>Meanwhile, I prepare to protest like a wounded fawn if
>Doug points out that overposting is the real issue,
>rather than overquoting or irritating grammar. I
>demand that the left form a coalition to deal with all
>three of these issues, while of course simultaneously
>and vehemently shooting down all actual attempts to
>form one.
>solidarity forever
>dd
But isn't this just a sectarian position, dismissing those who have poor grammar as progressive allies? Yes, many social democrats have sacrificed grammar for compromised syntax, but that does not always mean they have sold out to corporate interests subverting the clear line of rhetorical march. Yes, some have allowed stultified bureaucratic language to undermine their grammar, but really, doesn't that just represent the way the masses speak? And who are you to declare the one true sectarian grammar line, when the masses are obviously not following your linguistic dictates?
Since those mainstream languge groups are obviously not going to use good grammar any time soon, shouldn't we all adopt a bit poorer grammar in solidarity and mobilize rhetoric from within that broader current of prolix verbiage? It may not be as poetically pure but it is the only democratic approach to language, you sectarian rhetoricians!
Yo! Nathan Newman