I can't tell what's real anymore

[Al B. Sure!]

In people's posts here. I can't tell if anything anyone is saying is actually what they really believe or if they are trolling or being sarcastic.

Every post now, I feel like I need to have two responses to, one for their comment being truthful and one for it being sarcasm.

STOP IT.

[Japher]

you serious?

[Elok]

You can't recognize sarcasm? Geez, you sound like some kind of stupid aspie or something.

[Al B. Sure!]

We have these smilies for a reason, people!

[Al B. Sure!]

You can't recognize sarcasm? Geez, you sound like some kind of stupid aspie or something.

No. Not in typed form here most of the time. Sometimes when I know someone wouldn't possibly believe in something, I know they're being sarcastic. But when it's people who I don't know where they stand on any given thing (like Ne5tor or whatever his name is and Kidicious), I am lost.

I can't be the only one.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

being real is soooooo 20th century

[BlackCat]

Is this really proper english ?

Every post now, I feel like I need to have two responses to, one for their comment being truthful and one for it being sarcasm.

[Elok]

Is this really proper english ?

It's not a perfect sentence by any means, but I have no problem parsing its meaning. The bit Al picked on you about in the other thread was much more ambiguous and had more fundamental errors. For example, you used an adjective as an adverb, which sticks out much more than, say, Al's use of the word "their" without a clear antecedent. Or his leaving out the "it" before the second comma. Those are the kinds of thing that I, at least, glide over without really noticing.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's not a perfect sentence by any means, but I have no problem parsing its meaning. The bit Al picked on you about in the other thread was much more ambiguous and had more fundamental errors. For example, you used an adjective as an adverb, which sticks out much more than, say, Al's use of the word "their" without a clear antecedent. Or his leaving out the "it" before the second comma. Those are the kinds of thing that I, at least, glide over without really noticing.

Elok

[Elok]

For the record, it's a silly argument. I'm just sticking up for my English-major word-nerd cred.

[BlackCat]

It's not a perfect sentence by any means, but I have no problem parsing its meaning. The bit Al picked on you about in the other thread was much more ambiguous and had more fundamental errors. For example, you used an adjective as an adverb, which sticks out much more than, say, Al's use of the word "their" without a clear antecedent. Or his leaving out the "it" before the second comma. Those are the kinds of thing that I, at least, glide over without really noticing.

Well, I may have made a mistake - i shouldn't have put "for" in what I wrote, but that can't really be a serious problem.

EDIT: that little extra "for" shouldn't really give you any problem parsing my message.

Damn - I really have to be carefull when writing something here - some spellnazi may consider my statements as invalid just because I don't have engrish as first language

[Asher]

For the record, it's a silly argument. I'm just sticking up for my English-major word-nerd cred.

English is for people who couldn't cut it in linguistics.

[Elok]

There are a couple of things wrong, but mostly it just feels like it was written by a foreigner. And, put simply, I can't quite figure out what you meant by it, which is pretty much the ultimate test.

[Elok]

English is for people who couldn't cut it in linguistics.

A bachelor's in either is worthless, so what does it matter?

[Asher]

A bachelor's in linguistics puts you one step closer to Noam Chomsky, which is quasi-related to a real field like Computer Science.