[JERRYJERRYJERRY]

i know my english reading and writing is not great but it is ok. many non americans write and speak better than me. it does not bother me but i know i should do them better.

what do the non americans think when they see americans writing english badly?

i think they think we are dumb.

how about you?

[Face Ache]

There are different kinds of dumb.

I qualify for many.

[The Godfather]

Expressing yourself with backed up facts and coherent logic is more important than spelling, grammar and articulation.

[Superchicken]

Articulation is important in my opinion. If you can't articulate it you can't communicate. I'm fine with people writing on a basic level online and off, however alphanumeric writing, drives me nuts. And I'd be a hypocrite if I complained about spelling, but it is true that people think crap of you when your spelling sucks. I know I've gotten a lot less harassment in the lounge since I got OS X and it's lovely built in checker

Lastly... what drive me nuts IS WhEN peoplE randOMly capitaliZE leTTErs in senteNCES. Generally as typeos but still... that sorta thing I think people should be able to catch, and when I see that it frustrates me.

[Kilbey]

I think anyone who refuses to use the shift key properly, has horrible spelling, and terrible grammar usage is not intelligent.

Oh, and if they have the inability to speak. Then they are dumb.

dumb (dŭm)
1a Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects.
1b Often Offensive. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans. See Usage Note at mute.
2 Temporarily speechless, as with shock or fear: I was dumb with disbelief.
3 Unwilling to speak; taciturn.
4 Not expressed or articulated in sounds or words: dumb resentment.
5 Nautical. Not self-propelling.
6 Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid: dumb officials; a dumb decision.
7 Unintentional; haphazard: dumb luck.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

I know I've gotten a lot less harassment in the lounge since I got OS X and it's lovely built in checker

Originally Posted by Superchicken

typeos

[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Canadian spelling

[Ω]

ok 'chikeo

[parallax]

Nobody who I've met and consider to be intelligent writes poorly (like most people do). Once there's an exception I'll stop drawing that correlation.

And, of course, the purpose of writing is communication. Writing "u" for "you" and such only bothers me because it renders messages unreadable for me. But if that's an effective way for you to communicate with most of the people you communicate with, with the sampling I've observed, you're probably communicating with mostly dumb people. Thus, you're more likely to be dumb.

Spelling, meh... I've read a number of journal papers that have lots of misspellings but they still manage to communicate a clever idea effectively. English spelling sucks.

[Lateralus]

noe uv corse not

[Ganesha]

I think they are lazy.

Anyone intelligent enough to know they write poorly are also intelligent enough to proof and correct most of what they write. Anyone who doesn't is either lazy or doesn't care that they come off as a moron.

[crazeazn]

you should be able to read and write your mother language well.

[Randman]

Making a spelling mistake, or a slip in grammar once in a while is normal, even to be expected.

but when some people cant even use the shift button and make meestakes al the tyme and dont know how their supposed to use commos, its realy anoying.

Typing on a Mac and making constant spelling errors is also lazy, if not dumb, because you can have the computer Check Spelling As You Type.

Not being a good speller is one thing, knowing you're a bad speller and not doing anything about it (or not caring) is something else.

[storer]

America isn't the only country that speaks English! You say "many non-americans" can speak and write better than you and that you should be able to do them better. America is expected to be no more articulated, intelligent or literate than any other English-speaking country. There are many Australians and Brits who are not that good at English, but are more talented at other things. Everyone thinks differently!

It is true that I do cringe when I see bad spelling and grammar, but that's just me. I'm big on correct spelling and grammar. I'm sure that if I played football, that someone talented at it would cringe. It's just not my thing.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Canadian spelling

[besson3c]

What I find dumb is when people do not catch their own mistakes and continue to make them for many years.

I can understand "I could care less" and "for all intensive purposes", but I shudder when I read 40 year old men and women still confusing the three there's, to and too in formal or semi-formal writing. I think another problem is that many people insist on writing email as a stream of consciousness, and this perhaps encourages some lazy habits.

I also have problems with journalists who make spellings like:

MAC
I-pod
Mac OS/X
I-book

etc.

It should take a journalist all of 5 seconds to verify this spelling on Apple's website.

