It's like SAT scores and college admissions... less black people go to elite institutions, but the problem isn't racist elite institutions, it starts much, much earlier when black kids come to school with a language gap. And the language gap begins with income inequality. The problems are deep and they aren't easily resolved, and just looking at the end result isn't going to solve anything.

Oh, boy! Income inequality! Squee!

That's crap. You're going to get into an inescapable which-came-first if you try that, AND it's a fallacy: a disdain for learning leads to entrenched stupidity in a culture, NOT poverty.

The school is there, but it's racist to insist that some attend.

Meanwhile, few care about how this works. They only care about what they can get.

Recent history repeats itself.

"Who is killing these black victims? Not whites, and not the police, but other blacks. In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The Post categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest. Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer. Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers—committed vastly and disproportionately by black males."

There is a madness at hand when the putative victims blame police for their commission of a crime.

Sure. Let's blame "whitey". For what criminals do.

BLM isn't attempting to forward a reasoned argument. They're just trying to bring down the 'system'. That's the intent of their entire platform - you don't need to 'dissolve the family' and 'denormalize heteronormativity' to address police shootings and the incarceration of black men, for example.

What Coleman should be analyzing is why BLM has received over 100MM in corporate and NGO financing and why people are being purged from public life for questioning BLM's agenda. And why is the media presenting a false narrative about the organization when it's never been regarded as a credible representative of Black Americans by Black Americans. Truth is, BLM is a proxy for white Progressives that poses as a Black civil rights org.

When I went to Boston for half a year for my husband's job, I wanted to join BLM. The survey you had to fill out had very little to do with racism. It was all questions about how one felt about transgenderism.

Found that rather odd.

Just checked and they seem to have a simpler form now.

Do you disagree that income inequality causes learning inequality?

Do you disagree that income inequality causes learning inequality? ~ NicoleK at June 18, 2020 6:31 AM

Is it really income inequality or is it related to effort - i.e., getting the kids a library card, pushing education, etc.

Agreed, Conan. Learning and a culture shift would go a long way toward fixing income inequality. People can be responsible for themselves.

If you only focus on fixing income inequality (i.e., entitlement programs) you allow no room for people to have incentive to better their own lives through hard work.

I was one year younger than Trayvon Martin when he was killed in 2012, and like many black men, I felt like he could have been me.

Don't assault people without cause, and Trayvon Martin won't be you.

Yes, Nicole, I disagree. It’s the other way around. And you can’t fix either without changing culture. Some public school reform wouldn’t hurt, either.

As Martin said above: "BLM isn't attempting to forward a reasoned argument. They're just trying to bring down the 'system'. That's the intent of their entire platform - you don't need to 'dissolve the family' and 'denormalize heteronormativity' to address police shootings and the incarceration of black men, for example."

Indeed. As Alinsky said, "The issue is never the issue." The issue is just today's method to stoke anger and unrest and thereby take power. He said that outright. That's why no matter how much wonderful progress is made and how many demands are actually met (i.e., gay marriage and widespread agreement that transpersons should have all basic civil rights), the Usual Suspects are more furious and driven than ever. They already have the next "issue" in the barrel, to be fired into the maddened crowd.

The issue is never the issue, the issue is power.

NicoleK asked: "Do you disagree that income inequality causes learning inequality?"

Those are overly-loaded terms that have the potential for endless study and discussion. If by income inequality in the US today you mean the typical socialistic concept that great wealth is by definition obscene and that simply having wide disparities alone results in terrible outcomes, then I would not agree.

I would definitely agree that poverty is an obstacle, potentially a huge one. I was raised in the inner city by a single mom who struggled to pay the bills, but she was very conscientious and instilled discipline; not every kid has that. I would also agree that the very-well-off create extraordinary opportunities for extra achievement for their kids, with constant tutoring and enrichment. We ran into that ourselves with our now twenty-something kids as far as college; they couldn't write an essay on how they had spent their summers in Costa Rica protecting the rain forest, the way the kids whose parents were well into the upper middle/rich class could.

Basically what the article is saying is that the data shows institutionalized racism is a lie. The author has had it so drilled into him that it is huge, that even with being presented the truth, he can't fully register it.
Why is that? the Media and politicians have been pushing it for generations. Any of us could name a dozen black men killed, because we have heard them constantly on all channels. But many believe no whites are ever killed, and many believe blacks commit less crimes, because thats what you see in the media.
It's the media lie that needs to change.

"Do you disagree that income inequality causes learning inequality?"

Of course, and I consider it somewhat daft to say that, first because an education for me doesn't depend on your not being filthy rich.

Walmart isn't making you stupid by making Walton billionaires.

So it isn't income inequality - code for "you make too much money, so I'm gonna vote some of it to me" - that causes this. It's a culture that insists its success depends on someone else.

Second, education is free in the USA - to the students. Its enormous burden is supported by property taxes in the creaking, soon-to-fail idea that the umbrella of prosperity is supported by an educated populace - one that increasingly sees no merit in DOING when it could be GETTING, instead. You can see a lot of WHY public schools are failing here, where culture interferes in everything to do with prosperity.

Fortune magazine reports a study that rates American "millennials" as the least-skilled generation ever tested - and those are hardly poor.

Third, dozens of studies have shown there's no link between funding per student and any measurement of achievement.

So, nope. Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Mark Cuban... not an impediment at all. In a properly competitive environment, rather than the victimhood sweepstakes we seem to be running today, they'd be role models. Hustlers are telling you to hate them by pointing at what they have - while deriding them for providing something that millions of people use.

Some claim that school discipline is discriminatory. It is: those who have it will come to rule those who do not, but this is so unpleasant it is shunned.

Facts are racist!

Why did my Catholic grammar school produce high academic achievement when there were 60 students in a classroom, while public school teachers whine about 30 students in a class?

Discipline and high expectations.

> Do you disagree that income
> inequality causes learning
> inequality?

I will… I'll disagree.

People of lower intelligence don't earn as much.

Intelligence is among the most heritable of behavioral traits: This is beyond contention. Many scientists say it's THE most heritable.

If you aren't easily taught, your kids probably won't be either… Especially as they age, because our genetic characteristics are expressed more strongly as we age. Gains from intensely-focused education fade quite rapidly with time and are invisible to testing within short years.

So, yeah, if parents don't learn & earn very much, their kids often won't learn & earn very much.

Know these three things:

1. Correlation is not causation.

2. Correlation is not causation.

3. Correlation is not causation.

Ought to have said:

Gains from intensely-focused education of children fade rapidly and are invisible to testing within short years.

> it starts much, much earlier when
> black kids come to school with a
> language gap. And the language gap
> begins with income inequality.

"Gap" of what "language"? And how is it caused by income inequality?

Are you saying money makes language more accessible?

Do you disagree that income inequality causes learning inequality? ~ NicoleK at June 18, 2020 6:31 AM
--------------
Nope.
Germans, Jews, and Italians have been followed by Koreans, Chinese, Indians, Pakis, Nigerians, Jamaicans.

Working their butts off.
Not having kids out of wedlock.
Prioritizing school - for themselves, and pushing their kids into the best, specialized schools that even the worst urban school system has. Or paying for parochial school.

From rice paddy, to business/trade, to university grad professional in 2-3 generations.

Notice that many of these groups are much more "other" - physically and culturally - than American blacks.

Other groups with different *values* and *behaviors* - including Irish, Poles, Hispanics, and other "whites" - have not entered the professions in the same numbers, although they have certainly succeeded in the US.

A generation ago I got an engineering degree in New York's City University system. NY state residents paid under 1000 dollars per semester.

I was a bit of a throwback - my parent's generation of Jews had already passed through CUNY/SUNY college systems, and my peers were already going to Ivy League schools.

My classes were filled with Chinese, Indians, Greeks, Nigerians, Kenyans, and Senegalese.

We began to notice that the "African Africans" always joined the white/asian students when we worked in labs. They never worked with the "African Americans".

Why?

"I live with 6 other Senegalese guys in an apartment in Brooklyn. I am working 2 jobs and sending money home while I go to college. I do my homework while working nights as a guard at the reception desk of office buildings in Manhattan... the American blacks are lazy. They have been taught to blame everyone else and ask for handouts. Why should I want to work with them?"

That guy got recruited by Pratt and Whitney.

The manager they sent to interview us was an Italian-American alumnus who had come up the same way... and looked at my immigrant classmates with not a drop of prejudice. One of the most repellent aspects of the victimhood culture is the badmouthing of decent Americans in order to create demons.

Same stories - and opportunities - available in almost every state of the Union.

...including Irish, Poles, Hispanics, and other "whites" - have not entered the professions in the same numbers, although they have certainly succeeded in the US. ~ Ben David at June 18, 2020 9:51 AM

Part of that stems from the debate about whether equality can be better achieved through acquiring political power first, then economic power or economic power first.

Following emancipation, Booker T. Washington argued that economic power should be prioritized and established the Tuskegee Institute. WEB Dubois argued in favor of political power and became a socialist. Time has proven Washington correct.

The Irish chose to pursue political power first and are still struggling to achieve economic equality. Jews and Asians chose to pursue economic power first and are killing it, although both groups are lagging in political influence. Former slaves followed the Dubois preference for pursuing political power and have lagged in economic equality.

According to an old op-ed - 1990s, maybe - when it comes to getting kids to read as a LEISURE activity, the real heavy lifting, for teachers, lies in convincing PARENTS that reading aloud to children can be fun. Obviously, parents shouldn't have to choose the children's books that they despise, when they go to the library, but plenty of parents don't even read to themselves. Unlike what the late Professor Harold Bloom seemed to think, parents like that existed even long before TV became common, so one can't blame teachers for resorting to pulp fiction like Harry Potter to get kids to read more than their parents do.

Not to mention that even parents who expect their kids to go,to college don't necessarily admire well-read people, or even hard-working nurses, over athletes and other useless celebrities - and kids sense that. They also sense it when parents value useless hobbies over useful activities in general. So one could argue that it's just as much an American problem as it is a class or race problem.

Time has proven Washington correct.

Indeed. One may be able to buy political power, or at least entry and influence.

Gains from intensely-focused education of children fade rapidly and are invisible to testing within short years.

Indeed. I want to say that one's gains in a pre-K environment evaporate by no later than 3rd grade when your non pre-K peer catch up.

Lenona. For some reason my copy paste function is failing on my IPad.

Please define”well read” Also I would be interested in what you define as a “useless hobby”
What is wrong exactly with entertaining yourself with things you might find interesting, maybe more interesting than reading and quoting Miss Manners?

Does comparing yourself to these less book involved people make you feel culturally superior?

Are crossword puzzles more worthy than bowling or tennis? If so, why?

I admire those who study foreign languages in their spare time, but don’t feel that makes them (or me) superior to, or more useful than a plumber or an electrician.

I find Harry Potter quite charming and considerably better than more critically praised works at teaching life lessons that are universal.
Why the derision? Pure snobbery or something else?

Crid, it has been observed that kids from lower socio-economic classes have lower vocabularies beginning in preschool.

Your guess is as good as anyone's as to why.

Possible explanations? Maybe:

Wealthy parents talk to their kids more, or hire people to talk to them more?
Wealthy parents have wider vocabularies and use the words?
poorer kids are left in playpens or otherwise alone longer?
Poorer kids have more screen time?
Whatever factor makes the parents poor makes the kids have lower vocabularies?

