Do intentional misspellings make you disregard an opinion?

[BrianD]

If someone intentionally misspells the name of something they are giving an opinion on, do you still take their opinion seriously? Whenever I see someone bashing Micro$oft, Circus Shitty (Circuit City) or the like, or talk about hated teams like Puke (Duke) or the Cowgirls, or hated players like Starbury (Marbury), I tend to classify the arguments as an emotional hatred and not a rational hatred. This makes me pretty much discount their position and not listen to any of their supporting arguments.

Am I alone in this, or do others do the same thing?

[jeff061]

Yes. Except when they replace a S with a $.

Cause that's funny stuff.

[Greyroofoo]

It just makes it know that they're biased

[MJ4H]

No.

[cartman]

Only if it is an opinion that I agree with. If I disagree with the person, I blast them for trolling.

:D

[JonInMiddleGA]

what cartman said

[Buccaneer]

wht u r tlk b?

[BrianD]

wht u r tlk b?

That is a completely different rant.

[Rizon]

I always disregard opinions of someone from Green Gay.

[KWhit]

Yes.

[Easy Mac]

idiocy makes me disregard an opinion, this just makes me have to read less.

[Passacaglia]

Isn't Starbury a nickname he gave himself? That doesn't really count, IMO. Good going, BryanD.

[MJ4H]

I answered no earlier and then didn't have time to really add more to it.

I try very hard to listen to what a person actually is saying. It either has merit or it doesn't. The spelling of the words is not going to change that.

Now, that said, unintentional misspellings are often a sign of sloppiness and can lead to me rejecting something sooner, though I do try to give it a fair shake anyway.

However, this I'm not really sure whether you actually mean 'opinion' here or what you specifically mean by it if so. In other words, if someone says "I don't like Green Gay," even if they spelled it "Green Day," I would think exactly the same thing about their opinion (which, is basically 'ok fine'). However, if someone were trying to make a factual argument or take an objective stance about something, I could see it making a bigger difference. Opinions are just opinions. I like green, you like blue. That's too much salt on the fries, that's not enough salt on the fries. Objective facts are different. However, the latter will stand on its own.

Since someone's opinion of something isn't really that meaningful to me anyway (for instance: I for one don't care that you like blue better than green. I still like green) then intentional misspellings don't really change anything about opinions for me.

[BrianD]

I had meant more in terms of the occasional PS3 vs Xbox 360 discussions, or the March Madness thread, or discussions of that type. If someone is going to discuss why Puke shouldn't have been a 6-seed, I probably wouldn't even listen to the argument. If someone is going to discuss a gaming system from Micro$oft or Microscrap, I wouldn't listen to them either. I don't know if it is an attempt to be cute or an attempt to win the argument by belittling the opponent. It just seems like a poor debate tactic to me and I was curious if I was alone in that thought.

[MJ4H]

Yes it is definitely a poor debate tactic. No it should not affect the actual argument being made.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I had meant more in terms of the occasional PS3 vs Xbox 360 discussions, or the March Madness thread, or discussions of that type. If someone is going to discuss why Puke shouldn't have been a 6-seed, I probably wouldn't even listen to the argument. If someone is going to discuss a gaming system from Micro$oft or Microscrap, I wouldn't listen to them either. I don't know if it is an attempt to be cute or an attempt to win the argument by belittling the opponent. It just seems like a poor debate tactic to me and I was curious if I was alone in that thought.
You're not alone.

I see exactly what you're talking about. When people say things like "Micro$oft" or "Puke" or whatever, it's obvious that the facts of the debate won't mean anything to these people. Their dislike for whoever is set in stone, and nothing else matters. So, I agree with you. It looks like these people won't even consider the validity of a differing opinion.

Now, if these people want to be that way about a subject, that's fine. It doesn't bother me any. It just means that there's no reason to try to have a debate with them, so they might as well be directing their rants at a wall.

[WVUFAN]

How someone describes a company or how someone describes a team doesn't mean anything if the points they make are valid.

[Rizon]

Wait wait wait. Why is my Puke reference being singled out in the March Madness thread? It was used in the context of joking and rivalry (I am a fan of UNC), and had nothing to do with a factual argument.

