2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Putting the "Fan" in "Profanity" The RantsSkeptics' Circle #54 »

Beating Sylvia Browne About the Head and Neck With the Tack Hammer of Reality
2007.02.08 (Thu) 20:25

It seems that self-proclaimed psychic, genuinely poor guesser, and predatory cunt Sylvia Browne has been taking some blows to the head and neck lately, and it looks like it's just going to get worse.

You may have seen us linking to StopSylviaBrowne.com, a site run by the proprietor of StopKaz.com, Robert Lancaster. After thoroughly thrashing Kaz (the alleged miracle 9/11 survivor and White House "spiritual advisor" who got a rock — yes, a rock — from Jesus — yes, Jesus — during a near-death experience), Robert has more recently turned his attention to Sylvia Browne, in an attempt to show the world what a pathetic carny act she really is. One of the more visible incidents concerning Sylvia Browne lately has been her botched predictions about the Shawn Hornbeck case. In 2003, Sylvia publicly stated that the boy was dead. However — and luckily for his parents — Shawn was found, very much alive, in January of this year. Yet another strike against Sylvia's wondrous powers of prognostication (or "gnostication," in this case). Of course, this is far from the first well-documented failure by Sylvia. We ourselves have previously mentioned two such incidents on our site — her failed predictions concerning the fate of the victims of a mining accident, and her botched reading in regard to the whereabouts of a fireman killed on 9/11. But when it comes to taking Sylvia Browne down a peg or two, we're rank amateurs compared to Robert, who has constructed a site filled with documented facts that showcase Sylvia's poor guesswork, her abject failures, and her heartless, money-grubbing attitude. Frankly, we love it!

But there's always somebody who doesn't appreciate rational efforts to expose assholes like Sylvia Browne for what they really are; and in the latest developments, that somebody turns out to be Sylvia herself. Her lawyer, Cheryl L. Hodgson of the Hodgson Law Group, sent Robert a threatening letter trying to get him to take down his site. A quick perusal of the letter shows, however, that either Cheryl is a moron who is wholly ignorant of the branch of law she claims to practice, or — more likely — she is misrepresenting the law to try to scare Robert into removing his content. Basically, the argument that Cheryl has made is that using the domain name "StopSylviaBrowne.com" equates to an infringement of her client's trademark on her own name. This is utter nonsense, as anyone who has even glanced at the relevant case law knows. Here's a tidbit from the EFF that clearly shows that this complaint is crap:

While trademark law prevents you from using someone else's trademark to sell your competing products (you can't make and sell your own "Rolex" watches or name your blog "Newsweek"), it doesn't stop you from using the trademark to refer to the trademark owner or its products (offering repair services for Rolex watches or criticizing Newsweek's editorial decisions). That kind of use, known as "nominative fair use," is permitted if using the trademark is necessary to identify the products, services, or company you're talking about, and you don't use the mark to suggest the company endorses you. In general, this means you can use the company name in your review so people know which company or product you're complaining about. You can even use the trademark in a domain name (like walmartsucks.com), so long as it's clear that you're not claiming to be or speak for the company.

[Our emphasis]

Since all of the remaining complaints stem from this completely baseless and, in fact, nonsensical argument, that pretty much renders the entire letter moot. The reply from Robert's attorney sums it all up quite nicely. One of our favorite bits:

You are also referred to the recent case Fox News Network, LLC v. Penguin Group, Inc. and Franken. You will recall that not only did Fox News lose that case, but they endured some very unflattering publicity in the process.

[Our emphasis]

Yeah! Hit the bitch where it hurts — the PR machine that intravenously nourishes her bank account.

Robert's attorney also included a warning to Ms. Hodgson of the danger that she, as a lawyer, faces for pursuing a groundless case like this one.

You are also put on notice that it may be a breach of ethics for a lawyer to prosecute a case knowing that it has no footing in law and knowing that it is being used to harass the defendant. This office has in the past notified appropriate agents of the bar when a firm pressed a matter such as this.

Having participated in several smackdowns of idiot lawyers with outlandish cases before, we're big fans of letting them know what the fucking score is. The letter from Robert's attorney was a work of art, and gave us warm tinglies inside. Kudos to Robert for standing firm (we never expected anything else), and for publishing the letters. We always like a good laugh (and cheer!), especially at the expense of vile hucksters like Sylvia Browne.

