display | more...

I left this site in November. I have been logged off for three months. Since I joined this site in 2001, that has been the longest I have been away from E2. Although not the longest E2 has been away from me---remember the great outtage of 2003? No, you probably don't. Anyway, E2. Through sick and thin, I have stayed here, because of all the pointless heartwarming rules people usually mention. Even when I could see that this site was niche, and then irrelevant, I stayed. The ability to write down my thoughts helped me, encouraging me to research and record. I liked the community. I even felt comforted that the easy blue pastel layout of the site was the same as in 2001, writing on a Pentium 2 before the Twin Towers fell. But something finally made me snap. I cut off from here. Part of this is me.

There is an administrator here, I don't really know or care what their role in the hierarchy is, but they were annoying me with pedantry, removed removed removed removed removed removed removed. We had had a "discussion" about whether the word "employed" could be applied to people who were self-employed that sapped my mental energy, and where they didn't seem to get the hint that I really wasn't interested removed removed removed removed removed. Unnecessary sentence unnecessary sentence unnecessary sentence unneccesary setence. ANYWAY, lets skip ahead. This was the line that I was corrected about that made me leave:

"less capital, less workers, and less training".

This was from a writeup about Subway, where I spun a few thoughts about the US' beautifully mediocre sandwich chain.
Do you see the problem?
Do you?
I am actually an English teacher, so I can tell you. That should be FEWER workers. See, while the other two are uncountable nouns, with which you use "less", "workers" is countable, with which you use "fewer". This is a grammatical point that is used at various levels of precision. Something that I know the pragmatic value of, since it was my job (before I became unemployed and unemployable again) to teach. Why didn't I use it there? Maybe because I didn't care, because I was churning out writeups, but also because there is a little bit of prosody and rhythm involved in repeating the same word three times.

While all this was going on, I thought about writing a write up about prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar, which terms you should already know. And I was kind of editing it in my mind when I realized 1. I didn't fucking care and 2. Everyone reading should already fucking know this argument already. Most of this was mean so I took it out, who should have already paused a minute to think "how does this sentence fit into what I am reading? Hmmmmmmm? If I wanted to be something other than a picturesque but unnecessary, could I spend 30 very fine seconds and figure out why this sentence might work as it is?", but the point isn't about this grudge that I should get over . It is about the fact that everything said, written, debated, discoursed, slandered, shouted, analyzed, reputed, refuted, denied, twisted, ruptured, confused, contextualized, decontextualized, recontextualized, augured and argued on the internet is somethiing that everyone involved already knows about, or should know about, and that has already been exhausted.

And I am exhausted too. Trying to communicate through the stinking mud of purposeful misunderstandings of what I am obviously trying to say is just so draining. All the fun I used to have in this magical box of the internet to communicate things that made me feel exciting and interested are gone. Instead it is just the tedious slog of going over the same fucking points the 47th time. Maybe the whole thing has run its court. I don't know, I don't care, I have nothing to say, good bye.