[Pumpy Tudors]

How someone describes a company or how someone describes a team doesn't mean anything if the points they make are valid.
I disagree, but that's only because I have an issue with closedmindedness. Perhaps it's a character flaw on my part, but when people do that stuff, it looks to me like they're closedminded about the matter, and a debate is pointless without open minds on both sides.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Wait wait wait. Why is my Puke reference being singled out in the March Madness thread? It was used in the context of joking and rivalry (I am a fan of UNC), and had nothing to do with a factual argument.
For the record, I didn't even notice that you'd done that. As a joke/rivalry thing, it's different. I've seen people who do it when trying to make arguments, though, and that's more what I'm talking about.

[BrianD]

Wait wait wait. Why is my Puke reference being singled out in the March Madness thread? It was used in the context of joking and rivalry (I am a fan of UNC), and had nothing to do with a factual argument.

I hadn't meant to single out your post, and I could have easily make the point by using "dook" which I also saw in the thread. I've been thinking about this for a little while and I saw enough of it lately to get me to actually create a thread about it. Nothing against you personally, but it was an example to highlight my overall point.

[molson]

Oddly, yes, now that you mention it.

There's a certain arrogance in one's opinion that's reflected by that - like the opinion is so obvious and indisputable that you're actually imposing it into the letters themselves. Or something.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I've seen people who do it when trying to make arguments, though, and that's more what I'm talking about.

But isn't that something that's done typically to express a degree on contempt for the intentionally misidentified person/place/thing? If so, but you're looking for something like position-changing debate then it seems pretty obvious that you'd be wasting your time.

Then again, you'd be wasting your time just as much whether I referred to a certain former VP as "Al" or "Owl" (probably one of my two most frequent usages of intention name changing).

And contrary to what you seem to be saying (re: generic comment about "close mindedness") having a strong position on something is not always a bad thing (check my sig for details).

[Rizon]

I hadn't meant to single out your post, and I could have easily make the point by using "dook" which I also saw in the thread. I've been thinking about this for a little while and I saw enough of it lately to get me to actually create a thread about it. Nothing against you personally, but it was an example to highlight my overall point.

Aight then, I was going to say. About the only time I use it myself in factual arguments is with the Faiders, because there is no franchise I despise more in this world, and I do not believe they have any right whatesoever to be called by their official NFL name.

Really the only time it bothers me is when I see it in an news article. I've read a few where the writer was trying to make a point, but kept using misspellings.

Being a Dolphins fan, it bothers me when I see the name "Phish", because dolphins aren't fish.

[AlexB]

I disagree, but that's only because I have an issue with closedmindedness. Perhaps it's a character flaw on my part, but when people do that stuff, it looks to me like they're closedminded about the matter, and a debate is pointless without open minds on both sides.

Isn't this viewpoint against your own argument - your mind is closed because someone intentionally misspells something - you assume they are incapable of coherent debate. If you were truly open minded you wouldn't make such a sweeping generalisation ;)

[WVUFAN]

I use M$ because they're an evil, money-hungry corporation founded by the Anti-Christ.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[dawgfan]

I use M$ because they're an evil, money-hungry corporation founded by the Anti-Christ.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I figure you're probably exaggerating your feelings to make a joke here, but for those that do feel this way about Microsoft - how are they any different than 99% of the other businesses out there?

[WVUFAN]

I figure you're probably exaggerating your feelings to make a joke here, but for those that do feel this way about Microsoft - how are they any different than 99% of the other businesses out there?

Compared to other businesses of comperable size, they're not much different, but I'm not a fan of the way they have a tendency to shackle competition, and I'm not a particular fan of some of their products. I feel they have a tendency to rush product out and use us to beta test our paid products, but that's not a trait that's exclusive to Microsoft.

I guess my biggest issue is that for the average computer user, we're stuck with Microsoft products ... Linux isn't designed for the casual user, and Apple doesn't have the software support that the PC does. So, we're stuck with Windows XP/Vista. That irritates me a bit.

EDIT: I mostly use M$ when in the middle of a PS3/360 debate, mostly because, as much as I try not to be biased, I am a true Sony fanboy. I have no problems admitting it, although Mass Effect has made me decide to get a 360. Bioware simply has NEVER disapointed me in the past, and the game looks too good to pass up.