Just my peeves...

[saltines17]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I can understand "I could care less" and "for all intensive purposes", but I shudder when I read 40 year old men and women still confusing the three there's, to and too in formal or semi-formal writing.

I can't even understand how someone can say "I could care less" when he means "couldn't." It'd be like me saying to someone "I want to eat" and meaning "I don't want to eat." Wouldn't I, you know, think about that sort of thing when I say it...?

[brapper]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I think anyone who refuses to use the shift key properly, has horrible spelling, and terrible grammar usage is not intelligent.

Oh, and if they have the inability to speak. Then they are dumb.

Are you trying to make a point about proper punctuation?

[BasketofPuppies]

Left brain, right brain.

I've met plenty of people who are excellent writers but can't speak properly. And vice versa.

[DeathMan]

There are plenty of intelligent people out there who just don't care. I try to capitalize and use punctuation, because it makes it easier to read. But in the end, what do I care if someone on the other side of the internet thinks I'm smrt?

[Randman]

Lazy is even worse than being dumb. Lazy is stupid because that person is making a choice to be that way.

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I think anyone who refuses to use the shift key properly, has horrible spelling, and terrible grammar usage is not intelligent.

Oh, and if they have the inability to speak. Then they are dumb.

dumb (dŭm)
1a Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects.
1b Often Offensive. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans. See Usage Note at mute.
2 Temporarily speechless, as with shock or fear: I was dumb with disbelief.
3 Unwilling to speak; taciturn.
4 Not expressed or articulated in sounds or words: dumb resentment.
5 Nautical. Not self-propelling.
6 Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid: dumb officials; a dumb decision.
7 Unintentional; haphazard: dumb luck.

And, according to that, his usage is correct. What was your point?

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by JERRYJERRYJERRY

i know my english reading and writing is not great but it is ok. many non americans write and speak better than me. it does not bother me but i know i should do them better.

what do the non americans think when they see americans writing english badly?

i think they think we are dumb.

how about you?

My benefactor of this identity thinks some of us are dumb and some of us are hypocrites.

I think too many young people just don't know any better...they don't know how to spell, write, speak or think any better than they do. Nor can they recognize their inadequate American public school system education after managing to escape 12 years of it's influence.

Of course that means we all have reason to believe the next generation may be more academically dysfunctional than the current batch of youngsters.

I think some people who don't live here may wonder how dumb a society can be and still manage to function. Their opinions may ALSO be shaped by having our having a 'dumb' president.

[RAILhead]

I think that teh poeple that ca'nt write good ar dummeies, yes. Plaese add my vte tot he list.

[Oisín]

I agree completely with what Randman has said here.

Not everybody is a good speller; not everybody is good at expressing themselves either in writing or in speech (some are good in one and very poor in the other); and some people just cannot grasp the difference between a comma and a full stop. This does not mean they're dumb or unintelligent, simply that they're either dyslexic or semi-dyslexic, or that they're uninformed. Being uninformed is not the same as being dumb, especially because being uninformed is so much more relative to many other factors than being plain unintelligent. If I meet an American who doesn't know exactly where Denmark is, or thinks it's the capital of Sweden (which happens not too infrequently), I consider him uninformed, not dumb, since Denmark is not usually one of the best-known places in America (why should it be? We don't have that much to do with each other); if I meet a Brit who thinks that Denmark is a tribe of people in Saudi Arabia (which has happened to me once!), I consider him both uninformed and at least semi-dumb, since Denmark and England are fairly close to each other, and it is hard to go through life as a Brit, not knowing at least that Denmark is a European country!

Rather self-contradictorily, however, I think people who do know how to spell properly, use proper punctuation, and express themselves well, both written and spoken, but choose not to care about it and write 1337Zq33K instead, are dumb, regardless of how intelligent they are otherwise.

There can be a stylish point to deliberately not capitalising any letters; it's not a style I particularly care for, especially not in bodies of text (though it can be well used for logos, certain kinds of headings, etc.), but I'll acknowledge it's a style. Being plain sloppy with the Shift key and throwing your capitalisations here and there all over the place, however, is not a style, it's laziness, and it's annoying, because, as is the case with multitudes of typos, bad (or worse, no) punctuation, and bad grammar, it gets in the way of comprehension, which, ultimately, is the goal of all communication, written or spoken.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by storer

America is expected to be no more articulated, intelligent or literate than any other English-speaking country.

