RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar?

RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/3/2008 6:41:28 PM)
But Descartes didn't write that nonsense. Babelfish produced that nonsense by mindlessly translating the words that Descartes wrote IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. Your point would be valid if Descartes wrote in ungrammatical French or Latin. And he didn't. quote: ORIGINAL: Pallandozi And yet the writer of those two paragraphs was Rene Descartes, in his discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason and seeking truth in the sciences. He originally wrote them in French. To emulate profound thought by someone for whom English is not their native language, I translated them into English using babelfish.

unforegvn -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/3/2008 6:50:44 PM)
How far would any of us get if our job application or resume was filled with typos? In this day and age everyone should be able to at least spell check esspecially those who admit they can't spell. Just call us Perfectionist! First impressions count, written, verbal or otherwise ~

TNstepsout -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/3/2008 7:03:29 PM)
It's all been said but to put my two cents in. We judge people based on spelling and grammar because it's important. In this medium the written word is your first impression. If a potential were to show up to a first meet with a few days growth of stubble, a wrinkled stained Tshirt and cut offs, I wouldn't waste my time. It's the same thing. I don't care what a person looks like, but I do care that he presents himself to the best of his ability. As I do. To write a sloppy, misspelled profile that doesn't look like the writer spent more than five minutes throwing it together implies to me someone who doesn't care about the impression he makes. If he doesn't care, then why should I bother to take a closer look? If he can't take a few extra minutes to write something readable, why should I spend any more time than he has attempting to "judge" him? Which brings me to another problem I have with the OP. The term "judge" is used here to negatively tar anyone who evaluates another person based on grammar and spelling. Judge to me is a term that means that we make a decision about the relative worth or value of another human being. In this case I am not making a determination of anyone's worth or value as a human being. However I do make inferences based on behavior about the persons character. I would generally assume that a person who does not take the time to proofread his profile to make it acceptably (not perfectly) accurate is lazy, careless and sloppy. Those are characteristics I do not seek in a sub. This is not a judgement of him as a human being, but judgement as an acceptable partner for me. I have every right to do that. For those subs who continue to whine that it's unfair, you would make better use of your time proofreading your profiles than attempting to argue a case for sloppiness. This subject is probably brought up on a monthly basis and I seriously doubt you have changed anyone's mind ever.

MiladyElaine -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/3/2008 7:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falccon Grammar=Intelligence I noticed alot of reponses from people who equate the two.If the grammar,punction and spelling are poor,the person is illiterate.Give me a break.True some responses are ill conceived and poorly structured,but a little leeway should be exercised. Has it come some of the people's attention there are brilliant people,but are poor at English.Surprise,surprise. I'm famaliar with a university math professor who admits his weakness,grammar,but he is superb in math.I'm not the greatest in English either,I'm a math nerd,love calculus,but that doesn't make me any smarter or dumber than anyone else. The condemnation I see is abhorant and all too famaliar.One of my favorite authors is William Faulkner, a great in the literature world.I haven't seen anyone on these posts come close to his mastery of writing, but these same people are the biggest critics of English structure. I feel that some of the subs should be given a chance to impress and show some of their other fine qualities and strengths. Well unfortunately or fortunately, however the reader wants to describe it, humans don't "math speak" or anything else speak BUT grammar!

JackTheRimmer -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/3/2008 7:57:37 PM)
Correct usage of both punctuation and correct grammar is VERY important to me. Many on here correctly state first impressions only happen once. If someone doesn't care, then why should I?

