Program to help you write better.

[Aero]

I am simply trying to clarify the example I was making because you implied that you didn't understand the point I was trying to make about how people write the way they talk. Not everything is a fallacy either.

Lol, don't get defensive. I think you may be imagining such an implication. I just said I don't know the type of people you are talking about. And you are saying they are everywhere. Therefore I am forced to question your claims a little bit.

Everything isn't a fallacy. But a fallacy is a fallacy. And I know what it's like to feel like the whole world is staring at your fallacy.

Okay, what I am saying is really just the compartmentalized version of what you are saying. As an incremental approach to learning writing, it is like using training wheels if you look at different aspects of learning to write individually. So for me, a teacher suggested using Grammarly to help correct my passive voice years ago. Therefore, passive voice is like the bike, and Grammarly is like the training wheels that would catch me when I was about to fall. Over time, I have fewer and fewer errors flagged as passive voice because of this, just like at a certain point your training wheels start to scrape the ground here and there because you aren't using them as much anymore.

This doesn't mean that there aren't other things that I need to work on or that I never have this error, but I was able to correct this because Grammarly caught me before I fell the way training wheels catch you before you fall and break your nose. However, learning to write is much more complex than learning to ride a bike so it is clearly not a literal comparison to riding a bike. What I am trying to say, is that you can improve in your ability to write so that features provided by Grammarly are not needed anymore.

In addition to this, using training wheels is an expression and a common way of conveying that something is good for a beginner. So I am also suggesting that Grammarly is a good tool for a beginner with a common figure-of-speech. It is not a literal comparison to begin with.

I like this form of your argument a lot better. But it just feels like you are hedging at this point. Like you are just writing off the errors in logic as if this is what you meant all along. Either way, I don't see how you learning to use less passive voice is like a bike. A bike is a whole symbol, so to compartmentalize effectively you would need to use a specific part of the bike.

It's not going to stop being strange though. You calling writing more complex, and still clinging to the bike and training wheel analogy. If writing is so much more complex, why keep making the analogy? I don't feel satisfied that it proves the point, or does Grammarly justice. It is more than a tool for beginners.

In addition to this, there is minimal difference between a teacher and training wheels when you remove the abstraction and recognize that teaching is really just a more complex form of a similar function. Training wheels are a function provided by teachers at the most basic level, or at an incremental level, which is why it is used as a common figure of speech.

At a certain point, Grammarly isn't going to help. I don't know how it is helping you identify irrelevant comments. Those are harder to develop an algorithm to identify. Your writing is pretty good already, by the way. Learning to write concisely, which is what you are talking about, requires training the eye for repetition and biting the bullet when removing irrelevancy requires removing something that you really, really like, so that the overall message is more concise. How is Grammarly helping you with this?

Well, we seem to agree on the complexity aspect. But again, Grammarly will carry people much further than the basic functions. Maybe I was oversold, but you seem to be underselling. And still seem to be denying it's potentiality in the more advanced areas.

I think Grammarly will always help. Even for another good writer like you. There's never any reason to take these wheels off. Hence they aren't like training wheels. And it isn't helping me identify irrelevant comments. It's a time-saving tool, which is what I've been saying this whole time. Like if I hear, or remember a good word. I don't have to look up how to spell it. There's just so many time-saving features built into the free version.

 

[Aero]

never assume that a person who has poor grammar is unintelligent or ignorant.

I never assumed lack of intelligence or ignorance. My comment was about whether a person is actually serious or not. And I don't really buy your busted pinkies explanation. Like how is that shit even possible?

using the word 'and' to start a sentence should be an infrequent occurrance. check into it.

Wow, nevermind the hedging. What is your source? Besides your amazing teacher, who I am now seriously starting to doubt was that good. Aside from you busting your pinkies so bad you can't type properly. That probably isn't his fault.

I have a source that tells me as many as 10% of first-rate writing starts off sentences with conjunctions. Now if you are trying to tell me that more than 10% of my sentences start with a conjunction. Then you are straw-manning it up here.

 

[rainerann]

Lol, don't get defensive. I think you may be imagining such an implication. I just said I don't know the type of people you are talking about. And you are saying they are everywhere. Therefore I am forced to question your claims a little bit.

Everything isn't a fallacy. But a fallacy is a fallacy. And I know what it's like to feel like the whole world is staring at your fallacy.



I like this form of your argument a lot better. But it just feels like you are hedging at this point. Like you are just writing off the errors in logic as if this is what you meant all along. Either way, I don't see how you learning to use less passive voice is like a bike. A bike is a whole symbol, so to compartmentalize effectively you would need to use a specific part of the bike.