... feel free to add your own guesses.

My guess Nicole? Smarter people who read tend to develop larger vocabularies.

Reading and general intelligence is not something large numbers of people have much of an aptitude for.

In fact the verbal skills in general favor girls with higher than average IQs.

> Your guess is as good as
> anyone's as to why.

I think mine are better, and they ain't guesses, and they ain't mine.

> [Maybe] Wealthy parents talk to
> their kids more

There was a study about this a few years ago, suggesting that children of postgrads had, by enrollment in kindergarten, heard Xty-hunnert-thousand more words than the children of un-degree'd. It was a stunning finding, and flattering to a lot of people's presumptions. I almost certainly linked it here in Amy's?

A few years later the research was soundly invalidated. You won't get ghetto kids into Harvard by playing NPR in the bassinet.

> Whatever factor makes the parents
> poor makes the kids have lower
> vocabularies?

Bingo. Dingdingding

You won't get ghetto kids into Harvard by playing NPR in the bassinet. ~ Crid at June 18, 2020 12:49 PM

Not by that alone.

You won't get ghetto kids into Harvard by playing NPR in the bassinet. ~ Crid at June 18, 2020 12:49 PM
Not by that alone.

Conan the Grammarian at June 18, 2020 12:58 PM

These days I’m not sure exactly sure how you get into Harvard.
Seems like being a media jackass helps, and you had better not be a high achieving Asian American.

> Whatever factor makes the parents
> poor makes the kids have lower
> vocabularies?

Indirectly calls to mind a joke from radio Loveline, in which a comedian and an MD gave advice to troubled teens. There's the same oblivious vibe....

Carolla noticed that when he asked kids what they were doing with their lives, a particularly troubling response was itself another question: "Right now? You mean right now?"

Because when prompted again with "Yeah, right now," the answer was never "I've just made partner at the firm, so after my sweetheart finishes her residency, she and I are going to spend summer vacation up in the mountains stripping and staining the floors on our new weekend getaway cabin."

Poor parents aren't smart. They don't read for pleasure. They don't move in circles where people have books in their living rooms (or on little-used staircases, on in dusty cartons in a closet.)

And yet— Even American conservatives, including many in these blog comments, have bought into the fiction that education is the problem.

It's an unbelievably expensive pattern of hand-washing, and it's been roaring along for decades.

In every case, it is the media that decide which story to showcase. They focused on the Michael Brown case and emphasized the lie "Hands up" when he was actually a dangerous thug trying to kill the officer. The result was riots and people died. The media repeat the lie that blacks are killed more by police. It is the media.

This discussion reminds me of Ben Carson's life story. He grew up in a poor, single-parent household in Boston and Detroit.

His mother had been married at 13 to a 28 year old minister who was still married. After being separated from her bigamist husband, she made multiple suicide attempts, and was hospitalized several times for depression. She worked two jobs, one of them as a maid to support her two boys.

In school, the boys had poor grades and behavioral problems. She was at a loss to fix the problems she saw in her family.

Gradually, she realized that the houses she cleaned, owned by middle class and upper middle class professionals, had something it them that her house lacked. It wasn't expensive furniture or fancy electronics; the item that caught her eye was books. She also noticed these folks did not spend all day watching television.

She came home and told her boys that she would take them to the library once a week, that they were going to read two books a week and give her book reports on them. She also limited their television time.

Carson said that at first he did the minimum for his reports just to keep his mother off his back. Gradually, however, he started checking out more than the required amount of books and reading for fun; his brother, too. For his 13th birthday, his brother bought him a subscription to Psychology Today.

Their discipline problems faded and their grades improved. Both went to college. Ben went on to medical school, later becoming the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a professor of Neurosurgery, Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. His brother became a mechanical engineer.

And, to think, it all began when their mother noticed that "rich" people have books. The amazing thing was the their mother was functionally illiterate. She could not read the reports her sons prepared for her every week.

I believe in testing! Thorough, repeated testing of poor and minority populations almost always identifies a set of untutored geniuses who deserve the best, and often most costly, educational intervention to make their talents available—

Because once they have that diploma, every corporation in the country will be trying to recruit them. Taxes are levied and paid, and everybody wins.

Everybody, everybody wants brains. But we can't create them just by spending money on education… Not at ANY intellectual or socioeconomic tier.

Smarter people who read tend to develop larger vocabularies.

The one thing parents can do for their children is to read to them. It gets the youngin's exposed to reading, and words, and eventually concepts.

If you can read, then you can educate yourself.

Please define”well read”
_________________________________

When someone outside your circle of family and friends calls you that. Or, maybe, a teacher of yours who isn't that fond of you but who doesn't fail to give praise when it's due.

(Also, as writer/curmudgeon Jon Winokur once said, in effect, you're only a writer or a curmudgeon when someone else calls you one. As in, someone whose opinion really matters, even when the curmudgeonly qualities cause the person to lose potential fans. Miss Manners certainly qualifies. Like Isaac Newton's writing habits, her writing style deliberately drives away people who don't really know what they're trying to argue about.)
__________________________________

Also I would be interested in what you define as a “useless hobby”
__________________________________

From a parental point of view, that often - but not always - means anything that costs money instead of saving it or earning it, or keeps the kid from getting exercise, or something that's not likely to help the kid get a good education or a good job. Hint: very few adults can make a living from playing video games, and computers are so user-friendly now that even Third World adults can learn to use computers in no time, so kids do NOT need to spend hours every day using them. So, even to a CF adult like myself, video games would be one example. The sad fact is that the more addictive something is, the more likely it is to be bad for you in one way or another. Plus, time is money, and you never know when you're suddenly going to need extra money.

In all fairness, though, before TV became common in the late 1950s, kids who spent a lot of time reading were often seen as lazy. As in: "why aren't those kids babysitting, mowing their neighbors' lawns or working on paper routes, instead?" But, of course, that was also before all middle class parents started expecting their kids to go to college. People who never learned to like reading probably wouldn't gain much from college - and women who don't go to college typically don't earn that much. On top of that, of course parents of sons want them to keep all their options open - and not think that the only "manly" pursuits are the ones that exclude women, so they have to keep looking for ways to convince boys to read. (A century ago, it was normal for parents to ignore a daughter's grades and/or discourage her from going to college.)
____________________________________

What is wrong exactly with entertaining yourself with things you might find interesting, maybe more interesting than reading and quoting Miss Manners?
____________________________________

Just so you know, one reason I consider her column a useful hobby is that if everyone took manners seriously, everyone would be spending a helluva lot less time and money on lawsuits - AND we'd have more peace and fewer murders. So I like to spread the word that she's still around. (But, one could easily argue that posting on blogs, in general, is pretty wasteful.)

Yes, we're all entitled to a certain amount of purely selfish activity. But it's bound to lead to resentment when a sibling, a spouse or a co-worker clearly doesn't care about the team goals, only grudgingly does the minimal share of work, and regularly blows large amounts of time or money that could have gone toward the team goals instead. When such people have children, how is that hedonistic role model a good example for the kids? Why do we expect kids to study when so many parents only worship people who - largely through luck - become famous enough to retire at 40?
______________________________________

Are crossword puzzles more worthy than bowling or tennis? If so, why?
____________________________________

Haven't you heard that crossword puzzles can *help* fend off Alzheimer's? By contrast, last I heard, bowling doesn't do that much even for your physical health - and the beer and fast food at bowling alleys don't help. Tennis CAN be good for your health, of course, and it's sociable - but it's also hard on the knees.

However, I don't do many crosswords, because then I'd have to pay for the newspapers. But I have the impression many people would rather die of almost any other disease than Alzheimer's.
_______________________________

I admire those who study foreign languages in their spare time, but don’t feel that makes them (or me) superior to, or more useful than a plumber or an electrician.
________________________________

See what I said in my last post, about nurses. Not to mention all the other essential workers who still have jobs right now.

My point was clearly that even parents who supposedly value education and/OR a strong work ethic don't necessarily value those things in other people or their own children; they just want their kids to have the superficial trappings, so they can brag to the neighbors. Much like the parents in the college scandal, before they got caught. Or like those parents who push and overschedule their kids to the point where the kids say things like "why would I read a book if I didn't have to?" Pseudo-intellectuals, in other words.

And as for Harry Potter, I enjoyed the books too, up until I finished #4, when it became clear that JKR was running out of ideas - AND becoming painfully purple and lurid. Length (as in, 800 pages) is no substitute for depth, and the characters very much lack depth. JKR once asked, in puzzlement, "why do people love Snape," since he was based on a teacher she'd hated, more or less. I'd say it's because he was almost the only character who had any consistent depth or mystery.

Any kid who can read an 800-page book without adult help can also read a 100-page book with more depth AND subtlety, and there lies the fork in the road.

Can't publish a comment testing testing

More deets about what Nic presumably means by "language gap"—

City Journal—

In their 1995 book, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children, researchers Betty Hart and Todd Risley quantified a language deficit in young children from welfare families so vast that it’s hard to conceive how even the best preschool might erase it. By age three, the authors found, children from families headed by parents who were professionals had heard, on average, over 8 million more words than children from welfare families. The kids themselves had spoken over 4 million more words than the welfare children. The oral vocabularies of the professional-family kids exceeded those not just of the children but of the parents of the welfare families. This astonishing language gap has grim consequences: follow-up studies showed that it correlates closely with large deficits in vocabulary and reading ability at age nine—which, in turn, correlate with large deficits in the reading ability, and consequent prosperity, of adults.

Alas (Various)—

Reexamining the Verbal Environments of Children From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds
Douglas E Sperry 1, Linda L Sperry 2, Peggy J Miller 3

Amid growing controversy about the oft-cited "30-million-word gap," this investigation uses language data from five American communities across the socioeconomic spectrum to test, for the first time, Hart and Risley's (1995) claim that poor children hear 30 million fewer words than their middle-class counterparts during the early years of life. The five studies combined ethnographic fieldwork with longitudinal home observations of 42 children (18-48 months) interacting with family members in everyday life contexts. Results do not support Hart and Risley's claim, reveal substantial variation in vocabulary environments within each socioeconomic stratum, and suggest that definitions of verbal environments that exclude multiple caregivers and bystander talk disproportionately underestimate the number of words to which low-income children are exposed. © 2018 Society for Research in Child Development.

SUMMARY: In a longitudinal follow up study of Hart and Risley 2003, researchers observed caregiver-child language interactions among 42 families of varying socioeconomic status (SES). Unlike the 2003 publication, which suggested that children from low SES backgrounds are exposed to 30 million less words by age 3 than their high SES peers, the team failed to replicate a disparity between SES groups. Sperry, Sperry, and Miller suggest a prescriptive definition of a child’s “verbal environment”, as employed in the Hart and Risley study, may bias results by discounting dialects or modes of communication that stray from that of Standard American English.

Let's not kid ourselves about what we're up against, whatever ethnicity we're talking about.

Also, when it becomes common for students to whine "why do we have to read anything that takes more than one day to finish," that's pretty much like whining "why do we have to learn math when we have calculators?" Kids over ten should realize that saying such things out loud is highly ignorant - but too many don't realize that.

The answer? You don't want to get swindled, and if you can't read, figure, or concentrate above an eighth-grade level, you likely WILL get swindled, in life, whether by people in your neighborhood - or clever politicians who actually paid attention in school.

