<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. actually the only well-thought analogy on this entire thread.</p>
<p>LuciaB, “more better” was ironic. Shakespeare is old fictional poetry. Mifune is trying to write modern non-fiction prose. What do you kids read these days?</p>
<p>Haha yeah I saw that irony. It’s because they said you should use english incorrectly. And then they did. It was amusing. Personally, I dislike incorrect grammar (it bugs me!), but it was kinda funny.</p>
<p>LuciaB do you know Mifune personally? Unless you know his true personality then you cannot possibly defend his character? </p>
<p>& If you kept reading you would have seen that I was talking about the paradigm that people like him dont have friends. I know that he is in high school and I was not disclaiming that at all. Thanks for allowing me to clarify myself:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is absolutely nothing grammatically wrong with “mildly acquainted” or “I am not alien to.” If you Google the former, it is not some new English that I dreamed up. “Alien to” is an idiomatically correct expression and was actually used in a well-known quote during the Frankfurter-Roosevelt correspondence.
</p>
<p>No, actually that is not what I did whatsoever. Briefly outlining the numerous influences that lead to application increases in the absence of increasing high school graduation rates (a legitimate academic topic worthy of discussion) is not analogically comparable to chickens crossing the road and migratory behaviors. Yet again, the fact that my post was juxtaposed alongside comments that were irrelevant to my own continues to lead to its misinterpretation. It was simply spun for comical effect, which would have been absolutely fine if I was one of the individuals who had originally “fallen” for the joke. In that instance, a scoff at my ignorance would have been fully warranted. But that was not the case. I even placed my response within the context of the comment that was directed towards me (in post #37 of this thread), but that was completely ignored.</p>
<p>But I do uphold that many seemingly simple questions can comparably fit with that analogy. For instance, if someone were to randomly ask you why the sky is blue, you honestly could not provide a reasonable, cogent, and accurate response without discussing the Rayleigh scattering of electromagnetic radiation by the Earth’s nitrogen and oxygen molecules towards the “blue” portion on the electromagnetic spectrum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering that I have attended three high schools in my two-and-one-half years of high school, I do have a fair number of friends at my current school and acquaintances with whom I still keep close contact. Most of my discussions at school involve political issues and academics rather than topics that are more commonplace among individuals our age. There is a definite stereotype of teenagers today as greatly displaced from the virtues of academics and hard work, but that does not hold true for every individual. Moreover, I do not believe in the irrational generalization that those who choose to be more assertive when they are wrongly represented are automatically friendless individuals. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My writing is nowhere near the level of many academics, but I cannot adequately respond to this segment of your post regarding comparisons in reading difficulty since I do not have access to these articles. But to generalize this argument, the difficulty of reading some pieces is completely individual specific.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It simply appears that we have different conceptions of the threshold at which writing becomes deliberately designed to impress other individuals and writing that actually fulfills its rhetorical duty. Frankly, I do not believe that one can make a firm binary distinction between high-quality writing on academic topics and writing that may appear somewhat esoteric. Nor do I believe that all confusion can be attributed to a “writer” problem anymore than it can be accredited to a “reader” problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think your perceptions of my own character are relatively baseless since you likely have not read a representative sample of my posts in more neutral threads and do not know me personally. However, when individuals misinterpreted my post as it was represented in The Ink and another member used this misconception to degrade my personal character, I think anyone would have the right to be slightly miffed and freely express his or her feelings.</p>
<p>When I asked if you have alot of friends I was not referring to your assertiveness (I didnt see you being assertive). I am making this assumption from the way you write- You sound like someone who keeps to yourself and your vocabulary use reminds me of someone who would rather sit in the house and do something academic rather than be social.</p>
<p>N.B. I am not saying that being popular or socially should have precedence over your academics, however, balance is the key.</p>
<p>Mifune I do not know you so there is no way that I can judge you. This is just like when a student is applying to college- an admissions officer’s sole basis of the applicant’s personality is his/her’s essay (writing). </p>
<p>& back to the “Why did the chicken cross the road” thing. You answered a joke with an analysis. Just like you did with the Princeton joke. I dont think you have much of a sense of humor and the bad part is- you dont see it:(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that you should have stopped with the first of these three points.</p>
<p>@IB: you still seem to be confused. He was not responding to the joke with an analysis- he had begun a conversation with someone else in the thread, and his post was taken out of context. </p>
<p>I got a laugh out of the article, but I can’t believe the bickering has lasted this long. Mifune has made it clear that he is not writing to impress anyone, and though he does appear pretentious at times, it isn’t really the responsibility of the CC community to attack someone that writes in this manner.</p>
<p>silverturtle’s right. your whole post is an assumption and based on the small talk chatter with mifune over PM, your assumptions don’t explain him at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>gah! nobody gets what mifune has said about this. he replied to something different from the joke article.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, but does anyone see the irony that his posts get longer as people seem to annoy him more?</p>
<p>^by golly, someone has got it right! (Vince011 i mean)</p>