This American is.

[storer]

Sure is. Not many people know that articulation can be used in describing joints. I've just been studying for a dance theory exam, I know it.

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally Posted by storer

Sure is. Not many people know that articulation can be used in describing joints. I've just been studying for a dance theory exam, I know it.

I think most people know that, but Simey was pointing out your misuse of articulated, when you meant articulate.

[storer]

Oh yeah, very true. I see your point now. See... even me who think himself ok at English makes shitey mistakes all the time.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Black Book

I think most people know that

I didn't...

Originally Posted by storer

See... even me who think himself ok at English makes shitey mistakes all the time.

[storer]

Your point being?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by storer

Your point being?

Comical smilies apart, although I realise you wrote it wrong on purpose, it was a perfect illustration of my initial point: That typos, bad grammar, bad punctuation, and general misuse of vocabulary and prepositions all do hamper comprehension severely. I had to read through the first part of your little opus there three or four times before the words would come together and make any kind of sense in my head.

Still, it did make me laugh

[storer]

Oh good. It's nice to hear a laugh every now and again.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Nor can they recognize their inadequate American public school system education after managing to escape 12 years of it's influence.

I've heard this over and over and over again. There are all kinds of different schools all over this country. Each has it's own level of adequacy.

To say American schools are inadequate is a uneducated thing to say.

Now, if you want to say "Some American schools do not teach what they should"

You would be correct.

But it's that way no matter where you go.

The problem with American students today, isn't their schools.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

I think they are lazy.

Proofreading is good.

BTW, I choose to believe all of the misuses of "it's" in this thread are intentional, so I won't be posting the angry flower (Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots).

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Now, if you want to say "Some American schools do not teach what they should"

You would be correct.

But it's that way no matter where you go.

But, considering that nearly every single foreign exchange student I've ever spoken to, who'd studied in American high schools all agreed that the level of the education they received there was markedly lower than what they received in their own country, I think it's fairly safe to assume that this problem is bigger in the US than most other places.

Of course there are good schools and bad schools everywhere; it's just that the good/bad school ratio seems to be somewhat lower in the US than most other nations.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Oisín

But, considering that nearly every single foreign exchange student I've ever spoken to, who'd studied in American high schools all agreed that the level of the education they received there was markedly lower than what they received in their own country, I think it's fairly safe to assume that this problem is bigger in the US than most other places.

Do you think they would say any different? I've heard people from America come back from overseas saying the SAME THING.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Do you think they would say any different? I've heard people from America come back from overseas saying the SAME THING.

Yes, I think they would, actually. I know many foreign exchange students, both current and former, and many of the ones who went to the UK, Australia, France, Italy, etc. (from the US, but also from other European countries, Denmark included) say that they were impressed with the high level of education they were offered there. I think the US is the only country where none of my exchange student acquaintances feel like the education they received was up to par.

Nearly every single one of them says that they loved being there, and that their foster homes have become a sort of second family to them; they were just very unimpressed with the education they received.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Oisín

But, considering that nearly every single foreign exchange student I've ever spoken to, who'd studied in American high schools all agreed that the level of the education they received there was markedly lower than what they received in their own country, I think it's fairly safe to assume that this problem is bigger in the US than most other places.

Of course there are good schools and bad schools everywhere; it's just that the good/bad school ratio seems to be somewhat lower in the US than most other nations.

I did my secondary education in the UK, then did college in the US. My comparison with the US is therefore second hand, but still close because my friends and family all did high school here. Here's my POV based on that experience.

US high school education isn't so much lesser, it is different. The US streams far less than is the norm in many parts of the world. The US system attempts (perhaps sometimes in vain) to keep everyone in an academic program until age 18. There is no equivilent to the Gymnasium/Hochschule split in countries like, say, Germany or which I experienced in England when most of my classmates left school at age 16. Imagine if all students regardless of ability took the Arbitur and you'd get some sense of why your exchange students probably would be confronted with a different system. They saw a school system that educates the entire bell curve, not just the college-bound end.