Also, as Richard Dawkins pointed out, even being an atheist doesn't absolve you from learning dozens of Bible stories and sayings - refusing to read them would be like refusing to learn a language that half the world speaks and how half the world operates, though he didn't phrase it that way.

Any kid who can read an 800-page book without adult help can also read a 100-page book with more depth AND subtlety, and there lies the fork in the road.

Lenona at June 18, 2020 3:25 PM

No, it doesn’t. A lot of your comments are very judgmental about other people’s wants and priorities. I find that parents in general want what is best for their kids, Often times that may not be what you personally value in reading material or anything else. But I darn sure don’t want to live in a country where you can substitute your judgement for theirs.

You aren’t a better person because you are reading Beowulf instead of Harry Potter or because you are a librarian instead of a delivery man.

There are many reasons to read, and a lot more people do it for pleasure than to elevate themselves.

“Haven't you heard that crossword puzzles can *help* fend off Alzheimer's? By contrast, last I heard, bowling doesn't do that much even for your physical health - and the beer and fast food at bowling alleys don't help. Tennis CAN be good for your health, of course, and it's sociable - but it's also hard on the knees.”

Shit, you sound more like a female version of Artemis everyday.

Lenona, we can all recognize the trade offs and do what we want to do.

There is no perfect exercise, and no perfect reading material.

And bowling does not necessarily involve greasy food and beer. Next, are you going to be telling me that no libraries should be located within walking distance of a fast food restaurant because you might be reading, and gasp, drinking a soda?

Exercise prevents osteoporosis. Do you get *any* other than picking nits on Internet comment sections?

Not to mention that probably the most important lesson to learn in school is that most of the truly important pursuits in life are not easy or inherently entertaining, so if you keep trying to escape that fact, you're just going to make yourself very unhappy in the long run - or, at least, find yourself in deep credit card debt. The solution, when you're a student, is to use your imagination and turn the more boring subjects into a game, as best you can, since it's not fair to expect the teacher to make any subject interesting to EVERY student in the class.

No, it doesn't.
_______________________________

What makes you so sure?

Just because teachers aren't necessarily allowed to criticize students who CHOOSE to read only books five years below their grade level doesn't mean the students are doing themselves any good. As I mentioned elsewhere, about 40 years ago, teachers used to use the term "lazy reader" in private, but nowadays even teens who pick up any book without pictures in it expect to have teachers bow to them in adulation. Talk about being spoiled.
___________________________________

You aren’t a better person because you are reading Beowulf instead of Harry Potter
___________________________________

But you're likely less lazy. And less of a sheep.
___________________________________

or because you are a librarian instead of a delivery man.
__________________________________

Duh, why do you think librarians have less work to do right now than delivery men do? Of course delivery men are essential. Apples and oranges - in this particular case.

You're dancing around what I keep pointing out - that it's pretty much an AMERICAN fault, regardless of race or class, for parents to value style over substance. Even bad style, like pseudo-intellectualism. Or being famous just for being famous. (Not that fame like that is useless if used selflessly - but since it tends to be fleeting, it seldom is.)

At the same time, there's a saying that should be used with caution. The saying is "it's what you learn that matters, not what grades you get."

That's only useful if you're addressing someone who got an A. Not someone who got a D. How many D-students learned anything in that subject, after all? (Whereas many A-students cheated because they had the sort of parents I mentioned above.)

Forgot to mention someone.

There's a man who, when almost 50, groused that youngish adults often say things like "how should I know about (some major event in world history), I wasn't even born!" He added that when chatting even with very bright adults in their 20s, they'll often reveal an ignorance of one sort or another that make him want to shout "I can't believe they let you out of school not knowing that!"

I thought: "oh, so that's why you only date women that age."

His name?

Bill Maher.

I've mentioned before that I'm not one to sing his praises, even when I agree with him, because his public image is immaturity on a level that even George Carlin's never was. But I have to wonder just how much of it is real and how much he puts on just to hold on to younger viewers. On the one hand, on page 168 of his 2005 book, "New Rules," you have this:

"Stop giving awards to movies just because they're long. It only encourages them. While I was watching The Hours, my popcorn actually grew into a stalk. Remember, if I wanted to be bored shitless, I'd read."

But in his 2002 book, on page 102 (the chapter starts with a drawing of a man climbing a stairway made of books) he wrote:

"Does anyone really believe that we can afford, in twenty years' time, to be as dumb as we are now about the part of the world from which this supposedly unfathomable hate is coming? Will airport security in 2025 still not be able to tell an Arab from a Mexican? Of course not, because, like they say, war teaches us geography. Also history, religion, economics—all the courses recent college graduates have been allowed to skip so they could study Madonna and Muhammad Ali and vampires and lesbian novels after World War II and porn and how to brew beer. (Those are all real college courses, I couldn't have improved on them comedically if I tried.) But the learning process will go slowly here because there is no drumbeat for it, in government or the media, because both depend on kissing their voters'/audiences' asses. Americans can only be told they're stupid by surly British people on prime-time torture game shows. Consequently, we revel in our ignorance. We're proud of it..."

OK, so he never actually mentioned English college classes in that chapter. But he shouldn't have to. They are the building blocks for learning everything else. Everything takes practice, and if, in middle school and high school, you never read at your grade level or higher, for fun, school in general will be all the harder and less appealing, every year.

And he clearly admires those regular guests of his who read a lot and thus know what they're talking about, whether they went to college or not. Such as journalist Fran Lebowitz. Btw, here's a recent interview wth her:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/fran-lebowitz-is-never-leaving-new-york

Favorite Lebowitz line, probably heard through this blog:

I don't believe in anything you have to believe in.

When someone clucks "Think about it," they mean 'Agree with me, even though I have no more reasoning to offer.'

testing again

But when a parent or teacher says "think about it" to a child, it likely means "I know what I'm talking about; you're old enough to figure out what I mean without my spelling out every detail on the subject; I don't have time for that anyway, and if you're NOT old enough, someday you'll understand."

And, unfortunately, plenty of adult listeners are much like those child listeners, simply because they've never really thought about a particular subject - or were never taught to think before acting impulsively, whether we're talking about joining a mob or an organization. An adult speaker shouldn't have to explain a simple arithmetic problem to another adult who's too lazy to figure it out alone.

An adult speaker shouldn't have to explain a simple arithmetic problem to another adult who's too lazy to figure it out alone.

Lenona at June 19, 2020 7:16 AM
When it is in our vested interests to do so we must.

However most of what passes for discourse in the world is masturbatory virtue signaling from people with no objective except the most shallow sort of social preening about the superiority of their world view, and no skin in the game.

Lenona,

I am afraid I have to agree with Isab here.

A parent or teacher is negligent in their educational responsibility if they simply say "think about it" to a child in their care... and then leave it at that because they are too busy to explain and expect they will just come to the same conclusions on their own some day.

That is evidence of laziness on the parent or teachers part.

If there is a gap in comprehension or understanding it is appropriate and reasonable to expect a parent or child to explain in detail after the child attempts to think through the problem on their own and fails to make progress.

The most fundamental and important thing for a parent or teacher to impart upon children is the logical methodology of thought... how one logically gets from a collection of premises to a sound and reasonable conclusion.

That process is notoriously unnatural for people to negotiate as fallacious reasoning is psychologically compelling despite the fact that it renders conclusions unreliable and riddled with errors.

Unfortunately most adults aren't particularly good at this either... most are extremely confident they are good at this kind of thing, but that is just a manifestation of Dunning-Krueger.

As for an adult not needing to explain simple arithmetic to another adult... there was a time when I thought compound interest calculations were simple... then 2008 occurred and I realized that a good proportion of adults cannot do even the most simple math and understand how a mortgage amortization schedule functions.

If I were for example to ask you to calculate the interest payment for a particular month in the course of a mortgage could you do it given the relevant input variables?... what if I told you to "think about it"?

I assure you that the math involved is just simple arithmetic (we are only talking about things like exponents and multiplication here), no calculus, or trigonometry, or matrix algebra necessary.

> The most fundamental and important
> thing for a parent or teacher to
> impart upon children is

Do you have kids?

Tell us about your family. Use Isab as your model of discretion.

I would certainly explain simple arithmetic to an adult who couldn't figure out a problem. Why wouldn't you?

People learn things in school and forget them. A surprisingly large number of adults never managed to "get" fractions at all.

So yes, if someone asked me or needed my help I would help them, of course. And try to do it in a way so they didn't feel stupid.

As for children, there's a time to let them alone to figure things out, there's a time to give a hint, and there's a time to sit down and explain it to them.

The headline should be broadened. Racist members of minority groups don't just "see" racism in police misconduct. They "see" it as well in ordinary employer discipline, and in any decision that doesn't give them whatever they want.

If there is ever racial peace, it will come when discriminating against these entitled jerks who go around with chips on their shoulders is accepted.

Fair enough, Isab, when you're talking about the masses.

Artemis, I thought it was clear that a loving parent or a professional teacher seldom says "think about it" when the child really IS way too young to understand a particular problem or situation. So when they DO say it, the situation is very likely something like this: "you're old enough to think ahead and you know what the word 'consequences' means, so what WILL be the consequences in this case, if you don't think ahead?" Or: "you're old enough to Google or use a dictionary or thesaurus on your own, so don't come running to me every five minutes."

However, maybe I should have said "a simple addition problem" rather than "a simple arithmetic problem." Yes, it's true one can get absent-minded when trying to multiply or divide without a calculator. Or even with one. Even so, that doesn't mean any adult should be asking other people, DAILY, for math help without compensation.

NicoleK, I agree with what you said - but see my last sentence above.

Also, I've mentioned before that yes, explanations are often important if you don't want to give kids the wrong ideas. Example - you can't explain to an infant why it has to get shots, but when kids are three or four, you'd better darn well make it clear, with every visit, that the shots keep people from getting sick, because at least that way the kids are SOMEWHAT less likely to think of the doctor - and you - as horrible monsters who inflict pain just for fun.

However, by a Certain Age, you know that kids - and adults - who keep trying to argue about something are just playing dumb, whether from laziness or a childish craving for unearned attention. Or both.

To get back to an earlier point, it's scary the way students - and even teachers, sometimes - think kids can't be expected to enjoy ANY book unless they're already familiar with every word in it! In other words, a book with few or no challenges!

From a long 1995 thread, elsewhere:

2/1/95Braindance
"My daughter thinks Mark Twain is awful. I gave her a copy of Tom Sawyer to read a couple years ago, and she returned it after a single afternoon, saying, 'He tries to make you think things are funny when they aren't.'
"I took it away, to prevent Mark Twain being permanently spoiled for her.
Maybe in about eight or ten years we can try it again."

What's interesting about that anecdote is that the kid had a truly thoughtful complaint, even if we don't know the exact details of the complaint. Whereas, when you read the negative reviews at Amazon, it's APPALLING how many so-called adults think that "Tom Sawyer" is just too haaarrrrd, both in terms of vocabulary and pacing, for anyone who isn't in high school yet!

I mean, I remember reading aloud "The Glorious Whitewasher" to my brother when he was probably 7 or 8, and while he certainly didn't understand a great many words, he had little trouble enjoying the whole chapter. (I didn't read him the rest of it, since we didn't own the whole book at the time.)

Kids need to learn, early on, to ENJOY books that actually challenge them (as well as subjects/activities that challenge them) whether or not a dictionary is available for help.

Lenona, I’m still waiting for my answer on what you consider a *useless* hobby

You know the engineer(s) that design the bridges that hold up the overpasses on the highways?

