BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,666
- Reaction score
- 15,257
This is what you people wanted back?
I am incredibly easy to get along with
And I'm laughing about you going through six years of posts. You are too young to be that bored.
By the way:
"Grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of sentences, phrases, and words."
[And borrowed from a later post on the thread:] But why be bothered by definitions
I bet I am the only person on this board who's ever lost to a trans woman in a sporting event.
Guess what. I didn't care. At all. Not even a little. The woman was a strong rider, sure, but not any more outrageously strong than plenty of women I've raced against and trained with. Hell, in that particular race as Cat 4 cyclists there were three FIELDS of women stronger than us and the winner of our race wouldn't have won in those fields.
The varied ability of female athletes ALWAYS leaves room for you to be beat. I was way more thrilled at my own second place finish because I'd worked my ass off and rode well with my team. I had no concern about the woman on the top step of the podium and her biological attributes. In later finding out that she was trans (which only came out more because a bunch of dickhead male cyclists decided to pick this up as some great case), nobody really asked the women's peloton what we thought/if we cared. Sure, there were a handful of women who didn't think it was right that a "biological male" was in the race... but frankly, those women complaining were also nowhere near in contention of a podium step anyway. There were plenty other strong cisgender women they should be more concerned about. Or, you know, they could just focus on their own training.
Basing your whole exclusive shitty policy on the off-chance that woman may eventually lose to another woman (who happens to be trans) means you just need to do a better job teaching and preparing your children how to lose with grace.
I'll add syntax to the list of things I don't really care about.
LK, I am indeed guilty of pointing out when rj forgets to include important words. But I don't do that to "police" some prescriptive notion of the English language but rather to understand wtf he is saying.
Ribbing people for misusing fancy words is something I enjoy. Now I can see why someone might associate that with the same impulse that drives the grammar enthusiast, but they are not at all the same thing.
People's grammar reflects a lot of things outside of their control: upbringing, education, culture, etc.
Incorrectly used words reflects a pretension and a desire to sound smart. In my opinion, people would be better off just speaking in plain language.
Missing words only reflects RJ's lazy proofreading.
I'll add syntax to the list of things I don't really care about.
LK, I am indeed guilty of pointing out when rj forgets to include important words. But I don't do that to "police" some prescriptive notion of the English language but rather to understand wtf he is saying.
Ribbing people for misusing fancy words is something I enjoy. Now I can see why someone might associate that with the same impulse that drives the grammar enthusiast, but they are not at all the same thing.
People's grammar reflects a lot of things outside of their control: upbringing, education, culture, etc.
Incorrectly used words reflects a pretension and a desire to sound smart. In my opinion, people would be better off just speaking in plain language.
Missing words only reflects RJ's lazy proofreading.
Im sure it’s just a coincidence that Junebug uses same talking points as Anti-LGBTQ lobbying group.