In other related news, and as many of you are no doubt aware, James Randi has announced that he is altering the format of his Million Dollar Challenge (we'd already read about it, but thanks to PoolGuy and Jason for the helpful reminders). From his SWIFT announcement of January 12th:

There are two main revisions we are now making with the challenge: first, we are changing the qualifications of those who will be eligible to become applicants, and second, we are actively pursuing the prominent figures in the field, rather than simply allowing them to come to us.

REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS

As of April 1, 2007, we will require two major qualifications of all those who will be eligible. First, any applicant will be required to have a media profile. By that, we mean that there must be some media recognition — a television interview, a newspaper account, some press writeup, or a reference in a book, that provides details of the claimed abilities of the applicant.

Outstanding! It's an excellent move: no more wasting time and resources on every (Safari) Tom, Dick and Harry who makes a lame stab at claiming some fictitious abilities. But what does all this have to do with Sylvia Browne?

Rather than merely waiting for applicants to present themselves, we will regularly and officially highlight well-known persons in the field and challenge them directly by name. Those challenged will then have a six-month period during which they may respond; during that period the JREF will heavily publicize the fact that such a challenge has been issued, we will issue press releases on the matter, and we will be frequently asking that those challenged make a response. Tentatively, we will begin by formally challenging Uri Geller, James Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, and John Edward, on April 1st.

[Our emphasis]

Awesome! Yes, we know that Randi issued a public challenge to Sylvia some five-and-a-half years ago, and although she accepted, she has yet to take the test. But now Randi will be getting more aggressive about her utter failure to submit to testing, and we think that's a wonderful idea.

But wait, there's more! Randi will also be actively pursuing the possibility of legal action when these hucksters break the law. We have confidence that the JREF won't engage in any frivolous lawsuits, so we love this idea, and we can't wait to see the tables turned on the con artists and bullshitters who regularly use legal threats to quash their critics (weren't we just talking about something like that?). The difference, of course, will be that when Randi files suit, or assists others in doing so, the legal threats will be grounded in the law. Perhaps Cheryl Hodgson should start studying up. (We really recommend a few refresher courses, Cheryl. Or you could shore up your ethics and drop Sylvia Browne as a client.)

Randi is also going to be upping his media presence:

We will henceforth be pursuing the media from a different angle, pointing out to them that we have items of general public interest and importance to offer them. We will emphasize that education should include equipping students to use critical thinking. We will make the media aware that we are also prepared to go after religious claims — if and when they can be actually examined. And, religious claims will be treated exactly as any other paranormal claims.

Again, we are fully in support of these steps, and we look forward to seeing how they play out. The bullshit artists of the world have been milking the publicity goliath for all it's worth for years — millennia, in some cases (like certain religions). Randi's got it absolutely right: it's time to fight fire with fire. Get the information out there. The public is unavoidably aware of the "psychics" and religious nutjobs, because they're everywhere, and currently, the material debunking them isn't quite as ubiquitous or accessible (to the average Cheryl). Getting Randi's direct challenges into the public eye will be a great step toward, at the very least making people wonder why their favorite sideshow freak isn't willing to take him on. Add to that some frequent press releases and the injection of some much-needed critical thought and education into the mainstream media, and the public may actually react, and start seeing these paranormal pricks for what they are.

All in all, it's been a rough time for Sylvia lately, and we have to say that it couldn't happen to a more vile bitch. We look forward to her continued humiliation, and possibly — oh, hopefully, blissfully! — to her upcoming legal woes. People like her deserve to be run out of town on a rail, and we'll be watching closely to see if she gets what she deserves.

Because honestly, Schadenfreude is so much sweeter when the bastard really, really deserves it.

[This Rant was edited to correct the Stop Sylvia Browne site links, after fuckhole vulture Boris Kreiman stole the original domain from Robert Lancaster. — The Management.]


— • —
[  Filed under: % Bullshit  ]

Comments (38)

Skeptico, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 21:20 [Link] »

You'd think Sylvia would have seen that letter coming.

(Somebody had to say it.)



Phony Montana, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 06:37 [Link] »

Well that fucking rocked.

I dont think you can overestimate the capacity of people like Sylvia Browne to weasel out of these kind of situations (that, after all, is one of the main advantages of being a weasel). But i do look forward to the possibility that Randi might score a palpable media-covered hit on someone.