About that, I don’t really care if he has read and enjoyed Tom Sawyer or not.

Or that Japanese heart surgeon that worked on my husband? Him either.

I already told you. Playing video games, for one. I spelled out why. But, just in case, they clearly take time away from exercise (your health benefits other people, not just you) and they only exercise certain parts of your brain while the other parts get flabby. They also take time away from people - and, of course, paid and unpaid work. They also cost money. If kids aren't willing to pay for them, the parents shouldn't feel obliged either. Same goes for TV and movies, as a rule.

And as I've mentioned, the inconvenient truth about schoolwork, recreational reading, and many modern jobs is that they are typically done while sitting down - and are often solitary. All the more reason to get as much exercise, family time and socializing time as possible - without shirking one's duties or wasting other people's resources, of course.

Of course, it helps if couples considering marriage would take time and money issues a lot more seriously and agree in advance how much - or not - to spend on pastimes that aren't directly helpful to the family goals.

And as I implied already, it's all very well if parents SAY they want their kid to have the sort of work ethic that results in their becoming a truly useful good citizen, like the types you mentioned above, but when they make no secret of the fact that THEY live only for the weekends, kids sense that.

And as for engineers and surgeons, it's obviously highly unwise for any parent or teacher to neglect any part of children's official or unofficial education until the kids are truly old enough and mature enough to decide which career they have the skills AND ambition for. In other words, you don't allow a ten-year-old who dreams of being the next filthy-rich Bill Gates to neglect all subjects other than computer science. Kids change their minds all the time, and they need to keep their options open. Even those who insist they'll never have children or hold a full-time job if they can avoid it.

I'm not talking about helicopter parenting, just parents and teachers demanding that kids do their best even in boring classes or housework, live up to their promises, etc.

Also, as a well-known humorist said (seriously), almost 50 years ago:

"Preparing yourself to be a doctor shouldn't preclude developing yourself as a person. A good doctor is more than just a technician - he's a humanist!"

Not to mention that while smart people often believe crazy things (as The New Republic wrote about Ben Carson in 2015) anti-intellectuals, smart or not, are likely even more prone to crazy beliefs. So when they flock together, it can become a vicious circle. (And frankly, I'd be leery of having someone as superstitious as Carson operating on me - even if he's not officially an anti-intellectual.)

And if you've never read these first four pages of "Innumeracy," please do.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KDqD95Lsp3UC&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=john+paulos+%22without+some+appreciation+of+common%22&source=bl&ots=3XpUGRvcJ6&sig=ACfU3U2vziDbgMaXxmHomdmRY6vXDqja8A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKjrCf347qAhWcmnIEHdgYCjIQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=john%20paulos%20%22without%20some%20appreciation%20of%20common%22&f=false

Paulos explains how not understanding basic math can seriously hurt your political understanding of the world - and your understanding in general. I'd make a similar argument for literature.

“Preparing yourself to be a doctor shouldn't preclude developing yourself as a person. A good doctor is more than just a technician - he's a humanist!"

Perhaps in the 19th century, not anymore. If you are doing brain surgery, I want to you be the most tunnel visioned SOB on the face of the planet. I also don’t care what kind of shirt you have on under your scrubs or whether you hold my hand and murmur platitudes before the surgery.
These people are at the top of their game. Ever ask a professional musician how many hours a day he practices, to the exclusion of just about everything else non essential? You should, it might give you some perspective on what it takes to be at the top of your profession.

Both medicine and law have gotten so seriously specialized that you don’t want to waste your time effort or money on someone who is not an expert in a very narrow field.

There is nothing wrong with video games. They often can have the same benefits as reading while also developing your hand eye coordination. But they are usually a “boy thing” so I see a lot of women denigrating them.
( I think your liberal arts feminist bias is showing)

Anything done to excess, including eating carrots obsessively can be bad for you.
I spent way too much time reading when I was a kid. I wish I had lived somewhere where the weather was good all year round, I would have spent my daylight hours in the water.

Any other blue collar pastimes you want to disparage other than bowling and video games? Shooting perhaps?

Paulos explains how not understanding basic math can seriously hurt your political understanding of the world - and your understanding in general. I'd make a similar argument for literature.

Lenona at June 19, 2020 2:09 PM
I’ve read the whole thing a few times, and own the book. Paulos himself is not immune from jumping to conclusions.

Literature is a different thing. I was an English lit minor in college, ( history major) and got quite decent grades. But lit love can turn into an affectation. I believe you have done the same thing with your literature fetish that Artemis does with math. You assume because you can manipulate the English language, that your underlying assumptions about its universal value and application are correct. I think with you it has reached the point of a blind bias against other fields of knowledge including technical writing, anything you don’t deem high brow enough or parents and children who don’t find it as interesting as you do. (Which would be about 95 percent of the population)

I liked Innumeracy. We all did, oh those many years ago, when clucking at the doof-minded seemed like pastime with growth potential.

This was the precise moment when I shredded my Paulos jersey.

"Literature is a different thing."

And I notice you're ignoring what I semi-quoted Dawkins as saying about the importance of being familiar with religious texts, however much he or you might not take them seriously. What's the difference?

You also ignored what I said at 1:55 pm.

And there is no shortage of doctors, male and female alike, who are very worried about the effect screen time is going to have on developing minds - in more ways than one. (Including 72-year-old John Rosemond, who calls himself a classical liberal, if you want to know. Most people would call him a conservative. He advocates getting rid of video games in general.)

As it happens, though, you'll never see me join a book club - I like my reading to be private and done at my own pace. (Besides, I don't find anything appealing about post-2000 fiction.)

In the meantime, here's what I posted in 2016. (Just so you know, Amy Dacyczyn, author of "The Complete Tightwad Gazette," married a Navy man - and neither of them had gone to college, IIRC. They had six children, now adults in their late 20s and 30s. She's also a Rush Limbaugh fan, if you want to know.)
_________________________

...(she) once pointed out in the 1990s, the trouble with not making good use of your spare time is that when you lose your job and can't find a similar one, you have only one set of useful skills, that can't be used. Useless hobbies can be fun or boring, and so can useful hobbies. So, she said, why not pick hobbies that are both fun and useful?

From A.D.'s August 1993 article "Money-Saving Hobbies" (this may also be in the book "The Complete Tightwad Gazette"):

"Everyone devotes some time to hobbies which are unproductive and/or expensive, but if most of our time is devoted to it, we might end up like that steelworker. This is a national economic problem...and if you think that overstates the case, consider that 10% of our trade deficit with Japan is due to Nintendo sales."

(Earlier, she pointed out that if one chooses hobbies that save $2,000 per year instead of costing $2,000 per year, one is $4,000 ahead per year) "...and therefore $80,000 ahead after 20 years. If (the unemployed steelworker) had used this to pay off his house and put money in the bank, his immediate situation would not be so desperate."

She also pointed out that if he had multiple skills, his next full-time job wouldn't have to pay as much as the old one.

BTW, according to one online inflation calculator, $80,000 in 1993 would be $133,446.64 in 2016.

Finally, she said:

"Because of financial considerations and a desire to spend time with our families, few of us who work fulltime can pursue a second career or go to college in our free time. The money-saving hobby allows us to put money in the bank, lower our cost of living, explore other skills, and still spend time with our families."
________________________________

I would say that ALL the hobbies she listed, both useful and frivolous, were blue-collar. At any rate, here are some she listed as useful: cutting hair, fixing toasters, yard-saling, gardening, car maintenance, landscaping, and furniture refinishing. The following are those profitable hobbies she saw in person: woodcarving, sprinkler installation, fixing up houses, and, of course, her own newsletter success, which was derived in part from her frugal, voluminous letter-writing habit (as opposed to talking on the phone and running up bills).

Naturally, the few frivolous hobbies she listed were ones that don't call for skills or lead to jobs - like having cable TV. Or going to the mall every weekend.

NicoleK Says:

"As for children, there's a time to let them alone to figure things out, there's a time to give a hint, and there's a time to sit down and explain it to them."

This is pretty much perfect.

Teaching them when to ask for assistance is also really useful. It is important for them to feel challenged, but not get into a mode of frustration when they struggle.

Helping them to understand that failure is part of the learning process is also really useful for helping them understand the importance of perseverance.

Lenona Says:

"So when they DO say it, the situation is very likely something like this: "you're old enough to think ahead and you know what the word 'consequences' means, so what WILL be the consequences in this case, if you don't think ahead?" Or: "you're old enough to Google or use a dictionary or thesaurus on your own, so don't come running to me every five minutes.""

If what you are talking about is encouraging them to be self reliant when you already know they have mastered a certain set of skills I agree with you.

I think sometimes a child is just looking for guidance or direction without the adult doing the work for them to help them build confidence in a particular skill or task.

Isab,

I agree with you on the utility of video game play and avoiding doing anything to excess.

The only part I disagree with you about is that video games are in some sense a blue collar pastime.

Computer games were extremely popular on ARPANET for example when it was accessible primarily to white collar folks.

Thanks, Artemis.

And Isab, there's a reason "tunnel vision" is typically a negative term.

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/ben-carson-brain-surgeon-or-brain-addled/

Excerpt:

"Medical Education vs. Scientific Research. It is one thing to hear a fundamentalist preacher like Mike Huckabee decry evolution, or the other presidential candidates without much understanding of science do so—but it takes special psychological mechanisms to go through years of science education and still doubt evolution, cosmology, and the like (as the quote from Waldman above suggests). The first thing to remember is that becoming a doctor is not like becoming a research scientist: doctors learn their craft, but most are not actively working on scientific research. They do not necessarily approach the world with the open-ended paradigm of science, but are doing their job based on their training. In addition, I’ve been in classes with pre-med students when I was a biology major, and I know many professors who teach med school anatomy or pre-med courses in college. They all tell me how appalled they are by med students who don’t want to know anything other than what will be on the test, and only want to learn about human biology, even though understanding comparative anatomy of other vertebrates helps you better understand how human bodies work. My good friend Dr. Melvin Moss, who was the Chair of Anatomy of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons when I took classes from him in the 1970s, used to tell us horror stories of the narrow focus of med students who had no interest or curiosity in anything they were learning. They were just suffering through anatomy to get through the ordeal of med school. It was for this reason that my good friend, classmate and co-author Neil Shubin wrote the best-selling book Your Inner Fish, which emerged from his own attempt to give med school anatomy an evolutionary context."
________________________________

Btw, if that part about Baby Fae dying unnecessarily is true, it was a crime. I never heard that part about Dr. Bailey's not believing in evolution.

> Teaching them when to ask for
> assistance is also really useful.

Advice for parents!

Do you have kids?

Crid,

You aren't doing yourself any favors when you say this three days ago:

"I'm not a pedophile." - Crid at June 17, 2020 10:40 AM

And ever since you have been pestering me with questions like this:

"Do you have kids?" - Crid at June 19, 2020 10:18 PM

Do you have kids? ~ Crid at June 19, 2020 10:18 PM

In another thread, he did tell us he has a child - albeit with the tortured grammar of "...parents such as myself...."

Conan,

Careful... you are going to destroy Crid's carefully crafted and repetitive narrative that I never share any information about myself and am afraid to do so.

The reality is far more reasonable... I share information when I feel like it and when I feel it is relevant to the ongoing discussion.

Not in response to demands from random people on the internet.

