My language blog, Arrant Pedantry, has been nominated by Grammar.net as one of the best grammar blogs of 2011. Please check out the voting page and vote for me!
[ October 12, 2011, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Voted!
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I'll vote in a second. First I want to say that the formatting of your site is beautiful. Do you use LaTeX?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks, guys!
I use WordPress with a custom theme that I built myself.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Grammar.net was down most of today, but it looks like it's back up now, and I'm in the lead! You guys rock.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Voted Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
JonBoy, I voted for you twice!!
I also tried to post the following comment on your blog but was blocked because I'm behind a proxy. Let me know if you think it would be worth posting and I'll try again when I'm not behind this firewall.
quote:I fully agree with you but I'm left with a serious question about where to draw the line. For the past 4 years I've been teaching at a University in Trinidad where I'm gradually learn to accept that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with sentences like "We walking to lunch. You come with we?" Even though the grammar errors grate on the ear of even the most tolerant North Americans, the meaning is still clear and unambiguous. When we judge people's intellect and refinement based on their use of "proper" English grammar we create a barrier for those who did not grow up speaking standard English in their homes and impart an unearned advantage on those of us who did.
Yet its pretty undeniably true that if my students speak and write in standard English rather than the local dialect, they will be judged to be smarter, better educated and more refined than if they don't. Though I firmly believe it should not be that way, it is. So while I will continue to argue that the local dialect is not fundamentally less correct or valid than standard English, I still teach my students to use standard English and penalize them when they do not.
This subject is one that raises considerable controversy among educators in this region. Teaching standard English in the schools puts students from poorer, less educated families at a considerable disadvantage as they must effectively learn a foreign language to be literate. But what is the alternative?
[ September 27, 2011, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Considering the topic, perhaps having an ending quotation mark around your example of bad grammar would be appropriate Rabbit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Considering the topic, perhaps having an ending quotation mark around your example of bad grammar would be appropriate Rabbit.
Done, and its not an example of "bad" grammar, its an example of the Trinidad English dialect. "Bad grammar" is a term that should only be used to describe errors that obscure meaning.
[ September 27, 2011, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So noted. Although I bet it would qualify as both.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So noted. Although I bet it would qualify as both.
Perhaps you can explain why you think it's "bad" grammar. Is there a reason other than it's unfamiliar to you and not what's commonly used in your culture? Have you considered the implications of claiming that the grammar used in your culture is "good" while the grammar used in another culture is "bad"?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It goes against the rules of grammar? Pretty straight forward concept Rabbit. Your example is bad grammar if the language being spoken is English...if it is it's own language which happens to be based on English then it is likely great grammar for that language.
It's not judgmental...just factual. I mean, this thread is about a contest on grammar.net after all.
I didn't say it's not communicative...which you seem to be saying is the same as good grammar...which is incorrect.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It goes against the rules of grammar? Pretty straight forward concept Rabbit. Your example is bad grammar if the language being spoken is English...if it is it's own language which happens to be based on English then it is likely great grammar for that language.
Why? It is not sufficient to beg the question. The sentences I gave are a variant of English language just as the words you speak are variant of English. Why should one be considered "good" and the other "bad"?
The term "bad grammar" should be reserved for grammatical errors that make the meaning unclear.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's not judgmental...just factual. I mean, this thread is about a contest on grammar.net after all.
According to whom? Who is it who has declared that the language spoken in Trinidad is not English and what authority do they have to do so?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study of such rules...
We disagree about the meaning of the word perhaps. The example of the variant of English that you provided goes against the accepted grammatical rules. I don't see how that can be argued against.
By your argument this sentence is "good grammar"...
quote:me am the liking of skool that place me learnt talk good
Right? The meaning is clear, so it must be good grammar?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:It's not judgmental...just factual. I mean, this thread is about a contest on grammar.net after all.
According to whom? Who is it who has declared that the language spoken in Trinidad is not English and what authority do they have to do so?
No one has said so...let alone with authority. What I said was your example flew in the face of grammatical rules and would only be considered "good grammar" if it wasn't English.