That, more than your justified rants, more than Robert's spectacular site, is what is really required. For the moderate media to realise it has to turn on Sylvia et al in order to maintain its credibility. Put them in that position and you start to get results.



agentx, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 07:14 [Link] »

I hope Sylvia doesn't mind me posting this but it is freely accessible on her website so I'm sure it would be OK. It's good for a laugh.

"Personal psychic readings can be scheduled with you and Sylvia Browne or her son, Christopher Dufresne (pronounced "doo-frane"). The following material offers a little background information as to how Sylvia and Chris work, making them the best psychic readers in the world. The logic of this information is very compelling to a rational mind, and explains how a reading can be very specific and very accurate.

A Reading with Sylvia
A psychic reading with Sylvia is very much like meeting a long lost friend whom you loved deeply, making your soul glad to make contact again. This friend seems to know everything about you, accepts you for yourself, and knows what to do about anything that troubles you. Sylvia is a Spiritual, soul-level healer. She reaches into your soul, washes out the pain, repairs the damage, then gives you the courage and direction to continue your journey through life. Everything Sylvia does is by the grace of God.

Sylvia brings into your life a little part of the Other Side. She reminds you that your soul is glorious, exalted, and very precious to God. The Holy Spirit works through Sylvia to emanate God's love, grace, and blessings.

A Reading with Christopher
Chris is an authentic psychic from birth. Being Sylvia's son he shares in her genetic predisposition to psychic excellence. Chris is the only other psychic recommended by Sylvia. He has been a working psychic for more than 20 years now, and has built his own clientele from thousands of satisfied clients. Chris is a superb reader and the best alternative to Sylvia.

About Your Reading
While Sylvia or Chris is doing a reading for you, they psychically reach into your soul, pull out your Chart, and then recite back to you those things you have already planned for yourself. There is nothing mysterious about this; it is simply their gift from God, one that they have perfected to a very high degree."



agentx, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 07:16 [Link] »

Oh, btw, a phone reading with Sylvia is only $750. Her son is only $450. I presume it's because he's only as 65% as accurate as his mum.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 10:05 [Link] »

I presume it's because he's only as 65% as accurate as his mum.

So there is a percentile lower than 0%?



SpnKick540, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 11:28 [Link] »

I only forsee problems with the new rules to JREF even if it is a great step towards debunkal of several control factors that seem to enslave human minds.

In the metaphysical/spiritual community, there exists a lot of distaste for Sylvia Browne's methods. Most (and I'm speaking of the spiritualists and metaphysicians whom study about metaphysics and spirituality) believe that she is simply out for herself and that she's very rude towards people whom are basically feeding her. Also most in the spiritual community say that anyone whom claims to be the best knows nothing. I think even Bruce Lee said:

"The man who claims to know everything knows nothing. Beware of him."
(Striking Thoughts by Bruce Lee)

Why is this relevant? The media hogs, such as John Edwards and Sylvia Browne, are not all that popular to the actual spiritual/metaphysical community. They're only popular to the "uneducated masses." I use those words as their idea, not my own. Taking them down will only strengthen the "genuine" psychics' claims about such media headfigures. I mean, we've all heard the same argument from at least a few people in the last Sylvia thread that claim they
"...know a genuine psychic whom is the real deal."

This is, of course, coupled with statements like
"She/he doesn't even charge. They just want to help."

Not verbatim, but a general idea.

While taking down the headfigures is a great idea, there will always be groups of people whom do not want to be educated. They are content to believe that life is a certain way.

Some will always believe that you're born a sinner, you do your best to not sin and worship God, and at the end you go to court to see if you did good enough to get into paradise.

Others will always believe, no matter what arguable evidence is presented to them, that there is more to life than what we see around us and that materialistic science can't prove it because of it's quantifying, retesting, & categorizing mindset. (I know examples of the former and latter)

The point is that the evidence against paranormal/metaphysical/religious beliefs has been out there for a while and the internet puts it at the fingertips of a good deal of people. If they truly wanted to think for themselves and let go of ideas based on "you just gotta have faith" or "you have to believe before you see it", I would like to think they would go looking for the information. But maybe that's putting too much "faith" in the human species.

