- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kyle Rittenhouse says he's going to Texas A&M but the Aggies disagree
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:09 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:09 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I come to interact with the brighter posters
0
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:I thought you were a lawyer?
Rittenhouse lied.
I may have you confused with another poster though. If so, sorry.
Anyway, a late-Nov 2021 statement that Rittenhouse was not (any longer) "enrolled at ASU" in does not in any way contradict Rittenhouse's claim (and ASU's admission) that he had been previously enrolled.
In my assumption you had a law background, I presumed you'd have recognized the nuance in ASU's response to its assinine students.
quote:
ASU can confirm that Mr. Rittenhouse enrolled as a non-degree seeking ASU Online student for the session that started Oct. 13, 2021
quote:This Nov 29 statement was issued in response to student demands that Rittenhouse (after being found INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES) be forced to withdraw from all classes at ASU.
On Nov. 29, a spokesperson with ASU issued a new statement:
... Our records show that he is not currently enrolled in any classes at ASU
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:12 am to Hester Carries
I have a serious question for you.
I was writing directly to user ReadyPlayer1, so I used 2nd-person. I was not making some broad proclamation to the forum as a whole. I do regularly write things to a broader audience, and in those instances, I use 3rd-person references. For example, if I had intended that sentence to have broader application, I would have phrased it "Shooting three people that ONE does not like," or something to that effect. I am not going to look for it, but you can probably find a 3rd-person reference like that from me somewhere on this very thread.
Is it your view that every post on a forum such as this should be written 3rd-person, because it is an open discussion forum and available for reply for anyone? That there are no "private" exchanges between two posters? Or do you accept that one can make a post directed to another specific poster? (Look at the preceding sentence. "You" in direct, 2nd-person reference to Hester, and "one" as a 3rd-person reference to any random poster.)
In candor, I CAN understand the first viewpoint ... if that is the point that you are trying to make. This IS an open discussion forum, and (even when one responds to a specific comment) one can be fairly certain that some unrelated poster will feel the need to add his thoughts.
And I do understand your point about a copy editor. If I were editing a piece for publication, I likely would recommend the same change, because a newspaper article (or even an editorial) is (by definition) NOT an exchange between two people, but rather more akin to a speech to an audience.
If every post is to be treated more as a "publication" than as an exchange between two individuals, there is SOME merit to the point.
I was writing directly to user ReadyPlayer1, so I used 2nd-person. I was not making some broad proclamation to the forum as a whole. I do regularly write things to a broader audience, and in those instances, I use 3rd-person references. For example, if I had intended that sentence to have broader application, I would have phrased it "Shooting three people that ONE does not like," or something to that effect. I am not going to look for it, but you can probably find a 3rd-person reference like that from me somewhere on this very thread.
Is it your view that every post on a forum such as this should be written 3rd-person, because it is an open discussion forum and available for reply for anyone? That there are no "private" exchanges between two posters? Or do you accept that one can make a post directed to another specific poster? (Look at the preceding sentence. "You" in direct, 2nd-person reference to Hester, and "one" as a 3rd-person reference to any random poster.)
In candor, I CAN understand the first viewpoint ... if that is the point that you are trying to make. This IS an open discussion forum, and (even when one responds to a specific comment) one can be fairly certain that some unrelated poster will feel the need to add his thoughts.
And I do understand your point about a copy editor. If I were editing a piece for publication, I likely would recommend the same change, because a newspaper article (or even an editorial) is (by definition) NOT an exchange between two people, but rather more akin to a speech to an audience.
If every post is to be treated more as a "publication" than as an exchange between two individuals, there is SOME merit to the point.
This post was edited on 6/6/22 at 10:23 am
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:13 am to AggieHank86
quote:
And there is the pop psychology.
Here is another term...oppositional defiance.
You have yet to walk back anything that I noted. Take your L(s), and move on.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:22 am to AggieHank86
My point is regardless of if something is even “technically correct” the point of speech is to convey information. And regardless of what you think, in this situation, you failed to convey your point clearly to everyone on this board. Now you may think it’s because we are all stupid. I disagree here. I think the first reference of a sentence after a gerund is the same as the subject of the gerund in 99.999999% of cases and you shouldn’t have to research a chain of replies to decode it.
If your goal is to effectively communicate, then you should have written more clearly.
If your goal is to argue, try and win, and never find common ground with the person you are talking with, even when the topic is simply “what you are talking about” then carry on.
If your goal is to effectively communicate, then you should have written more clearly.
If your goal is to argue, try and win, and never find common ground with the person you are talking with, even when the topic is simply “what you are talking about” then carry on.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:22 am to VBFlorida
quote:
You're a sane Aggie. Why do you live in Woke Nashville?