MstrssScarlet -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/3/2008 9:12:09 PM)
It's already been mentioned, but people (male AND female) on both sides of the fence prefer something well written that shows some thought behind it. When I first put myself out there 'on the block', I was flooded with emails. Guess who got the most attention? When I first began conversing with my husband online, I almost fell in love with him before we even met because he had a sense of humor and expressed himself intelligently. When I finally met him in person, he was exactly the same as he was online, only better. For me, this just reinforced my feelings about how people express themselves in writing. One the other hand, my collared sub can't write to save his life. Fortunately for him, we met in person first. (VERY IMPORTANT) We spent a whole weenkend together because my husband wasn't able to make the function and I appreciated someone to 'pal around with'. When I saw his first email, I was appalled. He has since worked on improving his writing, but I know that it will never be perfect. Had he written me first, it would have been a loss for both of us. It's not a perfect way to weed out the people you don't think are going to be able to express themselves intelligently, but it's the best thing we have when online. BTW...Another thing I can't stand is the W/we ,Y/you stuff. I didn't post anything online anywhere for a long time because I refused to write in any other manner than proper English with the appropriate capitalizations. Finally someone older and wiser than myself told me to write the way I wanted and not to worry about it. So now I do. Mistress Scarlet

hardbodysub -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/4/2008 10:31:43 AM)
Why do dommes judge people based on grammar? With apology to George Mallory, and of course in a completely different context, "because it's there." It's so "there", so obviously out in front, that it's virtually impossible to ignore. Glaringly bad writing is like a man meeting a woman for the first time and he's unshaven, sloppily dressed, snot running out of his nose, bits of food in his beard, pieces of spinach between his teeth, and he hasn't showered for a week. Then he burps and scratches his ass. She just couldn't ignore it if she tried. He's either careless or lazy, or just doesn't know any better. Minor transgressions - a misspelled word here and there, a typo or two, a technical grammatical error that "reads well" - no problem. She won't be too concerned if his tie is a little crooked. The purpose of writing to a dominant woman presumably involves making a good impression. The purpose of writing a post presumably involves convincing others of something, or at least communicating your opinion effectively. In both cases, glaringly poor grammar and punctuation make a bad impression and undermine the writer's purpose. The writing is harder to read, and the writer appears less credible. It's not surprising that many dommes, whether consciously or subconsciously, are annoyed by it. 1924, in response to questions regarding why he wanted to climb Mt. Everest

VeryCurious07 -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/4/2008 2:57:24 PM)
I stand behind what I originally said about clarity and reasonable grammar being more important than perfect spelling, style, diction and usage, however, I was just thinking of something here. While most of the forums I hang around in, people are not quite as meticulous about writing, this is a forum where subs are speaking to Domme's and visa versa. Could it be that perhaps one of the hoops that a Domme might expect a sub to jump through would be vastly improving their use of the English language? I mean, perhaps normally acceptable forum usage would not apply here, and a mistress could see this as a task that a slave or sub might have to undertake to improve himself or herself and thus be more "worthy"? Perhaps any potential subs, like the OP, could find a measure of peace in the fact that they are here trying to please a forum full of quite demanding mistresses. So if women here consider it vital that you learn to use the language correctly and you come here to whine about it, are you not then demonstrating an unwillingness to obey? Put another way, it seems to me that obedience training is part of a sub-Domme interchange, whether live, on the phone, through email or in a forum. So my advice to anyone who gets pissy about demanding Mistresses is either become a better sub and shut the f*ck up and obey the seemingly universal rules set by the women in this forum, or STOP pretending to be obedient subs. Bottom line? If you are like me you can type any way you want to. However, if you are a sub, start acting like one and stop your pissing and moaning. ;)

beeble -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/4/2008 4:05:48 PM)
quote: Lordandmaster wrote: But Descartes didn't write that nonsense. Babelfish produced that nonsense by mindlessly translating the words that Descartes wrote IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. Your point would be valid if Descartes wrote in ungrammatical French or Latin. And he didn't. No, you've missed the point. If Descartes' ideas are expressed well (by him personally or by somebody translating his work well into a second language), he looks intelligent; if his ideas are expressed badly (potentially by him but, in fact, in this case, by somebody translating his work moronically) he looks like an idiot. People don't bother to read through the bad prose to try to work out what it means. Similarly, somebody here who expresses an idea incoherently looks like an idiot and will not be well received; somebody expressing exactly the same idea coherently, with reasonable spelling and grammar will not look like an idiot, assuming the idea itself is not idiotic.