<p>To silverturtle, Vince011, and LuciaB, I sincerely appreciate your support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assumptions are not the most intellectually rigorous line of reasoning. Consequently, your entire argument is based on a deceptive assumption and is completely the opposite of how I would personally describe myself. One may be able to infer another’s process of thought through the Internet, but no one can properly label personal features or identity. Forming assumptions or placing individuals into preordained stereotypes in face-to-face interactions is bad enough. Choosing to do this over the Internet is even worse. This is particularly true when considering a very narrow selection of personal responses. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me restate for the final time the context of my post that has caused the bulk of this discussion. In spite of previous mention, if this still does not eliminate any remaining confusion, nothing will:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. There is absolutely no feasible method of truly judging anyone’s proper character nor is it anyone’s responsibility to make such impracticable characterizations of any individual, such as the ones that you make against me. Essentially, we are all here to exchange and absorb ideas through a vigorous form of public discourse. But at the most fundamental level, we are all anonymous strangers to each other on a public message board. With this, there is very little merit left to this discussion.</p>
<p>OMG what is with the internet fights</p>
<p>Mifune, not grammatically wrong but inferentially wrong. Idiomatically wrong. If you are going to break convention, you have to do it precisely. “Mildly acquainted?” Think of the word “mild.” What does it actually mean? You are conflating the idiomatic, “Mildly interested,”, etc. with “barely acquainted”. Think about “acquainted”. People don’t get passionately acquainted. So “mildly” makes no sense. And using it incorrectly doesn’t add anything to the richness of your language, as good incorrect usages can do in the hands of experienced writers.</p>
<p>I am, in fact, correct here. If you listen to me your writing will be improved and this will help you in your college application process.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t think of making any statement about your character. All I can see here is your writing. Besides, you’re a kid. And I give kids the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>Alumother just f***ing schooled mifune in grammar.</p>
<p>randombetch: you really are a bad-intentioned moron. * she isnt even talking about grammar!! * shes trying to make some note about idiomatic language. </p>
<p>there is nothing wrong with “mildly acquainted.” sure, your exaple “passionately acquainted” sounds weird and really wouldnt make sense in any context. but “mildly acquainted” simply means that he is familiar with something but not an expert. “not alien to” is fine as well. he didnt make up some new language rule as he said. i did the Google search for it and its used in some articles by academicians. maybe you can try and explain that same petty thing to them and see how they respond?</p>
<p>[mildly</a> acquainted - Google Search](<a href=“mildly acquainted]mildly - Google Search”>mildly acquainted - Google Search)</p>
<p>id·i·om (d-m)
n.
- A speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on.</p>
<p>Proper idiom usage is a subset of proper grammar. Thanks.</p>
<p>But if we want to get really technical, the misuse of absolute modifiers is a grammatical issue. Saying something is “more equal,” or “less unique” is grammatically wrong.</p>
<p>Here ya go:
<a href=“http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000269.htm[/url]”>http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000269.htm</a></p>
<p>here is the way that I believe Alumother and I are referring to idioms (from Microsoft Word): “the way of using a language that comes naturally to its native speakers.” Alumother even said that she’s not referring to grammar in the regular sense. but the thing that we dont need is people nitpicking each others grammar. no one’s grammar is perfect - not mine, yours or anyones. and we especially dont need your vulgar language (f-word, dou…-word) on this website.</p>
<p>On behalf of Mifune, I’d like to submit to CC for immediate passage:</p>
<p>The Nonobfuscation Act for Eliminating Redundancy and Promoting Clarity and Also Brevity and Coherence of Clauses Act of 2010</p>
<p>Findings
- Whereas legislation passed in this chamber, pursuant to all proper parliamentary procedures mandated by the Constitution of this sublime, excellent, honorable, glorious, and so forth internet web page has hitherto been so thoroughly mired in convoluted expressions that the intent of the aforementioned legislation is lost in convolution and redundancy such that no reasonable person of normal levels of cognition reading said legislation can comprehend it,</p>
<p>2) Seeing that the semicolon and hyphen are tied in the (of course figurative) greatest punctuation mark of all time competition, followed by the parentheses, the comma, and the regular colon,
(a) The period being the most odious and repulsive of all punctuation marks,</p>
<p>3) Remembering that we unnecessarily invested a considerable sum of time memorizing words not in common use for the test that shall not be named, known commonly as the SAT, and that in the absence of an appropriate forum to demonstrate this decidedly trivial knowledge, that it is nevertheless of the utmost important that all expressions are phrased cogently and concisely so as to allow them to be understood by even the lowest common denominator (known in my algebra class as the LCD, but that being non-germane to the discussion here and entirely in the domain of another bill),</p>
<p>BE IT ENACTED THAT:
- All bills enacted on this sublime, excellent, honorable, glorious, and so forth internet web page shall be so expressed, pursuant to the above, Finding A, in a manner readily accessible to the plebeian peon peasantry so inclined to baser manners of expression that they are rendered incapable of understanding the sort of language that has hitherto been customarily expressed in the procedures of this chamber (which is, in this sponsor’s opinion, not supercilious at all but eloquent) and that, as the only viable alternative, all future expressions shall be made of fragments, acronyms, and memes, for there is certainly no sort of “middle style” or middle-high that would be both a sufficiently flexible vehicle for communication and universally comprehensible,</p>
<p>2) No redundant clauses shall be added,</p>
<p>3) No clauses already in the bill shall be included in the bill again,</p>
<p>4) No esoteric references to other bills shall be made within a bill, pursuant to Title IV, Section 6, Subsection A, Clause 5, Sub-clause c, Line 14-21,</p>
<p>5) There shall not be a clearly excessive quantity of subclauses,
a) No exceptions shall be made to this provision,
i) This does not include the exception in Title XI, Section 12, Subsection C, Clause 13, Sub-clause r, Lines 15-36,
ii) This shall also exclude excessive quotations of the matter that is being addressed,
b) Nobody shall be immunized from this provision,
i) This being because everyone should know that it is not okay to have too many subclauses,
ii) Yes, that includes you,</p>
<p>and,</p>
<p>6) No one shall mock or otherwise belittle this bill, for that would demonstrate a level of impropriety unsuitable to the dignity of this chamber.</p>
<p>Rofl .</p>
<p>LuciaB - you lost.</p>