One wonders what a gifted architect could have done with the same budget.

If you're an Ohio State graduate, you might be feeling curious....

Interesting perspective from Real Clear Public Affairs on the damage done to democracy by executives governing through Executive Orders.

There is another, deeper problem with using executive orders as a substitute for actual lawmaking. Legislatures by their nature do something that no other institution does. They bring together representatives with a broad spectrum of views and force them to talk face to face. It is the one forum where we as a nation fight it out, metaphorically, to reach a consensus as to what our government does. In a nation founded on the consent of the governed, this is a matter of great importance. By skipping the legislative process, executive orders short circuit this crucial step.

Executive orders also reduce congressional responsibility, shifting the focus of individual members of Congress towards giving theatrical performances rather than lawmaking. One sympathizes with Congress. It might be impossible today to find enough common ground to do its job, given our deeply divided society. But if Congress cannot manage this, it’s hard to imagine what other institution in American life could.

Congress has surrendered far too much of its authority and responsibility to the executive branch.

That the Paris Accords were never sent to the Senate for ratification and will now be considered the law of the land - yet again - is an abomination. Not because I disagree with them, but because we are being bound by a treaty made by one man, not the nation as a whole.

The NAACP has filed a lawsuit against Trump, Giuliani, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, for violating the Ku Klux Klan Act.

Orange man bad. NAACP still absolutely relevant. Send donations.

The story is irrelevant!… What a wonderfully, wonderfully illustrative photograph.

Conan,

Maybe Biden is just teaching them a lesson in power politics...

I mean, that's what you said when Obama didn't push through his agenda and relied on Congress to exercise it's power responsibly.

In all seriousness, I think you are just irritated that the GOP members of the Senate cannot grind any progress to a screeching halt with non-stop abuse of the filibuster.

It isn't so much that Congress has surrendered too much of it's authority and responsibility to the executive branch as certain members of the GOP caucus have explicitly stated they they refuse to behave in a reasonable manner.

I sincerely hope one day they come back to their senses... but until then we cannot be held hostage as a nation by intransigent loons.

I recall you defending Trump and his EO that resulted in children being stolen from their families and never returned.

If you can defend that EO, then you should be fine with this one.

Maybe Biden is just teaching them a lesson in power politics... ~ Artemis at February 17, 2021 7:51 AM

Read for comprehension, Artie. My comments in the earlier post were not limited to Biden, but to Congress over the last several decades having surrendered too much of its responsibility and power to the executive branch.

==========

I mean, that's what you said when Obama didn't push through his agenda and relied on Congress to exercise it's [sic] power responsibly. ~ Artemis at February 17, 2021 7:51 AM

Again, learn to read for comprehension.

And learn to use pronouns, for God's sake! The possessive is "its" not "it's."

What I said was McConnell holding off the Garland hearing was McConnell playing power politics. That is, he had the power to withhold the hearing and the Democrats could do nothing about it. They had no way to put pressure on him. Most of that was Obama not making powerful allies in the legislature (from either party) that could help him apply pressure on McConnell; and McConnell knowing Obama had no leverage.

The trend toward governing by executive order is not Congress not having leverage, it's members being unwilling to do anything because that would involve taking actual positions that could be used against them in the next election. This way, they just sit back and enjoy the perks of office, making sure they get on TV often enough so the yokels back home will see them and think they're fighting the good fight.

==========

What I said years ago about Obama's presidency was that he was exercising to much power though executive orders (see his "pen and phone" comment) and that Congress let him.

I even lamented the loss of Robert Byrd, a hyper-partisan Democrat whose only redeeming quality was that he fought to protect Congress' prerogatives from usurpation by both Democrat and Republican presidents.

In the end, Obama was a fundamentally lazy president, unwilling to do the work necessary to build relationships with individual members of Congress outside the party hierarchy and do the yeoman's work to shepherd bills through the legislature. Kinky Friedman called Obama a better candidate than president, an assessment with which I've come around to agreeing. And that's too bad. The enormous potential of the Obama presidency was wasted, mostly by Obama himself.

Some things still have to be done by the legislature. And Obamacare was one of those things. So, instead or working with Congress on real healthcare reform, Obama simply watched as the Congress, dominated in both houses by his own party, steamrolled the opposition and deliver a pork-laden bill to him, a monstrosity which he eagerly signed -- just like his executive orders, only this one was written by Congress and not his staff.

And that, Artie, was not Obama relying on Congress to "exercise its power responsibly." That was a monarch demanding a bill from a compliant legislature.

"Obama, he’s leaving in a few months, I don’t have much to say about him. Except that he’s really turned out to be a Forrest Gump. He peaked when he was a candidate. He was a very good candidate, and if he’d have let it go there, he’d be fine. But he was a very weak president. I think he reached his zenith when he took that series of selfies at Nelson Mandela’s funeral. That kind of says it all. I think he he knows Mandela’s a great man, and he knows he’s nothing but a party puke." ~ Richard "Kinky" Friedman

==========

I recall you defending Trump and his EO that resulted in children being stolen from their families and never returned. ~ Artemis at February 17, 2021 7:51 AM

You lie, Artie.

In that discussion, I explained that the executive order for detention of family members came out of a court decision that forced the Obama administration to separate families or let them go with an order to appear.

The more rigid border control enforcement of the Trump administration meant more separations. Those separations were not the intent of the administration, but a side effect of a short-sighted court order and the "catch and release" policy of the Obama administration. The court said children could not be housed in detention centers with adults and could not be held indefinitely in non-adult facilities.

I further explained that coyotes and smugglers had started bringing children with them and claiming they were family members because the Obama administration was turning families loose with an order to appear for an asylum hearing at some later date. Trump ended that practice and ran headfirst into the court order on detention of children in adult facilities. No juvenile facilities had been built or funded by the prior administration, "catch and release" being its preferred policy.

Even your chosen words don't acknowledge that both administrations were caught between Scylla and Charybdis. Instead, you use emotional words like "stolen" to indict the administration you hate while ignoring the role played by the previous administration in letting the situation fester.

You like to make moral proclamations, Artie, without any sense of the reality of the situation. It would be great if the government could feed every hungry person, rescue every oppressed one, and heal every sick one without it costing the taxpayers a dime. But it can't. Governing requires trade-offs. And those trade-offs will not always conform to your hyperbolic moral outrage theater.

What I said years ago about Obama's presidency was that he was exercising to much power though executive orders (see his "pen and phone" comment) and that Congress let him.