Evility -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/4/2008 5:09:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BruisedHick Grammar is like showering: Anyone can do it, but those who don't seem to be the ones who get offended that it makes a difference. The saddest part about all of this is that spelling skills and attention to grammar are things that we can improve on. If someone prefers tall partners and you are 5'2" there isn't anything you can do about it. If someone has an affection for those of asian ethnicity and your heritage is Swedish you're just out of luck. That's life. Watching people such as the OP whine about how their poor written English skills are an obstacle to meeting people is something I clearly lack the intellect to understand. I enjoy expressing myself in written form. English was my favorite subject in school. I love composition classes. When the internet took off in the public arena in the early nineties (and on bulletin board systems before that) I was in my element. I thoroughly enjoy corresponding with people in written communications be it by email, chat or forums such as this one. Since my earliest days on local dialup bulletin board systems I have been amazed and to some degree discouraged by the sheer number of people who display poor written skills. It's something I never was able to witness in face to face interactions. I suppose the most amazing thing about it all is that fifteen years later all of this written commmunication on the internet hasn't seemed to spark much improvement in this regard. The same percentage of folks still seem to brandish the same poor writing skills. The increased frequency of written communication has not appeared to serve as any sort of catalyst. In some ways the lazy "how r u?" text speak of the internet has appeared to have fueled the problem rather than correct it. If spelling and grammar are not important to someone so be it. I wish them well in their illiteracy. The least they can do is to please refrain from complaining about those of us who care about it.

Tantriqu -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/4/2008 5:21:49 PM)
Absolutely writing skills including composition, grammar and spelling are excellent benchmarks for would-be subs. I need smart, communicative, oral-in-all-senses pups. Here's My most recent bad example: i love maind control and i know thet the one how will "get" me will take me as fare i cen get i only want the ture control i will give all i gat and be the best i cen you`r whaitng Do you think that will clean up nice at the Opera? My most recent good example: Mistress, I want to look at art with you. Purr! Perhaps D/s communication is even more important than in vanilla relationships. I'm no sadist, and I don't want My pups to fail, so when I describe or order something, I expect it to be done perfectly without further and tiresome direction let alone correction. Unlike vanillas, I don't want fancy cars or credit cards: I expect blank verse and attention to detail. And I get it.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/4/2008 6:21:30 PM)
No, I understood that point. YOU didn't understand MY point. You can't take something brilliant, run it through a computer program that renders it nonsensical, and use that argument to claim that grammar doesn't make a difference. If Descartes had written the nonsense that your computer program produced, he wouldn't be considered a great philosopher. The reason why he IS considered a great philosopher is precisely that he knew how to use language to convey an original idea. Look, you're reifying ideas. There's no brilliant meaning behind whatever nonsense Babelfish spewed out because Babelfish isn't an intelligent being. Otherwise, you're left with the possibility that any meaningless stream of sounds or signs might really be conveying brilliant ideas if we only knew the code. "Whopbobbaloola, lawhopbamboom." You think that's nonsense. But in reality, it's a grammatically incorrect expression of the fundamental truth of the universe. You're just not capable of deciphering it... quote: ORIGINAL: beeble quote: Lordandmaster wrote: But Descartes didn't write that nonsense. Babelfish produced that nonsense by mindlessly translating the words that Descartes wrote IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. Your point would be valid if Descartes wrote in ungrammatical French or Latin. And he didn't. No, you've missed the point. If Descartes' ideas are expressed well (by him personally or by somebody translating his work well into a second language), he looks intelligent; if his ideas are expressed badly (potentially by him but, in fact, in this case, by somebody translating his work moronically) he looks like an idiot. People don't bother to read through the bad prose to try to work out what it means. Similarly, somebody here who expresses an idea incoherently looks like an idiot and will not be well received; somebody expressing exactly the same idea coherently, with reasonable spelling and grammar will not look like an idiot, assuming the idea itself is not idiotic.