I often speak with "bad grammar" for fun, to make a point, out of ignorance or just cause I don't give a damn about some silly rule book. That doesn't mean it isn't "bad grammar" all the same.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Stone_Wolf_, you seem to have the notion that "good grammar" is determined solely by a set of strict rules, rather than governed by a set of malleable conventions. English English has a set of conventions, as does Southern US English, as does California English, as does Trinidad English. They are all variants of English, and none is more correct than any other. There may be a growing disparity between formally written and colloquial English, but it does not mean that the formal English is superior. Heck, look at Arabic if you want a real disparity between formal and vernacular (I don't speak or read Arabic--so this is secondhand).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:gram·mar /ˈgræmər/ Show Spelled[gram-er] Show IPA noun 1. the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax. 2. these features or constructions themselves: English grammar. 3. an account of these features; a set of rules accounting for these constructions: a grammar of English. 4. Generative Grammar . a device, as a body of rules, whose output is all of the sentences that are permissible in a given language, while excluding all those that are not permissible.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your example is bad grammar if the language being spoken is English...if it is it's own language which happens to be based on English then it is likely great grammar for that language.
My intense studies have revealed that the example is composed in American, which is a language loosely based on English. As a result, it does seem to have great grammar for that language.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ya know, sometimes what I think is out there...and I find myself "defending the bridge" against an onslaught of posters...an in most of those cases I end up learning something and softening or changing my view.
I never thought this would be one of those threads! Me guessin thats Is bein wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not judgmental...just factual. I mean, this thread is about a contest on grammar.net after all.
Yes, and the question I raised was provoked by things I read on JonBoy's blog. On that blog, JonBoy quotes James Milroy, “Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization,” Journal of Sociolinguistics 5, no. 4 (November 2001), 536
quote:Indeed all prescriptive arguments about correctness that depend on intra-linguistic factors are post-hoc rationalizations. . . . But an intra-linguistic rationalization is not the reason why some usages are believed to be wrong. The reason is that it is simply common sense: everybody knows it, it is part of the culture to know it, and you are an outsider if you think otherwise: you are not a participant in the common culture, and so your views can be dismissed. To this extent, linguists who state that I seen it is not ungrammatical are placing themselves outside the common culture.
You keep saying that the sentences in Trinidadian dialect are "bad grammar" because that's just the fact. But it isn't an undeniable fact. The language spoken in Trinidad is unquestionably English and the sentences I gave are examples of common English usage here. And even though the the usage is not familiar to you, I'm fairly confident that it was completely clear to you.
The "rules" of which you speak aren't fundamental laws governing English. There are no such fundamental laws. The reason that you and I say "Come with us." rather than "Come with we." is not because the first is clearer than the second. It isn't because we've been taught to use "us" rather than "we" in the accusative case. (Heck, most Americans couldn't identify an accusative case if it hit them on the head.) We say it that way because that's the way we've always heard it said. It sounds natural to us because its part of our culture. But it doesn't sound natural to a Trinidadian because it isn't part of their English language culture. Whether you recognize it or not, saying that the way we do in North America is "The Correct Way" is cultural bigotry.
The simple fact is that the declination of pronouns does not serve any useful purpose in the modern English language. It's a relic of Old English where all nouns had to be declined. In modern English, that information is conveyed by word order and so the declination serves no practical purpose. In this respect, the Trini dialect is more efficient, simpler and one might even argue clearer than North American English.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Whether you recognize it or not, saying that the way we do in North America is "The Correct Way" is cultural bigotry.
First of all, show me where I said that...what I said was there are widely accepted rules for the English language and if something goes against them, the rules of grammar, that it is bad grammar.
Cultural bigotry...not by a long shot. I said that at times I go against those said rules myself. That you seem to think that I have judged all uses of the English language that are "bad grammar" as somehow less morally or judgmentally is where I draw the line and say, "Whoa there, whoaaaa!" I say your example is bad grammar the way I point to the sky and say it is blue, or that fire is hot or that the rain in Spain falls mostly on the plain...that is to say, without any emotional attachment to the statement whatsowhoever.
That language changes is also factual, also that it should. That those changes are usually ahead of the curve of the rules changing is also likely true. But the word and concept of "grammar" is one of "the rules of language", and not of common use or validity or value, at least by what I've looked up and the way I'm using it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: JonBoy, I voted for you twice!!
I also tried to post the following comment on your blog but was blocked because I'm behind a proxy. Let me know if you think it would be worth posting and I'll try again when I'm not behind this firewall.
Thanks for the votes!
