Quote:
Originally Posted by matt
No...you're doing the same thing to me as you did with Bojan. Accusing me of holding some kind of self-assumed moral and intellectual high ground. It seems you're the one with some kind of chip on your shoulder.
I have maintained from the outset that the rules of the language are the rules. Plain and simple. I try to observe and uphold them in my daily life as a highly trained and thorough professional. I'm not in the habit of getting 'creative' with spelling and grammar.
Do you have any concrete examples of me espousing that it's OK for the 'establishment' to break the rules to be creative or clever?
I thought my position on this subject was very clear.
By the way, you're doing my profession an injustice lumping it in with politicians.
The last time I checked...we are not very often on the same team 
And I don't work in the advertising field, so I don't feel qualified to make a statement one way or the other on their behaviour...other than to say I believe they take a few more liberties given they are meant to be 'creative'. (There's that word again). |
Sorry,
Had to duck out but back now. Hmmmm, so many issues. First I didnt "Accus[e] .. [you] of holding some kind of self-assumed moral and intellectual high ground". I spoke about where your reasoning leads to. That is, where the logic of your reasoning leads to. Its fanciful to suggest that it was a personal attack and disingenuous of you to challenge me to find examples of where you have esposed these things. The whole reason for me bringing it up was to show that this is where the logic leads. Something I'd be wasting my time doing if thats what you espouse.
As to how you personally conduct yourself in you work and the licence you may or may not take with the language I dont know and its not important to my argument. The thing is, from what I have observed the media (not you personally, I'm not talking about you), politicians and the advertising world are constantly ignoring and bending the rules of grammer, spelling and distorting words when it suites them to get their meaning accross or to crack that joke or to make that pun or to get us thinking in a certain direction. If the language is plyable for them when it suites them then (i) it only encourages us to do the same and (ii) why shouldnt we.
As for me lumping your profession in with politicians. First I'm not talking about you personally but as for your prefession I have to say that yes I do feel that your profession is on the same team as politicians. Certainly not out team.