The result is therefore that the bulk of American students receive a broader education than most secondary students in the world, but it is somewhat less challenging for the academically inclined. In addition, it is rather broad in scope. When I did my A Levels (age 16-18) in England I only took 3 subjects. A US high school student would have a much broader class load. More broad means less in depth.

However, my opinion having observed both systems is that the US has the better system. People mature at different ages, and 14, 15, 16 is too young for many people to be specializing and certainly too young to decide that someone is incapable of higher education. The US system excells in giving people second and third chances. That's how come I was able to go to college starting at age 28.

I think also there is no disagreement that US higher education is second to none. If you go to college here, it will take 4 years to get a degree rather than 3, so perhaps there is some catch up built in. But in the end that degree is equal to, or better than the equivilent anywhere in the world.

And in the end, the proof is in the pudding. If you doubt that, take a look at the US economic performance, number of nobel prizes, number of patents awarded, etc.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Yes, I think they would, actually. I know many foreign exchange students, both current and former, and many of the ones who went to the UK, Australia, France, Italy, etc. (from the US, but also from other European countries, Denmark included) say that they were impressed with the high level of education they were offered there. I think the US is the only country where none of my exchange student acquaintances feel like the education they received was up to par.

Nearly every single one of them says that they loved being there, and that their foster homes have become a sort of second family to them; they were just very unimpressed with the education they received.

And like I said, I've heard Americans say the SAME THING about going overseas.

What they don't realize is different does not = worse.

[ghporter]

I should point out that most of the students who come to the U.S. as "foreign exchange students" are quite well off, and have had access to schools that are beyond the means of the majority of their countrymen. I could put a kid from Grosse Point Woods, Michigan into a school in the Downriver Area-and move them only ONE county-and produce the same impression in the "moved" student.

I currently live in one of the best school districts in Texas, and it still has problems. One of the biggest is that many students do not care about their education because their parents make everything easy for them. From a social standpoint, this is very bad.

Combine children who do not see a value in education (and this covers the basics of ANYTHING, not just "public education"), with the impression that everything will be handed to them and that they need not exert themselves to achieve their basic needs nor their esoteric desires (how many schoolkids do YOU know that have iPods? Did they earn the money to buy them?), and you have set the stage for a society that will have trouble maintaining itself. Worse, those with drive and ambition will be in control-for good or evil. If they are good, they will bear an unfair burden in making things run. If they are evil...that would be A Bad Thing for all of us.

So, the use of the English language is the subject. How does my above rant apply to that? People who do not value correct, let alone precise usage of the language also generally do not value their potential education. It seems to me that the two values, proper language usage and education, are inexorably tied together; one cannot make effective use of an education if one does not learn effective communication skills, including proper language usage. One who wishes to learn proper language usage must seek education to build the linguistic foundation needed for proper and precise expression.

I'm just a dumb kid from a middle-class farm town, but because my parents valued reading and effective communication, I learned to love the English language. Loving the language led me to want to know where words came from, and how to be more precise in my speech, which led to a fairly broad science education. I have earned two associate degrees, a BS in Computer Science, and I'm now pursuing a MS in a health-related field. Am I "smart" because of all of this? No, I don't think so. I am better educated than many-maybe most-but I don't think that means I am particularly "smart." On the other hand, lazy though I may feel sometimes, I value education enough to work my tail off in the quest for more knowledge.

I think a little ambition and the basic native intelligence we are all born with produces people who are well equipped to survive and prosper in modern society, while lack of ambition trumps even exceptional in-born intelligence, though I really do not believe that a truly intelligent person would allow his or her laziness to undo him or her.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

However, my opinion having observed both systems is that the US has the better system. People mature at different ages, and 14, 15, 16 is too young for many people to be specializing and certainly too young to decide that someone is incapable of higher education.