I don’t live in Nashville any more, I retired a year ago and I now live in Puerto Rico.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:26 am to andyv95
quote:
I don’t live in Nashville any more, I retired a year ago and I now live in Puerto Rico.
How is PR? I looked up in the mountains just for fun awhile back (Albonito?).
I wanted something cooler than Louisiana, close to the beach, with a Mountain View, on a real budget (300k...not “Househunters” money).
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:28 am to Hester Carries
quote:
If your goal is to effectively communicate, then you should have written more clearly.
It's almost as if he holds all the peasants to a much higher standard than he adheres to.
How many times have you seen his cut and past insult of "perhaps you don't understand basic English and a remedial course might be an appropriate course of action".
He's actually approaching "pathetic" territory as if he's finally about to have a breakdown.
Think slightly smarter version of Texridder posting obsessively and furiously, making deceptive edits and spitting all over the keyboard.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:29 am to Hester Carries
quote:OK.
My point is regardless of if something is even “technically correct” the point of speech is to convey information. And regardless of what you think, in this situation, you failed to convey your point clearly to everyone on this board.
I am genuinely curious whether ANYONE actually thinks that I was opining that Rittenhouse had some personal animus toward Huber, Rosenbaum or Grosskreutz. That strikes me as being unlikely, given that I have ALWAYS said that he would prevail on self-defense and thus not be convicted.
Hell, I was arguing that he would not be convicted when 75% or more of this forum was convinced that he would be railroaded into prison.
This post was edited on 6/6/22 at 10:31 am
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I am genuinely curious whether ANYONE actually thinks that I was opining that Rittenhouse had some personal animus toward Huber, Rosenbaum or Grosskreutz.
Yes. That is how I read that sentence.
“fricking a woman you find repulsive is a turn on for him”
This could mean like 12 different things. It could describe a man that gets off on fricking women that another person isn’t attracted to. This is akin to your usage.
It could also describe a cuckold-type who specifically gets off on watching the subject frick women the subject isn’t attracted to.
Both make sense with that sentence. A sentence with two meanings is a bad sentence.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You have yet to walk back anything that I noted.
I’m still waiting for you to handle business.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:33 am to Hester Carries
As an aside, I think that there is a strong tendency here for people to subconsciously misconstrue posts from me that would be "clear" from others, due to pure bias (again, subconscious).
They disagree with me elsewhere, so there simply MUST be a reason to disagree with me HERE.
They disagree with me elsewhere, so there simply MUST be a reason to disagree with me HERE.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:Most likely because you try to act like the smartest guy in the room. No need for that, really.
They disagree with me elsewhere, so there simply MUST be a reason to disagree with me HERE.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:38 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I think that there is a strong tendency here for people to subconsciously misconstrue posts from me that would be "clear" from others, due to pure bias (again, subconscious).
And you subconsciously disagree with everyone on every issue because you take “what is popular is not always right” to mean “what is popular is wrong”.
If the board thinks something, they are wrong so you must disagree in order to be right. You are defined by opposition.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:40 am to Byrdybyrd05
Academics and bureaucrats are dumb that way.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:42 am to Hester Carries
quote:Interesting.
Yes. That is how I read that sentence.
My mother was a high school English teacher, and that probably makes me absolutely obsessive about proper usage. She beat proper grammar into me at such a young age, that she had me helping her grade high school papers, starting when I was in 7th grade.
It would never occur to me to use 2nd-person in a 3rd-person context, or vice versa.
I suppose that I may well have a bias of my own, just assuming that everyone else is as obsessive as I am about proper grammar ... and perhaps as obsessive about reading a sentence EXACTLY as it is written, rather than as someone less-obsessive MIGHT read it.
In my professional life, lawyers and judges tend to be just as literal (and punctilious) as I, which probably compounds the issue.
I will try to keep your point in mind. Thanks for the reasonable discussion.
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:In a case which never should have been brought in the first place, in a case which never should have seen the inside of the courtroom, in a case in which prosecutorial misconduct was caught but never personally punished, the fact you or ANYONE would need to ARGUE that an obviously innocent man might not be convicted is thoroughly disgusting.
Hell, I was arguing that he would not be convicted
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:43 am to Diamondawg
quote:
Most likely because you try to act like the smartest guy in the room. No need for that, really.
the classic effete intellectual that is also the perpetual victim
Posted on 6/6/22 at 10:46 am to Byrdybyrd05
quote:
"He has not been admitted as a student this summer or fall," Texas A&M spokesperson Kelly Brown said
did he apply? was he turned down?
Page 6 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News