The intolerance of the pedants

t.m.h.n.e.t

You sure?

just checked puncture in rear wheel again :evil: , hole ryt on top of tube looks like a thorn hole :idea: , checked tyre nothing in it, marked tyre and rim before takin tube out hole in different place than other repaired patches, must just b me, bad luck am 16st and trye is pumped at max 100psi, tryes r 700X28c Continental touring plus puncture resistant think they missed this 1 out with the puncture resistant,ave put front tyre on the rear wheel, goin out later 2day let u no how i get on, c if i can get a punture free ride, fingers crossed

been back out to night normal 15 miles full pelt, 7pm in the rain and wind soaked ryt through, all i needed was a puncture, never happened somethink gone ryt and i enjoyed it felt good , no one else out every one must b avin fish 4 tea,no puncture as yet and lowered tire psi to 90,so far so good , just watchin tiger woods make a tit of himself at the masters

Both posts on Friday 6th - Rolf's post was Sat 7th.

The problem is Rolfs post to a text speak user. Not a post making fun of a dyslexic or non-primary English speaker which are both entirely different and in their own right,beyond any No text speak rule.

It's not particularly hard to tell which is which either.

supersonic

I think we can allow "fish".

/pedant ;-)

It's not particularly hard to tell which is which either.

This is the crux of the matter, and goes back to the judgement I posted about earlier.

Of course the issue of posters correcting others in the manner as demonstrated in that thread is hopefully one that will not continue - in hindsight a passage in the lock reminding users of respectful conduct would have been beneficial.

To summarise, I do think there is a distinct difference between the usage of text speak, and those who struggle for literacy; most of the time it can be judged quite easily. When text talk does arise in posts I see, I usually add a friendly reminder, as tactfully as I can, which usually works fine.

tailwindhome

SUpeSONIC U R GR8

shouldbeinbed

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't think Rolf's post in the manner it was posted was necessary.

We each have our snapping points as recent events between cakers & commuters have shown. Maybe Rolfs are linguistic. I gave up on that thread as I lost patience with the increasingly infantilised style of the OPs writing , I also wonder if there's an element of deliberate trolling or at least a very significant naivety about an adequate & acceptable forum interaction from this user based on the 'gromits & grips ' thread too.

The problem is that BC555 began typing in a clear & legible fashion, highly unlikely with the types of difficulties you suggested, before his rapid descent into pigeon English and further into blatant text speak. Are you suggesting these mental / linguistic /educational problems overtook him during the lifetime of that thread?

Numerous forum's I participate in on sports & education matters all have prohibition on text speak & the level of grammar the BC555 descended into, after a far more lucid beginning.

Gotta be honest as well, the Mary Whitehouse persona is wearing thin. You; in a very small minority; seem to have an ongoing problem with the management direction & routine moderation of the site, by recent threads & your kind offer to bring the hammer down as you see fit earlier in this one (I must have missed the vote making you the outrage spokesman for us all). If you've had a major attitude change recently, well done, but that doesn't give you the right or any justification to repeatedly try and beat the forum and everyone else into your newly puritanical & far less tolerant world view. RoadCC has a more sedate forum that may be more suited to new DDD.

DonDaddyD

justwokenup wrote:

Mary Whitehouse

Who?

justwokenup wrote:

Gotta be honest as well, the Mary Whitehouse persona is wearing thin. You; in a very small minority; seem to have an ongoing problem with the management direction & routine moderation of the site, by recent threads & your kind offer to bring the hammer down as you see fit earlier in this one (I must have missed the vote making you the outrage spokesman for us all). If you've had a major attitude change recently, well done, but that doesn't give you the right or any justification to repeatedly try and beat the forum and everyone else into your newly puritanical & far less tolerant world view. RoadCC has a more sedate forum that may be more suited to new DDD.

:roll: I don't see why any of this drivel is necessary but I'll entertain:

Opinion
o·pin·ion
   [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

+

Discuss the website with the team
Where the BikeRadar team hang out. Discuss the website and the forums here.

Apart from the fact that you may disagree with me, I fail to see what I've done wrong posting my thoughts and opinion on this issue here. The thread itself hasn't been locked and the moderators have responded. That you are for basically asking me to stop, well, who is being the spokesperson for outrage now?

Bottomline? You don't have to agree with me, that's fine. You just need to lay off unless you have something constructive to say about the actual topic being discussed.

cyclingprop

DonDaddyD wrote:

Bottomline? You don't have to agree with me, that's fine. You just need to lay off unless you have something constructive to say about the actual topic being discussed.

Erm. It was kinda related and a flip side to what you said. Something about going on and on, and not necessarily being direct. Soap-boxing if I read it correctly.

Anyway.....

You're both entitled to an opinion. If you can't at least be civil then...

DonDaddyD

cyclingprop wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Bottomline? You don't have to agree with me, that's fine. You just need to lay off unless you have something constructive to say about the actual topic being discussed.

Erm. It was kinda related and a flip side to what you said. Something about going on and on, and not necessarily being direct. Soap-boxing if I read it correctly.

Anyway.....

You're both entitled to an opinion. If you can't at least be civil then...

Bullshit. Utter and complete.

Fact is I think the pedants and by extension the forum takes too harsh a line with the its expectations on the standard of written English within each post. Sometimes, the policing of that outweighs the overall gain and the person speaking out about poor written English being used becomes the larger problem. Why? Because in their attempts to point it out they may not consider why the person's level of written English is not at a higher standard or that persons feelings as they set about correct what they have written.

