Talis is one intelligent... cow

So when I decided to finally poke my head up to the surface, I tumbled upon an interesting argument between Fiamme and Talis. This is what Talis says:

Fiamme-chan is so cute when she's clueless about computers ^^.

Okay class, time for revision! First we have Queen of the World (forgive me for bringing up the dead art of capitilization, similar to latin in it's use apparently), you lovely darling who's use of the english language apalls me.

>>I'd bet the world the anonymous who posted the message above me is Khan/Max/Mysfaer/WizdomGoddess/whatevershecallsherself. If she hadn't only thrown 'the towel' of hers, she would actually comment on EVERYTHING she sees.

Now, though, the situation has changed. She can't defend herself, because if she does, she'd only embarrass her already embarrassing self.

She's one scared cat. Hilarious, isn't she?

First point, the world is not yours to bet, if it were, I'd be living on mars, and we'd be ruled by cabbages.
Second! Please shut up, you are hurting my brain. If you haven't figured it out yet, Max and WG wouldn't use "anonymous" why should they hide? They'be made thier point and they are ready to face the spotlight.
Third? The only scared one here is Fiamme, who has cowered in the darkness of Genghis Khan's witty and useful commentary for a very long time, and she has done nothing, until they tripped. Might as well kick them while they're down, if they were down to begin with?

Now that that is finished, gloves off Fiamme-chan. You see, I'm sweet most of the time, but your endless mazi-like approach to crushing people's dream is getting to be... {insert expletive here} annoying.
Prestigious high school or not, crushing dreams, hopes and anything that resembles happiness is something this average girl doesn't tolerate! Let's make a few points. Of course, now that I know you attend the ivy league of high schools in the Philippines, I can understand your superiority complex. Of course, I don't understand it, having attended average public schools my entire life, but I can still dislike it. Obviously your need to insult anyone who is inferior to your majesty is feeding off your "superiority" to the average highschool student, ne? Oh gosh, forgive me, I'm just one of those students.
If everyone followed grammar as closely and to-the-point as yourself, popular writers such as Shakespeare would never become writers! Shakespeare couldn't spell, so if everyone were like you, popular plays such as Romeo and Juliet would betraded in for... well nothing, since mistakes are not to be accepted. The Iliad would never have been published! Tales of Genji would never have been thought of!
See what your "obsession" has brought to light? Grammar has only a minor role in any language, especially in language arts. You cannot be grammatically correct, and creative, at the same time. If there were rules to painting, such works as The Last Supper and Madonna of the Rocks would never have been done! Details are nice, but obsession with details and correctness are completely... useless.
As I write a short story as or a new chapter for a novel, I watch as Word underlines sentences, I have come to ignore it unless Word picks up something I know isn't right! Who cares about sentence structure? Creativity is freedom, rules are a cage. Obviously, important things like capitilization and punctuation are important, but come to think of it, early language didn't even have that, it was merely a decoration! Evntually people with a lower grade of obsession than yourself came to think, "Well, maybe putting spaces between our thoughts, marked with say, a little dot, would making reading easier!". Of course, they would have to have a lower grade of obsession, since, if they were like you, words would not be printed at all, without the strict supervision of 10 editors and an executioner, you know, if you write a sentence that isn't of the "appropriate" order.
I must say, your attention to detail could almost be described as Obsessive-Compulsive. Are you sure you don't have OCD? I know someone who does, but she isn't a grammar nazi.
Oh gosh, now I've done it, I've almost become a flamer. Well, what do you call a flamer who flames flamers? Krusnik? No, that's a vampire who eats vampires, whoopsie, no more television for Talis.
Hope you enjoy this~

Love,

Talis

End of message.

I just want to say that...

Talis,

Unfortunately we can't relate entirely to what you want to express. For one thing, your grammar is abhorrent. I know, I know. You're going to say that grammar hardly has any significance and that creativity is everything. Well, let me tell you one thing; WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU, and that is being 100 percent honest. I'm so surprised that Fiamme's "use of language APALLS" you. Ironically, yours make me want to give birth to 2,000 babies, all at the same time.

"the world is not yours to bet, if it were, I'd be living on mars, and we'd be ruled by cabbages."

Grr. This remark of yours is not only lame, but uncreative and embarrassing to boot. 'Nuff said.

You mentioned about Fiamme's crushing other people's dream... Tell you what, you made me lose my faith in humanity. Really. I can't believe YOU used the incomparable Shakespeare as an example. Where in suffering hell were you from? If you so much as read one of Shakespeare's plays, I think you'd have more or less an idea that his mispellings and grammar mistakes were RIGHT at the time. It was the 17th century, man. What do you expect, that language didn't evolve? It did, unfortunately for you. What was grammatically correct then, may no longer be correct now. Take for example JRR Tolkien. We do know that he lived up to the 20th century (and hence had sense of modern grammar), BUT we also know that he wrote sonnets IN THE MANNER of Shakespeare. Now, if you were looking closely you'd notice that grammatical errors were repeatedly committed in those works. The point? I already told you, he was using Shakespeare style. What about his novels? They were correct in a contemporary sense.

