HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Tom Pain
Jan. 18, 2007 As I’ve said countless times on this site, I am very appreciative when anyone shows me errors in anything I write here. That Thomas took the time to pore over, I assume, dozens, if not hundreds, of my articles to find any grammatical error of mine is amazing and I thank him profusely. I won’t quibble over any of his assessments. As he notes, whether some of the usages he cites are incorrect is subjective. I’m only happy that he had to resort to those debatable errors to compile enough examples to justify an entire article. Of course, whether one thinks my grammatical errors justify an article is a subjective opinion as well. What I would like to discuss is what that article says about Thomas, and how what this article says about me compares to Thomas. As anyone who still reads and believes Thomas’ submissions knows, he does not work, nor does he have a family, home, or any other responsibility of any kind. It would not be inaccurate to describe his portrayal of himself as a vagabond; he claims to roam the world doing whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases. To many people, that would be an enviable life and perhaps that is why Thomas describes himself that way. To others, myself included, it seems empty and lonely. I love my family and friends too much to imagine a life without any. Anyone that could be happy without family and friends one would assume is asocial. As Thomas boasts in his bio under every article he submits, he’s devoted decades to the study of languages. Being a reasonably intelligent man as well, one would assume he’s learned a thing or two in that time. That knowledge, combined with a life of leisure, should allow him to time and attention to produce nearly flawless writing, if he was so inclined, and he seems to be, on a daily (if not twice daily) basis. So, why would an asocial vagabond with the leisure time to pore over his articles until they are flawless in grammar criticize the grammar of others? And of all the writers on U-K, why does he choose my grammar to critique? Does anyone (besides an anonymous U-K regular cowardly writing under alias in the Rebuttals section) truly believe Thomas has altruistic motivations for pointing out my errors? It seems unlikely when there are sooo many others here who could use his help much more than I. Is he exacting revenge against me for criticizing his grammar? That’s doubtful, I’ve only cited his grammar errors once that I can recall (yes, despite his leisure time and knowledge of languages, he makes errors as well), and that was months ago, in response to similar criticism of me. Do you believe that he is exacting revenge against me on behalf of some other writer whose writing I criticized in a similar way? Again, no, I have criticized the grammar/spelling of other writers on a number of occasions, but only for extremely terrible writing – writing that was literally unreadable or utterly confusing. In fact, I have stated dozens of times that I excuse minor errors by others, and I have admitted many times that I make such errors myself in almost every article. I expect that I’ve made an error in this article. I assume that others, like me (but unlike Thomas), have little time to write and other pressing distractions between work, responsibilities, and family. So, what kind of person would criticize my grammar as Thomas has done? If you believe that he is exacting revenge on me, I suspect that you are correct, but as I’ve said, it is not for similar criticism of him. No, Thomas criticizes me because I’ve exposed him as a bigot towards Jews and gays, and because I do not agree with him that America is a despicable country intent on murdering and pillaging less powerful countries. I also do not agree with him that as despicable as he believes America to be, he dismisses us a mere puppets totally under the control of a Jewish masters conspiring to rule the world. So, what kind of person would believe those things, yet refuse to respond to the evidence I cite that he is wrong, for that is what occurs again and again? He spews bigotry and I document how he is wrong. He ignores me and continues spewing bigotry. The reason he is upset is that others do respond to my exposure of him. For example, despite Thomas posting probably 20 – 30 articles attacking Jews with his vague conspiracy theories, not one person on U-K has ever agreed with him. I, on the other hand, have had numerous people applaud my rebuttals to his bigotry. When he wrote a five-part series that insanely labeled gays as inferior human beings, many others and I denied his drivel. Not one person has written anything agreeing with him. In the face of all those denials from myself and others, what kind of person would resort to criticizing trivial mistakes in my grammar instead of defending his opinions? Only an arrogant bigot would. Thomas considers everyone beneath himself. If we disagree with his bigotry, it is because we are idiots in his opinion. He believes himself superior and above answering to anyone. If I am correct in my description of Thomas Keyes, doesn’t it make sense that he might end up a friendless social outcast, roaming the world to stay away from his detested America? Since he admits to serving time for offenses unnamed in American jails, maybe he can’t return to America. Maybe there are reasons for his hatred of our country that he does not reveal. So, what does this article say about me? I graciously admitted the mistakes Thomas pointed out and thanked him for taking the time to research my work. And I’ve tried to explain Thomas’ motivation for criticizing me because, frankly, it makes no sense. I believe I’ve come up with all the logical explanations for his action, and I’ve documented my reasons for rejecting those that I did. I’ve also complimented Thomas for his nearly flawless writing. Have you ever seen the movie, “Good Will Hunting”? Thomas reminds me of a character in that movie – the Harvard student who picks on Ben Affleck’s character in the bar. He was an arrogant putz who really had no original thoughts; he just recited verbatim theories from textbooks. The Matt Damon character, Will Hunting, made him look like the [deleted] that he was. Or, maybe Thomas is like the math professor who tries to use Will Hunting while secretly lusting for him. He was also an arrogant [deleted]. I won’t claim to be Will Hunting, in case you thought I was going to. If anything, I’m closest to Robin William’s character – especially when he grabs Will by the neck. ------------ About the author Tom Pain: Just an American boy with so much common sense, it hurts. Email: thomas.pain@hughes.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
