HarperCollins returns to Full Agency pricing

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Who made you the grammar police. Or is that the grammatical police?

I'm usually not. The occasional slip up (say like typing conversion instead of conversation), and you'll not hear a peep out of me. But someone's consistent, incorrect usage of -ate, -ant suffixes over a long period of time just brings out the worst in me.

Last time I believe it was dominate/dominant.

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm usually not. The occasional slip up (say like typing conversion instead of conversation), and you'll not hear a peep out of me. But someone's consistent, incorrect usage of -ate, -ant suffixes over a long period of time just brings out the worst in me.

Last time I believe it was dominate/dominant.

Yes, it was dominate/dominant, and it drives me crazy. For someone who picks apart everyone else, you would think he would make sure he had his own posts in order.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Who made you the grammar police. Or is that the grammatical police?

I prefer the old fashion method of spelling, i.e. make it up as you go.

Hey, if people are reduced to criticizing me on spelling errors rather than poking holes in my logic, then I'm doing pretty good.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Hey, if people are reduced to criticizing me on spelling errors rather than poking holes in my logic, then I'm doing pretty good.

"I'm doing pretty good"

That was deliberate, wasn't it?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Yes, it was dominate/dominant, and it drives me crazy. For someone who picks apart everyone else, you would think he would make sure he had his own posts in order.

I'm more concerned with the basic logic as opposed to superficial appearance. That's why standard rhetorical tricks such as ad homiem attack don't carry much weight with me. Have you ever seen me nitpicking spelling errors? If someone's basic logic has issues, then I point that out. If it's just a spelling error no problem. As long as I can figure out what someone means, I don't worry.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

"I'm doing pretty good"

That was deliberate, wasn't it?

Alas, no.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If it's just a spelling error no problem. As long as I can figure out what someone means, I don't worry.

Same hold true for the books you choose to read?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Same hold true for the books you choose to read?

I generally don't notice spelling errors, so I would have to say it's true. I seen a couple of ebooks where the scanner put in the wrong word, or left the old page number in the middle of the page, but it didn't bother me.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I generally don't notice spelling errors, so I would have to say it's true. I seen a couple of ebooks where the scanner put in the wrong word, or left the old page number in the middle of the page, but it didn't bother me.

That's fair.

But surely you see the flaw (or loophole) in your logic that blindly attributes the pointing out of consistent use of incorrect words (on a site dedicated to reading, no less) to ad hominem alone?

Can their be no other reasons why I would encourage you to learn the correct usage of stagnant/stagnate dominant/dominate? Or be disappointed that you're apparently uninterested in their correct usage?

It can hardly be simply an ad hominem attack, considering I happen to agree with the vast majority of your opinions/logic in this particular thread.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Can their be no other reasons[...]

there

[DiapDealer]

Yep; and I'm horribly and suitably embarrassed by that mistake in light of its venue and topical context.

Thank you for pointing it out.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's fair.

But surely you see the flaw (or loophole) in your logic that blindly attributes the pointing out of consistent use of incorrect words (on a site dedicated to reading, no less) to ad hominem alone?

Can their be no other reasons why I would encourage you to learn the correct usage of stagnant/stagnate dominant/dominate? Or be disappointed that you're apparently uninterested in their correct usage?

It can hardly be simply an ad hominem attack, considering I happen to agree with the vast majority of your opinions/logic in this particular thread.

Where did I say such a thing? I said - "'I'm more concerned with the basic logic as opposed to superficial appearance. That's why standard rhetorical tricks such as ad homiem attack don't carry much weight with me. "

The "Have you ever seen me nitpicking spelling errors?" was a reply to the implied suggestion that I was being hypocritical for pointing out logic errors in other people's post when I had spelling errors in my post.

You can point out spelling errors all you want. It won't make much difference, I've always been a poor speller. That's one reason I rarely notice other people's spelling errors.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yep; and I'm horribly and suitably embarrassed by that mistake in light of its venue and topical context.

Thank you for pointing it out.

Geeze, I didn't even notice the error when pdurrant pointed it out. I knew what you meant by the context, so my brain just ignored it.

[pwalker8]

By some strange coincidence one of the articles in the WSJ today is how Teddy Roosevelt once issued an executive order saying that all government documents must conform to the new Simplified Spelling Board's spelling decrees. This included using "pur" for "purr" and "blest" for "blessed". After quite a bit of criticism and ridicule, he eventually withdrew the order.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/teddy-ro...les-1429225187

(Google "Teddy Roosevelt, Rough Rider Over Spelling Rules" )

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You can point out spelling errors all you want. It won't make much difference, I've always been a poor speller. That's one reason I rarely notice other people's spelling errors.

I can understand typos, I can understand not knowing any better, but I can't comprehend a reader not caring if they're not using the correct word or not. *shrug*

But I'm done. As I said, I never intended to be the grammar police. It's only the continued (and consistent) misuse of the same words that makes my inner cop manifest.

Stagnant water.
Water can stagnate.

Dominant player.
Players can dominate.

That is all.