My closing statement is a big thank you to the Two Percent Company for bringing me back into balance. I used to be hardcore Christian until I was 18. Then I was "lost" and didn't know what to believe. Then I was introduced to metaphysics and spirituality when I was 22. That opened a floodgate which let in so much crap. I believed just about anything they had to say. I started frequenting this site more and more. This site is not what made me change my mind. It certainly was a catalyst for me to go out and do my own research against metaphysics and spirituality. I feel that I've come back to a balance in my life. Thank you for reawakening my curious mind.



SpnKick540, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 11:31 [Link] »

Edit on the Bruce Lee quote.

He who knows nothing and claims to know everything, beware of him.



PoolGuy, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 12:41 [Link] »

It's great to see that Randi is going on the offensive against these blights on humanity. While the derision heaped on Sylvia and her ilk by Randi, TPC, SSB, et. al. is all to the good, there is a certain sense of preaching to choir by those sites.

That said, I still have my doubts that the MSM will pick up the gauntlet being proffered. As we have seen over the last few decades, journalism has evolved from an effort to inform, enlighten and present a fair picture of whatever topic it deals with to an enterprise that seems to care about one thing only: What will titillate enough to sell what we're offering (newspapers, ads on TV, etc.) and information and facts become secondary or non-existent to this prime directive.

I think another prong to this offensive might be to include the support structure that facilitates these asswipes. At the top of that list would be someone like Montel Williams, aka Sylvia's Pimp Daddy. It might be somewhat effective to directly accuse him of hating people because he offers Sylvia his public stage.



Thomas Green, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 22:49 [Link] »

I heartily agree with your comments re Browne and other fraudulent activities.
But why do you run advertisements for people to use her services?
Incongruity??



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.10 (Sat) 00:05 [Link] »

Those are "Ads by Google", just like it says. Google places adds according to keywords, so the automated thingy doesn't know the difference betwee, "We love Sylvia Browne" and "Sylvia Browne sucks donkey dicks". It just picks up "Sylvia Browne" and puts what it is programmed to assign as "appropriate" ads. Besides, some of the asshats (I like that word, 2%!) that come here to defend her sorry ass are big fans and they might appreciate those ads.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.12 (Mon) 19:06 [Link] »

Thanks, TimmyAnn. As you noted, those are indeed Google ads that are generated by Google based on key words and phrases found on any particular page. As many critical thinking blogs have pointed out, we tend to be magnets for ads promoting the exact same bullshit that we debunk, simply because we discuss those topics (and because there are so few ads for anti-bullshit items or services — hey, somebody should do something about that!). Since we have been targeting Sylvia Browne a bit lately, it stands to reason that Google is matching us up with the ads that also "discuss" Sylvia Browne — but, of course, those are ads promoting her.

As a note, we discussed this back when we first added Google Ads to our site. At the time, we said:

Though we do have some control over which [Google] ads do or do not appear on our site, we certainly know that we will not like all of them (unlike the Amazon links which are all [our] choices, as discussed above). So, our question to our readers is this: should we specifically block sites that peddle bullshit? Our initial thought is that we should — we clearly do not endorse bullshit, and we don't want people using our site as a springboard to get to such sites. However, it also occurred to us that we've found some pretty funny stuff via Google Ads on web sites of critical thinkers. Skeptical sites attract bullshit ads like bees to honey — if we mention that homeopathy is crap, we can almost guarantee that ads for homeopathic remedies will appear. So should we leave them intact for the entertainment value, or should we block them as they appear? Let us know what you think.

The other argument that we've heard for keeping the bullshit ads intact is that the bullshitters end up paying us for sending people who are likely skeptics to their sites. Between this point and the entertainment angle, we feel that a decent case can be made for keeping an open approach to accepting ads. That said, we could argue the finer points of this all day, and still not come to a logical consensus — it's just a matter of preference, really.

Up until now, we have chosen to refrain from blocking any sites. However the fact that Hay House — Sylvia Browne's promoter — has been advertising on our site makes us physically ill. As a result we have now blocked ads by hayhouse.com and hayhouseradio.com. Going forward, we will do this on a case-by-case basis, based on our gut feelings about a particular advertiser.



GOD777, 2007.02.13 (Tue) 21:54 [Link] »

2% can you say a few words from the letter Robert's attorney wrote? I feel like having a few warm tingles inside



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 00:03 [Link] »

We'll do one better — you can read the entire letter on Robert's site.