I turned off the restriction on commenters behind proxies, so you can go ahead and post your comment. I might have to turn it back on if the spammers really start hammering me.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Voted!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
California English is its own dialect?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Like, fer sure!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yup. I don't know how lexically or grammatically different it is from other dialects of English, but it's acquiring distinct phonology.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Also, I'd really like to jump into the discussion, but I don't have time at the moment. Maybe tonight.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Stone_Wolf_, You seem to be missing my point entirely.
The "rules" that govern the English language aren't divinely inspired. They aren't a part of the fabric of the universe. They are just conventions. They are whatever we choose them to be. We can choose a strict formal set of rules controlled by ivory tower elite or we can choose a loose set of rules controlled by common usage. Or we can settle somewhere in the middle. Each choice has certain advantages and disadvantages but none of those choices could be called more factually correct or inherently good or bad.
Imagine for a moment what it would be like if some group of professors were appointed by the US government to regulate and improve the English language. Now suppose that this group decided that eliminating all "to be" verbs from the English language would have lots of advantages and it was declared that using "to be" verbs was "bad English". And suppose this actually gained enough traction that if you said "What's in the bag" rather than "What in the bag", people would snicker at your stupidity and lack of refinement. If this happened, you and I would be at a great disadvantage. We'd have to relearn our own language to be considered bright and articulate. It would be silly.
Well that's pretty much the exact situation most of my students are in. Academics have decided that the English they've learned from childhood isn't "good" so they have to relearn a new language or be thought of as stupid.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I take your point Rabbit, that is exactly how languages evolve into distinct and different beings...different people using them differently...Latin turns into French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. One of the things that has stopped that from happening to the English language is dictionaries and rules of grammar. Your students should feel free to speak as they see fit in their homes and with their friends, but go ahead and get them to try and go for a job interview in air traffic control or in a science field or another industry that uses English as its standard language after telling them that only the only bad grammar is when you can not communicate clearly and see if they succeed.
Right, wrong or a million different shades of in between it is what it is...grammar has little to do with just the ability to communicate, it is a whole group of standards which bind the English language into one cohesive which means I can speak and be understood in every country which learns that standard and not in a hundred different variations which have evolved into separate languages.
[ September 28, 2011, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Stone Wolf, I hope you're not feeling piled-upon. What you're articulating is a very common view - that there are rules that govern language and that people should comply to those rules. This is (loosely) what is covered by the prescriptivist approach to linguistics. It has been dominant at times in the past.
Today, though, many linguists take the descriptivist approach, which is based more on discovering and describing how people use language. They would make arguments similar to what Rabbit has been saying - that there is not one dialect that is right and one that is wrong.
Jon Boy's blog is actually a very well-articulated and clear example of linguistic descriptivism. If you get a chance, I'd recommend perusing some more of his posts.
This is one of those issues where educated people can feel a very strong urge to defend a certain viewpoint but at the same time the experts in the field are coming from a totally different paradigm. Descriptivists in linguistics are the front guard of the field these days and it can be a little shocking to find out that what we were taught was right is being re-written on all fronts. Probably a little how physicists felt when Einstein started publishing.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Also, I wanted to address Rabbit's comment here:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This subject is one that raises considerable controversy among educators in this region. Teaching standard English in the schools puts students from poorer, less educated families at a considerable disadvantage as they must effectively learn a foreign language to be literate. But what is the alternative?
Learning a foreign language does not actually put anyone at a disadvantage. It has to be taught well, yes, and they have to have ample opportunities to use it, but bilingualism is an advantage on all fronts.
Actually, something that I just learned that was rather surprising to me is that children who are raised monolingual are the MINORITY of people in the world. What we think is the "norm" - growing up hearing and speaking one language - is actually the exception and not the rule.
Anyone who can learn a first language can learn two (or more) first languages simultaneously with no detriment to their eventual proficiency. And I'm not just being anecdotal - this is what the research in the last twenty years of language acquisition literature says.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't think Rabbit's point is that learning a foreign language is bad. Her point is that if you are poor, requiring a foreign language can be an onerous requirement. In Trinidad, you basically have to learn a foreign language to ever obtain basic literacy, which puts an undue burden on the poor.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Voted!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Like, fer sure!
Hey I understood that. It's almost amazing we're able to communicate, with Michigan and California having such different language patterns, eh?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, geez. Do I have to keep talking Val-Gal now?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You could probably speak with the dialect of a three year old and still come across as intelligent.
