How to Spell Premonition

[tablariddim]

I am

Edited for a simple typographical error, out of respect for my readers.

Well you had to after all that, didn't you?

 

[Ophiolite]

Naturally. In both senses of the word.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think internet forums are probably not the best place for you though as unfortunately the whole world is not as precise about grammar and spelling as you.

Not yet.

Because to disrespect his ideas would be a wilful ignorance on your part. It is entirely likely that their disrespect of language is not wilful.

My objection is to those who make no attempt to correct their language shortfalls once they have been pointed out. Moreover, I have no problem whatsoever with poor writing from those using a language foreign to them. It is those who persist in sloppiness in the face of advice, suggestions, criticisms and invective, with whom I have a problem. Their behaviour is willfull; it is disrespectful; and it pisses me right off.

 

[SkinWalker]

Because to disrespect his ideas would be a wilful ignorance on your part.

I still assert that their ideas (you said "his," but I'm being critical of a wider population) are related to their ability to communicate, which is, in turn, related to their amount and/or quality of education. A recent Harris Poll, for instance (and I'll have to produce the citation later), indicated that less educated individuals were more likely to believe in young earth creationism than better educated counterparts. Granted, there were still those with good educations (4yrs+ college) who believed in the mythology of creation and disbelieved in the science of evolution, but the disparity wasn't nearly that of under-educated counterparts.

Other polls have shown that belief in the supernatural and paranormal (from bigfoot to ufos to esp -again, citation later) is likewise strongly correlated to education.

This is a science forum. Science depends upon effective communication to both develop ideas and effectively share them, so criticism of poor communication ability is deserved. There are plenty of teen chat rooms where net-speak/poor spellers are welcomed with open-arms. But more than this, a science forum is the place to discuss the nature of paranormal psychology and the anthropological/sociological effects and causes.

If a certain class of poster finds this arrogant or crass, they can certainly find a home on one of the many, many woo-woo sites on the internet. There, they will find fellow believers & net-speakers falling over themselves to pat them on the back and offer positive affirmation in their mutual climb to self-actualization.

 

[c20H25N3o]

I still assert that their ideas (you said "his," but I'm being critical of a wider population) are related to their ability to communicate, which is, in turn, related to their amount and/or quality of education. A recent Harris Poll, for instance (and I'll have to produce the citation later), indicated that less educated individuals were more likely to believe in young earth creationism than better educated counterparts. Granted, there were still those with good educations (4yrs+ college) who believed in the mythology of creation and disbelieved in the science of evolution, but the disparity wasn't nearly that of under-educated counterparts.

Other polls have shown that belief in the supernatural and paranormal (from bigfoot to ufos to esp -again, citation later) is likewise strongly correlated to education.

This is a science forum. Science depends upon effective communication to both develop ideas and effectively share them, so criticism of poor communication ability is deserved. There are plenty of teen chat rooms where net-speak/poor spellers are welcomed with open-arms. But more than this, a science forum is the place to discuss the nature of paranormal psychology and the anthropological/sociological effects and causes.

If a certain class of poster finds this arrogant or crass, they can certainly find a home on one of the many, many woo-woo sites on the internet. There, they will find fellow believers & net-speakers falling over themselves to pat them on the back and offer positive affirmation in their mutual climb to self-actualization.

It is precisely this sort of attitude that turns people off the 'discussion'.
You are saying 'If you cannot spell properly or punctuate properly, like me, then frankly you belong on a woo-woo site.'