And that should be "...exercising too much power...." My bad.

Conan Says:

"And that should be "...exercising too much power...." My bad."

Well of course it should be... but this is no excuse for sloppy writing and poor language usage.

As per your own standard this is a sure sign of your lazy writing habits and poor understanding of grammar.

You must remember the rules of the English language Conan.

To, too, and two are three different words with different meanings.

Shall I link you to a usage guide to help you better understand?

Needless to say you should get my point. You make mistakes constantly is your own writing and I don't make a point of calling them out because I'd rather focus on substance.

You've created a horrible situation for yourself because your poor behavior has now compelled you to come back and offer a correction 2 hours after writing a blog post.

Blog posts shouldn't require a subsequent post detailing errata.

Blogs are the fast food establishment of the writing world.

You would be wise to stop insisting that I or anyone else eat their fries with a knife and fork.

Stop being so petty and you won't feel compelled to cover your ass about these kinds of things.

Conan Says:

"And learn to use pronouns, for God's sake! The possessive is "its" not "it's.""

Learn the difference between to, too, and two... or maybe... just maybe people make typos.

Surely you recognize that I've used the words "its" and "it's" properly hundreds of times in my writings here.

Your essential problem is that you deny the benefit of the doubt for innocent mistakes to others... while demanding they give you a free pass.

This is a blog Conan... I'm not writing here to earn a living.

Something else for you to consider is that you've got enormous quantities of free time on your hands that I don't have. I've got work responsibilities and children to take care of... you can afford to sit around all day and try to craft error free posts for an internet blog (and still fail to accomplish that task). I don't have the luxury of having all that free time to devote to that nonsense.

I put in my effort where it matters... blog posts are extremely low on my priority list.

"What I said was McConnell holding off the Garland hearing was McConnell playing power politics. That is, he had the power to withhold the hearing and the Democrats could do nothing about it. They had no way to put pressure on him."

Two points (see how we properly use the number "two" here and not the words "to" or "too" in this case... we can stop this game any time you like by the way... you'll be happier for it in the long run):

1 - Obama didn't need McConnel to hold a hearing to put Garland on the bench. Obama could have unilaterally put him in place using a recess appointment due to the timing of Scalia's death. Obama played fair and McConnel refused to do his job.

2 - Biden has the power to issue executive orders and there is nothing the GOP can really do about it... so by your own standard this is just a lesson in power politics.

Live by the sword die by the sword Conan.

You have nothing to complain about here.

I on the other hand do not like any of this. However I've been consistent across the board, so I remain the liberty to make such statements without being a massive hypocrite.

Conan,

Also... I am fully aware of the distinction between the words "remain" and "retain".

This is the fundamental problem with all of the games you play.

When you see a wayward apostrophe or a mistyped word in one my posts you instantly see it as an avenue to attack me as a person.

However when you make errors you insist it isn't evidence of any deeper meaning.

People make typo's Conan... I know it happens to me all the time when I'm not busy editing or proof reading what I write.

Again... this is a blog... a place for casual discourse.

Why try and transform it into something else if not to satisfy your own fragile ego?

Errors happen and the vast majority of the time they are indicative of nothing more than human imperfection.

It's really that simple.

Learn the difference between to, too, and two... or maybe... just maybe people make typos.

Again, the criticisms leveled against your writing are not about mere typos.

And, Artie, I spotted, confessed, and corrected my own typo. Which is more than you've done. I didn't go into some long-winded rationalization using The Federalist Papers to argue I'm right.

Nonetheless, I will agree with you that "Blog posts shouldn't require a subsequent post detailing errata." At least not for typos. Typos of yours, I generally ignore or simply mark with a "sic" to indicate the mistake was not mine.

What's more, I doubt you'd have spotted that "to/too"mistake if I hadn't pointed it out.

People make typo's Conan...

Yes, they do. But practice and attention to detail prevents conscientious writers from making stupid ones repeatedly, especially when they've been called on them multiple times, as you have about using an apostrophe in "typos."

And, Artie, I pick on only your mistakes because I find you to be a pompous ass. You've stated repeatedly that your mission here is to correct the wrong-thinking you find so prevalent on this blog. You've characterized contributors to this blog as generally being "morons."

==========

Biden has the power to issue executive orders and there is nothing the GOP can really do about it... so by your own standard this is just a lesson in power politics.

I can tell from your objections that you didn't read the article, Artie. It's a politically-neutral article.

First, governing by executive order is not a "lesson in power politics." It's a usurpation of authority by the executive and an abdication of responsibility by the legislature.

Executive orders are one of the instruments available to the president via the Constitution. The are intended "to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself." (quoted from Wikipedia)

The president also has at his disposal presidential memoranda and regulatory agencies rules. These instruments were never intended to be edicts issuable by the president whenever he didn't feel like consulting Congress, but instruments by which the executive branch can carry out and enforce Congressional laws.

Second, neither I nor the article are arguing that Biden shouldn't have the power to issue executive orders, nor federal agencies rules. At times, it is necessary for a president to issue executive orders. That's why they're in the Constitution.

Executive orders should be about the execution of laws and the administration of the executive branch, not about the implementation of a policy the president did not even try to get through Congress. Since they're binding only on the executive branch, such orders are implemented through the army of regularly agencies Congress has created within the executive branch - an army of regulatory agencies that promulgate rules so Congress doesn't have to and can spend more time preening.

Over the past several decades, we've seen Congress abdicate its responsibility to the executive branch - both Republicans and Democrats. Presidents are taking on the role of monarchs, and the legislature, which is supposed to prevent that, is instead acquiescing to it.

==========

Artie, you see every discussion about law and politics in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans. Your comment about executive orders earlier, "...I think you are just irritated that the GOP members of the Senate cannot grind any progress to a screeching halt..." indicates you cannot see a party-neutral comment for what it is and must interject party politics into any discussion of government or politics. Your only frame of reference in any discussion of politics is Democratic Party talking points.

This is not about Biden. Or Trump. Or Obama. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. And yet, in a way, it's about all of them and more. Try to see beyond party politics, Artie. I doubt you can, but just try. As Crid's link to an article regarding the recently-deceased, Rush Limbaugh, says about discussing politics, "this should be fun." And with you, it never is.

==========

Obama didn't need McConnel to hold a hearing to put Garland on the bench. Obama could have unilaterally put him in place using a recess appointment due to the timing of Scalia's death. Obama played fair and McConnel refused to do his job.

