To refuse to engage with anyone who uses of instead of have?

[ExitPursuedByAKoalaBear]

That's it.

Saying "I'm not going to engage with someone who makes a particular grammatical error" is as silly as saying I won't engage with someone who has curly blonde hair. Still, OP got what she wanted; a 'lighthearted' thread. Lead balloon springs to mind!

LRD - You still haven't answered me on why you accused me of laughing at disablism. Again, I said "Arf @ 'disablist'" and you replied "You find disablism especially funny, cote? How charming".

So...

Did you not understand that I was obviously laughing at you calling Exit 'disablist' and not at disablism itself? >> You don't know what quotation marks mean.

Or

Did you understand what I was saying perfectly well but thought you would accuse me of laughing at disablism to score a point? >> You were being intellectually dishonest.

Which is it? You can delay this all you want, go away and come back again to your heart's content, but I assure you that I will be here to ask you the same question again, so you might as well answer it (painful as it may be)

ici - I really don't think that's true.

It's the same kind of error as typing 'their' when you intended to type 'there', because they're homophones. Or like writing 'right' when you mean 'write' as I keep wanting to do on this thread.

I think people are suggesting non-dyslexic people make the error because they genuinely think 'of' is the correct word, having heard the phrase and not understood how it functions grammatically.

A dyslexic person could understand the grammar, but write the wrong homophone.

cote - I thought you though it was funny that I'd called the OP out for disablism.

I still think that's what you intended.

I don't think it's funny.

It has nothing to do with your use of quotation marks, though I will point out the irony of someone who has misused 'quote' when they meant to write 'quotation' lecturing me on this one.

*ProfessorVon - you're the one getting that wrong, not everyone else.

The spelling is different on draw and drawer but the pronunciation is the same.*

Yes, but using the word 'draw' to describe the part of a chest of drawers instead of using the word 'drawer' is wrong. That's what I'm saying!

And the entire Scottish race is wrong then, in your opinion, because Scottish people (and I'm sure some others) DO NOT pronounce 'draw' and 'drawer' the same!

All of you who are laboring on about how obvious the difference between "would of" and "would have" is, are you willfully missing the many posts pointing out that it is "would of" and "would've" that are being confused?

Not really, because very few people write "would've" even when that is what they would say. By the time they get to writing it, the vast majority of people are intending to write "would have". For instance, I quite often get fairly formal business emails with "would of" in them, and the people in question will in the same message invariably write things like "do not" and "should not" - and even "have not" - rather than "don't", "shouldn't" and "haven't."

ici - but I'm guessing they mentally hear the sound 'of' when they think 'would have'.

It's perfectly possible that a dyslexic person would make that error, but that is for the same reason that non-dyslexics do - not because of their dyslexia.

A dyslexic person could understand the grammar, but write the wrong homophone.

ici I do it when I type but not when I handwrite or dictate (stopping to spell). That's because I'm dyspraxic rather than dyslexic.

It makes perfect sense but you don't understand it because your brain isn't wired that way.

I wish I had enough SpLD expertise to explain it. It's a processing issue.

It frightens parents of DC with SN to read venomous threads like this.

buffy - I think if it changed, it would be slow. But if it did, we'd simply accept that the orthography of the word 'have' had changed. I think people believe it wouldn't happen because what they imagine is a change to our entire grammatical understanding. They think, because 'of' and 'have' perform different grammatical roles, we'd never confuse the two.

And of course, we wouldn't - the grammar wouldn't change, but the word that used to be spelt 'have' would be spelt differently.

That said, our spelling is so fixed these days, I think such change would be very slow.

I would sit down and listen or talk to anyone and everyone. I don't think anyone is "lesser" than me as a human being - we are all people, trying to do our best, and have our own stories to tell.. Then I don't think you have the same views on this as Suzanne, or at least as Suzanne says she does.

"would take steps to try and reduce the amount they do it."Why? Do you debate everything with everyone in RL?

Well, for example, I would read their posts on mumsnet and give them the same weight as anyone else's. I don't, if I'm honest, have that many debates about philosophy with anyone, regardless of how they spell, but I can't think I'd consciously shut down debate with someone because I thought they hadn't read the right books. Philosophical truths are supposed to be universal. I'm interested in politics and the law, for example, and you can have a valid conversation about those with anyone. You're actually more likely to learn something from someone who has a different life experience from your own. If they start spouting racist, classist, sexist or otherwise repugnant views and won't listen to reasoned counter-argument then I would close down debate with them as unworthy of my time - but ime this happens as frequently with highly educated people as not.

So you just didn't get it.

Let me help you:

"Arf @ "disablist"
This means that I am laughing at the use of the word 'disablist'^ (in quotation marks, therefore someone else's words - yours, in fact).

If I were laughing at someone's use of the word 'disablism', I would have said: Arf @ "disablism"

If I were laughing at disablism in general, I would have said: Arf @ disablism (without quotation marks).