Politesub53 -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/4/2008 6:26:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unforegvn How far would any of us get if our job application or resume was filled with typos? In this day and age everyone should be able to at least spell check esspecially those who admit they can't spell. Just call us Perfectionist! First impressions count, written, verbal or otherwise ~ Yes especially them.......smirks a tad [8D]

achildatheart -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/4/2008 9:28:37 PM)
I have a learning disability in English, but I am not dyslexic. I have difficulty writing/typing out my ideas, spelling, grammar, editing through MY OWN writings, and anything involving English. However, I can easily edit other peoples work. I cannot spell or use proper punctuation to save my life, but I make damn sure my reader can understand what I am trying to say. When I am writing a message to someone, I make an effort to make it legible for the recipient to be able to understand it. When I chat online over Yahoo or AIM, I tend to be careless with my grammar and spelling, but I make it legible for them to understand what I am saying. My pet is very patient with me when we chat online and I start to get frustrated when I cannot spell a simple word.

beeble -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/5/2008 3:10:12 AM)
quote: achildatheart wrote: I have a learning disability in English, but I am not dyslexic. I have difficulty writing/typing out my ideas, spelling, grammar, editing through MY OWN writings, and anything involving English. Seriously, I'd never have guessed. I only noticed two small errors in your post, which is probably fewer than most of mine contain -- I edit quite a lot and then proof-read carelessly. If everybody's posts were as cogent as yours, the internet would be a much easier place to read. (By the way, `legible' means `capable of being read', in the sense that neat handwriting is and messy handwriting isn't -- since you're typing, you get legibility for free, unless you're using yellow text on a white background or something. I think you mean something more like `intelligible': `capable of being understood'.)

beeble -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/5/2008 3:20:44 AM)
quote: Lordandmaster wrote: No, I understood that point. YOU didn't understand MY point. You can't take something brilliant, run it through a computer program that renders it nonsensical, and use that argument to claim that grammar doesn't make a difference. But that's precisely the opposite of what has happened! Pallandozi took something brilliant, ran it through a computer program that rendered it nonsensical and used the comparison between that and the original to show that grammar does make a difference! The text `with grammar' was brilliant; the text `without grammar' was nonsense. That is precisely the difference that grammar, spelling, and variations in the expression of an idea can affect that idea's perception. quote: If Descartes had written the nonsense that your computer program produced, he wouldn't be considered a great philosopher. The reason why he IS considered a great philosopher is precisely that he knew how to use language to convey an original idea. Yes -- that's exactly the point that Pallandozi was making and I was attempting to reinforce! quote: There's no brilliant meaning behind whatever nonsense Babelfish spewed out because Babelfish isn't an intelligent being. I'm not sure how far you want to push that argument. There's no brilliance in this post because it was spewed to you by a webserver, rather than an intelligent being? There's no brilliance in Shakespeare because the Shakespeare you read was spewed out by a printing press, rather than an intelligent being?

YesMistressIrish -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/5/2008 3:32:41 AM)
VeryCurious07 wrote: 'So if women here consider it vital that you learn to use the language correctly and you come here to whine about it, are you not then demonstrating an unwillingness to obey? Put another way, it seems to me that obedience training is part of a sub-Domme interchange, whether live, on the phone, through email or in a forum. So my advice to anyone who gets pissy about demanding Mistresses is either become a better sub and shut the f*ck up and obey the seemingly universal rules set by the women in this forum, or STOP pretending to be obedient subs. ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, that's just b e a u t i f u l! [8D]

