YouTube commentator called out for pseudo-intellectual, overly complicated language, creates reddit account to respond. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
17 ups - 3 downs = 14 votes
17 comments submitted at 23:38:10 on May 4, 2014 by PyroNavi
YouTube commentator called out for pseudo-intellectual, overly complicated language, creates reddit account to respond. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
17 ups - 3 downs = 14 votes
17 comments submitted at 23:38:10 on May 4, 2014 by PyroNavi
>Since you're clearly looking these things up, you puerile pedant, check Dictionary.com.
This is gold. I thought a pretentious fellow like this would cast a supercilious gaze at the likes of Dictionary.com.
>it wasn't meant to be a sincere and prosaic treat, moron.
But George, it was a prosaic treat. At least prosaic in the sense that thesaurus cowboys are pretty commonplace in these here parts, and that shoehorning words from your vocab crib sheet awkwardly into sentences does not equal creativity or poetic dexterity.
"This is gold. I thought a pretentious fellow like this would cast a supercilious gaze at the likes of Dictionary.com."
As it was a debate concerning definitions, and the dictionary's definition supported my argument, it seemed germane. Also, I'm unconcerned about seeming "supercilious" in these fora; a lack of self-confidence is social apoptosis. Please do love your agency, my dear.
"But George, it was a prosaic treat." For this, I admit guilt; that was a typo on my part. The word I meant to type was "threat", not "treat", as I was clarifying that a comment I posted was supposed to have been written with brevity and levity.
As for the rest of your comment, I must say I disagree resolutely with your assessment of my linguistic intent and capacity. If you'd like, I'd make my case with alacrity, but at this point I suspect that it would be a fool's errand, as this community doesn't seem to like me or my commentary much (for some reason, I've been accused frequently of "trolling").
The mascot that /r/iamverysmart deserves.
Would it be wrong to put his picture in the subreddit banner?
Tempting, since his simian countenance suggests a heritage unusually rich in species diversity.
Might I rather suggest a mandibular homage to prevent administrative accusations of redditory impropriety?
don't post anything that could remotely be considered dox.
I think I just found a new subreddit to frequent. Thank you
Obtuse verbosity obfuscates insecurity.
>For example, instead of "isotropic" should I write "in an omnidirectionally uniform manner"?
Well, no, George, but you could rewrite it this way: "This poet's work is both superficial and revoltingly sentimental without exception." But then you wouldn't get to enjoy the process of lecturing others, would you? What's the purpose of language again?
Your interpretation of my text is perfectly correct; I could have written it that way. However, I would've used more words, and surely that renders this proposed wording somewhat redundant perforce.
Also, I don't enjoy "lecturing" others on this sort of thing, yet I'll make counterarguments if I'm insulted.
I feel like this could get very buttery very quickly.
Keep up the wonderful work fellow redditors ^_^
SnapShot
(mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
Resubscribing
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
hi, this links to full comments. can you resubmit with a link to a specific, dramatic thread?
thanks!