This is simple English comprehension and I find it worrying that you can't see the difference between the different phrases above. No doubt you will again try to make this about your soi-disant dyslexia, but for whatever reason, again, I sincerely hope that your future Oxbridge students will be much kinder than my class at university.

Yes, cote, I got it.

I just didn't find it funny. I still don't see why you think disablism is a funny subject - whether that's funny to you because you believe there's nothing disablist about this thread, or for any other reason.

My English comprehension is fine. We just disagree. You're knocking it because you think it's a clever and subtle way to undermine me.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'soi-distant dyslexia' (do you know yourself?).

Your class at university may have been full of cruel and ignorant people, but you know what? I don't think I will need students to be 'kind'. I think they will be, mind. I think most people naturally are.

But I don't think I require pity to do my job - and that's what you're implying, isn't it?

Could you tell me what you are getting out of this? Because what I'm getting is that you just want to hurt. Maybe I think that because I'm feeling hurt. But I think it's deliberate, and malicious. And I can't understand why you feel like that. I've never met you. What have I done to make you feel this way?

I have no idea what you are talking about re "misused 'quote'" so can't help you there.

In case you were wondering, I'm not claiming to write perfectly 100% of the time (especially since I am not a native speaker of English), but if you have found a mistake in my posts, by all means, go ahead and knock yourself out laughing at it.

But I don't want to laugh at it. I don't find mistakes funny, and I don't see why you do?

I just think you are being rude to keep picking up on mine, when you must know you're making errors. And you are attributing deliberately mean-spirited interpretation to what you believe to be my mistakes, with the intention of implying I'm incapable of English comprehension or intellectually dishonest. I do feel that's not on, especially when I did understand you perfectly well the first time, and simply didn't agree with you.

"I still don't see why you think disablism is a funny subject"

Ye Gods You still don't get it.

I don't find disablism funny. That is what I have been explaining to you in so many posts.

I found you calling OP "disablist" funny, because she wasn't talking about disabled people.

Is this your usual level of English comprehension?

I do get it, cote.

I think that you finding it funny I judged bits of this thread to be disablist, is to do with you finding the subject funny.

I accept we disagree here, but it is disagreement. It's not that I don't understand.

And yes, this is my usual level of reading comprehension.

I'm sure it doesn't genuinely shock you. I don't really believe you don't know exactly what you're doing here.

"I just think you are being rude to keep picking up on mine, when you must know you're making errors."

You don't even see that you are making an error, after many posts where I have explained exactly why you misunderstood.

Just give me a sign that you understand and I won't have to keep telling you why you are wrong. Seriously, I don't actually enjoy spending all this time writing these posts & waiting for your lightbulb moment.

I haven't made an error.

I just disagree with you. It is possible to disagree, you know.

I'm glad you don't enjoy this, but it comes across as if you do, I've got to say. I've no idea why you do it, but you do it all the time - putting people down and pretending you are oh-so innocent of the deliberate hurt you cause.

"I think that you finding it funny I judged bits of this thread to be disablist, is to do with you finding the subject funny."

That is all in your head. It is funny because yours is a knee-jerk reaction and had nothing to do with the OP, who wasn't being disablist at all.

"I accept we disagree here, but it is disagreement."

Disagree? You misunderstood what I wrote. I tried to correct your misunderstanding. You refused to understand your mistake, although I have written it correctly, with proper spelling and punctuation. There is no disagreement here. There is only your dog-headed refusal to say "Sorry, I misunderstood".

"And yes, this is my usual level of reading comprehension. I'm sure it doesn't genuinely shock you."

It does genuinely shock me. I'm sorry. Let us know in a year or two how your Oxbridge undergrads feel about it, too.

No, I didn't misunderstand. I don't know how better to say it.

I don't believe my undergrads will be shocked. And I think you know you're trying to make me feel shit by implying that I'm not up to the job.

You've done this before - the 'OMG, so shocked, LRD, your reading comprehension is so terrible, and you a PhD student'. You know you have.

And yet, I got the PhD.

And yes, it is stupid of me to be bothered by someone on the internet, and yes, I should just avoid threads with you on.

Since it so obviously is where you get your kicks, yes, I've spent too much time today sitting in tears in front of this thread worrying that I'll be no good at my job. Happy now? It's really helped. Just like it really helped last time you decided to express your faux-innocent 'shock' that dyslexic people dare to be uppity enough to get some education.

Just to clarify - We are not disagreeing about a philosophical point here.

You accused me of laughing at disablism, when I obviously laughed at you calling OP 'disablist'. It is all here, in black and white.

This is not a disagreement. It is you making a false accusation and then refusing to admit that you misunderstood my comment.

cote, I think laughing at me calling out the OP's disablism is laughing at disablism. It's finding the subject funny.

I know you don't agree, but this is not me misunderstanding you. And it's certainly not a 'false accusation'.

You have implyed I'm dishonest or a liar all through this thread - could you knock it off, please?

I feel bloody sorry for the OP now. She started a thread which I do think was out of order and unpleasant, but I really doubt she intended any of it to get like this and I don't see her sticking the boot in for the sake of it.