I disagree with that, to a point. Of course, I can only really take the Danish educational system as my starting point, having never been a part of any other (except the Chinese for a short while), but in my experience, nearly all 15-year-olds (which is the age we usually finish 'folkeskolen' [elementary/public school, ie. up until 9th grade, with an optional 10th grade] have at least a very good inkling as to whether they want to pursue a more academic-like path, or whether they would prefer to go into a more skill-based line. We don't have the Gymnasium/Hochschule separation, either, but after folkeskolen, we can choose to either take what we call a 'technical line' (ie. anything from farmer, electrician, fashion designer, sculptor to mechanical engineering) or a 'gymnasial line' (ie. going to the three-year gymnasium, which is mostly academic-based, with more courses in languages, philosophy, psychology, religion, history, etc.)

Obviously, most of them don't know exactly what they want to do with their lives (hell, I still don't know), but they have a pretty good idea which of these two categories they fit into the better.

[quote]I think also there is no disagreement that US higher education is second to none. If you go to college here, it will take 4 years to get a degree rather than 3, so perhaps there is some catch up built in. But in the end that degree is equal to, or better than the equivilent anywhere in the world.[/quote9

That I agree on - college and university in America is very good, and all the people I know who've studied at them agree on this as well. The place where they are struck by a seemingly low level of education is solely in high school.

And in the end, the proof is in the pudding. If you doubt that, take a look at the US economic performance, number of nobel prizes, number of patents awarded, etc.

Well, that one's a little flawed, and I think you were well aware of that when you wrote it. Nobel Prizes, patents, etc. have more to do with individuals than with the educational system as a whole. Not to mention of course, that the US has a much larger population than any three European countries put together (Russia excluded), and also has many more universities.

But still, I'm not saying anything bad about the higher education in the US. I just don't agree with you that the 'all-inclusive' high school system in the US works better than the more 'condensed' system we have here, for instance. I think the problem with the US system can be that attempting to keep everyone in an academic program until age 18 (as you put it) will very likely mean that people who do not want to be in an academic program, or people who don't belong in one, will be left with pretty much nothing but extreme school fatigue and lack of will/stamina to pursue an education more suitable for them, which they might have felt more positive about pursuing a few years earlier.

Anyway - I've got to get to a kitchen meeting

[parallax]

And in the end, the proof is in the pudding. If you doubt that, take a look at the US economic performance, number of nobel prizes, number of patents awarded, etc.

Consider the number of Nobel laureates that were not born in the U.S. but moved here later (after the war, etc.). Also consider how many of those are first generation.

Anyway, that is certainly /not/ proof. I wager that none of those laureates would point their success to American secondary education and would have been just fine or better off in another country. You can't look at the best and then use that as proof for what's being given to the average case. Point is, U.S. students do much worse than other countries on standardized testing in math and science, even though those other countries may spend less per capita on education (e.g., the Czech republic)! And we're not talking about an age at which kids are dropping out of school and thus improving their peers' perceived performance. We're talking about elementary school aged kids.

American public education is designed to meet a bare minimum curriculum so that parents won't complain to the school board about their kid's performance. Look at how schools across the country have been cutting their art/music programs to fund their athletics. This is not fueled by any reasoning that puts athletics above arts -- this is because those parents that attend school board meetings and all don't give a damn what other kids are learning and would rather see their jock kids be happy.

American education may have more breadth, but the area covered by education in America (breadth x depth) is definitely less than other countries.

If you ask me, I think schools are not the core of the problem, but rather are symptomatic of a larger cultural issue. Why is it that first-generation students tend to excel despite America's terrible schools? Well, it's because their parents moved to America with a goal in mind and communicated that ambition to their kids. Most kids in America are not brought up with any appreciation for what they have and have no idea about the beauty of the world around them. It's a damn shame.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Oisín

But still, I'm not saying anything bad about the higher education in the US. I just don't agree with you that the 'all-inclusive' high school system in the US works better than the more 'condensed' system we have here, for instance. I think the problem with the US system can be that attempting to keep everyone in an academic program until age 18 (as you put it) will very likely mean that people who do not want to be in an academic program, or people who don't belong in one, will be left with pretty much nothing but extreme school fatigue and lack of will/stamina to pursue an education more suitable for them, which they might have felt more positive about pursuing a few years earlier.

