Am I that nasty, really?

[Maccy]

Three dots only. And I am well aware that I used the plural. It was correct to do so. If the word throws you, try substituting one you're more familiar with into the sentence:

"Ellipses only contain three dots"
"Dogs only have four legs".

Swapping it to "Dog only have four legs" doesn't sound right, does it?

In order to correct another, they must first be wrong. And to be clear, that's "they" as the genderless pronoun.

Wow someone really is pedantic. A quick google suggests 3 or 4 is suitable #justsayin

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Is that suppose to impress me

This thread dont impress me much,
(oh oh oh oh)
So you know an ellispes from a, full stop?
Dont get me wrong, you're grammar is all right
But that dont keep me warm in the middle of the night

 

[Maccy]

This thread dont impress me much,
(oh oh oh oh)
So you know an ellispes from a, full stop?
Dont get me wrong, you're grammar is all right
But that dont keep me warm in the middle of the night

Drop the mic

 

[h4rm0ny]

Wow someone really is pedantic. A quick google suggests 3 or 4 is suitable #justsayin

I'm sure you have your own areas of expertise for which "a quick google" would be similarly flawed so you know that's a dubious argument. No contemporary standard for the English language, British or American, suggests four dots in an ellipsis mid-sentence. Four dots are used at the end of a sentence in British English (though this is becoming much less common) but that is because the full stop at the end of the sentence is retained. And if a different punctuation mark terminates the sentence then only three dots would be used. And in American English three dots are used even at the end of a sentence.

And yes, I am famously pedantic. The earlier poster who claimed people correct others only for attention was wrong though. For many of us, we are simply a little obsessive. I'm a former C programmer. Obsessing over syntax is what we do.

 

[Rroff]

This thread dont impress me much,
(oh oh oh oh)
So you know an ellispes from a, full stop?
Dont get me wrong, you're grammar is all right
But that dont keep me warm in the middle of the night

On a kind of related subject to this thread - personally I can't even imagine the thinking process of someone who is cognitive of such things as a genderless pronoun when constructing a passage of text :s my mind (probably partly due to inadequacies in the education system) just doesn't have a process for it (which is probably fairly evident to those that do) so someone merely pointing out poor grammar does absolutely nothing helpful for me as it does nothing constructive to change how I think.

EDIT: Kind of amusingly when reading someone else's post I almost always see the misuse of your and you're but can't see it in my own posts except sometimes when reading them back many months or years later.

 

[h4rm0ny]

This thread dont impress me much,
(oh oh oh oh)
So you know an ellispes from a, full stop?
Dont get me wrong, you're grammar is all right
But that dont keep me warm in the middle of the night

Well, I would never have put down someone whose username is Avenged7Fold to be a Shania Twain fan.

I think I'd more opt for "Man! I feel like a pedant!"

Wont confuse may and might.
Gonna get my punctuation right,
My subject and my verb agree,
I know who from whom,
Compliment from complement,
No dangling modifiers to see,
Man! I feel like a pedant!

 

[h4rm0ny]

On a kind of related subject to this thread - personally I can't even imagine the thinking process of someone who is cognitive of such things as a genderless pronoun when constructing a passage of text :s my mind (probably partly due to inadequacies in the education system) just doesn't have a process for it (which is probably fairly evident to those that do) so someone merely pointing out poor grammar does absolutely nothing helpful for me as it does nothing constructive to change how I think.

What would help? For example, you used cognitive rather than cognizant in the above when it should have been the latter. Is there a way to point that out which would be helpful? Normally I don't point out trivial errors such as "your" and "you're". We all make those and it's not helpful to correct them as the writer already knows the correct usage. It was simple inattentiveness or lousy auto-correct. Pointing it out just diverts from actual discussion. But sometimes (and yes, I'm aware that's beginning a sentence with a preposition) there's an obvious misunderstanding that goes beyond someone not knowing the difference between "lose" and "loose". Do you have any insight into what would make it stick?

EDIT: Kind of amusingly when reading someone else's post I almost always see the misuse of your and you're but can't see it in my own posts except sometimes when reading them back many months or years later.

If I'm proof-reading my own work rather than someone else's, I usually wait a day before doing so. It provides distance and helps you spot errors.

 

[grimm]

I would have done the same as OP.

If she had taken that attitude with me I probably would have found her a few admin tasks of my own for her to do if she is so intent on doing them for other people outside of our household.

 

[Rroff]

What would help? For example, you used cognitive rather than cognizant in the above when it should have been the latter. Is there a way to point that out which would be helpful? Normally I don't point out trivial errors such as "your" and "you're". We all make those and it's not helpful to correct them as the writer already knows the correct usage. It was simple inattentiveness or lousy auto-correct. Pointing it out just diverts from actual discussion. But sometimes (and yes, I'm aware that's beginning a sentence with a preposition) there's an obvious misunderstanding that goes beyond someone not knowing the difference between "lose" and "loose". Do you have any insight into what would make it stick?



If I'm proof-reading my own work rather than someone else's, I usually wait a day before doing so. It provides distance and helps you spot errors.