Actually, Obama did need McConnell to hold a hearing. HIs only real option for a recess appointment was an inter-session appointment. That would have ignited a political firestorm. And, of course, in response the new Senate could have adjourned early -- with the approval of the president and the House, both Republican -- which would have ended Garland's term after only a few weeks.

Harry Reid started the practice of leaving the Senate in session with one senator reading random notes into the record to prevent the president (then George W. Bush) from making recess appointments. McConnell continued that practice, so Obama would not have been able to make an in-session recess appointment of Garland.

McConnell, realizing there was an election coming up and that a new president might want to make his or her own appointment, held off the nomination hearings. Perhaps he was also motivated to rebuke a president he found to be condescending and with whom his relationship had grown notably frosty.

==========

For now, Biden has a Democrat-controlled Congress. He should not feel the need to bypass it with executive orders. He was also in the Senate for 30+ years. He should know how to make legislative deals with opposition parties, and be open to doing so.

If any president has the opportunity to halt and possibly reverse the trend of presidents governing by executive orders in the face of a Congress filled with political cowards, Biden is that president.

However, Biden's never been a leader, but a sidekick most of his political career. He was Ted Kennedy's sidekick and then Chris Dodd's. I don't see him going against the political desires of his party's base, nor his party leadership letting him do that.

Trump, too, signed dozens of executive orders in his first 100 days. I had harbored no hope that he would understand the need to reverse the trend toward a monarchical presidency since he never articulated a coherent political philosophy beyond populism. And, admittedly, since most of his early executive orders rescinded Obama executive orders that I felt overreached presidential authority, I hoped his spate of executive orders might be a useful short-term exercise to restore order.

It was not. Unfortunately, like too many recent presidents facing a hostile Congress, Trump later retreated into governing by fiat.

That Pelosi and Schumer simultaneously used their pulpits to savage the president (and the presidency) instead of attempting to govern the country also did not help correct the problem, but it did give them lots of photo opportunities, which is what they had really wanted all along.

We elect presidents, not kings. And we need Congress to do more than stage photo opportunities bashing an opposition president and actually do its job of legislating, of debating issues and reaching compromise, of being an equal branch of the US government as assigned to it by the Constitution.

Conan Says:

"Again, the criticisms leveled against your writing are not about mere typos."

Sure they are... "it's" versus "its" is as much a typo as you writing "to" instead of "too".

What it boils down to is you've appointed yourself the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to this kind of thing.

You've already outed your malignant motivations on this subject so you don't get to walk it back now.

None of your criticisms are genuine... nor are they valid.

You just have a complex and an extremely fragile ego.

Conan,

It is time for you to have a bit of a come to Jesus moment... because you've gone completely off the rails and need to get back on track.

"And, Artie, I spotted, confessed, and corrected my own typo. Which is more than you've done. I didn't go into some long-winded rationalization using The Federalist Papers to argue I'm right."

Nonsense... in this very conversation I "spotted, confessed, and corrected my own typo" when it came to an error where I typed "remain" instead of "retain".

Surely you cannot be so foolish as to believe I don't understand the difference between those extremely disparate words.

It certainly wasn't what I intended to type... and the letters "m" and "t" aren't even close on the keyboard so it wasn't a finger slip either.

All that happened was a completely innocent miscommunication between what my mind intended to type and what my fingers produced on the keyboard.

This is a very normal experience for people... and it isn't one that I rake people over the coals for.

I always try and give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this kind of thing.

You don't do that... or at least you selectively choose not to do that when you feel threatened.

That isn't even the only typo I noticed... I just feel no need to post errata blog posts... you shouldn't either. No one should because it is patently ridiculous.

You are behaving like a child.

"What's more, I doubt you'd have spotted that "to/too"mistake if I hadn't pointed it out."

No Conan... I do notice these things and I generally ignore them because I am not a petulant child.

I am interested in the substance and logical construction of an argument only. I am interested if the facts are presented accurately... I am interested if they are linked together in a logical manner to present a cohesive argument.

You on the other hand look to avoid the substance of an argument you do not like by identifying cosmetic flaws and diverting the conversation away from the actual subject material.

It is just a defense mechanism for a deeply insecure person. You really need to get over yourself.

"And, Artie, I pick on only your mistakes because I find you to be a pompous ass. You've stated repeatedly that your mission here is to correct the wrong-thinking you find so prevalent on this blog. You've characterized contributors to this blog as generally being "morons.""

You were pulling this crap LONG before I decided to hit back.

You've been up to this nonsense for years... and not just with me.

What you could never tolerate is having your thoughts challenged by people presenting you with evidence that demonstrated your conclusions were in error.

You know this.

My "mission" isn't to "correct wrong-thinking" Conan... it is to present factual information and valid conclusions to be drawn from that information.

This is why when I told you that things were being handled poorly from the start with the Covid-19 pandemic I was correct... and why when I told you that Trump's poor handling of the pandemic would ultimately lead to his defeat I was correct.

I'm not right about these things on a consistent basis because I am lucky. I am right because I look at the correct data points and accurately evaluate the trend.

I also accurately predicted that Trump would never concede the election regardless of the results... I made that prediction a year ago.

You know I said all of these things... you also insisted that I have no idea what I was talking about despite the fact that you've come up goose eggs on all of this.

You also haven't gotten your dementia break down prediction for Biden correct ~6 months since you made it... what is the time table for this anyway?... if he suffers from dementia 10 years from now are you going to declare you saw it coming?

You were just regurgitating conservative talking points as you always do with no real understanding.

So let's talk about the future. The GOP made a serious miscalculation in failing to convict Trump. This is going to hurt them in the long run. In the short term though McConnell is likely toast as minority leader and I think it is likely if we loses his spot and the GOP fails to retake the Senate in 2022 (which also probably will not happen)... he will probably retire before his term is up.

What is going on in Texas right now is also a disaster for the GOP as it demonstrates that when given all the levers of power everything falls apart.

You would have done well to heed my advice and my warnings... or at the very least taken them seriously.

"First, governing by executive order is not a "lesson in power politics." It's a usurpation of authority by the executive and an abdication of responsibility by the legislature."

No Conan, the comparison stands.

The legislature also abdicated its responsibility when it failed to hold a hearing for Garland.

They could have rejected him, that was their right.

However it was their responsibility to hold the hearing.