A true artist rises above the subject.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Talking like a three-yo would be easier AND make me feel less idiotic than speaking val-gal.
gag me with a SPOON!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do people still talk like that? I thought that was more of a 90s movie stereotype.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I don't think Rabbit's point is that learning a foreign language is bad. Her point is that if you are poor, requiring a foreign language can be an onerous requirement. In Trinidad, you basically have to learn a foreign language to ever obtain basic literacy, which puts an undue burden on the poor.
Well, if they are teaching standard English in school, that seems like a very beneficial thing for the students who aren't getting it at home.
The problem comes in when both first-language and second-language support for students from minority languages isn't sustained long enough for them to develop true bilingualism. That's when they have serious problems developing one, the other, or both. Sadly, that's also the trend of a lot of wildly misguided political forays into education, especially in the United States where the myth of monolingualism is particularly prevalent.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do people still talk like that? I thought that was more of a 90s movie stereotype.
There are some.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Learning a foreign language does not actually put anyone at a disadvantage. It has to be taught well, yes, and they have to have ample opportunities to use it, but bilingualism is an advantage on all fronts.
It's a complicated problem Annie. Different dialects are not the same as different languages. Trinidadian English and California English are not two different languages, they are two dialects of the same language. A person who can speak both Trini and Californian isn't bilingual and won't enjoy the benefits of bilingualism. Studies in this area are pretty conclusive that children who grow up in communities where standard English is spoken have an advantage over those who live in communities where non-standard English is spoken. I recall one study of Ameri-indian communities where the native English language had been suppressed for at least one generation so that most adults spoke in English pidgin(a strong dialect). Children from these communities had a much more difficult time learning to read and write in standard English than children from communities where the native Ameri-indian tongue was the first language. For some reason the brain does not organize two different dialects the same way it organizes two different languages.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For some reason the brain does not organize two different dialects the same way it organizes two different languages.
I don't know if there's any empirical backing to that. I'd have to see some studies.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I don't disagree with the fact that the children from minority dialects have a harder time picking up standard English - I just think it's a result of the educational approach and not a result of them having already learned a separate dialect.
(ETA) For example, there are documented cases of similar phenomena when children speak a minority language and it is discouraged in educational contexts. I read a study of children who spoke minority languages in India who went to school and were taught in nothing but Hindi. While it's good for them to be taught Hindi, not having any support from their L1, and having it actively pulled away from them, was hampering their development in both languages. The conclusion was that they needed a rich environment in both languages, at least during the early childhood years, to be able to develop communicative competence in either.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do people still talk like that? I thought that was more of a 90s movie stereotype.
In the 90s they were mocking valley girls from the 80s.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It only allowed me to vote once. As I am from Chicago, this disturbs me.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It only allowed me to vote once. As I am from Chicago, this disturbs me.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It only allowed me to vote once. As I am from Chicago, this disturbs me.
Some have observed that the voting is based on cookies. If you clear your cookies or use another browser or private browsing mode, you can vote again. Not that I'm trying to encourage that sort of thing, but you can do with that knowledge what you will.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
A couple other blogs are gaining on me and threatening to knock me out of third place. Anything you guys can do would be greatly appreciated. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Voted.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks for all the votes so far, everybody. If you haven't already, please check out my blog here and vote for me here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Come on people, I can't do this alone.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Grammar Girl is gaining steam. :/
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Is anybody else having trouble voting? I'm getting blank CAPTCHAs now.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
I tried to vote, but can't do the CAPTCHAs (poor vision, combined with low definition on the computer screen). Sorry!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I able to vote no problems. Jon Boy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm not getting the problem anymore, so I guess they fixed it.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Jon Boy, you might want to change the thread title (here and elswhere) if you need a boost, just to bring it to the eye.
Voting but glitchy connection. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Good suggestion, and thanks for the help. Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
In a recent episode of The Office, Kevin decides to reduce the number of words he uses so that he can save time. His sentences come out as that dialect of English known as Tarzan or Caveman. It turns out that by limiting certain words, things like helper verbs and prepositions his communications are unclear and therefore don't save time.
Now, clearly this falls under Rabit's definition of bad grammar, and thus is not the same kind of thing as her example sentence from Trinidad. But I mention it to help illustrate the following argument for the labeling of some dialects as "wrong."
