- homocidalham
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
"That's about all that can be said for plots, which anyway are just one thing after another, a what and a what and a what.
Now try how and why."
Posted by: Izak609
Just to tell you, the word the can be used before a plural. (Example: The football team was a very large collection of football players.)
While, yes, "the" can be used before a plural, your example is incorrect. Football team would be singular in that case. It would also not apply to "cause," which is singular in the context of the original post. Aside from that, you also wrote "is." This makes the the number of causes unambiguously one.
You should of pointed out that cause should of said causes, but I was only asking for a persons opinion which doesn't have to be made up of a collection of multiple theories.
If I had pointed out that you should have said "causes," it would have been presumptuous and disrespectful of me. It would have been me assuming that you didn't mean what you had written. Generally, I assume most people to be smart enough to write what they mean. It's the difference between responding to another person and misquoting them. What I did was disagree with the given premise at the time.
If you didn't actually mean the denotation of the semantic structure, that's fine. If that's the case, just disregard the statement, but I'm not gifted with psychic powers that grant me the ability to see the intent of writing, so it is still a valid response to the original given premises, regardless of what the new premises are.
I never assumed anything other then that there is a large group of users that commonly break the rules and a large group of users that don't. If you find a time when I said that there are only two groups of people (rule breakers and followers), call me out on it, but I didn't say that.
Again, even if you didn't mean exactly what you wrote, you didn't use any qualifiers. While you didn't mention that there are only two groups, you mentioned nothing about people who didn't fit into the category. I can't automatically assign assumptions or beliefs to you which you don't state. Please save my time by not trying to use a Reductio ad absurdum argument in response to this.
There is no denotation in what isn't said.
I never asked what you'd do to change the members. I never asked you'd do to change the rules. I only asked what you think could prevent the breaking of rules.
You asked how we can make the rules easier to follow. I wrote:
The only thing the bungie.net moderators can use for coercion is taking away a person's account, but there isn't any way of making a person care about it.
In the end, I don't think we should think about the rules in terms of changing people. The rules are the standards we have on this site. They are simply a line that is drawn. People will cross them because they don't understand it or they don't care. It doesn't matter which. If people were so predictable that they could all respond uniformly to some sort of stimuli, regardless of how beneficial it would be, I wouldn't want to interact with on the forums. People would be boring if they were so predictable.
Id est, we can't make it easier for people to follow the rules because people who don't care about them can't be made to care.
To clarify even further: You asked how we should make the rules easier to follow. I responded with "don't bother."
One more thing. All of this is nitpicking over the finer points of grammar and sentence structure. Thus, I think it is prudent for me to say right here that when you questioned whether what I posted was relevant to the topic, I took it as an insult. In this I might be mistaken, as I've been stressed out lately and am in somewhat of a sour mood. However, it is best that I assume the best of intent. Therefore, I will accept a clarification: When you asked what my post had to do with the topic, did you ask rhetorically or inquisitively?