It's not going to stop being strange though. You calling writing more complex, and still clinging to the bike and training wheel analogy. If writing is so much more complex, why keep making the analogy? I don't feel satisfied that it proves the point, or does Grammarly justice. It is more than a tool for beginners.



Well, we seem to agree on the complexity aspect. But again, Grammarly will carry people much further than the basic functions. Maybe I was oversold, but you seem to be underselling. And still seem to be denying it's potentiality in the more advanced areas.

I think Grammarly will always help. Even for another good writer like you. There's never any reason to take these wheels off. Hence they aren't like training wheels. And it isn't helping me identify irrelevant comments. It's a time-saving tool, which is what I've been saying this whole time. Like if I hear, or remember a good word. I don't have to look up how to spell it. There's just so many time-saving features built into the free version.

Further clarifying a point is just further clarifying a point. It does not demonstrate another form of fallacy. I think you are over thinking what I am saying or "begging the question" yourself. You are assuming that there is no way to use the comparison as a legitimate argument. Therefore, you are circling with this premise regardless of how I introduce content to support it. You are making a claim and I am making a comparison within a comment that is not intended to be a form of formal debate.

My comment was basically just the way I would review the product. You can write your own review. We don’t have to formally debate the way we would review the product as a consumer. Saying I am presenting a fallacy in this case is the same thing as saying that I am giving my opinion on the subject which would be a fallacy in the presence of formal debate. However, in some instances it is okay to present opinions especially when it can be considered common knowledge that a review of a product is going to be based on opinion.

 

[polymoog]

I never assumed lack of intelligence or ignorance. My comment was about whether a person is actually serious or not.

people can be serious, sharp, and informed, yet spell atrociously. for example, english might not even be their native tongue.


And I don't really buy your busted pinkies explanation. Like how is that shit even possible?

ok, ill play along with this. so whats your explanation?


Wow, nevermind the hedging. What is your source? Besides your amazing teacher, who I am now seriously starting to doubt was that good. Aside from you busting your pinkies so bad you can't type properly. That probably isn't his fault.

lol, fine. lol...


I have a source that tells me as many as 10% of first-rate writing starts off sentences with conjunctions. Now if you are trying to tell me that more than 10% of my sentences start with a conjunction. Then you are straw-manning it up here.


from: https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/05/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/

Just a word of warning, though: although you now have grammatical ‘permission’ to start a sentence this way, don’t go overboard! It’s perfectly acceptable to use this device judiciously, but remember there’s no value in separating short statements with full stops when you’re not intending to make an emphatic effect:
X They walked to the top of the hill. And then they had a rest. And ate their sandwiches.


the bottom line is, aero, too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing. grammerly shouldve told you that.

 

[Aero]

Further clarifying a point is just further clarifying a point. It does not demonstrate another form of fallacy. I think you are over thinking what I am saying or "begging the question" yourself. You are assuming that there is no way to use the comparison as a legitimate argument. Therefore, you are circling with this premise regardless of how I introduce content to support it.

Technically, "begging the question" is just absence of research so that the conclusion is circular within the argument. To resolve this requires doing more research and if the person were to clip what they have down to its most concise form to remove the fallacy, they could potentially be left with a very limited word count if they don't invest a certain amount of time in researching the subject. So Grammarly is not a solution to this problem of lack of research.

I think you made part of my reply for me. And I didn't assume the comparison can't be used in a legitimate argument. I was just saying the way you used it, doesn't work in its original form. Your clarification helped a bit, but fundamentally speaking we are making two very different arguments.

I get that you are trying to find common ground. But don't appeal to hypocrisy. There are exceptions where you can beg the question and a fallacy is not committed. It's a tough one to call is what I'm saying.

I think a lot of fallacies are created this way, which is why a good rule of thumb is to research in equal proportion with what you are willing to invest time in writing. This will also help improve your writing because the more you research, the more complex your arguments become, and this will reduce the risk of falling into fallacies.

Therefore, while you are trying to present the argument that the analogy of training wheels doesn't work, you are proving that it does with your argument, complaint, and conclusion. Grammarly is a useful tool, in the same way that training wheels are a useful tool. However, they are only beneficial in certain cases and cannot be considered a substitute for learning to write well.

Your attempted anti-razor is commendable. Adding research to our arguments doesn't necessarily add complexity. Plus all of the evidence available suggests that the most complex theories fail under scrutiny. Even when you are deploying an anti-razor you still don't add unnecessary elements to the argument. You only add enough to make the theory work.