Conan,

I'll also point out since your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking here... when one indicates they are a parent it doesn't also indicate that they have "a child", it indicates that they have "at least one child".

I'm not very inclined to take grammatical notes from someone who is apparently unable to parse the plain meaning of a simple English phrase.

Literature is a different thing. I was an English lit minor in college, ( history major) and got quite decent grades. But lit love can turn into an affectation. I believe you have done the same thing with your literature fetish that Artemis does with math. You assume because you can manipulate the English language, that your underlying assumptions about its universal value and application are correct. I think with you it has reached the point of a blind bias against other fields of knowledge including technical writing, anything you don’t deem high brow enough or parents and children who don’t find it as interesting as you do. (Which would be about 95 percent of the population) ~ Isab at June 19, 2020 4:13 PM

I would argue that having a decent amount of skill in mathematics and communication (written and spoken) is necessary. One can have more skills in one than the other, but neither should be ignored or dismissed.

As for reading, I defer to Mark Twain, "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."

My advice is to read good books, books that teach universal truths, but not to dismiss "beach" reads as unworthy either. When he was being serialized in magazines, Charles Dickens was dismissed as an unserious author, an author whose works were candy for the uneducated masses.

His more-respected contemporaries, like George Meredith, were expected to eventually join the canon of literature while Dickens was expected to fade away. Another contemporary, Leslie Stephen commented that "if literary fame could be safely measured by popularity with the half-educated, Dickens must claim the highest position among English novelists" Instead, Dickens' works have never gone out of print while Meredith and Leslie are both largely forgotten.
__________________________________________

I share information when I feel like it and when I feel it is relevant to the ongoing discussion. ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 12:23 PM

Artie, you really are stubbornly unwilling to reveal anything about yourself, whether in response to a demand or a simple request, even when it is, or can be, relevant to the ongoing discussion.

We know a fair amount about the regulars on this forum from simple conversation, but little about you.

• Isab is an attorney, lives in Wyoming, and was in the Army.
• Patrick is gay, lives in Tampa, was in the Army, and has PTSD
• Ben lives in Houston, is an engineer (or engineer-adjacent), has children, and has in-laws who live in Central America.
• Crid lives in Los Angeles, likes the music of Frank Zappa, used to work in television, is divorced, grew up in Indiana, and likes Formula 1 racing.
• NicoleK grew up in Boston, lives in Switzerland, and has a child.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head. These things were freely shared in the course of normal conversation (at least as normal as an online conversation can be).

Conan Says:

"Artie, you really are stubbornly unwilling to reveal anything about yourself, whether in response to a demand or a simple request, even when it is, or can be, relevant to the ongoing discussion."

I don't know how to break it to you... but the only person who determines if the personal details of my life are relevant to a discussion is me.

You don't get a vote and the only person who matters in the decision making process doesn't care about your opinion.

Each and every one of us shares what we like and opts not to share when we don't want to.

Why is this such a challenge for you to get through your thick skull?

> stubbornly unwilling to reveal
> anything about yourself, whether
> in response to a demand or a simple
> request, even when it is, or can
> be, relevant to the ongoing
> discussion.

And when asked to do so, will counter with baseless accusations of pederasty.

It's very, very difficult to believe you have the maturity for parenthood.

Crid,

I made no baseless accusations that you were a pederast.

I simply was asking you questions...

What is amazing is you apparently see absolutely nothing wrong with asking for years if I am bound to a wheel chair... but I ask you if you are a pedophile and suddenly you are clutching your pearls and having the vapors.

Do you need a fan?

Why is this such a challenge for you to get through your thick skull? ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 1:03 PM

So, instead of having discussion, you resort to insults ... again.

Of course you're the arbiter of what information about yourself you share. We all are. That goes without saying and has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've asked of you in the past.

It's your decision to be almost paranoid in the refuse to divulge even the tiniest detail of you life that puzzles most of us.

One question comes to mind, though. If you don't want anyone on this humble board to get to know anything about you, why do you post here? Why bother?

That's "refusal to divulge." Typo.

Conan,

There isn't anything to discuss on this matter. I don't consult you regarding what I eat for dinner either.

"It's your decision to be almost paranoid in the refuse to divulge even the tiniest detail of you life that puzzles most of us."

You are free to complain all you like that there is someone on the internet who "stubbornly" refuses to tell you where they live... and that you suspect they are "paranoid" because they won't share this information with you.

The reality is that this is a completely reasonable way to operate on the internet.

There is no smoke... there is no fire... there is just your own personal frustration about not getting what you want.

Just get over it already.

"One question comes to mind, though. If you don't want anyone on this humble board to get to know anything about you, why do you post here? Why bother?"

This question I think is fair.

I don't hold conversations here to make friends or have anyone "get to know me"... I've got lots of friends already and have absolutely zero interest in getting to know anyone here on a personal level.

I post here primarily because I believe it is important for folks to extend themselves beyond their personal bubble. To expose themselves to a wide variety of viewpoints such that they can crystalize their own view.

I don't want to live in an echo chamber. That is all there is to it.

> I don't want to live in an echo
> chamber. That is all there is to it.

It's been a long time since a second sentence in Amy's comments so deftly eviscerated a first.

Crid,

You are going to have to expand on your logic here.

There is nothing inconsistent about someone indicating that the only reason they engage in conversations with people outside of their bubble is to ensure they do not live in an echo chamber.

That explanation is logically consistent.

If you've taken my words to mean something other than this then you are misunderstanding what I have said.

Conan,

Along the same lines... do you actually feel close to anyone on this blog on a personal level?

Would you invite any of them into your home for dinner or a game of cards?

Do you ever plan on traveling to LA so you and Crid can spend the day together?

I'll also point out since your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking here... when one indicates they are a parent it doesn't also indicate that they have "a child", it indicates that they have "at least one child". ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 12:36 PM

Straight to the insults. Gee. I wonder why no one here likes Artie.

Let me give you a language lesson, Artie. Gratis. Saying someone "has a child" does not limit that person to one child.

Had I said, "he has one child," your insult might be valid. However, in the post I referenced, you wrote, "There are parents such as myself who carried around their newborns..." and "There are parents such as myself who sang to their babies....." The sentences were about there being "parents who" and was not exclusive to you -- despite the misuse of a self-referential pronoun in the adjective phrase. Hence, the number of children that parents "such as myself" have could not be deduced solely from the use of plural words.

And even if you have more than one child, you still "have a child" -- certainly that answer is suitable for the purpose of resolving the question, "do you have a kid?"

Since you took exception to "has a child" with an attempted insult, I'm going to deduce that you want me to know you have more than one child. Duly noted.

Along the same lines... do you actually feel close to anyone on this blog on a personal level? ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 1:42 PM

That's not what I'm advocating, nor expecting. No one makes close, personal friends by Internet alone.

However, if a blog regular were to come to town and suggest we meet up, I'd be game to grab a cup of coffee or have lunch.

Do you ever plan on traveling to LA so you and Crid can spend the day together? ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 1:42 PM

Not for that specifically, but if I were to travel to LA, I might let both Crid and Amy know and see if we could grab a coffee somewhere, just to see what they're like in person.

I did the same thing when coworkers from the foreign or distant offices were in town. When the guy from Brussels office came into San Francisco, we went out for a beer. We'd never met in person before, but we'd corresponded frequently. It was nice to be able put a face to a name. We're not close, personal friends now and probably won't ever be. but we have kept in touch. He's in London now and I'm in Charlotte. Once in a while, he drops me a line, and I him.

When I was working for the aerospace company and people I'd worked with digitally came to corporate, I'd make time in my day to meet with them and chat - dinner, coffee, lunch, whatever.

That kind of reaching out is how some people always seem to "know a guy."

"Ask one Southerner for help, and he coops another friend, and before long you wonder how the Confederacy ever lost." ~ Lisa Birnbach

> I might let both Crid and Amy know
> and see if we could grab a coffee
> somewhere

Amy and G know that on these occasions, I'm buyin'. Her neighborhood has lots of good spots. (Well, we can hope it still has a few after the pandemic.)

Charlotte, huh? Ever hear of a family called Bahakel?

Ever hear of a family called Bahakel? ~ Crid at June 20, 2020 2:41 PM

Can't say that I have. Friends?

Conan Says:

"Straight to the insults. Gee. I wonder why no one here likes Artie."

I am having a difficult time really believing that you are so oblivious.

The following is how you arrived in this conversation:

"In another thread, he did tell us he has a child - albeit with the tortured grammar of "...parents such as myself....""

and

"Artie, you really are stubbornly unwilling to reveal anything about yourself,..."

You always show up guns blazing and then take great umbrage when you aren't received with servile deference.

Here is an accurate representation of what occurred... you called me stubborn for maintaining my own level of personal privacy... and then you said I was insulting you when I told you that it was a challenge getting it through your thick skull that I have the right to make those choices.

I still don't think you get it... which is absolutely astounding at this point.

Conan Says:

"Let me give you a language lesson, Artie. Gratis. Saying someone "has a child" does not limit that person to one child."

Allow me to give you a lesson in honestly and deception.

If you happened to have 3 children and someone asked you if you had any kids... and you responded with "I have a child"... they would rightfully conclude that you didn't give them a straight answer if they later found out you have 3.

""There are parents such as myself who carried around their newborns..." and "There are parents such as myself who sang to their babies....." The sentences were about there being "parents who" and was not exclusive to you -- despite the misuse of a self-referential pronoun in the adjective phrase."

No Conan... you don't get it. I wasn't using a self-referential pronoun in the adjective phrase.

I was describing myself as a parent. I was using parent as an adjective in this case.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parent

Parent isn't just a noun... it is also an adjective.

So even the basis for your criticism of my grammar is incorrect (again... so I am no longer surprised), you just never seem to really understand what is being said.

Conan,

Let's be real... you've been on this blog for over a decade and haven't made real life connections with anyone.

Have you spoken to anyone here over the phone?

Have you shared private e-mails with anyone to show family photos?

On some level you recognize these interactions are as frivolous as I do... I just don't pretend they have any deeper meaning.

The following is how you arrived in this conversation: "In another thread, he did tell us he has a child - albeit with the tortured grammar of "...parents such as myself...."" ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 4:23 PM

No insult, dude.

That actually was tortured grammar.

You used a self-reflective pronoun in a sentence that did not call for one. It happens to be one of my pet peeves when someone uses a self-reflective pronoun when they should use a simple pronoun.

There is little consensus on the usual grammar sites about whether the proper usage should be "such as I" or "such as me." I lean toward "such as I" since I look at it as a shortened version of "such as I am," but I'll leave it up to personal preference -- as long as it's not "such as myself."

People unsure of their word usage tend to opt for the choice with more syllables. A little advice: sometimes simpler is better.

Conan,

I'm not particularly interested in your own grammatical preferences.

I am reminded of a professor I once knew who absolutely despised split infinitives.

And yet one of the most well recognized openings in television history used one "to boldly go..."

I am quite confident there are word choices and grammar choices you would make that I would find unpleasant.

Conan,

So far as internet friendships go, let's try an experiment shall we?

Why don't you set up a phone call session with Crid for tomorrow.

Have a nice long conversation and make this internet relationship something more substantial.

Conan,

I'll also point out that your perspective on this issue is hardly shared by everyone... some even refer to your justification as specious.

"Either. Such as myself is perhaps more emphatic.
There are people who insist on such as I (on the specious justification that the phrase represents such as I am). Hardly anybody says this, but it is always acceptable in formal contexts."