Now I understand that some may disagree with this view. However, I have every right to express it and every right to respond to any post made on the issue until I am in breach of the rules.

If you or anyone else does not like my opinion then respond, but you are being entirely full of yourself if you think you can somehow corner me into not posting because you may not like the topic.

cyclingprop

I expect to be able to easily understand what someone is writing. I couldn't.

DDD in a bad mood wrote:

Bullshit. Utter and complete.

Wasn't intending you to turn on me, or even for my post to be taken personally but you appear to have. At no point did I suggest I was trying to corner you into not posting. I just suggested that civil language and behaviour might be more conducive to people taking a rational interest in the subject.


I think my friend Willy has it nailed:





If you want people to respect your opinion, then give them the courtesy of respecting theirs.

DonDaddyD

I wasn't offended. I was just responding.

BillyMansell

cyclingprop wrote:

I expect to be able to easily understand what someone is writing. I couldn't.

DDD in a bad mood wrote:

Bullshit. Utter and complete.

Wasn't intending you to turn on me, or even for my post to be taken personally but you appear to have. At no point did I suggest I was trying to corner you into not posting. I just suggested that civil language and behaviour might be more conducive to people taking a rational interest in the subject.


I think my friend Willy has it nailed:





If you want people to respect your opinion, then give them the courtesy of respecting theirs.

It's ironic that a thread entitled intolerance should descend into repeated intolerant and abusive behaviour by the OP. I doubt disabled people would want someone as a spokesperson who focuses on people's perceived weaknesses as needing special treatment from society and they certainly wouldn't want someone who paints themselves as a victim for speaking out, who cannot be concise in making their point and resorts to intolerant and abusive behaviour to make that point.

As someone who works with people with mental health, brain injury, ESL, learning disabilities and difficulties, it patronising and intolerant to suggest the rules should be rewritten just for them. It is also ignorant in the extreme to imply the forum are accepting of the abuse of the written English of anyone on the boards.

This is a diverse range of forums representing a diverse range of interests coming together under the banner of cycling but as long as forums mods ensure an appropriate level of civil discussion then forums can be the perfect environment for people with language difficulties resulting from any of the above situations. We don't know the circumstance in this situation but the decline in language suggests someone at most being bit of an arse and were modded accordingly.

DonDaddyD

I'm sorry but I don't think I was demonstrating an intollerance to what I was responding to, just that I disagreed with it. Hence the use of the phrase "bullshit, utter and complete". I was expressing my thoughts on what was written and that is not an attack of a personal nature.

I doubt disabled people would want someone as a spokesperson who focuses on people's perceived weaknesses as needing special treatment from society and they certainly wouldn't want someone who paints themselves as a victim for speaking out, who cannot be concise in making their point and resorts to intolerant and abusive behaviour to make that point.

As someone who works with people with mental health, brain injury, ESL, learning disabilities and difficulties, it patronising and intolerant to suggest the rules should be rewritten just for them. It is also ignorant in the extreme to imply the forum are accepting of the abuse of the written English of anyone on the boards.

This is a diverse range of forums representing a diverse range of interests coming together under the banner of cycling but as long as forums mods ensure an appropriate level of civil discussion then forums can be the perfect environment for people with language difficulties resulting from any of the above situations. We don't know the circumstance in this situation but the decline in language suggests someone at most being bit of an ars* and were modded accordingly.

You have your opinion and I have mine. My personal view and experience of this board is that there is an intolerance to those who lack a certain level of written English an intolerance that often sees members resorting to ridiculing those for their level of written English. The action is taken without any consideration for the other persons circumstances. In regards to the thread that I referenced I think that Rolfs post was uncalled for and warranted moderating before the OP went on to insult and be flamed.

I've seen this kind of thing happen before and wanted to point it out so that the moderators (i) consider the other persons circumstances before taking action and (ii) try to prevent it becoming an accepted subculture of the community.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe not. This is the appropriate place to raise this. That's all.

ETA: I really don't feel that I need to express personal/professional experience to justify my point and comments about my lack of being concise is just uncessary - the original post was clear, anything that follows is discussion spanning from that.

andymiller

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

There was no justified reason for it's use. As above the initial posts were mostly free of txt spk and soon degenerated into those realms. There is no sign at all of the OP portraying any personal mental/physical reason or otherwise that would hamper ability to type in legible English.

Erm:

it's = abbreviated form of 'it is'
its = possessive of it

I bet you don't like being patronised either. DDD has a point.

t.m.h.n.e.t

andymiller wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

There was no justified reason for it's use. As above the initial posts were mostly free of txt spk and soon degenerated into those realms. There is no sign at all of the OP portraying any personal mental/physical reason or otherwise that would hamper ability to type in legible English.

Erm:

it's = abbreviated form of 'it is'
its = possessive of it

I bet you don't like being patronised either. DDD has a point.

The sleepless nights I suffered before your timely arrival are now over. My worry over a misplaced apostrophe no longer the cause of nightmares. I often woke in the night,drenched in sweat,breathing heavily,fearing arrest for crimes against spelling and punctuation. Tonight I shall slumber until alarm waketh.

Thank you sir. For you have rode in and saved me from a lifetime of punctuational embarrassment,the shame I brought to my family name no longer cause for issue. I can once again,warmly embrace my parents.

You are my hero in shining bubblewrap.