Languages change, clearly. If a community of speakers, on the whole, accept those changes, then the speakers remain mutually intelligible. But when changes in one community outpace the changes in the other, we have the beginnings of language separation. Pretty soon the two communities will have trouble understanding one another. So while today I can understand the Trinidadian's language, perhaps my grandchild will have a harder time with the language of the Trinidadian's grandchild. When that separation happens, both communities will believe the other uses "bad" grammar, and they will both be right. Who cares which? They will have lost the means of clearly understanding each other, which is a bad thing.
So for the sake of language continuity, I believe we should enforce some kind of "correct" grammar. We need not be overly concerned that we are adopting some kind linguistic imperialism. We are merely ensuring that we current members of a language community, and our descendants, will be able to communicate.
While enforcing certain norms, it is still possible (and inevitable) that changes will occur in the language community, spreading (eventually) to all members. Such quibbles as whether a preposition should end a sentence, or whether a conjunction can begin a sentence, are worthy issues of debate within a community. For a time, instructors will be forced to teach both (imperial and metric units, anyone?) This is onerous, but one of the prices to pay for the conservative nature of language continuity.
Whose grammar should be considered "correct"? Black English vernacular? California vernacular? Trinidadian? This is certainly the question of whose dialect should be taught in schools. If you accept my premise that one (more or less uniform) dialect should be taught in schools, then this debate is a different issue. In brief, I think it should be Standard American English, since that is the most common dialect in terms of numbers.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I've been knocked down to fifth place. Any help would be very much appreciated. Voting ends tomorrow.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
One of the top three contestants must've been disqualified, because they're not listed anymore. I'm back in fourth. Please help me get into the top three!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Jon Boy, I've been voting early and often, but the gap between you and third places is pretty intimidating.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
It certainly is, but I think it's still possible.
And I really appreciate all your votes. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm down by less than 900 now.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Down by 650. Keep it up!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I passed Grammar Girl, and then the first-place blog, Terribly Write, disappeared from the competition by this morning. I'm in second!
Thanks so much for all the votes!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Voting has been extended until midnight PDT on October 20th. But only one vote per person, please.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I poked around your blog and it was a fun read. The person who does Terribly Write is pretty irate about this whole thing, and seems to think it's actually some sort of scam and they pre-determined the winners.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks, Dan!
To be fair, I'd be pretty irate too. I don't think it's much of a stretch to call the contest a sham, though I don't think I'd call it a scam. There were no rules on voting; like the owner of Terribly Write, I checked first and didn't see any. The outcome was not decided in advance, though. (Or if it was, nobody ever told me about it.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah that was sort of my impression too... that Terribly Write is perfectly justified in being furious at the contest holders, but that they also seem to be misdirecting some of that at you and the other participants.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Not to mention that she's covering up the fact that she was encouraging people to vote multiple times, too. There used to be a post here wherein she complained about others "stuffing the ballot box" while clearly encouraging her fans to do the same.
But I'd be angry at the first-place winner, too. On Twitter he complained about one of the other contestants racking up a ridiculous number of votes, which got them disqualified, but it was pretty obvious that he was engaged in the same behavior too. Judging by his traffic rank, there's no way he legitimately earned all those votes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Internet voting is a horrible way to determine...well...anything.
Were I running the contest I would find three credentialed expert judges and have people submit their best blog (or two) and have them declare the winners.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The point of most internet competitions is to get publicity for the site holding the competition and that's not going to happen if the winner is chosen by a few judges.
Of course it also doesn't really happen if a person can win by stuffing the ballot box. The obvious solution, to me at least, would be to require people to register, with a valid e-mail address, in order to vote. Its not completely fool proof since many people have several e-mail addresses, but no one is going to have hundreds of e-mail addresses and the hassle of registering a bunch of e-mail addresses would be pretty excessive. I suspect it would deter a certain number of spam wary people from voting, but it still beats the alternative.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Internet voting is a horrible way to determine...well...anything.
Maybe we should have a poll to see who agrees with you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I vote yes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I vote in the affirmative.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yay!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I agree.
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
Man,
Posted by Clitic (Member # 4361) on :
it's
Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
like
Posted by Grammar Gestapo (Member # 4657) on :
you're
Posted by Captain Obvious (Member # 4486) on :
not
Posted by Shameless Self-Promotion (Member # 4919) on :
even
Posted by The Editor-in-Chief (Member # 5014) on :
trying.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
*burninates Stone_Wolf_*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Lets take a vote if I'm burninated...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Burnination is not the sort of thing for which one votes. One is simply touched by the flame -- or is not.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)