"Bullying" on the forum

momoyama

CCP wrote: »

I'm a hopeless grammar pedant

Fantastic. Put us all together and we WILL make the world a better place :T.

CCP wrote: »

)I don't feel it's my place to correct anyone

Why the hell not? If you know something that someone else doesn't know.

This addresses my second point. As an example: I was recently looking around YouTube and found a video on "gun defence". I thought "this'll be interesting. You don't see that very often and I've very little idea how you would defend yourself should a gun be aimed at you". Only it wasn't gun defence, it was pistol defence. Evidently the author didn't realise that a pistol isn't a gun so I informed them. Wasn't a popular move. Their problem if they arn't able to take on information or their ego is so fragile as they can't be corrected. This is the line I take (and have inadvertedly demonstrated just a few posts back); if you know something that I don't in regards something I post, then bloody well tell me. Please. Then I'll be wiser. That is surely the whole point.

Now this post I feel is relevent to the topic anyway. How much of the "bullying" is actually bullying or how much of it is people taking offence where there was none meant. Not that I'm suggesting that it doesn't happen or than there hasn't been genuine offence intended at time.

geordie_joe

Belisarius wrote: »

I think these forums in general are a pretty tough place to hang out in, sometimes. The way some people "talk" to other people beggars belief. And I certainly think some people really are just spoiling for a fight when they post, rather than trying to be helpful. I just tend to use the ignore feature for people like that, to be honest.

I don't think this is true of the OS board, but I know other boards that have people lurking in them just waiting to pounce on someone they think they can pick on.

Pitlanepiglet

T'is funny isn't it how this thread has gone? In some ways it demonstrates to me what is less desirable about the forum, where a number of people have taken over a thread for their own purposes - it's much greater than "thread drift".

Personally I'm pretty well educated and I don't have much difficulty in expressing myself in posts but, I don't ever forget that I'm damn lucky in that regard and that others are not the same and I try never to judge others on their use of language. I've used forums where users are picked on for their use of language and it puts people off posting - in the context of MSE and OS especially that is likely to alienate those that may well be in need of the help that could be given.

I consider myself pretty robust in forum terms and I do think that it's difficult to tell tone and intention in written posts, I also think some people are too quick to take offence.

On the subject of PM's, it would never occur to me that they were private, I was always told that you should never write anything in an email or a PM that you wouldn't want made public

(BTW feel free to attack my use of language, grammar and/or spelling)

Nomoneymummy_2

Pitlanepiglet wrote: »

T'is funny isn't it how this thread has gone? In some ways it demonstrates to me what is less desirable about the forum, where a number of people have taken over a thread for their own purposes - it's much greater than "thread drift".

Personally I'm pretty well educated and I don't have much difficulty in expressing myself in posts but, I don't ever forget that I'm damn lucky in that regard and that others are not the same and I try never to judge others on their use of language. I've used forums where users are picked on for their use of language and it puts people off posting - in the context of MSE and OS especially that is likely to alienate those that may well be in need of the help that could be given.

I consider myself pretty robust in forum terms and I do think that it's difficult to tell tone and intention in written posts, I also think some people are too quick to take offence.

On the subject of PM's, it would never occur to me that they were private, I was always told that you should never write anything in an email or a PM that you wouldn't want made public

(BTW feel free to attack my use of language, grammar and/or spelling)

Dont feel anyone has taken over the thread just people posting opinions etc (newbie speaking)
As to spelling and grammer errors I'd personally be more than happy for mine to be rectified, I have a habit of speed typing and schooling wasn't great due to area, walked out with a degree to teach but know there is still a lot I could learn...
Agree completly though that it all depends on the poster and state of mind, Im of the thick skinned type (2 sister does that to you, well meaning bullying etc) but can very much see how other people could take comments to heart...

soappie

momoyama wrote: »

As an example: I was recently looking around YouTube and found a video on "gun defence". .... Only it wasn't gun defence, it was pistol defence. Evidently the author didn't realise that a pistol isn't a gun so I informed them.

With respect my dear momoyama, when I check my battered Chambers Twentieth Century dictionary, I find the word "gun" is defined as "a tubular weapon from which projectiles are discharged" therefore, it is a generic term for both rifles AND pistols and so is grammatically correct in the YouTube instance you cite.

momoyama

soappie wrote: »

With respect my dear momoyama, when I check my battered Chambers Twentieth Century dictionary, I find the word "gun" is defined as "a tubular weapon from which projectiles are discharged" therefore, it is a generic term for both rifles AND pistols and so is grammatically correct in the YouTube instance you cite.

With respect my dear Soappie (God that's so condescending), when I consulted the firearms instructors from whom I learned during my millitary days, a gun required towing behind a landrover.

The problem with dictionaries is that they take on words that are commonly being used irrespective of accuracy. As an example, I believe "pwned" has recently been added due to it's poliferance despite the dictionary acknowledging that it's a typo' of "owned" which was in itself misused! I'll take experts over dictionaries any day.

CCP

momoyama wrote: »

Why the hell not? If you know something that someone else doesn't know.

I can see your point here, but my POV (and it is just my opinion, not in any way an implicit criticism of yours) is that this forum isn't necessarily the best place for sorting out what may be long-standing misunderstandings of the use of the English language - people generally post because they have a specific question or need more general advice, and may well not be up for a discussion about grammar / spelling / whatever at that particular time. (Or, of course, it may just be a simple error caused by speed or lack of concentration - my particular speciality is mixing up "they're" and "their" - it's not that I don't know the difference (of course I do! ) but I just seem to have a glitch in my brain that occasionally causes my fingers to type the wrong one. Very odd! )

momoyama

CCP wrote: »

I can see your point here, but my POV (and it is just my opinion, not in any way an implicit criticism of yours) is that this forum isn't necessarily the best place for sorting out what may be long-standing misunderstandings of the use of the English language

I take your point, but... why not? It's the ideal place. As with anything, sort out the problem as it occurs.

soappie

momoyama wrote: »

With respect my dear Soappie (God that's so condescending), when I consulted the firearms instructors from whom I learned during my millitary days, a gun required towing behind a landrover.

The problem with dictionaries is that they take on words that are commonly being used irrespective of accuracy. As an example, I believe "pwned" has recently been added due to it's poliferance despite the dictionary acknowledging that it's a typo' of "owned" which was in itself misused! I'll take experts over dictionaries any day.

So, that was what you were taught in your military days therefore it must be true.

Perhaps you could explain why weapons such as sub machine guns, gatling guns, and other tubular weapons as explained in this article from gunpedia (but of course, gunpedia is probably not a source to be relied upon) do not necessarily need to be towed behind a landrover.

With respect to dictionaries - reputable ones at least - they define, in an authoritative way, the meanings of words at the time they were published. My copy of Chambers is just under 30 years old. Therefore the definitions in it reflect the meanings of words at the time it was published. It certainly doesn't include the more modern slang term of chav though it does include the word chavender

MrsE_2

momoyama wrote: »

I take your point, but... why not? It's the ideal place. As with anything, sort out the problem as it occurs.

Because when someone has a problem with a debt/child/husband/mother/cake/hoover/employer it isn't necessary to dissect their grammar & spelling.

So long as its clear & understandable then IMHO its pedantic & nit picking to make an issue of it.

When someone has an issue or worry they need help & advice, NOT an English lesson;)