<p>They’re establishing their credibility with grammar. For this argument, I think its pretty clear that mifune knows how to use grammar, and the only issue is redundancy, which in itself is not that large of problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm maybe you’re right about this. I then will step over to Alumother’s side.</p>
<p>LOLOLOL this conversation is still going on!! People stop nagging on mifune!! He has a right to write whatever way he wants and by the looks of this thread, many people including myself believe he has a very intriguing style of writing that is much better than the normal abbreviated teenage language of IDK, LOLZ, How RU.</p>
<p>^Your “intriguing style of writing” is my “choked on a thesaurus and is slowly coughing it up as a cat would a hairball” but either way it is longwinded and toolish.</p>
<p>“Gut feelings never substantiate any argument. No statements can be confirmed by merely attributing their formulation to some instinctive impulse.”</p>
<p>And therein lies proof of your youth, and resultant silliness. It’s OK. Try asking Steve Jobs if he agrees with you. Or any highly successful adult. Meaning in the world of human symbolic systems is not deterministic. Sorry.</p>
<p>Post #145 is so ridiculous that I feel no need to further respond to any of Alumother’s claims. </p>
<p>And yet, I do:</p>
<p>Please consider the following sentence, which demonstrates proper usage of “acquaintance” and is found in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In what relevant way does this usage differ from “mildly acquainted”?</p>
<p>I must confess my surprise that Alumother is able to, at once, so doggedly maintain her position on the incorrectness of the phrase and generally discount grammars.</p>
<p>I got a 770 in writing so I may not be at the level of you grammar gods, but I think redundancy is a major problem. Brad Pitt wisely stated in Ocean’s 13: “Don’t use 7 words when 4 will do.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that redundancy is problematic. I have seen nothing, however, that indicates that the phrase in question is redundant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I realize that you are not making an argument, but modifying the extent of something is not redundant. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I by no means doubt the sheer magnificence of human intuition. However, instincts should in no way serve as an unconditional substitute for - or be held in higher esteem than - a methodical rational analysis of the facts. For instance, a basic familiarity with geometrical objects would lead us to disbelieve the possibility of a figure with an infinite surface area but a finite volume or an object with an infinite length but a finite area. Yet, it’s a mathematical (albeit an absolutely counterintuitive) reality that such objects actually exist. We truly do have the ability to extract meaning from the world around us and it’s with the assistance of these symbolic languages (i.e. mathematics, language) that we are able to conceptualize and better understand such abstraction.</p>
<p>Further support:</p>
<p>Both entries are from Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to clarify: I wasn’t referring to a specific phrase, but writing style in general. I feel that mifune’s writing lacks eloquence, but he/she makes up for it via substance.</p>
<p>Reminds me of thomas jefferson’s “a MORE PERFECT union” …</p>
<p>^That’s completely different. That diction has a purpose.</p>
<p>Alumother,</p>
<p>You’re arguing with several 2400 scorers.</p>
<p>mifune, Read “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell". You will thoroughly enjoy it.</p>
<p>I already have.</p>
<p>What did you think of it?</p>
<p>cornetking… I don’t agree with Alumother either, but a 2400 doesn’t automatically guarantee that the bearer knows more about this than anyone else. (And yes, I am one.) Though I’m sure the ones from this topic do.</p>
<p>This is one tangential thread. Towards the end it’s more about pride- and pride on English grammar, of all things- more than anything else. Attacking each other on what makes good writing, and progressing towards referencing SAT Writing scores. Honestly?</p>
<p>Angela Wu’s article is obviously meant to mock. The title of this thread says it all. She wasn’t providing an in-depth analysis on the inner structure of College Confidential and how the plebians within that realm react to the actions of an Ivy League school. It was a joke, satire, whatever. She had meant to poke fun at mifune. Whether mifune took offense at it or was mature enough to let it go with no hard feelings- that’s up to him, and nobody, not Ms. Wu and not anyone else on this thread, can say otherwise except for the person in question. Just because it was meant to offend does not mean the target needs to be offended. But let’s make it clear that when someone calls someone else a “tool” they’re really not trying to offer constructive criticism.</p>