[This comment was edited to correct the Stop Sylvia Browne site links, after fuckhole vulture Boris Kreiman stole the original domain from Robert Lancaster. — The Management.]



GOD777, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 08:21 [Link] »

Wow sylvia browne just got a really bad butt wupping in that letter. that should knock her down a peg or two. That letter is a work of art



xiangtao, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 15:03 [Link] »

Another possible argument in favor of leaving the ads here is that the woo peddlers are spending money to advertise where it will be seen mostly by people who won't give them the time of day, rather than by credulous idiots who would be happy to hand over their cash.

And I know I caught some shit on the other Sylvia thread for being the grammar police, but please SpnKick540, learn when to not use whom.



SpnKick540, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 18:04 [Link] »

Yes sir. I'll get right on that. I promise it won't happen again. Forgive my error in application of the word "whom".

On second thought, I'll just run it through a spelling/grammar check on Microsoft Word and see if it corrects me.
....
....
Nope, nothing wrong with the grammar. Although it did correct my spelling on words such as "headfigure" and "gotta".

Why not spend your energy on something a little more useful?



SpnKick540, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 18:06 [Link] »

Correction on no grammatical errors. There was an incorrect form of "its" used. I accidentally used "it's" instead. Other than that and "forsee", Microsoft word sees no problem with my usage of "whom."



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 18:34 [Link] »

Well...don't rely too heavily on the MS Word grammar checker, SpnKick540. Speaking purely from a technically accurate standpoint, you do have a misuse of the word "whom" in one of your comments above. Having been both a writer and editor, I can speak from experience when I say that Word is pretty clueless when it comes to grammar, and only slightly better at spelling (which is why I immediately disable the automatic correction features the first chance I get). Of course, I can say the same thing about most professional human editors I've met, who often favor strict adherence to obscure grammatical rules over voice, style and — most importantly — contextual use of words and phrases. (One editor managed to completely edit any and all meaning out of a paragraph in an article I wrote. It was pathetic, and I luckily got the opportunity to change it back before it was published.)

All that said — xiangtao, while I certainly agree with you in that I appreciate and prefer an effective working knowledge of even grammatical minutiae like the difference between "who" and "whom," you're right that the blogosphere generally frowns on the "grammar police." Despite our own attempts around here to keep things on a more sophisticated level (all right, stop the snickering, folks), we tend to recognize that the inhabitants of the Internet in general — and the blogosphere in particular — are pretty lax about such matters. And even if it weren't an uphill battle, it gets pretty pointless and irrelevant to respond to someone's comment based solely on their grammar. Sure, I lament the inevitable spiral of language — but note both that I call it "inevitable" and that I do not call it "downward." Language changes, and we all adapt. The fact that you knew enough to know what SpnKick540 should have typed there is evidence enough that you got his/her meaning; and in the end, communication is what language is all about.

I'm not pissed at you, I don't think you're an utter jerk, and I won't give you shit about it — just a friendly reminder: don't dwell on it too much. If you think the blogosphere is bad, try working in education some time (I've been there, too). And I'm not just talking about the students.



SpnKick540, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 18:57 [Link] »

One misuse? I can live with that. The way I was being called out made it sound like there were more than several misuses.



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 20:01 [Link] »

Actually, not to pile on, but you misused "whom" more than once. I have been accused of being the grammar police as well. That is why I didn't mention it, but trust me, it is more than one misuse. No big deal, but just to clarify, xiangtao wasn' talking about one mistake. One misuse could have been a mere typo.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 20:06 [Link] »

Before the grammar police take away my license, I'll just casually mention that TimmyAnn is correct: there are actually several misappropriations of the word "whom" in your comment, SpnKick540; my interest was simply in defusing the potential tension in the thread, not critiquing your writing. Again, not a big deal at all, I just don't want any grammatocop tasers aimed at me.



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 20:07 [Link] »

Anyway, back on topic: That is a great letter, but as far is it knocking Sylvia Browne down a peg, I wish it would, but I doubt she'll be phased. The best I think one can hope for there is that her lawyers will recognize that they can't put the website out of business or intimidate Robert into changing the name of it.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 20:15 [Link] »

I'd like to think, at the very least, that it'll burn her up to know that there's nothing she can do about Robert's site. That alone is worth the price of admission. Kind of like watching Joe DuBois (maybe it was really him, maybe not) trying to edit the Wiki entry on Allison to paint all of the skeptics and critics as mean, nasty people who don't believe Allison's oh-so-genuine claims (he even offered some new ones — with, of course, no links or supporting evidence to back them up).