[Pumpy Tudors]

But isn't that something that's done typically to express a degree on contempt for the intentionally misidentified person/place/thing? If so, but you're looking for something like position-changing debate then it seems pretty obvious that you'd be wasting your time.

Then again, you'd be wasting your time just as much whether I referred to a certain former VP as "Al" or "Owl" (probably one of my two most frequent usages of intention name changing).

And contrary to what you seem to be saying (re: generic comment about "close mindedness") having a strong position on something is not always a bad thing (check my sig for details).
Well, yeah, I agree that it is a waste of time. Certainly, it doesn't bother me if someone has an opinion that's different from mine. It's just that some people may be looking for debate when they put out their opinion, and if they approach it with a closed mind, well, there's not really going to be a debate.

Also, regarding your last sentence, I'm not particularly impressed by people who have strong positions on things. I agree that it's not always a bad thing to have a strong opinion. It's just that if you try to use such a strong opinion to make a point about something, well, I agree with molson that it kinda comes off as arrogance. I don't mean any offense toward you or anyone else who may openly voice their strong opinions, but many times, those rigid opinions tend to lead to counterproductive discussion.

Isn't this viewpoint against your own argument - your mind is closed because someone intentionally misspells something - you assume they are incapable of coherent debate. If you were truly open minded you wouldn't make such a sweeping generalisation ;)
In a way, you're right, and I thought of that. I admit that I won't completely disregard their opinion because they intentionally misspell something. It's just that I'm more likely to cut off a debate with those people sooner. I go in with the notion that the discussion won't get anywhere at all. If they show otherwise, good for them. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's just that if you try to use such a strong opinion to make a point about something, well, I agree with molson that it kinda comes off as arrogance.

What was it Neon Deion used to say? "It ain't braggin' if you can do it". I think that could often be adapted for use, something to the effect that "It's not arrogant if you're right".

I don't mean any offense toward you or anyone else who may openly voice their strong opinions, but many times, those rigid opinions tend to lead to counterproductive discussion.

No offense taken, but I really do kind of go back toward something mentioned up the thread -- sometimes it seems that productive discussion is highly unlikely when confronted with people who haven't figured out some obvious truth (which would seem likely to be a situation that goes with the contempt-illustrated-by-intentional-misspelling scenario). Basically, if someone hasn't reached the proper conclusion already, it's unlikely they're going to suddenly have the light bulb come on regardless of whether I use a derisive spelling or not.

And, of course, I'm talking about serious situations with serious intent, not really the poke-in-the-ribs-at-a-rival stuff that gets tossed about between sports fans (which can be no more than good-natured fun)

[BrianD]

What was it Neon Deion used to say? "It ain't braggin' if you can do it". I think that could often be adapted for use, something to the effect that "It's not arrogant if you're right".

I would disagree with this completely. Arrogance has nothing to do with being right. In fact, I would say that you can only be arrogant when you are right. It is all about delivery.

No offense taken, but I really do kind of go back toward something mentioned up the thread -- sometimes it seems that productive discussion is highly unlikely when confronted with people who haven't figured out some obvious truth (which would seem likely to be a situation that goes with the contempt-illustrated-by-intentional-misspelling scenario). Basically, if someone hasn't reached the proper conclusion already, it's unlikely they're going to suddenly have the light bulb come on regardless of whether I use a derisive spelling or not.

It seems that normally people use the misspellings when they are trying to manufacture a truth. The misspellings seem to come from an emotional reaction to not having people automatically agree with them. They also seem to be the most unwilling to concede any good points at all about their oposition.

And, of course, I'm talking about serious situations with serious intent, not really the poke-in-the-ribs-at-a-rival stuff that gets tossed about between sports fans (which can be no more than good-natured fun)

The rival stuff is different. I don't really like it here either, but that is probably because I am not a trash-talker by nature. I understand this will be part of sports whether I like it or not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In fact, I would say that you can only be arrogant when you are right.

Oh I can think of several examples here at FOFC that would disprove that contention ;)

(And no doubt several of those would in turn use me as an example of the same)

[BrianD]

Oh I can think of several examples here at FOFC that would disprove that contention ;)

(And no doubt several of those would in turn use me as an example of the same)

I would probably use a different adjective for someone who has that attitude but is wrong. Possibly incorrect usage on my part though.