Westy: I don't believe you could be spending a tenth the time reading as you do posting. If you did, I can't imagine you wouldn't have picked up on some basic spelling and grammar rules. If you want people to accept or pay attention to your ideas, why not put in some small effort in writing - and why post if you're not trying to convey ideas?

If you're using "its" as a contraction for "it is", you need an apostrophe: "it's".
If you're talking about something belonging to "they", then you should use "their" instead of "there".

I'm sure you can comprehend those two rules - and following just those two rules would make your posts much easier to read and likely improve your posts' reception greatly.

Moving out from there, there are a tremendous number of spelling and grammatical mistakes in your posts. Some are understandable - it's easy to confuse "reining" and "raining" and only a pedant would jump on you for that kind of error. On the flip side, it's distracting and almost incomprehensible to see "someone" spelled "sum-one". This is a very common English word. Even if you're normally reading another language or have a deep learning/reading disability, how would you have avoided something approximating a proper spelling soaking in at some point? Surely just in the process of posting to this site you would have seen this word spelled correctly thousands of times.

Again, I think the solution is either "spend a tiny amount of time reading instead of posting" or "show a modicum of respect to people reading your posts by making the tiniest effort to spell correctly". Even if your goal is trolling, I think you'll find you get better bites if you put in some effort.

PS: Yes, I'm sure I've made some spelling or grammatical errors in this post. No, I'm not going to proofread it. No, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I don't believe posts need to be perfect; I just think some effort should be made, and I do make some effort to write reasonably.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^ant:
Meh, trailer doesn't make want to see it badly.

Too bad it also doesn't make want to produce complete sentences.



Oops, I need a grammar checker for web browsers/copy editor/proofreader. +me for the missing word.

>> ^CircleMaker:

You must have meant "His grammar and English are so terrible," am I right?
>> ^Unsung_Hero:
His Grammar and English is so terrible he must have dropped out of school to work on his material.




Indeed, that will teach me to proofread before hitting the submit button! Haha... Oh well. I guess my point is botched.

In reply to this comment by highdileeho:
Thanks for that great definition, I would be lost in this world if people like you don't take up the role of degrading peoples intellect. That spelling correction: thank you. I assume you sent out replies to everyone who had an opinion on this video? oh right, you were being a loudmouthed arrogant douchebag.

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
>> ^highdileeho:
I'm pretty sure that mother fucker asked the black guy to spit shine his 'stacy adams'. that's why the whole thing started, and why the woman replied with racial slurs, It was in response to the motherfuckers racism. I'm pretty sure the black guy was just reacting to the white guys racism as well. The motherfucker started it, the motherfucker initiated the bullying, and the black guy was vilified for being in the wrong. Funny how everyone assumed that the black guy must have deserved it. You refer to an asian as a 'chinaman' on the street and see if you get the motherfucker treatment, I bet you will. I just hope the asian won't vilified.
I changed the spelling of the word Vilified to be correct in your quote, so now it is a paraphrase.

We don't know what happened before the video, so there is no way to know for sure who started what. Or how the conversation began to take place. The evidence in the video is circumstantial. This means we have to infer what happened before, and that is highly uncertain. Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to have a case, there must be corroborating evidence. There simply exists, for us, no way to know what took place before the beginning of this video.

No I was simply replying to your comment, and I took the time to proof it.

Your assumption is wrong. I only replied to those that I thought were interesting enough to comment.

Furthermore you can look at my comment history and find loads of spelling errors, grammar failures and overall stupidity. I take the time to proof read my comments now, because once they are on the internet they are there forever. Or until the internet implodes. Even if that means proofreading the quotes that I use.

Bible not been refuted, eh?

The Bible actually refutes itself in the very first section of the very first book by giving two separate and contradictory accounts of the creation story.

Here is a summary for those too lazy to look it up for themselves.

Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 summary:
God creates the heavens and the earth. He separates the light from the darkness (whatever that means). He creates a dome to separate Earth water from space water. He creates land, fruit and vegetation. God makes 2 lights; the sun for a day light and the moon for night light. He creates water life, bird life, sea monsters and animals (all at once without any type of evolution), and then tells them all to fuck the shit out of each other. God creates humans in their (why is this plural?) image and gives them dominion over the other beasties, and then tells them to bone up a storm too. God tells the humans and animals to help themselves to all the plants, fruits and vegies they like (but makes no mention of eating meat). On the seventh day, God orders a pizza, smokes some weed and plays Xbox all day. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Done deal, right!? But wait, there's more...

Genesis 2:4-2:22 summery
On the day that God created the heavens and the earth, back before there were plants, rain and people to work the land, God forms a man from dust on the ground and breathes life into his nostrils. After that, he creates plantlife, the garden of Eden and a tree of knowledge of good and evil. God puts the man in the garden of Eden and tells him not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Then God creates all of the animals and tells the man to name them all. Finally, he creates a woman out of the man's rib.

Can you spot the differences in these two contradictory creation myths?
-The first myth spans 7 days, the second spans one day.
-The plants and animals are created before man in the first myth, and after in the second.
-In the first myth humans are created all at once, in the second the man is made first - the woman second.

Did God forget to proofread?

