((Sigh))
Quote:There's gotta be a name for this type of deception, an actual name, there's just gotta be!
There is no deception, JTT, but I am not surprised that you are unfamiliar with the technique. It is called
making a point and, by the way, winning an argument.
Quote:The distinctions that you're attempting to draw, Virago, between these "language preferences" and color preferences are really specious.
I would say you are either deliberately misunderstanding, which is most probable, or you need to take another look because you didn't understand, which is less probable.
Quote:I don't recall the "preferences" that you got taken to task for but they obviously went beyond a color preference. All these preferences contain within, a snide, you-don't-talk-as-well-as-I-do attitude.
You cannot possibly be serious. Have you never read any of your own posts? You condescend with every syllable! I am assuming you are referring here to my initial post - the one for which I was, ahem, taken to task. Everything written, as you absolutely know, was intended as lighthearted. If you think otherwise, then you've misinterpreted. If you have specific issues, then be clear.
Quote:These types of remarks intrude into how language is used and are more akin to;
A: Brown hair shouldn't be genetically possible".
B: Oh, why?
A: Because I detest brown hair.
Which is precisely what you are doing when you try to "apply scientific principles to preferences."
A: People shouldn't be irritated by the use of "literally" when meaning "virtually"
B: Oh, why?
A: Because they know what is intended, and because the dictionary says it can mean either literally OR virtually, therefore they have to like it. They have to like it because science and the dictionary say so.
Quote:The problem with all this, is that when you apply scientific principles to such "preferences", they show up as mere prejudices.
But
I am not applying scientific principles to preferences; that would be
you. My whole point, as you surely must know by now, is that preferences do not require scientific principles! They don't require second opinions! You are saying that there must be some logical foundation before a preference can be credible, and I am saying that's ridiculous. To be a true and valid pet peeve must it also come with certification? Perhaps I should have my list of peeves documented in writing, witnessed and notarized. Or is a pet peeve permit required?
Quote:Actually, I just went back and had a look at your preferences, Virago. Not a one, wait, let me double check ..., ..., ..., ..., I'm back, right, where were we, oh yes, not a one finds a scintilla of support within knowlegeable language circles.
Well, if you must have support from others to form an opinion, then perhaps your circle of "knowledgeables" is too small. Widen out.
Virago