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137199/such-as-me-or-such-as-myself-which-one-is-correct

I also found the following information that was kind of interesting:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002458.html

Despite your objections is appears as if my own usage is a factor of 5 times more popular than the usage you prefer. As a result I remain comfortable with my choice.

Let's be real... you've been on this blog for over a decade and haven't made real life connections with anyone. ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 4:49 PM

Never came here to do so.

I've got real-life connections in meat space; don't need 'em here, but I am always open to make one however it may happen.

I was describing myself as a parent. I was using parent as an adjective in this case. ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 4:35 PM

"Parents" in your sentence is the subject of the sentence. It's a noun and was described by the adjective phrase "such as myself."

"There" in that sentence is a grammar expletive; a word that is not needed in order to express the meaning of the sentence.

The shortest sentence is said to be "I am." Your sentence written without an expletive or a reflective pronoun is "Parents such as I, who hug their newborns, are." The verb "are" does not require a direct object and can stand alone.

There were two adjective phrases -- usage akin to "the big blue bike" with two adjectives describing the noun, "bike."

"Myself" is a self-reflective pronoun in any sentence; and it should not be used as a substitute for "me" or "I" in any case.

Face it, your sentence was clunky and your grammar incorrect. Your attempt to defend it is also incorrect.

Witness:

Parent isn't just a noun... it is also an adjective. ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 4:35 PM

"Parent" is an adjective only when it is used as one -- it was not used as one in your sentence. (See the above comment)

"The parent company went broke." uses "parent" as an adjective, "went" as a verb, and "company" as the noun and subject of the sentence. "Parent" in that sentence amplifies the reader's understanding of which company went broke.

Despite your objections is appears as if my own usage is a factor of 5 times more popular than the usage you prefer. As a result I remain comfortable with my choice. ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 5:16 PM

Popular does not mean correct. Just because all the kids are doing it doesn't mean it is correct. Else we'd all speak like rap stars.

In addition, Stack Exchange is hardly a place from which to get expert advice. The content is user-supplied with no credential check required in order to comment.

If you're comfortable using bad grammar, go for it. But don't try to argue it's good grammar.

> Can't say that I have

Broadcasters, famously penurious. Nevermind

Conan Says:

"Never came here to do so.
I've got real-life connections in meat space; don't need 'em here, but I am always open to make one however it may happen."

Great... then go ahead and set up a zoom meeting with Crid.

Demonstrate with real action that you believe it is important to get to know people here.

"Popular does not mean correct. Just because all the kids are doing it doesn't mean it is correct. Else we'd all speak like rap stars."

In this case it isn't correct because it is popular... it is popular because it is correct.

Even merriam-webster finds this to be an acceptable usage:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/putting-myself-where-me-or-i-usually-goes

"Today, though, when people use myself in the position of subject-of-the-verb these days, it's typically part of a compound subject:
… Conan Doyle was the kind of Edwardian man of letters for whom certain retro bookmen such as myself and Mr. Dirda retain especial affection.
— Larry McMurtry, Harper's, November 2011"

This is the part about language that I believe is extremely frustrating for you.

Language changes, language evolves... what wasn't a word 300 years ago becomes a word later.

We are losing irregular verbs for example:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2009/09/29/the-evolution-of-the-past-tense-how-verbs-change-over-time/

There comes a point in language when a usage becomes so popular that it becomes correct... and the previously correct usage becomes clunky and antiquated.

That is just the reality of language.

We are currently at the point where a statement such as the following:

"...parents such as myself...."

Isn't bad grammar... it is just grammar you happen not to like.

Demonstrate with real action that you believe it is important to get to know people here.

Don't be silly, Artie.

I never said it was important to make deep connections with anyone here. Just to connect with an audience. When speakers give speeches or engage in debate, they don't have tea with every individual in the audience. However, they do try to make a connection with the audience in general.

Isn't bad grammar... it is just grammar you happen not to like. ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 6:02 PM

It is bad grammar.

Language changes, this is true. Else we'd all still be using "thee" and thou." However, those changes take time and we're not yet at that point where using myself as a substitute for "me" or "I" has become correct.

As for McMurtry, he was a writer of popular novels, some good ones, too. He wrote and spoke in vernacular, and some of that vernacular contained bad grammar.

He should have said, "such as Mr. Dirda and I."

We are still at the point at which "parents such as myself" is bad grammar. You won't find a reputable grammarian or textbook that says otherwise.

I give you the original Conan the Grammarian, Dr. Richard Lederer, a professional grammarian who says "myself" should not be used as a substitute for "me" or "I."

Perhaps you've read one or two of his many books on the English language. Perhaps you read his newspaper column back when people read newspapers. Perhaps you heard one of his many guest spots on the radio (including NPR).

I salute your persistence, Artie, but you grammar was wrong and your argument defending it is specious.

That should be "...your grammar was wrong...." Typo.

Conan Says:

"I never said it was important to make deep connections with anyone here. Just to connect with an audience."

Just cut it out already Conan.

You have no genuine interest in generating real connections with anyone here... just like I don't.

You are putting up a false pretense and calling knowing the city someone lives in "connection".

So you don't like Crid enough to talk with him over the phone.

Pick anyone... anyone on this entire blog who you would ask to have a phone conversation with you and who you would feel comfortable providing real contact information.

If you can't even name one person how much of a "connection" have you really made with anyone here over ~15 years?

Conan Says:

"It is bad grammar.
Language changes, this is true. Else we'd all still be using "thee" and thou." However, those changes take time and we're not yet at that point where using myself as a substitute for "me" or "I" has become correct."

Please take the time to actually read the full article:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/putting-myself-where-me-or-i-usually-goes

"Myself in these settings has been objected to since the late 19th century, though critics have never been able to put their collective finger on what's so bad about it. It's been called snobbish, unstylish, self-indulgent, self-conscious, old-fashioned, timorous, colloquial, informal, formal, nonstandard, incorrect, mistaken, literary, and unacceptable in formal written English.
We find the usages, however, to be widespread even in literary sources dating back at least four centuries."

"Whatever the reasons for using myself in instances like those discussed, people who choose to employ it are in good company. There's no reason it shouldn't continue to hum along in the language for another few hundred years."

What you are doing is insisting that your own personal preference for how you believe language should be used is "correct"... when in reality it is just a preference you have.

It happens to be a preference that is shared by some other people, but it isn't universal... it isn't even the most popular preference.

Your opinion happens to be in the minority here.

It is like we are having a conversation about favorite beverages and I indicate that I really like Pepsi... and you then tell me I am wrong and how unrefined I am because people who enjoy "real" beverages such as yourself prefer Seltzer.

The usage I employed has been around for hundreds of years across a wide variety of sources and the dictionary itself cannot identify a credible reason to justify your criticism.

That you happen not to like something doesn't make it "bad grammar".

You are rapidly exiting "grammarian" territory and becoming something of a grammar fascist.

Your opinions and personal preferences do not in and of itself dictate correct grammar usage.

I note your preference. I remain content with my alternative correct word selection.

Coney… Babe… You never call.

I'm all torn up about it.

Crid,

I don't know what to tell you... I thought you guys were supposed to have some kind of strong "connection" developed over the 15+ years you've been chatting here.

The reality is you aren't really friends and apparently don't even care to be.

If one of you dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow the other would hardly even notice... it wouldn't have even the most mild impact on your existence... and you are both perfectly content with that.

So let's cut the crap about knowing anything personal about anyone else here being particularly important.

> I don't know what to tell you...

I just knew you'd think of something

I bet if this board had private messages, or another way to contact each other without bothering Amy, a whole lot of us would know each other IRL by now.

NicoleK,

This isn't actually a difficult problem to solve if anyone had even the most mild motivation to forge a real friendship with anyone else here..

Anyone can generate a free dummy e-mail account in seconds... they could post it to the forum as a means for someone to communicate with them in private.

Alternatively you could set up a zoom session to have a meet and greet.

There are any number of ways the folks here could have made some attempt to generate meaningful friendships.

That this hasn't happened is very telling.

I am not convinced most folks here could tolerate each other IRL.

Eh, that's more effort, and you have to remember to check the dummy account. I bet people would send each other PMs and some would connect.

NicoleK,

What I am hearing is a lot of excuses.

What this really boils down to is that where there is a will there is a way.

If you had any motivation at all to connect with Crid or anyone else IRL surely you would have done so by now.

This forum is hardly unique in terms of communication pathways. People on other similarly structured forums have actually forged real friendships because the relationships aren't paper thin and the people themselves don't generally have the same kind of acerbic personalities that dominate this place.

For what it is worth, I do feel you are a decent person... If I were you I wouldn't want to talk to Crid in person either.

Crid was gone for six months or a year a while back. People noticed.
I wonder what happened to Ppen.

ahw,

Noticing and caring are two entirely different things.

I notice when the pizza delivery guy is different... but I don't really care.

I care when a friend is out of touch for an extended period of time and I find a way to reach out to check that they are okay.

All I am saying is that in all of the years you guys have been chatting here it doesn't seem as if any of you were the least bit motivated to try and be actual friends.

That says something.

I'm FB friends with Lovelysoul... she's doing well.

I think we would all tolerate each other IRL, but in terms of being friends IRl... it isn't terribly practical since we're spread across the globe and in different life stages. Friends tend to be chosen by proximity and common phase-of-life, as well as interests.

But I still enjoy chatting with everyone here, even if I don't have a deep profound real life connection. And I think it's taught me a lot, being exposed to perspectives very different from the ones I encounter in daily life.

The dynamic where everyone accuses you of being a man from random places has gotten a bit weird, though.

NicoleK,

I think it is wonderful you and Lovelysoul keep in touch.

The two of you were always reasonable people who in my opinion have something authentic about them. It doesn't surprise me that you found a way to actually connect (see my point though... where there was a will there was a way).

I'm going to let you in on a secret though... you and anyone else could have contacted Crid in private at any time of your choosing over the last 15+ years.

Crid made his e-mail public as part of each and every post he made back in the day.

You could have contacted him by g-mail whenever you wanted and it would not have been difficult at all.

There is a reason you didn't and it isn't because he's just so damn charming that you would get all flustered at the idea of talking to him one on one.

"The dynamic where everyone accuses you of being a man from random places has gotten a bit weird, though."

They've been pulling this nonsense for over 5 years at this point. It hasn't just "gotten a bit weird"... they entered mentally deranged territory a long time back.

Did anyone ever intentionally accuse him of being a man?

I'm going to let you in on a secret though... you and anyone else could have contacted Crid in private at any time of your choosing over the last 15+ years.

Crid made his e-mail public as part of each and every post he made back in the day.

You could have contacted him by g-mail whenever you wanted and it would not have been difficult at all.“

I could, and did. I consider him a friend, actually a good one.

Conan, if I am in Charlotte I will post contact info. It might happen in the fall. I have friends in Charlotte, and Rock Hill.

I’ll take anyone who is a regular on this board out for coffee, if there is anyone near where I am traveling who would like to meet up.

Isab,

That is wonderful... have you shared family photos?... do you call on the holidays?... do you plan trips together?

These are the kinds of things I do with my good friends.

I note your preference. I remain content with my alternative correct word selection. ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 7:11 PM

You do that. Because being able to excuse your own improper usage by pointing out where others took artistic license in similar usage or justified a mistake seems to be important to you.

