to actually bring change, or if he had them he didn't use them and then he lost them. He can't very well promise change the next time around either. It's a choice between no change versus the changes Romney would make. There's some chance that Obama won't attack Iran if he doesn't attack Iran before the election, but he talks like he will.

It might not be true, but people tell me that candidates in general lose by giving the public a choice. People decide to vote against somebody who promises something they don't like, more than they decide to vote for somebody who promises something they do like. That's why the various candidates have platforms that are pretty much alike and the following the issues is like swimming in a lake of tapioca pudding. They try to get people to believe they're good guys without actually coming out and saying something that can lose them votes. Everybody thinks that Romney will bomb Iran right after he gets elected. But Romney doesn't say that, he just says that Obama doesn't support Israel enough and he will do -- exactly the same things Obama says he'll do about it, but Romney puts more emphasis in his voice when he says it.

I want IRV or acceptance voting or something like that. If you can vote for every candidate you want to vote for, if voting for Ron_Paul or Nader or whoever isn't throwing your vote away, then it wouldn't at all surprise me if Ron_Paul came in second. That would make a big difference.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby firechicago » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:55 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
jpk wrote:Did lolspeak ever have anything to do with saving characters?


It was used over a century ago, by Morse code operators on the railroads to get messages down the line faster (photo from Steamtown National Historic Site, Scranton, PA).



And there were just as many instances of confusion and people ready to mock older versions of txt speak.

(My favorite story is about the movie star Cary Grant, who received a telegram from a fact-checking newspaper editor reading "HOW OLD CARY GRANT?" He replied "OLD CARY GRANT FINE. HOW YOU?")

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Adam H » Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

Return to telegram-talk. Superior to lolspk. Uses few letters. Like caveman not tween. Cavemen awesome. Tween not.
-Adam

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby sam_i_am » Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:17 pm UTC

SpiritOfRock wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:There is nothing weird about this. The Ron Paul quote sounds like a teenager not because of the grammar, but because of the (perceived, I guess) naivety and ignorance of the comment. The author seems to imply that he expects all good grammar to come from adults, and all poor grammar to come from kids, and there is zero basis whatsoever for that expectation.

EDIT: Why is there a code that changes Paul's name as two words with a space in the middle to "Ronpaul" on this board? If there is some kind of meaning there, I don't get it.


I don't think it's very naive or ignorant to think that the the Ronpaul is the only one who offers a real choice. When he was running in the Republican primaries, he was the only candidate who was against the PATRIOT Act, the Drug War, and the NDAA, and the only candidate who people could be sure wouldn't go invading other countries on borrowed money. That's the kind of choice that people really care about, and I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.


It's a little bit ignorant. You did have Gary Johnson in the early stages of the primary,(and he's running in the general too), and in 2008 you had Kusinich and Gravel, and likely other lesser-knows. If you want to get really broad, you can try to start a movement to convince other public figures to run for president(as was the case with Chris Christie)

But yeah, the Ronpaul was the most popular candidate who was a true alternative to the status quo

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Max™ » Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:32 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:Return to telegram-talk. Superior to lolspk. Uses few letters. Like caveman not tween. Cavemen awesome. Tween not.

+1'D

I had a twitter account, I made one post to NDT to point out that his offhand comment about changing the second instead of adding leap seconds would make our heights variable due to the meter being defined as a fraction of the distance light travels in a second.

I then got a couple pornbot followers, found there was no way to turn off the suggestions that I follow some inexplicably popular 40 year old woman named Justin Bieber or Beyonce (not that I would mind literally following Beyonce, dat ass, etc) and promptly deleted my account. So ends my experience with twitter.


Btw, the comment about "who offers a choice" is naive because it implies that your choice matters at all, spoiler alert: the people in charge don't give a fuck about your opinion, how could they when they don't even care if you wind up buried in debt due to lack of avoidable medical care or employment?

Carlin was right on that account, there's a club of people who matter to the US government, and we aren't in it.
mu

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:06 am UTC

flicky1991 wrote:
SpiritOfRock wrote:I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.

Oh, yeah, ruining millions of people's lives by not allowing them to marry really doesn't matter... :roll:

Speaking as an openly pansexual pangendered person who wholeheartedly supports LGBT people on every issue, I think I'd have to agree that more lives are being more seriously ruined by the PATRIOT Act, War on Drugs, and NDAA, than by denying anybody the right to marry. One is about not extending a collection of minor legal rights to a certain class of people (which is discriminatory and bad), the others are largely about denying anyone (at the executive branch's whim) many very fundamental human rights (which is egregiously wrong). I would gladly put all outstanding LGBT issues on the backburner if that meant we could restore basic standards of liberty and basic limits on authority.

Nobody's going to be throwing anybody in jail for buttsex (not since 2003), so things are pretty OK on that front right now. Masses of people being imprisoned for growing a random plant in their back yard, and potentially anyone being pervasively spied upon or arbitrarily disappeared without proper trial just for being sufficiently "suspicious" in some way, are much, much bigger issues than anything to do with anything as trivial as marriage, gay or otherwise.