It was a usurpation of authority by McConnell to unilaterally decide not to hold the hearing at all. That is not how "advice and consent" works.

If his actions were a "lesson in power politics" then... by direct comparison Biden's actions are a "lesson in power politics" now.

That is a logical parallel.

I don't expect you to acknowledge it because that isn't generally how you operate. However they are entirely analogous.

You have no leg to stand on to complain given what you were okay with before.

I on the other hand can find both distasteful.

"This is not about Biden. Or Trump. Or Obama. This is not about Republicans and Democrats."

It shouldn't be... and yet you continue to defend abuses of the Constitution perpetuated in a manner that give you results you enjoy.

The point being that you are not a credible person to be putting forth the arguments you are making... even though in general I agree with them.

You are like the chain smoking parent insisting their kids should not smoke when they are adults... I mean, you'd be correct... you're just not a great advocate for the position given your history.

Conan,

Just to prove my point further:

"if we loses" was supposed to be "if he loses"

Are you next going to declare that I don't know the difference between the words "we" and "he"?

This is why your objections are stupid.

I've never once pretended to be a perfect typist. I'm not by a long shot.

I also have zero interest in proof reading blog posts like this is my job and I'm trying to impress someone.

This is a burger joint and I'm content to eat with my hands.

When I have a reservation at Jean-Georges or Alinea I will conduct myself in a manner consistent with a fine dining establishment.

Simply put, your criticisms are out of place for the environment we are in and hence make you appear desperate and stupid.

I only read the last sentence of that word vomit you posted, Artie. So, I'm gonna respond to only that sentence.

Simply put, your criticisms ... make you appear desperate and stupid. ~ Artemis at February 18, 2021 10:15 AM

No, Artie, your verbose defensiveness makes you look desperate and stupid. You are way too wordy and defensive for something you dismiss as merely "casual discourse" or the digital equivalent of "fast food."

You spend way too much time Googling stuff with which to defend yourself for anyone to take seriously your claims that don't care what gets said about you here. (Note: not sure if "Googling" should be capitalized or if it's been genericized)

Nice Google search and name drop on the restaurants, by the way.

Conan Says:

"I only read the last sentence of that word vomit you posted, Artie. So, I'm gonna respond to only that sentence."

That's too bad... you might have learned something... then again, who am I kidding... your brain fossilized long ago.

"No, Artie, your verbose defensiveness makes you look desperate and stupid."

No Conan, only an utter moron attacks someone... admits to attacking them... and then calls them "defensive".

I'm not "defensive"... you on the other hand are aggressive because you are deeply insecure.

Only a moron takes a swing at someone and then accuses them of being "defensive" when they block or counter.

"You spend way too much time Googling stuff with which to defend yourself for anyone to take seriously your claims that don't care what gets said about you here."

So what upsets you is that when you say false things I provide links that demonstrate that you are wrong?

That is how educated people interact with one another. They cite evidence to make their case.

You on the other hand just spout nonsense opinions and throw a fit when it turns out you are completely off base.

"Nice Google search and name drop on the restaurants, by the way."

No Conan. I've enjoyed tasting menu's at each of those restaurants (along with many others in cities across the globe). That is one of the nice things about being able to travel.

This is your problem though... you simply assume that I haven't been to those places and then declare that I looked them up on the internet.

None of that is based in fact or reality. You live in a fantasy world.

In any event, I do highly recommend each of those restaurants if you ever have the chance to go.

Conan,

I've also got to love how you completely chopped out the middle portion of my statement.

You didn't do that because you needed to as the sentence wasn't long anyway.

Here was the original sentence:

"Simply put, your criticisms are out of place for the environment we are in and hence make you appear desperate and stupid."

This would have been easily quoted in its entirety. However you felt it was necessary to reduce it to the following:

"Simply put, your criticisms ... make you appear desperate and stupid. ~ Artemis at February 18, 2021 10:15 AM"

Your purposeful elimination of "are out of place for the environment we are in and hence" is telling.

That is the part that makes you appear desperate and stupid.

It is one thing to criticize someone for eating with their hands at a fine dining establishment and quite another to criticize them for eating fries with their hands at Burger King.

The first makes sense... the second makes you appear stupid because it demonstrates an inability to discern what social environment you are operating in.

This is a blog Conan... I'm not here to publish a book.

This is a blog Conan... I'm not here to publish a book. ~ Artemis at February 18, 2021 12:25 PM

Then why do you make your posts wordy enough to fill one?

Your purposeful elimination of "are out of place for the environment we are in and hence" is telling.

That has to be one of the stupidest and most paranoid things you've ever posted. You're really stretching to find things to accuse me of now.

I can only presume you're desperate here to find something to counter my criticism of you for deliberately cherry-picking a portion of one of my posts from days, weeks, or years earlier without a link to it, making it easy for you to skew the meaning or take it out of context. I did nothing of that sort here.

The portion quoted did not change the meaning of what you wrote and was included only for reference purposes. I could post simply the date and time of your post and let it go at that, but I posted a snippet to remind readers what was said. And the ellipses let people know something was cut out. Anyone wanting the full quote need only scroll upward a short way.

If my aim was to deceive, I'd have taken a page from your book and quoted something of yours from years ago and skewed the meaning. But I leave that practice to you; you're much more proficient at such deceptions than I.

Conan Says:

"Then why do you make your posts wordy enough to fill one?"

Since you appear to be numeracy challenged let's quickly check something.

Your post at February 18, 2021 8:55 AM = 1090 words excluding quotes from others

My post at February 18, 2021 10:04 AM = 945 words excluding quotes from others

Now allow me to help you with a simple mathematical principle

1090 is a larger number than 945

The issue at hand is that you spend over 1000 words spouting utter nonsense... and then whine and complain when I spend less than 1000 words responding and debunking things you said that are incorrect.

That is actually quite efficient to be honest. Often times it takes more words to correct an incorrect statement.

It is well known that what can be stated incorrected in one sentence can often take paragraphs to properly address.

You are complaining about nothing... but what else is new.

Conan,

Everything with you appears to be projection.

You just finished speculating that I'm only aware of specific fine dining establishments because I looked them up on the internet.

And now you are insisting I am "paranoid" because I point out that it is rather convenient that you actually chopped out the middle of a sentence I wrote that changes the nature of the sentence itself.

I didn't imagine that happening.

On the other hand you were imagining what occurred with regard to me writing about places to eat.

Your belief has no basis in evidence... what I'm talking about actually occurred.

