Category: Dumbasses

Posted on

“Alright” Is NOT All Right

I know I have already said things like this before, but whether you are all ready to read it again or not, here is is again. All together now, repeat after me: “Alright is altogether all wrong.”

OK, I will make an exception. If a writer seriously wants to indicate that he is faux literate and does not want me to purchase his book or lend him my “eye time,” then he should go ahead and use “alright.”

That is all.

No, it’s not. Completely unrelated sidebar: Brit writers who set a story in the US? Stop referring to the second floor of a building as the first floor. Do that for stories set in “BrE-land.” Give “boot” the boot unless you are referring to footwear or kicking something. And for the sake of all things linguistic, learn how to express the subjunctive mood!

NOW that is all. For now.

*grumble-grumble-gripe-complain*

BTW, it’s not just me.

https://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/alright-vs-all-right

And there are more such worthy commentaries. Many, many more. And a few quislings who are perfectly happy to sully the English language with such despicable monstrosities as “alright.” And yeh, James Joyce apparently used “alright.” Once. That only condemns his “suckitudinous” writing even more. (That he used “all right” the rest of the time does not excuse the shitty nature of his books.)

Posted on

One Way to Ruin a Novel

Ran across a book recently where the writer chose the EASIEST way to ruin a “mystery/thriller” featuring loads of pseudo-forensics. Let me give you the three words that killed any suspension of disbelief:

Serrated hunting knife.

No, really. A murder weapon was determined to be a knife with a blade about six inches long with a serrated edge, THEREFORE it was a “hunting knife.” The serrated edge was the dead giveaway that the six inch blade HAD to be a “hunting knife.”

Quick, do an image search for “hunting knife.” Out of the first 50,000 images or so, how many had serrated blades? If you said more than five, then you found those few “hunting knives” made for people who have no idea how one is used and just think a serrated blade looks cool or “scary” or whatever.

Serrated hunting knife: #gagamaggot

Oh, there were other things that were evidence the writer didn’t have a clue about whatever subject was mentioned–“handwavium” determined how one character became wealthy, LOTS of wildly inappropriate “smirks” (*gag-spew*), off-scene “ghost characters” with no character or reason for existence, etc., but “serrated hunting knife” presented as being a hunting knife because it is serrated (“Ooo! I have a BREAD KNIFE that qualifies as a ‘hunting knife’ under this writer’s criteria!”) just takes the cake.

“Have you confirmed what kind of knife was used to cut her throat?”

“Yes. Six-inch serrated blade.”

“A hunting knife.”

Thereafter, “serrated hunting knife” is repeated ad nauseum.

Oh, BTW, I like knives a lot. I have several “hunting knives.” None of them are serrated. I have never actually seen (apart from the three pictures out of the first five or six pages I viewed in a casual search) a “serrated hunting knife,” and definitely not ITRW. I know they exist, because some folks are just stupid that way, but even those that do won’t have a six-inch edge that is serrated, only a small bit near the handle.

Posted on

One of the Problems with the Internet. . .

Is that, apparently, something like 90% of the folks who use it have never read a book written by someone who is actually literate, or if they have didn’t understand any of the words, including “a,” “and,” and “the.”

Is that all? Well, no. Both my readers (*heh*) know by now that I can’t leave well enough alone, so. . .

Shining is toooooo haaaard for some folks. He shined his shoes. He shined a light. The light shone.

Drinking is hard, too. Drink, drank, drunk, NOT “I drink, I drank, I have drank.”

He hung a picture, but later he hanged by the neck (until dead, as the expression goes).

None of these–and many, many more–are any problem at all for anyone who even approaches literacy in English. . . which is why so many verbs are conjugated wrong every day on social media, in emails, and in articles written by “professional journalists.”

But that’s OK, because the perpetrators feel competent to “express” themselves in English.

Posted on

Crimes Against Literacy. . .

. . . in Xmas “movies.”

I caught a very strange sound, in passing as it were, from a made-for-TV “Xmas movie” that jarred me into stopping and paying attention for a moment. Yes, indeed some idiot had elected to have a “caroling choir” sing “Greensleeves” as a processional for a “Cmas wedding.” No, not the Xmas carol lyrics to “What Child is This?” but to the actual lyrics of Greensleeves.” As a supposed wedding processional.

Yes, as the “bride” made her way down the aisle, the “caroling choir” sang,

“Alas my love you do me wrong
To cast me off discourteously. . . “

*head-desk*

My brief attention turned immediately to mocking. Someone should give a dopeslap (using a brick bat) to every moron involved in that production.

Posted on

Quora Is. . . a Real Mixed Bag

Unlike Q/A fora that focus on one topic or are strictly information-seeking-and-sharing boards, Quora features just about any question anyone can come up with, which means it’s a site that has just about everything from serious questioners with folks making serious attempts to answer such questions to trolls baiting others and then “flinging monkey poo” at anyone who attempts a serious answer, to those like the dumbass who asked the following question:

“What’s one song that always gives you the feels?”

Anyone who uses the term “the feels” deserves no response other than raucous mocking. It’s a vague, stupid nonsense term that only self-made idiots would even contemplate (if contemplate they could) using. The Urban Dictionary (though that should be in “scare quotes” *heh*) tries to describe the term thusly:

“A word used to describe something that is intensely emotional on a level somewhere between you feeling empty and you on the floor in a ball weeping uncontrollably.”