It is theorized that these two competing creation stories - which were passed from generation to generation through oral tradition before being written down - were both so popular, that the creators of the version of Genesis that ended up in the book that we now call 'the Bible' decided to include both.

Another interesting discussion is how the Bible was assembled from many stories written by many different people over hundreds of years, and even after it was codified, was (and still is) edited and translated and manipulated, which explains its many shifts in mood, tone, and content. If you read the Bible as literature, it is full of some great stories. The stories of David and Lot are juicy. Ecclesiastes was written by a total nihalist and is pretty bad ass. Revelation is fun too, in its own sociopathic way.

Are you being sarcastic? I'm not very careful about my grammar on VideoSift, so it kind of amazes me that you would ask me. Cheeky monkey.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
So, I've been polishing my grammar and am still in need of help. What say you to proofreading my sentences for free?

So, I've been polishing my grammar and am still in need of help. What say you to proofreading my sentences for free?

Otherwise, here are some free Rules of Thumb for improving your writing skills. Most of them apply in other languages as well.
(from my pal Rootlesstree) :

1. Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat).
6. Always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also, too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments. No comma splices, run-ons are bad too.
11. Contractions aren't helpful and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
14. One should never generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as clichés.
16. Don't use no double negatives.
17. Eschew ampersands and abbreviations, etc.
18. One -word sentences? Eliminate.
19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
20. The passive voice is to be ignored.
21. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
22. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
23. Kill all exclamation points!!
24. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
25. Understatement is probably not the best way to propose earth shattering ideas.
26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.
27. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
28. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
29. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
30. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
31. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
32. Who needs rhetorical questions?
33. Exaggeration is a million times worse than understatement.
34. Proofread carefully to see if you (have) any words out.

I am instanley reminded of this sift
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Impotence-of-Proofreading

>> ^E_Nygma:

One thing I didn't get is in "I no this probably makes me sound like a stereo," what is stereo supposed to be?

stereotype.


Or a broken record . . .

Transcribed for your reading pleasure (or torture):

The The Impotence of Proofreading

Has this ever happened to you? You work very, very hoard on a paper for English clash and still get a very glow grade on it like a D or even a D= and all because you are the liverwurst spoiler in the whale wide word. Yes, proofreading your peppers is a matter of the the utmost impotence.

Now, this is a problem that affects manly, manly students all over the word. I, myself, was such a bed spiller once upon a term that my English torturer in my sophomoric year, Mrs. Myth, she said that I was never gonna get into a good colleague. And that's all I wanted. That's all any kid wants at that age, just to get into a good colleague. And not just anal community colleague either because I am not the kind of guy who would be happy at just anal community colleague. I knead to be challenged, challenged menstrually. I knead a place that can offer me intellectual simulation.

So, I no this probably makes me sound like a stereo, but I really felt that I could get into an ivory legal colleague. So, if I did knot improvement than gone wood bee my dream of going to Harvard, jail, prison-- you know, in prison, New Jersey. So, I got myself a spell checker and I figured I was awn sleazy street, butt there are several missed aches that a spell checker can't can't catch catch.

For instant, if you accidentally leave out word, you're spell checker won't put it in you. And god for billing purposes only you should have serial problems with Tori Spelling, your spell check off may end up using a word that you had absolutely no detention of using because, I mean, what do you want it to douche? Ya' know-- No... It only does what you tell it two douche. You're the one sitting in front of the computer scream with your hand on the mouth going, "Clit. Clit. Clit."

Just goes to show you how embargo one little clit of the mouth can bee, witch reminds me of this won thyme during my Junior Mint. The teacher took the paper that eye had written on a Sale of Two Titties-- No, I'm serial! I'm serial-- She read it out loud in front of all of my ass mates. It was quite possibly one of the most humidifying experiences I have ever had being laughed at like that pubicly.

So, do yourself a flavor and follow these two Pisces of advice: 1) There is know prostitute four careful editing of your own work, no prostitute whatsoever; and 2hree) When it comes to proofreading, the red penis your friend. Spank you.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Impotence-of-Proofreading

Title should read

The The Impotence of Proofreading

When I was in college at USC, I worked at the Business School as a proofreader/editor. I edited some things of Laffer's (I, a nineteen-year-old English major editing the "writings" of a full profesor in the Biz School; still makes me laugh). The man wrote as though he was typing with mittens on. I concluded then that he couldn't quite think straight.

^bobknight33:

Did you get your education from a school that doesn't proofread before posting? Or are you against funding is public schools and peoples right to an education?

If you have basis for your comments, go ahead and make that clear. What I'm sick of hearing is comments like those that Joe-the-Schmo makes about questioning someone's loyalty because they disagree. One of the things that the Bill'O'Rights declares is that people are allowed to have differing opinions --it isn't unpatriotic. Now, if you are so much more experienced then Senator Obama, with your non-government-school-education, then why aren't you running for president or at least for Senate?

Or maybe you should have paid more attention to a Real American during your education.

Is there anywhere in that statement that tells us that you proofread your comments before clicking "submit new comment?"


>> ^millertime1211:
Is there anywhere in the bible that says 1% of the Bibile fact?