You're best case scenario is that you are a sloppy writer. However you insist you are a master of the written word... therefore it must have been a conscious choice.

See how logic works?

And before you go apoplectic... I am aware that I mistyped "you're" when I intended "your".

Conan Says:

"If my aim was to deceive, I'd have taken a page from your book and quoted something of yours from years ago and skewed the meaning."

Nonsense... I never skew your meaning.

What you did in this case is known as a "lie of omission".

There wasn't a good reason to chop out the very middle of that sentence as it provides meaningful context for *why* I was describing your criticisms as stupid.

They are stupid precisely because they are out of place for the venue.

Conan Says:

"This is not about Biden. Or Trump. Or Obama. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. And yet, in a way, it's about all of them and more. Try to see beyond party politics, Artie. I doubt you can, but just try."

Here is the thing Conan. You talk a good game, but there is a reason that I object to your stance in this conversation.

The reason isn't because that I am incapable of seeing "beyond party politics"... it is that I see through you.

Now in 2021, about 1 month into the Biden presidency you have been bitching up a storm about executive orders.

However, these are the things you had to say about executive orders back in 2018:

"Trump's overturning of Obama's executive orders is not extra-Constitutional, as some critics have alleged."

"The precedents Obama set by governing through executive orders and executing policy through un-vetted czars instead of vetted Cabinet secretaries is a recipe for an executive branch takeover.

Hillary, with her impatience for democratic governance, would have taken those practices farther than the naive so-called Constitutional scholar, Obama, ever imagined they could be taken."

"We had 8 years of a president who, while not an evil person, put into place precedents that could be used to seize power - e.g., ruling by executive order ("stroke of the pen...."), regulatory agency fiat, and "Dear Colleague" letters. And a political party that sat back and cheered him on.

And Donald Trump may just be the president to put a stop to that, either by his own rectitude or by the sudden discovery of Constitutional limits on presidential power by the party that sat back and allowed his predecessor free rein."

"Trump is not ruling via executive order or agency fiat, as his predecessor did. We have yet to see if Trump will submit whatever agreement, if any, he negotiates with Kim Jong Un to Congress for ratification. If he does not, you'll hear my voice criticizing him, as I criticized Obama for not submitting the Iran Deal and the Paris Agreement for ratification."

It certainly doesn't seem to me as if you expressed some kind of neutral sentiment in any of these statements. You were in fact defending Trump's use of executive orders, while constantly bitching about Obama... and even speculating that Clinton would make things worse (despite the fact that she was never in a position to do so, you were just randomly speculating about counterfactual versions of history).

In any event, Trump did enter into an agreement with North Korea and never submitted it to Congress for ratification.

Please show me where I can "hear your voice criticizing him" for any of that.

Surely you can provide a direct quote of your objection at the time that it occurred, right?

Just cut the shit already. You do not really have issues with executive branch over reach in general... you have issues with executive orders put in place by Democrats only.

Or are you going to insist that all 4 of those quotes are grossly out of context despite their meaning being completely obvious and unambiguous?

Wow. Wordy.

Artie, it means nothing that one of my posts was longer than one of your posts. That 10:04 post was the middle post in a series of posts from you. My post at 8:55 was one post, broken up into different topics. Taken together without quotes, your three posts were 1,160 words.

1,160 is a larger number than 1,090.

Artie, the thing about you is you're no fun. You're a bore. This is a blog, a virtual salon. We post opinions and relevant experiences here. We exchange ideas and enjoy each others' perspectives. You don't. You're that kid in class who annoys everyone in his efforts to prove that he's so much smarter than everyone else, including the teacher, but in doing so reveals that he really isn't.

You seem to be kinda tightly wound and you're taking this thing way too seriously. Lighten up. Make the most of the time you have on this mortal coil.

"You know, you're much too tense. You're a young man. You need to relax, learn to take some joy in your work. ~ Tommy Lee Jones (from Men in Black)

In any event, Trump did enter into an agreement with North Korea and never submitted it to Congress for ratification. ~ Artemis at February 18, 2021 9:51 PM

Apples and oranges, Artie.

The Trump agreement with North Korea was an agreement to negotiate an end to the Korean War - which was never officially declared or ended and has been under a cease-fire agreement for almost 70 years. It also lifted some sanctions with a stipulation to end missile testing. All of those are part of the president's foreign policy purview.

No partisanship involved. You'll notice I didn't criticize Obama for negotiating the Paris Accord, but for implementing it without Senate ratification. Nor did I criticize the fact that Clinton, Bush, and Obama all negotiated agreements with North Korea. That's what presidents are supposed to do.

Trump's agreement with North Korea did not bind the United States to any action other than to come to the negotiating table. The Paris Accords bind the United States to implement a specified domestic energy agenda dictated by an agreement with foreign powers.

Should those earlier presidents have asked Senate ratification for their agreements to send food and other aid to North Korea? Technically, yes. However, presidents have been buying off the North Koreans for years and, since the country is technically still in an undeclared state of war with North Korea, the entire situation is a mess.

Conan,

You can play all the games you like... but your post history exposes you for the rank partisan hack that you are:

"Trump's overturning of Obama's executive orders is not extra-Constitutional, as some critics have alleged."

"The precedents Obama set by governing through executive orders and executing policy through un-vetted czars instead of vetted Cabinet secretaries is a recipe for an executive branch takeover."

The fact is that Trump issues more executive orders than Obama when normalized for time in office.

In addition he vastly outpaced Obama in terms of having "acting" cabinet members that weren't vetted or approved by Congress.

You simply did not express any concern at all.

You were deeply worried about executive orders for 8 years under Obama... then stopped worrying about them and instead excusing them for 4 years under Trump... and we are 1 month into the Biden presidency and you are back to beating the drum of being against executive orders.

You're a fake Conan... it's time once again for you to sit down and shut up.

Conan Says:

"This is a blog, a virtual salon."

Which is why you have pitch a fit any time you see a wayward apostrophe.

"You're that kid in class who annoys everyone in his efforts to prove that he's so much smarter than everyone else, including the teacher, but in doing so reveals that he really isn't."

Everything with you is projection.

You took the time to pop into a conversation you weren't even involved in to interrupt with a word sentence because you thought you were correcting a grammatical error.

When it turned out the English usage guide and a prominent linguist were on my side of the argument you then refused to acknowledge that you were out of place.

Is this how you typically act in a "salon".