Next thing you'll be using "me and..." or "between you and I" and telling me it's okay because you heard it used that way in a song or because "everyone does it."

Your usage remains improper; it is a colloquial usage at best.

To be honest, I don't really care. I just wanted to tweak you after you made a disparaging remark about my use of "Grammarian." If you're going to dish it out....

We can argue proper usage of "myself" 'til the cows come home, but in the end, I'll still be right.

The Merriam-Webster link you provided was unsigned. The link I gave you was to a column by a noted grammarian who not only signs his work, but has written several books and articles on proper English usage.

His Wikipedia page sums him up as, "an American author, speaker, and teacher. He is best known for his books on the English language and on word play such as puns, oxymorons, and anagrams. He has been dubbed 'the Wizard of Idiom,' 'Attila the Pun,' and 'Conan the Grammarian.'" How is the author of your linked article described?

Lederer's Web site is here. If you've an interest in the English language, it makes for amusing reading.

As for the evolution of language over time, I'm reminded of this quip Lederer quotes, "“As I watch this generation try to rewrite history, I’m confident that it will be misspelled and lack punctuation."

Someday, perhaps, it will be acceptable to the rules of grammar to use "such as myself" or use "myself" in place of "me" or "I," but that day is not today, no matter how many sloppy writers argue otherwise; no matter how many playwrights, novelists, and poets misuse it.

Have a happy Father's Day, Artie -- however many children you have and wherever you might reside.

Conan Says:

"You do that. Because being able to excuse your own improper usage by pointing out where others took artistic license in similar usage or justified a mistake seems to be important to you."

You can complain it is "improper" usage all you like. However it is just your own personal preference... a preference that is shared by some others, but by no means universal.

Amy has selected the same usage as I have here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/11/18/how_orwellian_a.html

"Staff directories are so helpful for substandard journalists such as myself."

It isn't that others are taking "artistic license" and I am using language improperly... your opinion on this matter happens to be a controversial one.

Not everyone agrees with you (and that includes experts who write for the dictionary).

That is wonderful... have you shared family photos?... do you call on the holidays?... do you plan trips together?

These are the kinds of things I do with my good friends.

Artemis at June 21, 2020 10:31 AM

Pedantic presumptions about how to define friendship.
Different generations I guess.
Did someone tell you this is what it means to be a friend? Sharing pics on Facebook?

My friends are people who will give you a ride to the hospital 70 miles away at two in the morning, or take care of your kids while you go sit with your dying father for a week.

I think Crid is a stand up guy.
I think you are not.

Isab,

I'm simply trying to better understand how you have defined Crid as a "good friend".

I'll take your lack of response to mean that you haven't shared family photos, haven't called on the holidays, and haven't planned any trips together.

Has Crid given you a ride to the hospital at 2am?... has Crid watched your kids while you were with your drying father?

What exactly defines Crid as a "good friend" of yours?

I don't particularly think either you or Crid are stand up people... I wouldn't want to be stuck within 10 yards of either of you to be honest because I question your mental stability.

Her father's been dry for as long as I've known her.

I am reminded of a professor I once knew who absolutely despised split infinitives. | And yet one of the most well recognized openings in television history used one "to boldly go..." ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 5:02 PM

Television is hardly the place to look for good grammar usage. After all, the characters in the show you reference used phasers to faze their enemies. "Don't faze me, bro!"

My father also hated split infinitives. I don't really care. Split 'em if ya got 'em. Most English textbooks won't even mention splitting infinitives these days. They will mention the proper use of objective and nominative cases of pronouns, however.

English is a weird language. It's Old Saxon, Norman French, German, Norwegian and more -- all shoved into Latin rules. Sometimes the fit is awkward.

American English adds Chinese and Spanish to the mix. Then you have Noah Webster who decided that American English should not reflect British English and wrote a dictionary to enforce the changes. For instance, American English spells "analyze" with a "z" ("Zed" to the British) while British English uses an "s" for "analyse" -- as you once did.

The rule about splitting infinitives relates back to the Latin roots of English. Latin infinitives could not be split as they were one word, whereas English infinitives were two words (usually a root verb with "to" in front of it). Since Latin was a language in which only the upper classes were tutored, they wanted English to reflect that education. A Victorian would have properly said, "to go boldly" or "boldly to go."

Yes, language rules change; over time, not in the space of only a few years. The Victorian Era ended over 100 years ago and the rule is still taught and enforced by some teachers.

I am quite confident there are word choices and grammar choices you would make that I would find unpleasant ~ Artemis at June 20, 2020 5:02 PM

No doubt.

However, I'd wager that, should that happen, I'd be better able to defend my choices than to say "everybody does it" or "rules change."

Sometimes, I'll own up to the misuse and say I just like it better that way -- such as "It's me." Properly, that should be "It is I."

Conan, if I am in Charlotte I will post contact info. It might happen in the fall. I have friends in Charlotte, and Rock Hill. ~ Isab at June 21, 2020 10:27 AM

Cool.

Wait a minute!!

> These are the kinds of things
> I do with my good friends.

You have friends??? Who knew?

Tell us about them.

Conan Says:

"No doubt.
However, I'd wager that, should that happen, I'd be better able to defend my choices than to say "everybody does it" or "rules change."
Sometimes, I'll own up to the misuse and say I just like it better that way -- such as "It's me." Properly, that should be "It is I.""

Except that wasn't the entirety of my argument. You are omitting an important part.

There were three prongs to my argument:

1 - The English usage guide within the Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates that this is proper English usage. The dictionary is an authoritative source on English usage... it might even be *the* authoritative source.

2 - Statistical analysis demonstrates that my chosen usage is 5 times more frequent than the usage you prefer.

3 - Language is a fluid construct that changes over time. As a result, concerns that rose in the late 19th century are not expected to hold forever.

If your objection requires you to declare that the dictionary doesn't know how the English language functions... there is a good chance you are presenting a faulty argument.

Wait a minute!!

> I am reminded of a professor
> I once knew

You once knew somebody???

Tell us about it.

Because I don't believe. Your bitterness, your terror of identification, the shallowness of your learning and all the rest just SCREAM institutionalization. You're very skilled at all this misbehavior, none of which is tolerated for someone in the real world.

Crid Says:

"Her father's been dry for as long as I've known her."

Did you really just make a joke about Isab's deceased father based on my typo?

Crid,

Since you and Isab are apparently such "good friends" I would love to know if she is someone you'd call up for emotional support if you ended up with a serious medical condition?

Could you even call her if you needed help in an emergency?

Would you fly out to visit her in the hospital if she were seriously ill?

I don't particularly think either you or Crid are stand up people... I wouldn't want to be stuck within 10 yards of either of you to be honest because I question your mental stability.

Artemis at June 21, 2020 11:49 AM

I’m sure that is what Vox taught you to believe about people you have political differences with.

I personally believe you are a narcissistic autistic sociopath. So it is good that we aren’t in personal contact.

You go on posing as a real human being who has actual friends. I think most of us on this board are on to you.

> Did you really just make a
> joke about Isab's deceased
> father based on my typo?

Really did.

> Could you even call her if
> you needed help in an
> emergency?

Would I call Isab? A family woman of the deepest attachments, a worldly woman, a person of genuine military proficiency, a JD, a serious student of history, ideas and human nature?

And you're asking if I'd call her if I needed help in an emergency? Like, say, if I was within about three hundred miles and had a broken leg & a pending surgery, no proof of insurance, identification or cash on hand, and no communication with my family and closer friends?… Except maybe a confused and terrified friend who'd been in the car during the crash, or in the airliner sitting next to me when it smashed into the jetway? In the middle of the night? In bad weather? Is that what you mean by "needed help in an emergency"?

Yeah. I'd call Isab. She'd show up, too, with dispatch. Probably along with her husband and one of her kids to handle details while she worked the hospital/police front desk.

We haven't actually met yet, but there's no rush.

And for the record, I didn't "make a joke about Isab's deceased father based on [your] typo."

I made a joke about your typo, which was based (inanely) on Isab's deceased father. It's at least possible that it was your own intrusive tastelessness which distracted you at the keyboard.

It's fuckin' Father's Day, little fella.

Isab,

There seems to be some discrepancy here... you said Crid was a "good friend" of yours... and yet Crid says you've never even met and he cracks jokes involving your dead father.

Let's ask some additional questions.

Does your husband know Crid's real name?

Has your husband ever even spoken to Crid?

Does Crid know the names of your kids?

My spouse knows all of my good friends... we've all gone out together for years... our children play together.

All you seem to have is an internet pen pal.

Crid,

I wouldn't crack jokes involving the deceased loved ones of any of my good friends... but that's just me.

Crid Says:

"We haven't actually met yet, but there's no rush."

Yeah... wouldn't want to rush having an in person interaction with your "good friend" who you've known for over a decade.

Best to take things nice and slow.

(For what it is worth I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Isab either)

Crid,

Last point for now... I didn't ask "would" you call Isab if you had an emergency.

I asked "could" you call her if you had an emergency.

I'm not talking about some theoretical concept hear... but practically, could you do it?

Is her personal contact info in your phone?... can you get in touch with her directly if you really needed help?

If you cannot do this then I don't see how this description of you two as "good friends" is the least bit credible.

That you are beating around the bush here suggests the answer is you couldn't.

For the style over substance crowd... *here

You're a child. You've got to be living in an institution, there's no other explanation for this desperation to save face.

Crid,

I wouldn't crack jokes involving the deceased loved ones of any of my good friends... but that's just me.

Artemis at June 21, 2020 1:55 PM

Please don’t be offended on my account.

We know you don’t crack jokes. You don’t even recognize most of them, including when you are being trolled, which is most of the time on this board.

By carry on. It is amusing to see you move goal posts on what you think a friend is, with the most superficial form of human connections.

Your kids play with theirs? Really?
Is there any person, or any cause you would lay your life on the line for? I would bet money on “no” being the answer there.

Remember, you are the person who admittedly is going to sit back and let that raging drunk pop open the emergency exit on the plane that your kids are on, while you wait for the *professionals* to handle it.

Crid is correct about me, as I am about him. He wouldn’t ask unless he didn’t have anyone nearer and dearer, but friends don’t make you jump through hoops to demonstrate the commitment. They just show up when you call.

Isab,

If you aren't offended by Crid making jokes about the desiccated remains of your dearly departed family members then I won't be offended on your behalf.

"It is amusing to see you move goal posts on what you think a friend is, with the most superficial form of human connections."

By superficial you mean any potential at all for contact beyond a computer screen?... or that anyone in your family has the slightest clue who this "good friend" of yours happens to be?

You and Crid aren't "good friends"... you aren't even "friends".

If you were to inform your husband right this moment that you wanted to plan a flight to LA to hang out with your "good friend" Crid I suspect he would find that entire conversation most surprising and unusual.

He probably hasn't the slighted clue who Crid even is... or anyone else on this forum probably.

"They just show up when you call."

You haven't even indicated he *can* call or that he ever has.

Isab Says:

"Is there any person, or any cause you would lay your life on the line for? I would bet money on “no” being the answer there."

There is something seriously wrong with you.

I'd lay my life on the line for any of my loved ones... as well as for causes of deep concern after carefully weighing the direct impact on my family.

"Remember, you are the person who admittedly is going to sit back and let that raging drunk pop open the emergency exit on the plane that your kids are on, while you wait for the *professionals* to handle it."