I haven't found a good application to anti-razor anything. But maybe that is just me. I tried complexity before, and nobody knew what the fuck I was talking about. Therefore I think complexity is for the people who just like to talk to talk. Whereas I'm saying, let's put these theories to the test.

I'm happy you think your theory is proven though. I'm just more concerned with the bigger scope of programming. If I allow Grammarly to be training wheels, then what are the more advanced programs going to be? Do you get what I'm saying? You will run out of bike metaphors really quickly.

 

[mecca]

Wow Aero, you really love grammarly.

 

[Aero]

I'm going to hate it by the time this is over...

 

[Aero]

people can be serious, sharp, and informed, yet spell atrociously. for example, english might not even be their native tongue.

If you want people to take your arguments seriously, you need to spell right. You need to capitalize. We have already ironed out the fact that this is just a forum. But it doesn't change the fact that people who really want to be taken seriously will make the effort. Busted pinkies or not.

ok, ill play along with this. so whats your explanation?

Honestly, you just seem lazy.

from: https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/05/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/

Just a word of warning, though: although you now have grammatical ‘permission’ to start a sentence this way, don’t go overboard! It’s perfectly acceptable to use this device judiciously, but remember there’s no value in separating short statements with full stops when you’re not intending to make an emphatic effect:
X They walked to the top of the hill. And then they had a rest. And ate their sandwiches.

I always had permission. You literally haven't taught me anything new here. And I doubt you really comprehend the article you yourself just linked as evidence (that supported my argument). The article describes it as a style preference, not a grammatical rule.

the bottom line is, aero, too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing. grammerly shouldve told you that.

You mean like too much lower case font? Gotcha, try taking your own advice.

 

[polymoog]

I'm going to hate it by the time this is over...

yep.




"grammarly, forget about the others on this thread. they dont know you like i know you. and forget what moog said about you. his pinkies dont work anyhow."
"oh aero...." ::swoon::
"i dont need human teachers. you are all i need. and you tell me that i can start 'and' for every sentence. that means so much to me. without you, i couldnt turn my brain off so you could autocorrect my text."
"aero, lets do it-- please download me onto mozilla NOW! download me!!"

 

[polymoog]

If you want people to take your arguments seriously, you need to spell right. You need to capitalize. We have already ironed out the fact that this is just a forum. But it doesn't change the fact that people who really want to be taken seriously will make the effort. Busted pinkies or not.

yet here you are, debating this with a lower caste, lower case typer such as myself.


Honestly, you just seem lazy.

you got me.


I always had permission. You literally haven't taught me anything new here. And I doubt you really comprehend the article you yourself just linked as evidence (that supported my argument). The article describes it as a style preference, not a grammatical rule.

fine! start every sentence with 'and'. who am i to cramp your style?


polymoog said:
the bottom line is, aero, too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing. grammerly shouldve told you that.
You mean like too much lower case font? Gotcha, try taking your own advice.

i type in caps when its necessary for emphasis, such as the comment above. unsurprisingly, you missed it.

 

[rainerann]

I'm happy you think your theory is proven though. I'm just more concerned with the bigger scope of programming. If I allow Grammarly to be training wheels, then what are the more advanced programs going to be? Do you get what I'm saying? You will run out of bike metaphors really quickly.

I think we are coming to different conclusions because of the differences in how we have used this program as well. It is interesting that you think I am not giving it enough credit, while you might be overselling it considering I have had the paid version for several years, and I was using it while I was taking classes.

The paid version is going to even provide more features that are beneficial to improving your writing. However, when you consider the variety of formats that you are expected to use for different classes, Grammarly is still very simple and has plenty of room for growth without this being concerning. It is incredibly useful and saves a lot of time, don't get me wrong. However, when you have one class using APA, and another class using MLA, and you are spending at least three hours per class combing over the guidelines for each of these formats, Grammarly becomes very similar to training wheels, in my opinion.

This alone would be an upgrade to the Grammarly process since many of these requirements should be able to be checked with an algorithm because they are consistent like margins, title page, header and footer formatting. They have a long way to go in improving their plagiarism checker as well, which I don't even think is worth using. Then, when you consider the other formats that aren't supported very well with Grammarly like a literary analysis or an observation essay, Grammarly becomes something that has a lot of limitations even while it is tremendously useful in comparison to the old way of doing it with The Blue Book of Grammar next to you at all times.