Let's be clear... there is a reason you do this... and it's not because you are secure in your own intelligence.

As I told you before... you just are oozing small dick energy all over the place.

You've been out of work for about 2 years now Conan... a smart person would have done something to enhance their skills... or maybe you could have tried to publish an English style guide that conformed to your particular prescriptivist beliefs (I don't suspect it would garner much attention, but at least you could say you wrote a book).

Instead you sit around trolling the internet telling working folks they are "lazy" in terms of how they post on internet blogs.

Some of us don't have the luxury of sitting around all day proof reading internet posts... we save that kind of thing for the "smart" people.

Conan Says:

"You'll notice I didn't criticize Obama for negotiating the Paris Accord, but for implementing it without Senate ratification."

As usual I don't think you actually understand what the Paris Accord involved.

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

It is just a list of goals Conan... there are no specific policy requirements within the agreement.

Just to give you some examples of the kinds of things that are in there:

"In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as
possible..."

Great... so we've agreed to work toward a goal as quickly as we can. That is essentially meaningless from a policy perspective.

"Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions."

Okay... so we agreed to come up with our own plan and communicate it with the rest of the world. Again, no specific policy requirements.

It is essentially just an agreement to try harder.

The agreement has no teeth in terms of enforcement and allows each country to determine it's own path.

Why on earth would a President need Senate approval to tell the rest of the world that they will do what they can?

The President has some latitude when it comes to energy policy and environmental regulations independent of Congress.

The EPA is part of the executive branch after all.

The President can certainly negotiate agreements of good faith action independent of Congress.

Once again what it boils down to is you have a double standard when it comes to policies you like versus policies you do not like.

If Trump can negotiate with North Korea without Senate approval... surely Obama can do the same in the United Nations for non-binding agreements to try to make the world a better place.

Go ahead and tell me exactly what part of the Paris Accord binds the United States to do anything policy wise that we are not in complete control of?

Conan Says:

"The Paris Accords bind the United States to implement a specified domestic energy agenda dictated by an agreement with foreign powers."

You've obviously never read the actual agreement.

We set our own policy to try and achieve an agreed upon goal... nothing happens to the United States if the goal is not achieved.

We set our own rules and there are no consequences.

Wow, four wordy posts. I won't address all of them, because most of what you say is nonsense and I didn't read them. I'll address these though:

When it turned out the English usage guide and a prominent linguist were on my side of the argument you then refused to acknowledge that you were out of place. ~ Artemis at February 19, 2021 8:07 AM

"The English usage guide?" "The?" No, "an," Artie. There are others. The one you cited is not the final authority on this or any other language issue.

Now, let's actually read the guide you cited. Hmm, it abounds with uses of "fewer" over "less" with quantifiable nouns

• "There are far fewer examples in the American data....
• Fewer initial capitals are used....
• ...says the same in fewer letters....
• ...tend to have fewer resources....

And, Artie, the same guide retains the use of "less" for unquantifiable nouns

• ...showed less commitment....
• ...less than 2%.... (one of those exceptions I pointed out in our earlier debate)
• ...less use of -ed in compound words.
• ...less familiar....
• Its meaning may be less focused....

I could go on and on, but it seems Pam prefers the use of "fewer" with quantifiable objects and "less" with unquantifiable ones, despite her argument otherwise.

I have an electronic copy of The Cambridge Guide to English Usage and could send it to you, if you'd like. Of course, then you'd have to reveal yourself. And if you do that, the Joker might find out you're Batman. (/sarcasm)

As for linguists "on your side," I cited three linguists who advanced the argument I favored.

Let's check with the online version of the Cambridge Dictionary which says, "We usually use less with uncountable nouns. We use fewer with plural nouns:" and "Warning: You will often hear less used with plural countable nouns in informal spoken situations, but traditionally it is not considered to be correct."

Let's go over that again, "...traditionally it is not considered to be correct."

According to your cited The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, even the Oxford Dictionary notes that the use of "less" with countable nouns is "regarded as incorrect."

Hmm, "...regarded as incorrect."

Modern standardized English usage dictates that "less exceptions" is "regarded as incorrect," Artie. Get over it.

The deterioration of language due to laziness and ignorance is not something to be celebrated or abetted, Artie, no matter how desperately you are to prove me wrong.

==========

Let's be clear... there is a reason you do this... and it's not because you are secure in your own intelligence. ~ Artemis at February 19, 2021 8:07 AM

Oh, I'm very secure in my own intelligence, Artie. The reason I do this to you is because I don't like you. I think you're a pompous ass.

As for the time I spend here, it's actually very little. I spend most of my time house-hunting for real estate clients, taking online classes or seminars, editing my photographs, working with recruiters, and reading. Most of my posts here are written on the fly, composed quickly at the keyboard and submitted with a cursory once-over for spelling and grammar mistakes.

Your defensive, hysterical, and hyperbolic responses tell me that I'm getting to you, living rent-free in your head. Boy, it's roomy in here. Maybe I'll put in a pool.

==========

And, Artie, I've been pretty consistent in my concerns about presidents governing through executive orders and regulatory agencies. The reason I linked the article now is because City Journal published it now. Had they published it during the Trump administration, I'd have linked to it then.

Conan Says:

""The English usage guide?" "The?" No, "an," Artie. There are others. The one you cited is not the final authority on this or any other language issue."

Again, you seem to be at war with professional linguists and The Cambridge Guide to English Usage.

What you cannot seem to wrap your head around is that you are not an authority on any language.

You aren't even arguing with me at this point, you are arguing with professionals.

The interesting thing about The Cambridge Guide to English Usage is that it doesn't rely on bias or opinion... it is rigorous in that the results are based on linguistic analysis of how the English is actually used.

In that sense it is probably the most authoritative guide to English usage we have available.

Scream and shout all you like... you're still wrong. Not because I say so, but because the experts say so.

"Now, let's actually read the guide you cited. Hmm, it abounds with uses of "fewer" over "less" with quantifiable nouns"

Well of course it does Conan... the guide explicitly states it is a stylistic choice:

https://archive.org/details/cambridgeguideto00pete_0/page/205/mode/2up

In order to make your case you have to go out of your way to completely ignore the text.

"That aside, it was and is essentially a stylistic choice, between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less."

The distinction is in the formality of the usage.

I will remind you that you called this place a "virtual salon". It is a casual environment.

You have no leg to stand on here.

"As for linguists "on your side," I cited three linguists who advanced the argument I favored."