In other words, it’s a term so broad and vague as to be meaningless, and yet this questioner wants to know,

“”What’s one song that always evokes vague, undefined, essentially meaningless emotions in you ranging from ennui to agony?”

#gagamaggot

OTOH, the stupidity of gargantuan proportions the question represents nevertheless did not prevent my mind from fleeing to a momentary wish that I could somehow know the tune Kipling had running through his head as he composed “The Last Chantey.”

Continue reading “Quora Is. . . a Real Mixed Bag”

Posted on

Had to *SMH* in Amazement

Saw a comment that was only moderately “gabberflastering” on a forum that shall go unnamed. Guy said he had to write in thew sharps and flats that were in the key sig to remind himself when he played through a piece.

Say what?!?

Whenever I taught music or directed volunteer music groups, I generally taught beginning music readers to use the “STARS” system or a variant that is even simpler, for those in volunteer choirs whose music reading chops were. . . only slowly emerging:

S – Sharps or flats in the key signature
T – Time signature and Tempo markings
A – Accidentals not found in the key signature
R – Rhythms ; silently count the more difficult notes and rests
S – Signs , including dynamics, articulations, repeats and endings

Every class session or rehearsal included using something likethe “STARS” system before reading every new piece. *shrugs* Regular exercise of “reading” through a new piece (or reviewing one not seen in a while) really aided in sight reading. Of course, “STARS” is just an extremely simplified version of score study any competent conductor does, but it seemed to be enough to alleviate the “write in the sharps/flats for reminder” issue. . . especially since each freakin’ line in a score begins with the key sig. . .

Posted on

Silly, Sad, or Disingenuous?

I have a dirty little pleasure. I lurk (and sometimes–rarely–participate) on Quora, mainly in order to keep track of just how low literacy and rhetoric can sink (is sinking, still) in these DisUnited States. Here:

In the wake of another mass shooting, do you support the NRA who is saying “anti gun doctors should stay in their lane,”or are you with the doctors who treat the victims?

Answering such a question is a waste of time, because the question is illegitimate on its face.

“. . .do you support the NRA who is saying ‘anti gun doctors should stay in their lane,’ or are you with the doctors who treat the victims?”

The questioner creates a class “anti-gun doctors” and sets the NRA against that class, but also, by asking if one—contra the NRA, in the questioner’s construction—is “with” (in support of) doctors who treat the victims, creating an equivalence between “anti-gun doctors” and “the doctors who treat the victims” implying that doctors who are NOT “anti-gun” don’t treat victims. . . or worse, implying there are not doctors who are not “anti-gun.”

All-in-all, it’s a question that was either formed poorly by someone who just cannot use English literately or it was formed by someone intending to semantically slant the question in an illegitimate manner. Either way, it’s a less than useful question from an arguably useless questioner.

But, frankly, on some issues, a question formed like this one would be better than most.

Posted on

The Proper Use of a “Splainsit Stick”

Any time I see “[Whatever]-splaining” used by someone to dismiss an argument, I know the person using the term is really saying, “I don’t have an argument, and I just don’t want to listen, so I’ll use this nonsense term instead of putting my fingers in my ears and chanting, ‘la-la-la-la. . .’ and maybe the horrible person using facts and reason will just go away and leave me with my chosen, ignorant opinions.”

At that point, I realize that the only proper response is raucous mocking.

And that, dear reader, is how one uses a “Splainsit Stick.”

Posted on

2018 Polls: The Stupid Vote Gains Ground

In future, vote all red, folks. (*sigh* Lesser evil and all that.) You will have all the years after you die to vote blue.

At least there’s one good thing out of the Repugnican’ts losing the House: hopefully it will gridlock Congress. I say hopefully, because

  1. When Congress isn’t passing laws, at least it’s not making things horribly worse and
  2. MAYBE it will gridlock. . . if the Repugnican’ts in Congress can overcome their predilection for bending over and begging, “Please. May I have another?”

It could happen. . .

Posted on

Clowns to the Right. . . Jokers to the Left. . .

But I REFUSE to be stuck in the middle of them.

There is almost no real news anymore. Almost all that purports to be so is Hivemind propaganda. It’s to the point that such sites as The Onion, Duffleblog, and The Babylon Bee are as reliable (or seemingly more so *sigh*) than “accredited” media sources.

And the so-called “right” end of the spectrum is little more reliable than the so-called “left” end of the media spectrum. While the opinion columnists at Townhall are generally more truthful than front page “news” at the New York Slimes, so-called “news” sites/organs such as Worldnet Daily, Breitbart, The Blaze,and ZeroHedge are all, to varying degrees, propaganda for the putative “right.”

Frankly, I don’t ascribe to Zero Hedge, for example, any more credibility than any other Hivemind “reporting.” Sure, like ABCNBCCBSMSNBCFOX, etc., it is propaganda, but every lie at least has a truthful counter. Zero Hedge can serve as a source of “idiot bait” research. In that, it can also be a “serious” source of info. . . of sorts (about as much as with any other Hivemind organ, give or take), if one really digs. 😉 Also, just like other aspects of the Hivemind (reflecting the biases of every point on Pournelle’s Political Axes), it can serve as a way of checking on what the Hivemind (at least its portion) is trying to obscure, twist, or otherwise outright lie about. Pulling the threads for amusement, if nothing else, can provide a few moments of entertainment, at least, and occasionally, as with other Hivemind elements, the facts it twists can be verified and lead to real and useful information when placed in their original context.

I laugh at the times I took Walter Cronkite seriously (as anything but an effective propagandist).