This would be what a more advanced form of Grammarly would be like long before it ever became C-3PO. I would also recommend the paid version if you like the free version so much. It really will make a difference. As a result, since I have experienced the limitations that still exist, I am inclined to make a comparison to training wheels.

In addition to this, I think briefly discussing the different formats highlights something about the use of suggesting fallacies around here. A logical fallacy is something that applies to the format of a formal debate, which two people have to agree to apply. If there is not an agreement, a suggestion can be made that a person is committing something that would be considered a fallacy under the conditions of a formal debate, but that is all you can do. In other formats, the same comment would not be considered a logical fallacy in the same way as there are differences when formatting a research paper and writing a literary analysis.

The biggest difference is that opinion cannot be used in research papers. Whereas, this rule is not as strict in other formats. The formatting of a formal debate is going to be very similar to a research paper where opinions cannot be used, and frequently create fallacies. This, and running out of research that can cause a person to continue a debate that becomes dependent on the researcher's opinion of the subject or the researcher's opinion of the person they are debating. Complex theories may fail under scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they can be called logical fallacies because of this. These are two different things.

Sometimes people just want to share their opinions, and not have to follow these rules as well. So an opinion is not always a reason to accuse someone of a fallacy. As a result, when you consider all of this, writing is still very much like the way you described riding a bike without training wheels even with the assistance of a robot teacher.

 

[Aero]

If you want people to take your arguments seriously, you need to spell right. You need to capitalize. We have already ironed out the fact that this is just a forum. But it doesn't change the fact that people who really want to be taken seriously will make the effort. Busted pinkies or not.

yet here you are, debating this with lower caste,lower case typer such as myself.


Honestly, you just seem lazy.

you got me.


I always had permission. You literally haven't taught me anything new here. And I doubt you really comprehend the article you yourself just linked as evidence (that supported my argument). The article describes it as a style preference, not a grammatical rule.

fine! start every sentence with 'and'. who am i to cramp your style?


polymoog said:
the bottom line is, aero, too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing. grammerly shouldve told you that.
You mean like too much lower case font? Gotcha, try taking your own advice.

i type in caps when its necessary for emphasis, such as the comment above. unsurprisingly, you missed it.

Lol, I don't think you are lower caste. And I doubt you could cramp my style. The point is you have completely misrepresented my position and writing abilities. It doesn't offend me, it's just false.

In a different thread, I talked a little about something called a readability test. The research shows that short sentences are best. If some of them are fragments, that might only make them more readable. Literally speaking to work on my writing skills would be to follow the opposite advice you are giving. Because I don't want to write to impress myself. I want an audience that constantly grows.

 

[mecca]

Does Grammarly tell you when to use "then" or "than"? Because I always see you use "than" when it's supposed to be then.

 

[Aero]

I think we are coming to different conclusions because of the differences in how we have used this program as well. It is interesting that you think I am not giving it enough credit, while you might be overselling it considering I have had the paid version for several years, and I was using it while I was taking classes.

The paid version is going to even provide more features that are beneficial to improving your writing. However, when you consider the variety of formats that you are expected to use for different classes, Grammarly is still very simple and has plenty of room for growth without this being concerning. It is incredibly useful and saves a lot of time, don't get me wrong. However, when you have one class using APA, and another class using MLA, and you are spending at least three hours per class combing over the guidelines for each of these formats, Grammarly becomes very similar to training wheels, in my opinion.

This alone would be an upgrade to the Grammarly process since many of these requirements should be able to be checked with an algorithm because they are consistent like margins, title page, header and footer formatting. They have a long way to go in improving their plagiarism checker as well, which I don't even think is worth using. Then, when you consider the other formats that aren't supported very well with Grammarly like a literary analysis or an observation essay, Grammarly becomes something that has a lot of limitations even while it is tremendously useful in comparison to the old way of doing it with The Blue Book of Grammar next to you at all times.

This would be what a more advanced form of Grammarly would be like long before it ever became C-3PO. I would also recommend the paid version if you like the free version so much. It really will make a difference. As a result, since I have experienced the limitations that still exist, I am inclined to make a comparison to training wheels.

In addition to this, I think briefly discussing the different formats highlights something about the use of suggesting fallacies around here. A logical fallacy is something that applies to the format of a formal debate, which two people have to agree to apply. If there is not an agreement, a suggestion can be made that a person is committing something that would be considered a fallacy under the conditions of a formal debate, but that is all you can do. In other formats, the same comment would not be considered a logical fallacy in the same way as there are differences when formatting a research paper and writing a literary analysis.