I don't know who you are talking about Isab… but I've never said any such thing.

You are making things up like usual.

Isab,

"You don’t even recognize most of them, including when you are being trolled, which is most of the time on this board."

Of course I recognize the trolls... you and Crid are both constant Trolls.

That is precisely why I never answer any of your stupid questions.

What is amazing to me is how you would constantly troll someone for half a decade... and then declare that *they* are a sociopath.

You and Crid are the ones behaving in decidedly antisocial ways over extremely long periods of time.

This is why I keep saying you are mentally unstable.

I think you each recognize on some level that each of you isn't quite right though... which is why I strongly suspect neither of you will ever meet in person or exchange real life contact information.

Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

Make an entire post devoted to your meet and greet. I am sure we'd all love to see it.

Y'know, Coney, Isab and I might all be in our sixties, as I am. But you apparently want to trigger fisticuffs on the playground at lunchtime. It's not adult behavior, certainly not the amusing pastime of someone who himself has children. However old you are, you should have been through with that kind of silliness years ago. You're in an institution, or grew so old in one that the damage was done when you first went online.

Crid,

Just cut the shit already... you are boring. This is you 5 years ago:

"Yes, and it's kinda relevant. 85%-97% of readers would presume that I'm the troll and that Little Arty is the tortured urchin, because my aggression is naked and shameless, while his is defensive and needy." - Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 3, 2015 11:23 AM

I'm not even in that thread by the way... this is you just casually chatting about how you employ "naked aggression" in all of your interactions with me.

You have continued with that childish stupidity for 5 straight years.

That is the behavior of someone with serious mental problems.

What kind of an empty existence must you have to have hit your 60's and spend your time trolling the internet.

What an utter waste of a life.

Not reading a denial in there.

Crid,

I don't respond to your stupid questions or your inane accusations.

You have literally spent 5 years of your life deciding to gate keep an complete stranger on the internet.

That is evidence of a deranged mental state. Seriously, get some help.

Crid,

I don't respond to your stupid questions or your inane accusations.

You have literally spent 5 years of your life deciding to gate keep an complete stranger on the internet.

That is evidence of a deranged mental state. Seriously, get some help.

Artemis at June 22, 2020 11:11 AM

Kind of amazing that you keep coming back for more. Although you have trended a lot nastier since you seem to have realized that you haven’t changed anyone’s mind here, about anything, and there is a long long list.

Although there has been some entertainment value in watching you try.

Isab Says:

"Kind of amazing that you keep coming back for more. Although you have trended a lot nastier since you seem to have realized that you haven’t changed anyone’s mind here, about anything, and there is a long long list."

This right here expresses the fundamental problem Isab.

There shouldn't be considered anything "amazing" about "coming back for more".

This is a public internet forum and you've decided to turn it into your own little rough'em up biker bar where you actively try to run off anyone who isn't in lock step with your mindset.

People hold conversations with people they disagree with all the time without getting nasty.

But not you or Crid… you can't help yourselves from being vicious little rodents.

The really gross part about the way you operate though is you bite and bite... and they cry incessantly when you get stomped.

What's more... you know this is how you've purposefully operated for years and yet you continually pretend to other folks that you are in some sense the victims.

Neither of you are victims of anything, you are just incredibly insular and profoundly stupid people of advanced age who have accomplished nothing significant in life so you get your rocks off here.

The additional reality is that while Conan and I have certainly had our differences of opinion and contentious arguments... he is worlds more intelligent than you and Crid put together.

There have been times when something Conan has said I found intellectually interesting even if I disagreed with him.

But never you and never Crid… two of the most unintelligent and fundamentally dishonest excuses for human beings on the face of the planet.

It shouldn't "amaze" you that I come back for you... you two are actual jokes around here. I know I'm not going to change your minds about anything, first you would need to have minds to change.

That was kind of bitter.

What forums do you, y'know, enjoy? Which ones have people you admire or learn from?

Crid,

You are projecting emotions here that don't exist. It just seems to me that you two are extremely confused on why I chat with you guys at all. I enjoy coming here because I don't get exposed to folks like you and Isab who are so utterly ignorant of the world around you.

Consider me analogous to Jane Goodall when I'm interacting with you two... I'm just observing you and Isab demonstrate the capacity to make tools out of sticks to eat termites.

Chatting with you is like a trip to the zoo to watch the animals play.

Crid,

As for forums that I enjoy and learn from... there are a great many professional organization conferences that I enjoy and learn from, I don't really think they would be your cup of tea though.

Apart from that there are many folks I believe are fantastic thinkers at The Atheist Experience Official Discussion Group. They deal with evidence and logic though... so also not really your cup of tea.

Apart from that there are many folks I believe are fantastic thinkers at The Atheist Experience Official Discussion Group. They deal with evidence and logic though... so also not really your cup of tea.

Artemis at June 22, 2020 6:40 PM

I have some militant atheists in my family. Even more annoying than the devout Baptists, and just as wrong, but in a less benevolent way. The Baptist’s just want to save your soul, but the militant atheists don’t seem to be satisfied unless everyone agrees to be as miserable and hopeless as they are.

And the militant atheists are wrong in a way that gets people’s hackles up, like being lectured by a 12 year old.
The Baptists at least invite me to visit, even when they know I don’t share their beliefs.

Don’t misconstrue. There is no positive scientific evidence for God, as the Christians and Jews conceive of him, but it is a big universe out there, and we personally have seen very little of it.

I am open to the possibility of a supreme force that may have very well initiated the Big Bang. Some being or force that totally transcends the tiny amount of scientific knowledge about the Universe we descendants of Neanderthals have managed to eek out with our paltry observations. Aren’t you?

The truth is Artemis,you aren’t looking for intelligent discussion here. You are looking for confirmation that you are the smartest guy in this tiny room, and you are never going to find it.

Y'know, Coney, Isab and I might all be in our sixties, as I am. ~ Crid at June 22, 2020 9:09 AM

I haven't reached my sixties yet, but I can see them from here. Artie's assumption that I'm a Baby Boomer is off the mark by a few years and a few cultural touchstones.

Isab Says:

"I have some militant atheists in my family. Even more annoying than the devout Baptists, and just as wrong, but in a less benevolent way. The Baptist’s just want to save your soul, but the militant atheists don’t seem to be satisfied unless everyone agrees to be as miserable and hopeless as they are."

Why on earth would they be hopeless Isab?

"Don’t misconstrue. There is no positive scientific evidence for God, as the Christians and Jews conceive of him, but it is a big universe out there, and we personally have seen very little of it."

Great... so you have concluded they are wrong based on a lack of evidence?

"I am open to the possibility of a supreme force that may have very well initiated the Big Bang. Some being or force that totally transcends the tiny amount of scientific knowledge about the Universe we descendants of Neanderthals have managed to eek out with our paltry observations. Aren’t you?"

I'm open to evidence Isab.

Like always you are putting the cart before the horse.

That you are open to the possibility of something and recognize that there is no evidence supporting it should lead you to the conclusion that while you don't necessarily see eye to eye with your so-called "militant atheist" family members (although I suspect they are just run of the mill atheists given you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you on any subject is in some sense attacking you) that they could in fact be correct.

Instead you have concluded they are *wrong* simply because you think knowledge is limited.

"The truth is Artemis,you aren’t looking for intelligent discussion here. You are looking for confirmation that you are the smartest guy in this tiny room, and you are never going to find it."

Nonsense Isab.

I was having a fine discussion with NicoleK and Lenona in this very thread until Crid showed up to "check my papers" to determine if I was permitted to hold a conversation with a group of other parents.

I am happy to have intelligent conversation here.

You and Crid on the other hand seem to see it as your mission in life to destroy the possibility of that happening.

What a pathetic life goal.

You could both easily just sit back and let others chat.

Conan,

How is it possible that everyone thought you were in your 60's if you've been so effective at sharing about your life?

That is a rhetorical question just to be clear. The point is that the only reason for the inquisition here is to distract and derail discussions for the purposes of making it impossible for folks of differing perspectives to hold conversations on this forum.

It is a form of ideology based censorship... it has no other function.

Any function you thought it might have had has been decidedly debunked in this very conversation.

How is it possible that everyone thought you were in your 60's if you've been so effective at sharing about your life? ~ Artemis at June 23, 2020 10:40 AM

Wow. Just wow.

My bar for insipid from you is pretty low -- and you're clearing it in street shoes.

Everyone(?) thought I was in my 60s? Everyone? And whom, exactly, are you including in this "everyone?" Only Crid has actually expressed this belief so far?

You have a tendency to make some mighty sweeping proclamations based solely on your own opinions and with scant supporting evidence.

You used one post -- years ago from Patrick -- to say that I am "regarded as the most dishonest interlocutor on this forum." One post.

By your standard, "everyone" thinks you're institutionalized -- after all, at least two people on this have speculated in the distant past that you are. That's enough by the standard you evince to say that "everyone believes it."

Tell your ward attendants "hello" from us. We think they're doing a bang-up job.

Conan,

The only one who is insipid is you.

You've defended nonsense regarding accusations that I reside in an institution simply because I won't reveal where I live to a bunch of internet sociopaths.

Yet asking how no one here happens to know how old you are is "insipid".

As always the problem is that you fail to follow the most simple of ethical concepts... the golden rule.

My point which seems to have gone over your head is that for years you have defended or stayed silent while others treated someone in a manner you personally would have found utterly distasteful.

That makes you an intellectual coward.

Conan,

Furthermore... Crid and Isab are just deranged idiots.

You on the other hand have a spark of intelligence there... I've seen it before.

You know better and yet you don't stand up for what you clearly believe in for yourself.

That is the reason I find you to be a disappointment. You could be a better person if you wanted to be... Crid and Isab are lost causes because they lack the mental capacity to do better... you recognize that this is wrong and yet you don't stand up against it.

Conan,

Also... part of the reason you are dishonest is because you read sentence one... start clutching your pearls and take great faux offense... while completely ignoring the following statement:

"That is a rhetorical question just to be clear. The point is that the only reason for the inquisition here is to distract and derail discussions for the purposes of making it impossible for folks of differing perspectives to hold conversations on this forum."

Did you miss that part Conan?

The part where I express that the question wasn't actually serious... it was just to make a more important point?

The fact that you ignored this piece and latched on to the rhetorical question to generate a rage post is the reason you lack intellectual honesty.

You can do better... you are capable of doing better.

I'm still on the fence if you do this kind of thing on purpose, or if you are responding out of emotion.

Tell your ward attendants "hello" from us. We think they're doing a bang-up job.

Conan the Grammarian at June 23, 2020 11:35 AM

I personally think too much screen time but whadda I know?

> actually expressed this belief

C'mon...

1. "might all be"

2. You're wise beyond your years.

Isab,

You are a senior citizen who is spending her twilight years trolling the internet.

Something went horribly wrong for you to end up in this state.

Isab,

You are a senior citizen who is spending her twilight years trolling the internet.

Something went horribly wrong for you to end up in this state.

Artemis at June 23, 2020 3:00 PM

Nah, not the internet, just you.

Isab,

That doesn't help your case.

You can do better... you are capable of doing better. ~ Artemis at June 23, 2020 12:23 PM

That I've disappointed you gnaws at my conscience daily.

Conan,

While I acknowledge that you are capable of doing better... I am still waiting to see evidence that you have a well-developed conscience.

You just seem very irrational and emotional most of the time.