Well that being condescending without being blatantly mean was part of my point... Well done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoSolid66
Don't you have anything better do to?


That's a no then? ^^

Would it be acceptable if not for the dictionary link?

If I were using a word incorrectly, I would like to know about it. I'm charitable enough to assume that others have the same desire to improve themselves.

If you dont know what it means, go to dictionary.com or thesaursus.com and see for yourself....

No, of course not.

As for letting them know, a forum PM works just as well as a post without the public embarassment and without derailing the thread.

Plus, if they don't appriciate your kindness they can ask you to discontinue warning them of their mistakes.

I don't think that spelling corrections generally derail threads. Not unless the corrected party goes into hysterics about it.

In any case, PMs are too cumbersome. Plus it's often the case that their misuse of the word has some significance to the thread - such as in this case, when thrash accidentally accused people of ignorance. I'm sorry that the correction might embarrass him, but that's pretty much the risk you take when you make such extravagent claims. Nobody's going to let his insult pass just because they don't want to make him feel bad.

His ignorance about other peoples so called "ignorance" is petty, yes, and should at most be noted and then looked past.

However, this thread was about ignorance so continuing to discuss this isn't off topic. I find it's inappropriate when a certain posse places its injunctions and makes the thread fly in to numerous subsections - avoiding the original aim of the thread or thread curator.

Haha. If you're talking about how people react negatively to your Graal News threads then it'd have to be a pretty big posse.

The biggest problem is not that one person makes a simple comment to help the future readers, but that 10 people make many comments that are off topic and the thread turns into an arguement.

That person I was referring to was Kai who didnt seem to care and who I thought you addressed your post to, seeing as how you posted right after him without quotes or directly naming someone.

if you say dumb stuff on here or are a dumb person you deserve to get made fun of

80% of the people in this thread deserve to get made fun of

:) Hey brad!

I think you are drastically exaggerating the matter in an attempt to maintain credibility.

While I'm not going to go searching threads just to disprove that notion, I think we both know 10 is an entirely plausible number of posts in that situation. You have a bad habit of misinterpreting people's points.

It's two clicks. Forum name in the post, send private message. Lousy excuse for wanting to embarass people.

I think you should refrain from projecting belief in your fake statistics onto other people.

Haha. Misrepresenting reality seems to be a hobby of yours.

1) Reading new PMs is less convenient than checking threads.
2) The more PMs I send/receive, the more I have to worry about hitting my quota. Every so often I have to look through all of my messages and find the ones I want to transfer to offline storage. I'd rather do this as infrequently as possible.
3) Every time I send somebody a PM, I have to subject the recipient to the above problems.

Besides that, I don't usually embarrass people that don't deserve to be embarrassed. Heck, sometimes they even benefit from it.

If a lot of people weren't posting in a thread, it's unlikely for it to be very active unless it's an argument.

Since people seem to have a problem with your methods, why not just let them go their own course and not say anything.

They do? Can you demonstrate this?

Also, can you tell me why this is inherently a bad thing?

Your post doesn't make sense... Naturally if people weren't posting in a thread it would not be very active, by definition...?