The biggest difference is that opinion cannot be used in research papers. Whereas, this rule is not as strict in other formats. The formatting of a formal debate is going to be very similar to a research paper where opinions cannot be used, and frequently create fallacies. This, and running out of research that can cause a person to continue a debate that becomes dependent on the researcher's opinion of the subject or the researcher's opinion of the person they are debating. Complex theories may fail under scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they can be called logical fallacies because of this. These are two different things.

Sometimes people just want to share their opinions, and not have to follow these rules as well. So an opinion is not always a reason to accuse someone of a fallacy. As a result, when you consider all of this, writing is still very much like the way you described riding a bike without training wheels even with the assistance of a robot teacher.

You described the exact reason I fell behind in my English classes. Formats? Yeah, I'm out of there. It's called sleepytime. I would like to see higher education go in a completely different route. Grammarly doesn't really have much impact on my ultimate goal. I just thought it would be a good example to get the ball rolling.

My plan isn't to give everyone training wheels. It is to have robots do the tedious stuff that humans shouldn't have to do. So you can keep your analogy like it's fine. I just want to remove all of those training wheels and streamline everything. Maybe it's better to say I want to put education on some train rails.

It's not about having a debate either. The reason people bring up logical fallacies is to point out mistakes. And those research papers you brought up are full of logical fallacies. Like it's not a mystery that confirmation bias is a huge problem in any setting subject to peer review. This explains why Socrates became a good logician. He wasn't that smart, he could just cut through an argument like nobody else could.

If you just want to state opinions that's fine. But I think you are denying the persuasive element you are putting out there. That element of persuasion makes it into an argument. You are trying to convince me something is true beyond opinion. It's training wheels you keep saying, but an opinion would indicate your awareness that you could be wrong.

So my bad if you have indicated you could be wrong all this time. Even though it feels like you have made an argument as more than a subjective truth. I'm just old school I guess. I believe we should always seek out the truth. We should understand bias and all of these different logical fallacies. This is the stuff that is shaping the minds of the unenlightened.

 

[rainerann]

Does Grammarly tell you when to use "then" or "than"? Because I always see you use "than" when it's supposed to be then.

Yes, it will. It will also tell you if you should affect or effect and other things like this.

 

[Aero]

I will never make that mistake again Mecca!

But I will deploy some self-defeating logic if it suits me. Remember, there are exceptions if you are being ironic, or trying to reach into the depths.

 

[grateful servant]

This is a strangely amusing thread.

In the past few months, the Grammerly ad was on practically every YT vid I watched. It's nice to read about your experience with it Aero, thanks.

 

[rainerann]

You described the exact reason I fell behind in my English classes. Formats? Yeah, I'm out of there. It's called sleepytime. I would like to see higher education go in a completely different route. Grammarly doesn't really have much impact on my ultimate goal. I just thought it would be a good example to get the ball rolling.

My plan isn't to give everyone training wheels. It is to have robots do the tedious stuff that humans shouldn't have to do. So you can keep your analogy like it's fine. I just want to remove all of those training wheels and streamline everything. Maybe it's better to say I want to put education on some train rails.

It's not about having a debate either. The reason people bring up logical fallacies is to point out mistakes. And those research papers you brought up are full of logical fallacies. Like it's not a mystery that confirmation bias is a huge problem in any setting subject to peer review. This explains why Socrates became a good logician. He wasn't that smart, he could just cut through an argument like nobody else could.

If you just want to state opinions that's fine. But I think you are denying the persuasive element you are putting out there. That element of persuasion makes it into an argument. You are trying to convince me something is true beyond opinion. It's training wheels you keep saying, but an opinion would indicate your awareness that you could be wrong.

So my bad if you have indicated you could be wrong all this time. Even though it feels like you have made an argument as more than a subjective truth. I'm just old school I guess. I believe we should always seek out the truth. We should understand bias and all of these different logical fallacies. This is the stuff that is shaping the minds of the unenlightened.

I have way more experience with a research writing format than I have with other formats, so it would make sense to me that my writing does come across like I am trying to be persuasive. Although, I was just sharing my experience with the product, which would be considered an opinion.

I would actually like to improve in my ability to write creatively and this is one of the criticisms a teacher gave me a long time ago. They said I was writing too formally. So I’m working on taking down the formal tone a bit. Not always successfully I guess.

 

[polymoog]

Does Grammarly tell you when to use "then" or "than"? Because I always see you use "than" when it's supposed to be then.

although i couldnt find the post, im almost sure youve called him out on this already.

 

[mecca]

although i couldnt find the post, im almost sure youve called him out on this already.

I corrected him on it once.