On the subject of the comic itself:
bash.org wrote:<h|tler> HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU TELL THAT I'M 13 BY LOOKING AT WHAT I'M WRITEING?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

http://bash.org/?14207
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby LtNOWIS » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:49 am UTC

SpiritOfRock wrote:I don't think it's very naive or ignorant to think that the Ronpaul is the only one who offers a real choice. When he was running in the Republican primaries, he was the only candidate who was against the PATRIOT Act, the Drug War, and the NDAA, and the only candidate who people could be sure wouldn't go invading other countries on borrowed money. That's the kind of choice that people really care about, and I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.

It's not naive or ignorant to want the kind of changes the Ronpaul wants, but no Senator, not even Paul's own son, would support Paul against Romney. So the first statement tweet is extremely un-Senatorial. They, like me, realized that the Ronpaul had issues even beyond his political beliefs that precluded him from being a credible candidate in a general election.

Which is not to say he accomplished nothing. He advanced his ideas a lot farther than an average Congressman can hope for, and that will affect Republican politics for years to come.

enderverse
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby enderverse » Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:21 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:Using Twitter is already irrefutable proof that you’re not a young person, but either a man in his midlife-crisis trying to be “hip” and “with the crowd”, or a marketing company.
It’s a indicator the size of a gamma ray burst through your eye. And about as cool as a politician trying to rap.

Not a single sane human being below the age of 30 has ever used Twitter. And no-one ever will.

Is that actually the demographics? I only know like four people that Twit or whatever you call it on a regular basis and they're all in their early 20's. The age 40-50 people trying to be cool that I know all just play mafia wars on facebook. :?

Daimon
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:24 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Daimon » Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:49 am UTC

My dad types like that senator. I find myself disgusted at it.

User avatar
ysth
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby ysth » Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:03 am UTC

alt text: "...unnecessarily...despite..."

Redundant and wasteful of characters, there.
A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |

VanI
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:54 am UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby VanI » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:03 am UTC

bmonk wrote:
JetstreamGW wrote:The forum button seems to have vanished again...

And yet, here we are.

In accordance with prophesy.


Tragically, it remains unfulfilled, due to the untimely misuse of the verb "prophesy" instead of the noun "prophecy".
I swear, a fireball lied to me just the other day...

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby flicky1991 » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:49 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:
SpiritOfRock wrote:I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.

Oh, yeah, ruining millions of people's lives by not allowing them to marry really doesn't matter... :roll:

Speaking as an openly pansexual pangendered person who wholeheartedly supports LGBT people on every issue, I think I'd have to agree that more lives are being more seriously ruined by the PATRIOT Act, War on Drugs, and NDAA, than by denying anybody the right to marry.

Hmmm... I see your point. I haven't really researched those other things (and I'm not American), so I guess I just assumed SpiritOfRock was being anti-gay when I guess he, like you, had different priorities. Sorry!
any pronouns
----
avatar from chridd
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

Yosarian2
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby Yosarian2 » Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:32 pm UTC

SpiritOfRock wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:There is nothing weird about this. The Ron Paul quote sounds like a teenager not because of the grammar, but because of the (perceived, I guess) naivety and ignorance of the comment. The author seems to imply that he expects all good grammar to come from adults, and all poor grammar to come from kids, and there is zero basis whatsoever for that expectation.

EDIT: Why is there a code that changes Paul's name as two words with a space in the middle to "Ronpaul" on this board? If there is some kind of meaning there, I don't get it.


I don't think it's very naive or ignorant to think that the Ronpaul is the only one who offers a real choice. When he was running in the Republican primaries, he was the only candidate who was against the PATRIOT Act, the Drug War, and the NDAA, and the only candidate who people could be sure wouldn't go invading other countries on borrowed money. That's the kind of choice that people really care about, and I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.


He also wants to get rid of all the income tax, the gas tax, and basically all national taxes, and balance the budget at the same time, which means he wants to basically get rid of the government. This would destroy the economy pretty much completely and leave us as a poor, third-world country for the next 50 years or so.

I mean, sure, it's a different choice, it's just a really bad one.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1083: "Writing Styles"

Postby J Thomas » Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:48 pm UTC

Yosarian2 wrote:
SpiritOfRock wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:There is nothing weird about this. The Ron Paul quote sounds like a teenager not because of the grammar, but because of the (perceived, I guess) naivety and ignorance of the comment. The author seems to imply that he expects all good grammar to come from adults, and all poor grammar to come from kids, and there is zero basis whatsoever for that expectation.

EDIT: Why is there a code that changes Paul's name as two words with a space in the middle to "Ronpaul" on this board? If there is some kind of meaning there, I don't get it.


I don't think it's very naive or ignorant to think that the Ronpaul is the only one who offers a real choice. When he was running in the Republican primaries, he was the only candidate who was against the PATRIOT Act, the Drug War, and the NDAA, and the only candidate who people could be sure wouldn't go invading other countries on borrowed money. That's the kind of choice that people really care about, and I would say that the naive ones are the ones who would rather worry about abortion and gay marriage.


He also wants to get rid of all the income tax, the gas tax, and basically all national taxes, and balance the budget at the same time, which means he wants to basically get rid of the government. This would destroy the economy pretty much completely and leave us as a poor, third-world country for the next 50 years or so.

I mean, sure, it's a different choice, it's just a really bad one.


Sure, but if he actually did win the election. Congress would stop him as thoroughly as they stopped Obama. He wouldn't really get anything done. Except we might go 4 years without a war, which looks pretty unlikely for any of the other candidates.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests