Sorry, I just don't understand this mindset

I don't understand what seems to me nothing more than a careless, lazy attitude in so many Web forum posts (not specific to DU). It isn't just the retarded misspellings like loose for lose, it's also the poorly quoted (or entirely unclear on the concept styled quoting) that ends up taking more effort than it should on every reader's part just to figure out which part is quoted and which is new text. And it's the broken links or inline images that don't load, and an assortment of other crappy formatting that just makes a post difficult to read. Most every Web forum program comes with a preview button so you can see how your post will look. Is it really that much more effort to take a few seconds more to see if things are working the way you intended? I just don't see the disconnect between desiring to express yourself to others but not particularly caring to be well understood.

:applause: :rofl:

But feel free to substitute another word.

whom are very nice people. The word "retarded" was dropped out of the vocabulary in education years ago, and I think also in psychology and psychiatry. So many bullies liked to say "You're retarded" or "You retard" that it became a derogatory term, though it simply means "delayed."

Words like "moron," "imbecile," and "idiot" haven't been applied to mentally disabled people in a long time and are widely used so they are less likely to insult people who are mentally disabled or have a family member who is.

term. The reason I make note of this is that I actually have people who get upset when I may say someone is "mentally retarded", but that is the actual diagnosis and it is not an insult, nor would I ever use it in the context the OP did.

It's in the DSM-IV and I have to use it in my job all of the time because in the court system someone can be declared "mentally retarded" if they have an IQ of 70 or below, fail at least 2 parts of an adaptive skills test, and it can be shown before the age of 18.

I do appreciate you making note of the OP's use of this word as an insult because there are people who are legitimately "mentally retarded" and they usually have a terrible time trying to live in a world that stigmatizes them and either believes they should be "normal" or "institutionalized." They are not able to think as many of us do and there is very little or no help in our society for people who are "mentally retarded."

"the plant's growth was retarded by the high pH".
"flame-retardant"

So, it's true that one can use the word "retarded" and still be appropriate.
Edit to add: But, cruzan's usage was inappropriate.

biology texts, as in your example "the plant's growth was retarded by the high pH".

Teaching high school biology, I always had some student ask about the word, because they were so used to hearing "mentally retarded" and thought "retarded" meant "stupid." It made for a good moment to teach the actual meaning of the word plus a little lesson on tolerance: "When people are said to be 'mentally retarded,' it just means that they learn more slowly than others."

There is nothing wrong with the word, as long as it's used appropriately.

that the term is still used, although I suppose no one is standing up in court yelling "Retard!" :hippie:

It's unfortunate that many people don't know that "retard" means "to slow," as in "Smoking can retard a person's growth."

It's a sad commentary on our society that we don't do more to help people with lower than average IQs live as independently as possible. Though that often means a group home and a job in a sheltered workshop, it is better than just shutting them away in an institution. We don't deal well with people with disabilities of any kind, especially the "funny-looking" ones.

words that might offend someone? I mean, isn't other people's levels of offendedness each and every individual's responsibility??


Or maybe some of us could just get a life and not be so damned offended all the time??

It doesn't seem to add anything to the sentence and stigmatizes individuals who are mentally retarded.

He may never have observed bullies shouting "Retard!" at special ed students in the halls. I saw it when I was in high school and I saw it when I was teaching high school. Fortunately, when I was teaching, I could and did do something about it.

<quote>misspellings like loose for lose, it's also the poorly quoted (or entirely unclear on the concept styled quoting) that ends up taking more effort than it should on every reader's part just to figure out which part is quoted and which is ne....w text. And it's the broken links or inline images that don't load, and an assortment of other crappy ....formatting that just makes a post difficult to read. Most every Web forum program comes with a preview,</quot>

U knead to get a life, dood!

that even the subject cannot be spelled correctly. It's sad that there are so many with so much to say that cannot be bothered with even attempting to do it well or use "Check Spelling". The point of communication is communicating. Some do it better than others. Some do not care.

That should be printed on tee-shirts and billboards and should appear at the top of every website that has a forum.

Incorrectly spelled words are often easier (for me) to deal with than the hiccup that occurs when I read something along the lines of "President Bush put the Congress in it's place." I get to the contraction, unpack it and then the sentence just makes no sense: "President Bush put Congress in it is place."

Arrrgh!

And like a scene from "They Live" I see the misuse of this third-person pronoun everywhere. How many advertisements or signs have you seen with "it's" prominently displayed?

:rofl: :rofl:

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/they

"Frequently Asked Questions
Is it acceptable to use they instead of he or she?

The English language unfortunately lacks a simple singular pronoun which does not specify gender. Various people have suggested new words to fill this gap, but none of them has caught on, or (frankly) is ever likely to: it is not practical to try to change such a basic element of the language by sheer will.

However, children and adults alike naturally find the obvious solution to this conundrum: rather than using the formal and awkward formula 'he or she', they simply use they, especially after words such as anyone and no one which are strictly singular but often imply a reference to more than one person.

This is not a new problem, or a new solution. 'A person can't help their birth', wrote Thackeray in Vanity Fair (1848), and even Shakespeare produced the line 'Every one to rest themselves betake' (in Lucrece), which pedants would reject as logically ungrammatical.

If you do not find this usage acceptable, there are alternatives. You could resort to the awkward 'he or she' formula, or to the practice of writing 'he' when you mean 'he or she' (which many people find objectionable), or to recasting all your sentences to avoid the problem!)"