Great Conan... so what?

What you are now arguing is that there is a difference of opinion amongst the experts so therefore you will enforce a subset of their opinions on people on a blog?

When experts differ it is wise for you to keep your mouth shut.

When/if there is a consensus amongst the usage guides and the experts then you can weigh in.

I don't recognize you as having more knowledge and expertise in this area than the folks who put together The Cambridge Guide to English Usage.

As in baseball a tie goes to the runner.

"Oh, I'm very secure in my own intelligence, Artie. The reason I do this to you is because I don't like you. I think you're a pompous ass."

Right... so why even bother trying to defend your nonsense when it is based purely on malice?

By the way, secure adults don't act the way you do.

I've been seeing how you operate for a while Conan... and as far as I can tell you've got a pretty serious superiority complex... but as we all know, the superiority act is just a cover for a deep sense of failure and lack of accomplishment.

Do you even realize how crazy you sound when you are having an argument with an English usage guide as if your opinion counts?

I'll try to explain once more so maybe you'll get it.

The distinction is between formal usage and casual usage.

It is not considered to be correct formally... but for casual discussions it's perfectly fine.

Just to highlight how very stupid you sound overall. You argue on the one hand that I am "pompous", but you are criticizing me for using a very casual writing style as opposed to a very formal one.

Pompous people don't write in a casual manner.

Your argument is self defeating.

Conan,

Just to cut you off at the pass... I am aware that self-defeating is hyphenated.

That being said, I almost forgot to address this part:

"Your defensive, hysterical, and hyperbolic responses tell me that I'm getting to you, living rent-free in your head."

I think you're projecting again Conan. This is what you had to say 6 years ago in a thread I wasn't even in:

"Only his comments are galling, so you really really want to respond to them. And you do."

You've been busy talking about me in threads I'm not even in for over half a decade. You interrupt conversations I am having with other people in threads you are not even in.

You've acknowledged that you are absolutely compelled to respond to what I say despite not liking me.

It sure seems like you've been obsessed with me for a good portion of your life.

You're a sick puppy Conan. Secure adults without mental issues don't operate the way you do.

I don't recognize you as having more knowledge and expertise in this area than the folks who put together The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. ~ Artemis at February 19, 2021 12:31 PM

Doesn't matter what or whom you recognize -- 'cause Pam uses English the way I'm telling you it should be used. "Fewer" for countable nouns and "less" for measurable but not countable nouns.

Secure adults without mental issues don't operate the way you do. ~ Artemis at February 19, 2021 12:48 PM

How would you know how secure adults without mental issues operate?

It sure seems like you've been obsessed with me for a good portion of your life. ~ Artemis at February 19, 2021 12:48 PM

A good portion? How old do think I am? I haven't even been commenting on this blog for a "good portion of my life."

And no, Artie, I'm not obsessed with you. I just think you're a pompous ass.

As for obsession, you're the one pulling up 6-year-old quotes from me. I don't even remember making half of those, but you've got 'em on speed dial.

==========

You've been out of work for about 2 years now Conan.... ~ Artemis at February 19, 2021 8:07 AM

Less than a year, Artie. Funny how that's the one comment I made that you don't seem to have on instant recall. Easier for you to lie that way, I guess.

Conan Says:

"Doesn't matter what or whom you recognize -- 'cause Pam uses English the way I'm telling you it should be used. "Fewer" for countable nouns and "less" for measurable but not countable nouns."

Got it... according to you we can just ignore all of the published sources and experts that disagree with you.

Once again... a tie goes to the runner.

Again, no one actually cares about your prescriptivist religion. There are plenty of English language experts who have a much deeper understanding that share the same opinion as I do.

For example:

"What grammarians say should be has perhaps less influence on what shall be than even the more modest of them realize; usage evolves itself little disturbed by their likes & dislikes. And yet the temptation to show how better use might have been made of the material to hand is sometimes irresistible." — H. W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage

Furthermore Tolkien also understood the proper distinction between formal and informal usage:

"...It’s cool under the willows. Less flies!"

Professional linguists understand that usage depends on environment.

Again, you are the moron with ketchup stains on his shirt bursting into a Burger King yelling at people for eating with their hands.

"How would you know how secure adults without mental issues operate?"

You're a man who is nearly a senior citizen who has devoted ~10% of your life to ranting at someone on a computer screen because you don't like them and insisting that you cannot help yourself... that's really messed up.

"As for obsession, you're the one pulling up 6-year-old quotes from me. I don't even remember making half of those, but you've got 'em on speed dial."

It's called a search engine Grandpa... and of course you don't remember, you're not that bright.

As for you... you're kind of like my conservative canary in the coal mine.

I knew for a long time before most that conservatives were starting to lose their minds because I was observing how you were behaving.

At the end of the day you aren't really mad at me... you are upset with your own miserable life and looking to take it out on someone.

There are more healthy ways for you to deal with things Conan.

It is also a defense mechanism for when you know you are outclassed on the substance.

Which brings me back to the Paris Accord... please quote the very specific provision that was outside of Obama's purview.

You're so obsessed with calling me "pompous" and trying to give me my "comeuppance"... you know a great way to do that?... it would be to be correct on the basis of the facts.

Unfortunately for you, the facts and reality never seem to align for you.

Conan Says:

"I have an electronic copy of The Cambridge Guide to English Usage and could send it to you, if you'd like."

You know... this sentence just struck me as really funny.

I don't need your electronic copy... I've been providing a direct link for the Cambridge Guide for days:

https://archive.org/details/cambridgeguideto00pete_0/page/205/mode/2up

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you argue in bad faith.

You never even bothered to look lol.

In any event, the guide is crystal clear.

Outside of the very direct pronouncement that it is a style choice distinguishable by formal writing as compared to casual writing... it also has the following to say:

"In the written medium, the practice of using fewer rather than less with countable nouns is more visible - although the Oxford Dictionary notes the frequent use of less with countable in spite of it being "regarded as incorrect." Webster's Third (1986) gives "fewer" as one of the definitions of less; while Random House Dictionary (1987) comments that less is increasingly found with count nouns in all varieties of English, and that fewer is becoming a mark of formal style."

Your confusion appears to be that you erroneously believe that there is one and only one correct usage of the English language for all occasions.

However, just like getting dressed... sometimes it is appropriate to put on formal wear... and other times it is appropriate to put on a tee shirt and jeans.

I understand this is a more sophisticated and nuanced way of understanding English language usage... but it is the way professional linguists understand it.