That can happen, and it is certainly the trade off for giving as many people as possible access to an academic program. But you haven't addressed the point: your comparison isn't like with like. You are comparing a system where all kids get an academic program with one where only those who have been selected on the basis of aptitude get that academic program. If it is the latter, then of course the academic program can be a little more rigorous. Or are you suggesting that your exchange students exchanged between welding apprenticeships?

This is the basic issue that everyone seems to miss when they do these "other countries are better" comparisons. If you compare a streamed selective system with one that is not, the results are incomparable. You can only compare apples with apples. You either have to compare only the academic select few with the academic select few, or the entire population with the entire population. I don't think the US comes out badly on either measure (becuase the latter would include our college educated people, and nobody suggest those are lacking). And that is based on first hand experience in a country other than the US, and close second hand experience here.

In addition, you really are arguing with the wrong person if you want to maintain that kids at 14, 15, or 16 are truly able to decide what they want to do with their lives. Didn't you see the part where I said I didn't start college until I was 28?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

In addition, you really are arguing with the wrong person if you want to maintain that kids at 14, 15, or 16 are truly able to decide what they want to do with their lives. Didn't you see the part where I said I didn't start college until I was 28?

Yeah I didn't know what I really wanted to do till I was out of college.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

However, my opinion having observed both systems is that the US has the better system. People mature at different ages, and 14, 15, 16 is too young for many people to be specializing and certainly too young to decide that someone is incapable of higher education. The US system excells in giving people second and third chances. That's how come I was able to go to college starting at age 28.

Unfortunately, there are some negatives involved. Giving second and third chances is a great idea, but more and more children are taking them for granted. Many of them expect to be given another chance; in fact, they think they're always entitled to one. I think this contributes to the growing lack of responsibility I've seen.

You should give me make-up work... even though I was too lazy to do the assigned work.
It's your job to stay after school to help me catch up because I took a week-long cruise during school.
I deserve to come back to school even though I knew bringing drugs on school property is grounds for expulsion.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That can happen, and it is certainly the trade off for giving as many people as possible access to an academic program. But you haven't addressed the point: your comparison isn't like with like. You are comparing a system where all kids get an academic program with one where only those who have been selected on the basis of aptitude get that academic program. If it is the latter, then of course the academic program can be a little more rigorous.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly here: you are saying that the US is the system where “all kids get an academic program”, and Denmark is the one where “only those who have been selected on the basis of aptitude get that academic program”?

If so, I should note that entry into the Danish gymnasium is not based on aptitude, it's the choice of the student him- or herself. The student's class teacher in folkeskolen does give a 'verdict' on whether or not the teacher believes the student would be suited, perhaps suited, or not suited for gymnasium, but this is not a final verdict, and only students who really in no way are fit to take an academic route (and in very close to all cases, these are the ones who wouldn't dream of wanting to sit through three more years of school anyway) are declared not suited, and usually, it is up to the student him- or herself if he/she wants to take three more years of theory-inclined school.

In addition, you really are arguing with the wrong person if you want to maintain that kids at 14, 15, or 16 are truly able to decide what they want to do with their lives. Didn't you see the part where I said I didn't start college until I was 28?

I'm not saying kids at 15 know what they want to do with their lives - like I also said, at 22, I still haven't a clue what I want to do with mine.

I do, however, know - and have known since long before I was 15 - that it wasn't welding or machine engineering! I also suspect that you knew at least that much, even at that age - by far most children do.

Nevertheless, one can, of course, change one's mind later on and decide to go back to school; you can do that here as well. When I started out in university here, I had classmates ranging from 19 years to 76 years of age; out of a class of approximately 20 people, four were over 30 years old.

[Floyd WHO]

Our president cannot articulate verbally, can you imagine what his letter writing skills are. Where does this place him in this intelligent scale??

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters and the grammar and expression is far superior to our current era

[Randman]

The political stuff doesn't need to be here. As far as I know, no world leaders have a blog going on or are regular posters to online forums.

Besides, should the location be Cocoa, FL?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Floyd WHO

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters and the grammar and expression is far superior to our current era

Yo, what up dog.

That's due to the fact that people spoke and wrote differently before, you know what I'm sayin' ?

Look at Shakespeare ! Look at Deadwood !

Peace out homies.