For now, just the fact that these motherfuckers know we're all out there, and we're watching, and we're not afraid of them or their cheap-ass lawyers...that's a step in the right direction. When Randi starts the full-court press, things will hopefully get even more interesting.



Jason Spicer, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 20:45 [Link] »

One last comment on the who/whom issue, offered as a helpful suggestion, though almost certainly driven by my hopeless pedantry, which has been noted elsewhere on this site, and for which I apologize in advance.

When in doubt, use "who", not "whom". For that matter, you could get away without using "whom" at all. (Though it sounds a little weird immediately following a preposition--"Ask not for who the bell tolls." Of course, most Americans would be perfectly happy with "Don't ask who the bell tolls for." Assuming they know that bells do anything besides ring.)

I doubt anybody would have mentioned it if SpnKick540 had consistently erred on the side of "who". In fact, I have a feeling that "whom" is on the way out of the language entirely, and in 50 years, will sound extremely anachronistic.

It's one of the last vestiges in English of words changing form based on case. We pretty well get along without that nonsense already. Just because the Romans went crazy with it in Latin, doesn't mean we have to put up with it. Or would you rather have twelve different versions of the word "the"? I thought not. (I remember from my college German classes that there are such things as the genitive case and the subjunctive case, but I could not begin to define them. Perhaps my doctor will explain them to me if I ever suffer from subjunctivitis of the genitives.)

Of course, the downside is that English is more dependent on clause order in sentences and more ambiguous than other languages. But since much of humor would be impossible without ambiguity, I think that's actually a win. Now if we could only dispense with the the silent k and the letter Q.



xiangtao, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 23:22 [Link] »

Being a linguist by degree, I am aware that change is a very prominent factor in a language, especially the current state of English. However, I have to agree with Jason that "whom" is the form that is actually being lost.

As to case systems, Latin isn't actually bad at all: only five cases there. Russian is a bit worse at seven, but as far as I know, Finnish is about the worst, weighing in somewhere around fourteen if I remember carefully.

As a bit of an apology, I really don't correct grammar to be an asshole or even because I'm anal. I really am just trying to be helpful. I'm sorry if I came across as being confrontational.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.14 (Wed) 23:54 [Link] »

No worries, xiangtao. Like I said, you didn't seem like an asshole to me, but to someone whose grammar you're correcting, perceptions may differ, and perhaps justifiably so. Helpful's cool (and I appreciate it, as I mentioned), it's just becoming less and less of an issue in these kinds of fora, and the language mavens (myself included!) just have to suck it up. Sorry about that.

And yes, I definitely agree — "whom" seems to be rapidly heading off into the English speaking sunset, following on the heels of such words as "thee" and "thou" into the realm of the purely poetic (or pedantic!). I'd also wager we're witnessing the official singularization of "their" within our lifetimes. Unlike science, language, in a way, actually is a popularity contest (as I'm sure you've witnessed repeatedly in your field); the words and phrases that get the most use remain, while others fall into disuse and end up being considered "quaint" or (the kiss of death) "archaic." I'm of the opinion that mass media may have accelerated (or at least compounded) this process over the past century.

I recall reading about the "Tabassaran" language, which allegedly uses about fifty noun cases. (A quick search on Wikipedia confirms it, as much as Wikipedia confirms anything.) I'm not sure what need they have for so many, but seriously: damn, that's a lot. Presumably, Tabassaran speakers get a lot of detail out of each word; and their grammar police are probably required to travel armed with tasers.



Akusai, 2007.02.15 (Thu) 03:25 [Link] »

I thought I'd let you 2%ers know that i'm stealing this post for the 54th Skeptics Circle at my blog, Action Skeptics. I don't figure you'll mind, but did figure you'd like to know.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.15 (Thu) 09:46 [Link] »

I ignore the people who nitpick my grammar/spelling or tell them flat out I don't give a fuck.

I'm not perfect, but I do a pretty good job of framing my position.