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/5/2008 6:57:47 AM)
He was trying to show that you can't dismiss something ungrammatical just because it's ungrammatical; according to his argument, it might be as brilliant as Descartes' Meditation after being altered by Babelfish. OK, first of all, it's a bit of a straw-man argument: I don't think too many of us were saying that you can dismiss someone JUST because they write ungrammatical English. It's usually one element in a whole spectrum of red flags. Also, I don't think we have to worry that every ungrammatical turd on here might "really" be a brilliant idea that the speaker simply doesn't know how to convey properly. And that would be the consequence of what he was saying. People who have brilliant ideas know how to convey them properly. (Like Descartes, after all.) Failed geniuses aren't typically MISUNDERSTOOD; on the contrary, people understand exactly what they're saying, and refuse to accept it. Lastly, the fact that your message arrived to me via a webserver doesn't mean that YOU, as an intelligent being, didn't initiate the process of communication. When you write something on paper, who is doing the writing--you or your pen? You can't compare that to some computer-generated nonsense obscuring whatever intelligence was evident beforehand. Like all extreme examples, this one has limited validity, and I think we've overanalyzed it at this point. Show me a human Collarme user with ideas as brilliant as those of Descartes, and grammar as bad as what Babelfish spits out, and maybe then I'll sing a different song. quote: ORIGINAL: beeble quote: Lordandmaster wrote: No, I understood that point. YOU didn't understand MY point. You can't take something brilliant, run it through a computer program that renders it nonsensical, and use that argument to claim that grammar doesn't make a difference. But that's precisely the opposite of what has happened! Pallandozi took something brilliant, ran it through a computer program that rendered it nonsensical and used the comparison between that and the original to show that grammar does make a difference! The text `with grammar' was brilliant; the text `without grammar' was nonsense. That is precisely the difference that grammar, spelling, and variations in the expression of an idea can affect that idea's perception. quote: If Descartes had written the nonsense that your computer program produced, he wouldn't be considered a great philosopher. The reason why he IS considered a great philosopher is precisely that he knew how to use language to convey an original idea. Yes -- that's exactly the point that Pallandozi was making and I was attempting to reinforce! quote: There's no brilliant meaning behind whatever nonsense Babelfish spewed out because Babelfish isn't an intelligent being. I'm not sure how far you want to push that argument. There's no brilliance in this post because it was spewed to you by a webserver, rather than an intelligent being? There's no brilliance in Shakespeare because the Shakespeare you read was spewed out by a printing press, rather than an intelligent being?

PsyVamp -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/5/2008 7:04:25 AM)
FR: Spelling and grammar are important to me but as others have said, it is more specifically directed at "netspeak" and paragraphs with no punctuation. I have a difficult time articulating my ideas because my writing process involves taking ideas and letting them "ferment" in the back of my mind before committing them to paper (or screen). This can take hours or days depending on what is being written. When writing on IM or in these forums, I don't have that luxury and so my writing is more disjointed as my fingers cannot keep up with my mind and I don't have the time to organize my thoughts. (I am, however, fairly handy with a mathematical equation)[;)] As far as my preference for people writing "intelligently", I do not expect perfect English from those who do not speak or write it as a first language. The intelligence of the submissive though, is only relevant to the type of relationship dynamic we would have. Although, a well written letter from a youngish man that has long dark hair, is in good shape and doesn't mind a bit of "scruff" (at least a five o'clock shadow) would really be my preference. (Which would explain wolf to a "t") Lady Jag

achildatheart -> RE: Why Dommes judge people based on grammar? (1/5/2008 8:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beeble quote: achildatheart wrote: I have a learning disability in English, but I am not dyslexic. I have difficulty writing/typing out my ideas, spelling, grammar, editing through MY OWN writings, and anything involving English. Seriously, I'd never have guessed. I only noticed two small errors in your post, which is probably fewer than most of mine contain -- I edit quite a lot and then proof-read carelessly. If everybody's posts were as cogent as yours, the internet would be a much easier place to read. (By the way, `legible' means `capable of being read', in the sense that neat handwriting is and messy handwriting isn't -- since you're typing, you get legibility for free, unless you're using yellow text on a white background or something. I think you mean something more like `intelligible': `capable of being understood'.) I wrote out my post in Microsoft Word and had on of my Dom friends edit it before I posted it.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02