It sounds very British, but hey, they originated the language.

Ex: One can't help one's birth.

...of me actually taking you seriously.

"caring to be well understood" :rofl:

:evilgrin:

my eyes were bleeding.

"It isn't just the retarded misspellings like loose for lose, it's also the poorly quoted (or entirely unclear on the concept styled quoting) that ends up taking more effort than it should on every reader's part just to figure out which part is quoted and which is new text."

Worse than the misspellings -- eg. loose for lose -- quotations are poorly organized. The reader is left guessing at who exactly said what.

(not perfect, but somewhat less ironic, I hope)

that I could read without hemorrhaging. ;-)

us that don’t have proper grammar to only come out and vote for the ones that can articulate well, and post on DU to your satisfaction. Let the others just lurk, and read your prose? There could be a quite a few reasons besides bugging you, that people have poor grammar, myself I had a war to contend with. :-(

How lucid.

:rofl:

I was referring more to other Web forums where there are posts that are such a tangle of nested quotes it truly is difficult to follow what's being said.

It shouldn't be as soothing as it is.

Your title isn't pertinent to the subject matter. I highly DOUBT that anyone purposefully misspells words or uses poor grammar or links to broken links and for a mindset to exist, you would have to prove that someone willingly did it to fit the definition.
Misleading titles irk ME much more than innocent errors such as those.

can't be bothered to check their post is reasonably well formatted with functioning links, images, etc. Please quote where you think I imply an active, purposeful intent to misspell, use poor grammar, etc. Thanks.

In any case, I find too many adverbs in your writiness. I prefer one adverb per every two hundred and fifty words at most, unless you are under extreme circumstances.

"...but not particularly caring to be well understood."

I think we DUers are practically Presidential in their ability to express ourselves.
Now watch this drive.

lover of the English language, I am aghast at the inability of web posters to make cogent sentences with correct spelling and quotes, etc. Many people here are of the same mind -- but of course if you stick your fingers in their eyes and call them out for their misuse of spelling, usage, or grammar, they say they don't care. You get a cold shoulder, at best -- or they're all over you by suggesting that you're TOO PICKY or worse...

Here's how I look at it: If you were a teacher who had to grade their papers and have continuous involvement with them, you'd consider giving them a lot of "red pencil" marks and bad grades. But you're not overlording them in any way.

On the Internet, it's just a fleeting passage and you're on to the next poster. I've learned to stick with many people who find and post thoughtful, well written, well researched, well documented and accurately posted messages.

The others? Well, you can always put them in your trash heap or place their messages on "IGNORE" if you wish.

The DU is run pretty efficiently and I don't know that a "PREVIEW" screen would help much. (They have one on the Internet Movie Data Base, but still there are tons of misspellings, etc.) At the DU, we have a "CHECK SPELLING" feature now, but those people probably don't use it.

After being a guest or member of many Usenet groups in the years 1985 to now, I'd say that the DU should be applauded on how these problems are being addressed. Remember, nothing is perfect.

Have a good day and a good week, Cruzan! Warm regards, Radio Lady in Oregon

It's right there between 'Check Spelling' and 'Post message' :) (Hmm, I wonder why the Check Spelling button uses title capitalization and the Post message is not. Curious...)

My, my, what a fool am I...

I guess I've never used that button either.

So... what you say is that it should either read Check Spelling (capitalizing the "S") or Update Message (with the "M" capitalized)?

Y'know, I would have never seen that in a million years....

Good to know!

Thanks.

and it rarely if ever bothers me.

If it's incomprehensible, ignore it. If not, cut your fellow party guest some slack, IMHO.

Just curious...

Maybe it comes from being the grandchild of tenant farmers who managed to send my father and uncles and aunt to college; you learn to let things go.

typing too quickly and not carefully reviewing one's post.

I am cursed with being able to see misspelled words. I don't like being the grammar police, but it's something I have to do, kinda like a dog who howls at a passing siren, and is likely unaware that he's howling.

sometimes (for instance, I just typed incredible rather than incredible and changed it).

Excellent illustration of your point... :P

:rofl:

Others, however, are rule junkies.

;)

spelling, although bad grammar bothers me.

My pet peeve about DU is posters who don't read a thread before posting on it to see that their assertion has already been debunked upthread.

For example:

OP: Hey, everybody, I've got an idea to cure poverty. Let's figure out how to turn lead into gold!
1. Kewl! I'm with you.
2. Sounds awesome, man. I'll go out and buy a chemistry set today!
3. Uh, hey, guys, you can't turn lead into gold. Well, maybe you could in a nuclear reactor, but it would cost more than the gold would be worth.
4. Right, turning lead into gold was what the medieval alchemists tried to do. You're about 500 years behind the time.
5. Dude, you should get a Nobel Prize for that idea. Lead into gold. Lead's plentiful enough, and if we turned it into gold, then everyone could have some.
3. But turning lead into gold would be so difficult that it wouldn't be cost effective.
4. It's so obvious that the medieval alchemists thought of it, and they've been discredited.
6. Hey, could I learn to turn lead into gold, too?

Turning lead into gold would solve all our budget problems - and if medieval alchemists could do it, why shouldn't we?

... We don't particularly care about writing like illiterate idiots, nor do we care about proper attribution. DUers commonly misquote or mis-cite people. I think it's pathetic, but then I'm an ivory tower elitist.