While pointing out a misuse of the word "whom" is just ridiculous, telling people to turn the caps lock key off is right on - I do it all the time.



xiangtao, 2007.02.15 (Thu) 13:13 [Link] »

Wow. Fifty cases is a hell of a lot. I hadn't heard of that one but I'll have to look it up. I can see the use of five or so as in Latin, since it eliminates the importance of word order, but fifty?!

And Ryan, I've never noticed any grammar issues with you to nitpick, and while I agree that pointing out one misuse of whom would be ridiculous (as mentioned by TimmyAnn, one could have been a typo) SpnKick misused it twice in one post, and if I remember correctly, he also had misused it repeatedly in the previous thread (I could be remembering wrong but I really don't want to dig back through to be sure. I already read through the beast once.)



SpnKick540, 2007.02.15 (Thu) 14:04 [Link] »

To further diffuse possible tension, I didn't consider the correction of my grammar an act of an asshole. I just considered it a rather pointless waste of energy. I mean, if you know what word should've been used there, then you understood what I was saying.
I don't like to be incorrect...especially in the recent past. So I usually make sure I'm incorrect before accepting the criticism. If I came across as aggressive, my apologies, Xiangtao.



PoolGuy, 2007.02.15 (Thu) 14:20 [Link] »

While I hesitate to jump into this fray, I am also a firm adherent to the philosophy that "Faint heart neer won fair maiden".

Having had a bit of pedantic fun with Jason in a previous thread, I can appreciate the who/whom banter. I think any thought of "holier than thou" could have been removed had xiangtao merely stated that a pedantic point was being made. Unsolicited instruction is likely to be taken poorly in most forums, and at the TPC the response will likely be direct and, more importantly, mordantly witty.

On a personal note, I'm getting tired of trying to remember the fucking "i before e" exceptions.



John Morales, 2007.02.16 (Fri) 03:45 [Link] »

When, in this rant, 2%Co declared JREF's new direction "Awesome!", SpinKick (I like it better than SpnKick) wrote an interesting comment, wherein he said: "I only forsee problems with the new rules to JREF even if it is a great step towards debunkal [...]".

Giving a number of arguments which I am not disputing, SpinKick concluded: "The point is that" (paraphrasing)[the internet has the evidence against woo freely available already, therefore any who can be influenced have already had (or can have) their chance to be influenced].

I presume this implies skepticism regarding a high likelyhood of noticeable cultural effects due to a higher publicity? If so, I can't agree, having observed the popular media's liking for fluff and for disputation.

I agree, however, that JREF is likely to face challenges (problems? :) if they walk their talk, and raise their media profile. I certainly consider this a worthwhile, positive development, and hope for the best.

PS (disclaimer) I greatly admire Randi.



Inquisitive Raven, 2007.02.16 (Fri) 09:30 [Link] »

"All in all, it's been a rough time for Sylvia lately, and we have to say that it couldn't happen to a more vile bitch."

Hey! Don't insult dogs like that. Y'know it's really hard to come up with an insult to this umm, creature that isn't more of an insult to whatever you're comparing her to.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.16 (Fri) 09:53 [Link] »

Thank you, IR, for pointing that out. Recently had to do the same for a blog partner.



SpnKick540, 2007.02.16 (Fri) 10:43 [Link] »
...SpinKick (I like it better than SpnKick)...
haha. I'm kinda fond of that name and would prefer it to be spelled the way I have it. It's an AOL e-mail address from back when AOL only allowed 10 letters. This was also back when the 540 kick was the most popular "trick kick". So I couldn't fit "SpinKick540".

Not that it's relevant to this topic. Just thought I'd make that moot point.



John Morales, 2007.02.17 (Sat) 00:04 [Link] »

Sorry for misusing your handle, SpnKick540. That was wrong.

There, I feel better. :)



Fan-man, 2007.02.17 (Sat) 13:52 [Link] »

Anybody catch Allison Dubois on Oprah this past week?



ArseBiter, 2007.11.12 (Mon) 15:03 [Link] »

xingtao... that would be the finno-ugric language group comprising Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and (I can feel a linguistic beating coming on) Basque. Estonian definetly has 14 cases but most Estonians don't get too worried about being able to use the case endings correctly, Finnish is very similar (almost English English -American English when compared to Estonian.) I have no idea what Basque and Hungarian are like.

..language is liquid..




— • —

|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]