You see, both writers were following an order in the language. There has to be a way to organize their works, otherwise it would've made them lingusitic hooligans. In comparison, the grammars of the people you defend (most notably yourself) cannot in any way, in any style, be considered correct or decent. They write like ducks, webbed fingers and all.

I can't begin to decribe how disgusted I am by these words: "If everyone followed grammar as closely and to-the-point as yourself, popular writers such as Shakespeare would never become writers! "

How come you talk about things you don't know, and try to sound on authority? Please, stop making a retard out of yourself. Did you really think popular writers don't care about grammar? Hell, the writers you spoke of MADE grammar! Our notions of correct grammar are based on their works and guess what, they follow only one grammatical pattern. Why do we think that sentences such as "similar to latin in it's use apparently" (courtesy of you) and "you lovely darling who's use of the english language apalls me" are WRONG? I'll tell you why; because Charles Dickens and EM Forster and Virginia Woolf and just about every good writer DO NOT use "IT'S" when it should've been "ITS" and certainly DO NOT use "WHO'S" when they should've used "WHOSE" instead. And they don't spell "APPALL" as "APALL". Were you a Brit, you could've used "APPAL", but you didn't for some horrible reasons.

Also, I would like to point out the high demands for editors. If we don't need correct grammar, sentence structure et cetera, then pray tell the reasons why editors exist and even more so, why their salaries basically skyrocket? Please don't pull the "because the whole world is dumb for putting so much importance on grammar" crap. That would be so dumb, and minor.

So you think Iliad and Tales of Genji are packed with grammatical errors? Frankly I'm beginning to have the icky idea that you only pretend to have read both. Even if both works were originally, hypothetically stained with grammatical errors, it is undeniable that people over the years have made a point of correcting them. Why? Well, let's put it this way; they like correct grammar better than retarded grammar, unlike you. Plus, I thought Lady Murasaki, purportedly the genius behind the amorous Tale of Genji was Japanese. Are you suggesting that Japanese people don't care about grammar? You insult my intelligence.

Lastly, I just want to say that FUCK this dumb statement: "See what your "obsession" has brought to light? Grammar has only a minor role in any language, especially in language arts. You cannot be grammatically correct, and creative, at the same time."

I've been spending two and a half years in my school's Creative Writing org. Do you know that each time a member passes a poem, or any work for that matter, that work is meticulously read by ALL OTHER MEMBERS (38 of them, the 5 moderators excepted) for 1) Questionable theme/idea; 2) Grammar and 3) Structure. Why do that? Because we are being honed to manage coherent ideas, correct grammar and structure all at once; our mentors think that, oh yeah, it's possible to have good grammar and creative mind at the same time. Otherwise, they would've scrathed it off the curriculum, like, 27 years ago. But ever since the org had been founded, same rules on criticisms and analyses are SIMILAR.

You think creative writers such as Haruki Murakami, Nick Hornby, Neil Gaiman et al AREN'T good in grammar? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Say that again, please? I'm not going to deny that you offended me with that statement; usually, I just laugh off people's stupidity, but yours is so SPECIAL and needs all the tuning it gets. Screw you.

"Creativity is freedom, rules are a cage."

What are you, an anarchist? You don't want rules, then go back to Stone Age. Your argument is flawed, loopholed and hasn't a single smart thought to it. Blimey, there were Clan rules in the Stone Age; I'll say, go back to Jurassic era, you dinosaur. I don't remember saying anything AGAINST creativity. In fact, in my and Fiamme's flames, we emphasize and underscore not only the writer's lack in grammar, BUT in ideas. Gosh, are you dyslexic or what? Wherefore would we criticize their UNORIGINAL MARY SUE CRAP? A word to the wise, go research about the things you say and STOP bullshitting.

PS. "If there were rules to painting, such works as The Last Supper and Madonna of the Rocks would never have been done! Details are nice, but obsession with details and correctness are completely... useless."

Tell me what the point of this sentence is? Are you just showing off how well-versed you are in arts? P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.

Painting is THIS far from writing. Painting is an art that requires VISUAL EXPRESSION. There are NO rules in painting, only classifications, on whether or not it's impressionism, surrealism et cetera. While like writing, it is open for criticisms, it is not true that PAINTING has to be this or that, i.e., your painting teacher doesn't tell you that your landscape painting has to be colorful, full of clouds, flowers, blah blah blah. It's essentially up to the painter. In writing, on the other hand, your teacher TELLS you to maintain correct grammar, it's an obligation, not a VIRTUE. It doesn't even need saying. Jeez, you are one dumb cow.