Interesting about cognizant - but I'm still none the wiser as to why to use one over the other heh. I honestly have no idea as to what would be helpful I don't even have a foundation for it mentally - my process is basically sticking together what looks the most right from what I've seen other people do.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Back on topic, I feel that when you're part of a couple you take on a shared responsibility or set of standards for each other. What wouldn't be embarrassing in a stranger or colleague, is excruciatingly embarrassing when it's your partner doing it, for example. And similarly what would only mildly bother you if you saw someone else being taken advantage of can bother you hugely when it's your partner being taken advantage of. I don't think that it's merely caring about that person more. I think it's that you feel it reflects on yourself as well. If my partner dresses or behaves badly, I can't ignore that the way I would ignore it with someone else. Because we're a couple and someone isn't just laughing at them, they're laughing at us.

Maybe the OP feels the same way. Not simply that the brother is taking advantage of her, but that he is taking advantage of the couple.

 

[dl8860]

If it was an elderly parent who needed assistance that's one thing, but I agree with others saying that brother and sister-in-law can learn to sort their own **** out. If it was more specialised knowledge that the wife was offering, then that would be fine as it's a favour that maybe only she can help with. But calling up out of sheer laziness - because let's be honest, a trained monkey could use google maps and national rail planner - wouldn't sit well with me at all.

And that's what makes this advantage being taken if you ask me. So I'd definitely have a similar reaction to OP. Agree with h4rm0ny above, hacks me off when people try and take advantage of partner, as well as myself directly.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Interesting about cognizant - but I'm still none the wiser as to why to use one over the other heh.

Cognizant means having awareness of something. Cognitive means to do with thinking. Grammatically (as opposed to semantically), the key difference is that cognizant supports a relation. You are aware of something. Whereas cognitive does not.

I guess the simplest way to show the error would be by analogy. Suppose our words were "fond" and "affectionate". They have similar meanings but one requires an object and the other does not. If you were to say "I am fond" then the listener immediately searches for a subject. You're fond of what? Puppies? Hot dogs? Masturbation? The sentence isn't really complete until you say "I am fond of ..." (you'll note I adopt the style of not including a period after ellipses ). But with affectionate, no relation is required. "I am affectionate". This is a complete sentence. You could say "I am affectionate towards ..." and expand it, but you'd never say "I am affectionate of ...". There's no inherent relation. What you wrote was the equivalent of saying "I am affectionate of ...".

TL;DR: Cognizant means you're aware of something. Cognitive means you're something to do with thinking. They are related words so possibly easily muddled together.

 

[Diddums]

The problem with people like that is that they know other people will help, so when they stumble at the first hurdle, they cry for help. My strategy for people like this is to ignore them for a while. 90% of the time they suss it out and that's the end of it.

 

[the shadow]

nvm

 

[Malevolence]

just seeking opinions here, certainly not justification.
Last night, watching TV, wife's phone rings.
I freeze the TV, and peruse the paper, waiting for her call to finish.
From her conversation, it's obvious that she's talking first with her brother's wife, then her brother.
She asks a few questions, then says, "I'll check, then call you back", disconnects and picks up her laptop, starts punching keys, scanning the screen intently, then asks me for a pen and some paper.
When she calls her sister-in-law back, she starts giving street names and bus numbers, train departure times, this one is a six minute walk, this one is eleven minutes etc. etc.
It materialised that her brother and his wife are going to York for a couple of days, and want to visit some friends in Manchester afterward, then fly back to London.
They'd asked her to look for methods of getting from Blank St. York, to Some Street Manchester, via bus or train, what the fare would be, and where were the bus and train stations in relation to their hotels in both cities.
I was amazed, and said, "You're kidding surely, have they both been paralysed, or struck with dyslexia?"
"Why?" she said, "he's not as clever as you, he doesn't know how to search for these things."
I said, "Clever? All I've ever done is drive a truck or a taxi, that's not rocket science, and I can book a flight online in seconds, he's a 53 y.o. office manager, and she works in admin, you must be nuts in not telling them to do it themselves."
She raised her voice, and told me, "You are one horrible person, you nasty (rhymes with shunt).
Was I wrong in being incredulous and more than a little annoyed at this?
I don't care about what she called me, she does that when she gets the zig, water off a duck's back.

Did you used to troll the Digitalspy forums with these stories some time ago? Or was that just someone who happened to have the same name?

 

[robgmun]

I would have done the same as OP.

I find it fascinating just how clueless some people are. I'd have the same attitude as the OP, fortunately most of my and my wife's family are pretty clued up on technology. My mum and dad has some difficultly sometimes but they're in their 70's so they get a pass.

 

[Nitefly]

This thread dont impress me much,
(oh oh oh oh)
So you know an ellispes from a, full stop?
Dont get me wrong, you're grammar is all right
But that dont keep me warm in the middle of the night

Isn't it "grammar's alright"?

 

[Angilion]

[..] I don't care about what she called me, she does that when she gets the zig, water off a duck's back.

[..] it was completely out of character for her to drop the "C" bomb

Which is true?

As for your original question, I think you weren't that nasty. You said you were amazed, not that you were malicious. Your wife, however, was malicious. So she was nastier than you were. Whether or not that bothers you is your business (and it seems that it doesn't).

I wouldn't have been amazed. Many people don't want to learn new things, especially when they have someone else to do it for them. Or maybe it pleases your wife to do this sort of thing for her brother. Maybe he knows that and asks her even though he knows how to do it himself.

 

[Arthur Hucksake]

I think you were in the right.

Seems like they were just being lazy AF to me.

 

[FurryLemon]

Fill the laundry hamper with skids for the next week. Extra sauce for the use of 'shunt'.