Get off your high horse. The day you own this forum is the day when you can stipulate rules about grammar and the like. I see NO RULES about spelling or grammar and thank God for that. I like to read all people's thoughts, no matter how they are presented and I would estimate that I am not the only one who holds this view. Perhps you should join an English Literary website where you can all pat yourselves on the back in mutual appreciation of your wonderful grammatically correct use of the English language!
So lame.

c20

 

[Ophiolite]

A simple question: if two posts had identical content, but one was well written (spelling, vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc), the other poorly written, which would you prefer to read?
I shall assume, pending any correction by yourself, that you would prefer the better written post. Should we not, then, encourage better writing? Forget rules, lets just talk about sensible guidlines designed to facilitate understanding. Are you opposed to these? I find it difficult to beleive you are. Your own posts are lucid and well written: why defend sloppy writing, which as SkinWalker has ably pointed out, seems to correlate with sloppy thinking.
Again, to echo SW, this is a science forum - science calls for precision of thinking, methodology, measurement and language. Why would you choose to discard this? I am perplexed by your view on this matter.

My own posts would, I am sure, be ripped to shreds on an English Literary website for my gross corruption of the English language. My response to this would be an attempt, indeed repeated attempts, to correct my shortcomings, not an appeal to like, you know, kind of say well its the meaning see not wether i use the rite words or speling or what ever, i mean cant you get serious, this isnt school is it. you arent the teacher so what like shoudl you be telling me how to speak, whatever.

 

[Light]

A simple question: if two posts had identical content, but one was well written (spelling, vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc), the other poorly written, which would you prefer to read?
I shall assume, pending any correction by yourself, that you would prefer the better written post. Should we not, then, encourage better writing? Forget rules, lets just talk about sensible guidlines designed to facilitate understanding. Are you opposed to these? I find it difficult to beleive you are. Your own posts are lucid and well written: why defend sloppy writing, which as SkinWalker has ably pointed out, seems to correlate with sloppy thinking.
Again, to echo SW, this is a science forum - science calls for precision of thinking, methodology, measurement and language. Why would you choose to discard this? I am perplexed by your view on this matter.

My own posts would, I am sure, be ripped to shreds on an English Literary website for my gross corruption of the English language. My response to this would be an attempt, indeed repeated attempts, to correct my shortcomings, not an appeal to like, you know, kind of say well its the meaning see not wether i use the rite words or speling or what ever, i mean cant you get serious, this isnt school is it. you arent the teacher so what like shoudl you be telling me how to speak, whatever.

I agree 100%. As I said earlier, anything that's worth doing is worth doing well. And I, too, said that sloppy writing correlates with sloppy thinking. Consider that for just a moment... is it any wonder that the majority of the strongest supporters here of pseudo-science, mysticism and superstition are our sloppiest writers?

Sloppy thinking leads to all kinds of problems in life. Paying attention to details in everything - including communication with others - is an important quality. Have you also noticed that many times the sloppy writers are asked what they mean? And then they have to try an explain themselves. Why not make a little effort to get it right (or at least better) the first time?

Granted, it takes a little effort to gather your thoughts and present them in a coherent manner. Personally, I believe they simply don't want to make that small bit of effort. It's too much like work for them. I'll also bet that they are the same people who tend to run off at the mouth (without fully thinking something out) in real life.

 

[SkinWalker]

It is precisely this sort of attitude that turns people off the 'discussion'.

The discussion is about the correlation between poor grammar & low education and the belief in the paranormal. You'll note that I didn't criticize said woo-woo's in the thread about their wild beliefs in fantasy. I started a separate one. One which you are free to leave.

You are saying 'If you cannot spell properly or punctuate properly, like me, then frankly you belong on a woo-woo site.'

No. I'm saying that if you believe in the paranormal and the supernatural, odds are good that you are under-educated. Obvious metrics for that condition happen to be poor spelling and grammar. If it bothers you that there are those interested in discussing the nature of your beliefs (I'm using "you" in the figurative sense -I don't know your beliefs), there are plenty of places to go and have you ego masturbated. But in a science forum, be prepared to have them analyzed... and appropriately so.

Get off your high horse. The day you own this forum is the day when you can stipulate rules about grammar and the like.

I made no rule. I merely stated the obvious and began a discussion. Disagree with my motives all you like, I really couldn't give two shits.