the book that ate America's brain"

<Please take my advice: get a fucking life before it's too late. >

Now, now, there may be children reading.

Do you think you should be banned for using such foul language? Have you read the forum rules? I mean, you criticise someone for flouting those rules and then go right on to do the same.

<<Now, now, there may be children reading.

Do you think you should be banned for using such foul language? Have you read the forum rules? I mean, you criticise someone for flouting those rules and then go right on to do the same. >>


Please, stop trying to 'protect the children'. You are in no way whatsoever capable of 'protecting children'. It was probably a child who wrote it, or if one was actually reading it, then he had probably come straight from an animal/human porn site.

Anyway, the point is that you should stop caring about what happens around you. How does it affect you if people swear? You don't get damaged. Even in the odd case that a child does get damaged by reading those swear words, why do you care? Who cares about the child? Just because he's a child we are supposed to care about him? Why? Why is it that when a kid gets run over that is supposedly worse than when an adult gets run over? In my opinion, anyone under 16-17 is not fully developed and hence is a lesser being. Is it because children are innocent? No, innocence is just a symptom of mental underdevelopment. The less 'human' you are the more innocent you are. Cats are very innocent because they are lesser beings, earthworms are even more innocent because they are even lower on the scale. Thus I believe it is much more merciful on the part of the powers that be for a child to be killed than an adult. Not that I actually care either way, but still, it's worth thinking about.

Anyway, as for the topic question, no I do not believe that that book 'ate' America's brain. It is a good book for people who lack motivation and want a quick fix solution. I believe that the easiest, shoddiest solution is always the best, and hence that book is great for those who don't really care about the details and just want to learn enough slip in where they don't belong and get more money. Of course, style is not really that important in the end, it's hardy worth bothering about. In the end, no one will kill you (unfortunately) because you have bad style. It's just not worth the effort trying to improve. So you might get a slightly better job? Well who cares about that? I mean, a few extra bucks a day, what are you going to do with it? It may sound ridiculous not to want more money, but after a little while, once you've lowered your expectations enough one comes to actually not want more money, not out of any philanthropic considerations, but rather because it is simply not worth the effort to have money. Even if I had the money to buy a bigger house I wouldn't because it's not worth the effort of opening the phone book to call a real estate agent. It's not even worth the effort to walk down to the shop and buy a beer. It's actually a good existence, nothing can get you down any lower than you already are. In fact, you will end up like this anyway even if you do try, so just don't bother. Take a short cut to your inevitable final state.

<Anyway, the point is that you should stop caring about what happens around you. How does it affect you if people swear? You don't get damaged. Even in the odd case that a child does get damaged by reading those swear words, why do you care? >

So if a child is punished at school for using swear words that he/she picked up around forums, it's OK with you, is it?

Many thanks to Blanc, Randy, and Guest for their comments.

Also to YCIM, who has astutely sniffed out the originator of those earlier posts, and presented an impressively accurate summary of the little fellow's problems.

Best wishes,

MrP

Mike wrote:

<Not me I'm afraid. MrP collects enemies like Gibbons collected stamps, from all around the globe...Naaa! Wrong again. One gets used to MrP's stalking, sniping and trolling. It's actually MrP who hates Molly. That's because she questions his overbearing belief in his view of language use. He likes to appear as THE expert on all forums, and hates it when he's challenged. >

Steady on, old chap. I'm only a screen name.

But I like the bit about Gibbons.

All the best,

MrP

Geoffrey K. Pullum is trying to sell books in the grand old tradition of inciting controversy. The Strunk and E.B. White book was certainly not the first nor will it be the last book on writing. What Pullum seems to be forgetting is that most people are not creative writers and really don't need to be that groundbreaking in their communications. Putting such meaningless prohibitions into books on style is certainly not an American invention, as Pullum's statement would suggest. As for the creative writers, there will always be people pushing the limits of conventional writing and be completely apposed to anyone suggesting any particular mode of writing. Actually, I would say that the U.S. is one of the last places to look if you are seeking a stagnation in writing forms. It is rather easy to abstract ourselves from actual history in the heat of anti-American sentiment and forget that the U.S. has been the largest contributor to cultural and artistic innovation for more than a century. Just look at the number of musical genera created in the United States for an example. One does not have to look far to see this. One only has to look past the hype of statements such as that made by Mr. Pullum.

<Putting such meaningless prohibitions into books on style is certainly not an American invention, as Pullum's statement would suggest. >

In which way does it suggest that?

<Geoffrey K. Pullum is trying to sell books in the grand old tradition of inciting controversy.>
And MollyB is trying to incite rows wherever she is.
I always guess correctly which of the topics is hers.
I am not angry with her. It must be sublimation. Poor thing may be a spinster or a disabled person, who avenges on all the world writing venomous posts.
Molly, Lord loves you anyway. Don't give in to the Devil.

<<I always guess correctly which of the topics is hers.>>

The title of this topic isn't really typical of her/him, is it?

More typical would be:

"Is this an example of a triple negative?"

"Does this sentence exhibit both nouning and verbing?"

<<In which way does it suggest that?>>

By omission and assumption. While one can easily argue against it, the statement has no particularity, its rhetorical strategy is meant to call upon current anti-American sentiment.

>>>>>How's this for brain burning prescriptivism?

"Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs" (The Elements of Style, p. 71). >>>>>

Its only a suggestion as is the entire book, and from the size of it, only a few suggestions. Advice on writing style from the point of view of professional writers is going to sound prescriptive since implicit within it are the stylistic values those writers hold. Would a superficial faux humility in the language have made any difference? Should they have said, "we might suggest the use of more nouns and fewer adjectives to enhance what in our most humble view might just be the communicatory efficacy of your sentences, but of course that's only our opinion"? Actually if memory serves, over equivocation is another thing the book suggests that you avoid.

Use what's useful and leave the rest. I've found many suggestions in that book helpful, but then I have no puerile prejudices and disgruntlements about the inherent authoritarianism in a prescriptive approach, which is an understandable attitude from the authors considering when the book was written, and take no offense by their style or their suggestions because I know that's exactly what they are, not a threat to my linguistic philosophical predilections.

Don't give in to the Devil.

Aw, c'mon, I'm not all that bad. MrP sold his soul to me years ago, and look where that got him - answering pedagogical grammar questions until the wee hours on forums round the Net.

<Advice on writing style from the point of view of professional writers is going to sound prescriptive since implicit within it are the stylistic values those writers hold. >

Strunk and White were not prescriptivists?

<I've found many suggestions in that book helpful, but then I have no puerile prejudices and disgruntlements about the inherent authoritarianism in a prescriptive approach, which is an understandable attitude from the authors considering when the book was written, and take no offense by their style or their suggestions because I know that's exactly what they are, not a threat to my linguistic philosophical predilections. >

It's obvious that your prose was not affected by their suggestions/prescriptions. Your money spent on that book was money wasted.

<MrP sold his soul to me years ago, and look where that got him - answering pedagogical grammar questions until the wee hours on forums round the Net. >

I just needed an outlet in life. Pedagogical grammar questions are just within my comfort zone. My soul-selling has brought me fame in that area. I feel needed.

MrP