imo, anything "proper" or institutions that only allow "proper" are only doing so to discriminate between the well off and the less fortunate. manners, protocol, the "right" way of doing things is a luxury afforded by the rich.

yes, typing is not exactly realated. but the "proper" mentality is rooted in status oriented bs.

 

Oh come on... don't EVEN try to infer that only the "rich and privileged" have access to this super secret language. It takes nothing more than effort, time, and a middle school education to construct a reasonably understandable and grammatically correct post. If you can't do it, don't get pissy at me for trying to figure out which of the three aforementioned things you lack.

 

[QUOTE=dyhppy,May 1 2007, 10:01 PM]imo, anything "proper" or institutions that only allow "proper" are only doing so to discriminate between the well off and the less fortunate.

 

Although it isn't entirely clear, it's likely that you meant imply, not infer.

 

keep it coming Nate, as u completely miss the point. i said that the typing is not directly related, but more a symptom of the said mentality.

now, it is easy for all in public education to be somewhat educated. but it was not like that decades ago.

why do u think big words exist that mean the same thing as small, more common, simpler words? while taking an english test or SAT, im sure uve wondered "why does this word even exist?" "why dont they just say the regular word" or "i didn't even know that word existed." who would be more likely to know those certain words? a minority servant or a white son of a politician? when someone uses those words, what impression do u get?

once again, if im wrong, why do u think those words exist?

 

Actually, I felt that in dyhppy's original post, he was doing more than implying, as he explicitly expressed that there was discrimination between "the well off and the less fortunate."

Also, if it wasn't entirely clear, what was your point in suggesting a misused word? I don't think a doctorate in linguistics and literature should be necessary to participate in this thread. I mean, we don't all walk around in tuxedos, right? (Then again, as a magician, you may be the wrong person to ask.)

BTW, it's pseudo Ferrari.

 

Oops! I found the formal forum.

 

why DID he point out ur misued word?

social status is being established as we speak

 

Ha ha ha ha.... actually no.

When I was taking the SAT, I was thinking "Dude... R we almost done yet?!?"

"Minority servant?"

"White son of a politician?"

You're kidding me, right? We're having a discussion of the English language, and the assumptions made when using it to represent oneself. How does race have any bearing on it? In my opinion, it comes down to a level of education. Now, if you want to assign race based on education level, that's a different thread for a different day.

If you went into a job interview wearing cargo pants, would you expect the interviewer to take you seriously? Or would you just whine about how dress codes are simply an arbitrarily fabricated standard constructed to reward only those who can afford to purchase formalwear?

 

i DID say that u were not wrong in describing the state of reality.

affirmative action was created to offset the phenomenon u spoke of.

in any case, there is no winning this debate. as with any other insidious institutional belief, it is nearly impossible to trace it to the source. but can u say for certain that i dont have a point?