<p>I think the misunderstanding occurred when people assumed mifune was responding to the original post, when in actuality he was replying to a comment- relevant to demographics- that was made in that thread. By stealthily omitting that part, the article created some sort of misrepresentation that (mis)led people to assume that he honestly thought that Princeton was being serious. I skimmed through this part, though, so forgive me if I’m wrong. :)</p>
<p>On what makes good writing…I’ve always thought that after a certain point, this is an extremely subjective matter. It depends on whether the writer is writing for him/herself or an audience (for anyone who took the '10 Jan. SATs- remember the last CR passage?). If you want to write purely for yourself, then you’re pretty much free to write as you please. But if you’re writing with someone else in mind- such as on an Internet forum- you should be wary of how you convey your point. Why would you want to deliberately confuse your reader on this thread? The only excuse I can think of on the spot, except for maybe if someone had the sudden urge to compose a cryptic but meaningful novel here, is that someone may not be sure of themselves and want to deliberately hide that fact.</p>
<p>I’m not going to directly comment on whether mifune is a good writer or not, which seems to be the heated issue of this debate for some unfathomable reason. I admire his well-developed lexicon and impeccable grammar. He is obviously well-versed in the English language and has skill in making the reader read his sentences two or three times before fully grasping his meaning. I don’t think this is good writing. I don’t think this is bad writing. I think this is complicated writing, which, depending on the situation, can go either way.</p>
<p>I can say this because I used to be the same way. I loved harnessing difficult words in my writing and translating my thoughts in what I perceived to be an eloquent and sophisticated way. I didn’t do this to show off.</p>
<p>Okay, I kind of did, but I didn’t do it just to show off. It’s just that sometimes you can only fully express yourself in a certain way, and if you simplify it the way someone tells you to, you don’t feel like you’ve truly said what you meant to. I stopped doing this a couple of years ago because I wasn’t happy with the fact that when people come across difficult and showy pieces, they are usually more impressed with the writer’s ability to apply high-caliber vocab in writing than the writing itself. It’s perfectly okay to say something in a long-winded way, as long as you have a point. The problem is that substance tends to get obscured by flowery language, whether it exists or not.</p>
<p>When you’re writing for an audience, you don’t need to “dumb down” your writing with slang words and pop culture references. But you should take care to make sure that, regardless of whether you’re writing at a seventh-grade level or a college level, you’re making yourself clear. It’s because you want people to judge you, as a writer, for what you’re saying as well as how you’re saying it. Writing is not ranked by how many Word Smart words you can squeeze into one paragraph.</p>
<p>This is a preference more than anything else. There was a book- On Writing Well by William Zinsser, I think, where the author and a professor are lecturing on writing, and the former, in contrast to the latter, emphasizes clear, simple, and uncluttered writing. And Orwell says something similar in “Politics and the English Language.” We prefer writing that is more to-the-point. If you’re able to demonstrate your breadth of knowledge in a simple, uncluttered sentence- well, that’s a skill as worthy as the ability memorize 15,000 words and know how to use them.</p>
<p>I also have a 2400 and am the resident grammar Nazi of my class. I don’t like myself too much for it, personally. I really don’t want to be the kind of person who judges whether someone’s argument is worth considering or not based on the absence of spelling and grammar mistakes in their post. I’m afraid that this may be where this thread is heading.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly; despite reiterating the fact that I had merely begun a conversation with a different member during the original thread, individuals still seemed to be confused. As you correctly state, the omission was simply completed for the sake of comical effect by representing the comment as if it were a direct response to the initial focus of the discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it had appeared that this thread would warrant no further discussion, but it was just revived today after an eleven-day break.</p>