Just as it is inappropriate to wear a sweat suit to a wedding... it is also inappropriate to demand that someone wear a tuxedo to go into a McDonalds.

Your criticism falls into the latter category because you don't appear to grasp how English language usage shifts depending on the environment we are in.

Maybe you'll get it one day... but it won't be today, of that much I am certain.

Got it... according to you we can just ignore all of the published sources and experts that disagree with you.

Pam Peters, dumbass, is the expert you're citing. Throughout her book, the book you called the guide to English usage, she uses English the way I'm telling it's supposed to be used. Try to keep up.

==========

As for the Tolkien quote you cited, that was vernacular and not an exemplar of proper usage. Twain did the same thing when putting words in the mouths of his less-educated characters. Applying your standards means that "...I couldn’t think about nothing else" or "Sometimes you gwyne to git hurt...." are now acceptable English because Twain put those words in the mouths of his characters?

As for the full Tolkien quote, it goes, "Frodo felt his chin go down and his head nod. Just in front of him Pippin fell forward on to his knees. Frodo halted. ‘It’s no good,’ he heard Merry saying. ‘Can’t go another step without rest. Must have nap. It’s cool under the willows. Less flies!'"

So, the words you cite as an example of acceptable English usage were uttered by an exhausted character too tired to even include a subject with his first and second sentences; a character, Tolkien goes to great lengths to portray as an uncomplicated being. You can see why no one takes your linguistic arguments seriously.

==========

It's called a search engine Grandpa....

Even with a search engine, Skippy, you have to remember enough of the quote to enter terms that tell the search engine the parameters of the search.

And you seem to have the details of my quotes committed to memory. Just a bit stalkery there, Artie. You have a crush on me.

==========

Your confusion appears to be that you erroneously believe that there is one and only one correct usage of the English language for all occasions.

There's no confusion here, Artie, about the deficient state of your written communication skills. That's abundantly clear. It's not just the less/fewer issue, but includes your random sprinklings of apostrophes and commas, your word choice, and your sentence structure. In short, it's the way you choose to express yourself in a manner reminiscent of a middle school composition student instead of the highly-educated doctoral degree holder with widely-praised communication skills you claim to be.

Even in defending your choice of "less" over "fewer" in a situation in which most style guides prefer "fewer," you were unable to articulate a solid defense in your own words, but immediately began an appeal to authority, completely missing the fact that your authority was not following the "rules" you cited about the issue on which you presented her work as "the" guide.

Throughout her book Professor Peters uses "fewer" in reference to quantifiable objects and "less" for measurable but not quantifiable ones. Surely, if the usage rules were as fluid a you insist she agrees they are, she would have used "less" for quantifiable objects nearly as often as she used "fewer." She didn't.

Conan Says:

"Pam Peters, dumbass, is the expert you're citing."

You know Conan... it is kind of unusual to refer to an author by first name only.

I'm not on a first name basis with Professor Peters.

If you are going to insist that we use extremely formal modes of communication you shouldn't be referencing her simply as "Pam" for the sake of clarity.

That would be like me just talking about "John" when I referenced the author of The Lord of the Rings.

Referring to him as "Tolkien" is fine because it aids clarity. "John" is too generic to have specific enough meaning.

Please learn to write for clarity.

"Throughout her book, the book you called the guide to English usage, she uses English the way I'm telling it's supposed to be used."

Well of course dumbass.

That is in perfect keeping with her explicit statement below regarding the usage of less and fewer:

"That aside, it was and is essentially a stylistic choice, between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less."

She was writing in a formal publication.

As we've already established, this isn't a formal writing environment... therefore the rules and expectations are different.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

You must be the asshole who insists people each pizza with a knife and fork.

That isn't how the world works. There are different expectations for manners in different environments, and there are different expectations for English usage in different environments.

You don't have a winning argument here.

You are just flailing to try and save face because you have a really fragile ego.

Conan Says:

"Even with a search engine, Skippy, you have to remember enough of the quote to enter terms that tell the search engine the parameters of the search.

And you seem to have the details of my quotes committed to memory. Just a bit stalkery there, Artie. You have a crush on me."

Not really Conan.

Your problem is that you are presuming that my memory is similar to your own.

I don't have to "commit" anything to memory... I just remember things... it doesn't take any extra effort.

There are people in the world with so-called highly superior autobiographical memories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia

Now my memory isn't quite at the level as someone who has hyperthymesia, but it is extremely good and accurate when it comes to conversations and interactions I've had throughout my life.

You presume that in some sense I am putting in extra effort because it would take extra effort for you.

Some people have mental capacities beyond what you are capable.

I know that will make you angry, but that's just the way it is.

Conan Says:

"Even in defending your choice of "less" over "fewer" in a situation in which most style guides prefer "fewer," you were unable to articulate a solid defense in your own words, but immediately began an appeal to authority, completely missing the fact that your authority was not following the "rules" you cited about the issue on which you presented her work as "the" guide."

I don't get the impression that you actually understand what an appeal to authority is, so I will explain.

An appeal to authority is a logical argument if and when the referenced authority is appropriate and legitimate. It is a fallacious argument if and only if the referenced authority is inappropriate.

An English usage guide published by a linguistics expert is authoritative on the matter. I also referenced a separate linguist who called it a "fake rule".

I did defend my usage in "my own words"... what I did that you seem to absolutely hate is that I also provided evidence backing up my position.

That is what you almost never do. You just assert your uninformed opinions as fact and then whine and complain that everyone who disagrees with you on the basis of facts and evidence is "condescending".

My position on this matter is not an unusual one by any stretch of the imagination. Here is yet another example:

http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2008/12/23/less-and-fewer/

"Breaking Baker’s rule is not a sign of lazy thinking or sloppy grammar or anything else negative—it’s just a sign that you’re a native speaker.

The fact that not everybody follows the simple, explicit rule, nearly 240 years after it was created, shows you just how hard it is to get people to change their linguistic habits. Is there any advantage to following the made-up rule? Probably not, aside from avoiding stigma from people who like to look down their noses at those who they deem to have poor grammar. So if you want to please the fussy grammarian types, be sure to use follow Baker’s made-up rule. If you don’t care about those types, use whatever comes naturally to you."

I don't think you really get it that most folks see people like you as stuck up smarmy kill joys.

There are times for formal writing and times for casual writing.

As for your opinion on the matter... I couldn't care fewer.