A message from Andy

[alienhamster]

I must honestly say that some of you are simply downright stupid. There's no other word.

From the buffoons who accuse me of being a 'Roddick hater' (how utterly cliché), to the utter genius who claims that I have a "little brain" (and who is obsessed with my posts), to the over-aged cheerleader who cannot ever tolerate any criticism of her 'heroes' and 'idols'... all of YOUR personal biases come through very clearly.

Am I truly biased against Roddick? If I am, I surely am unaware of it. As such, I would like to see examples of this bias. Please - enlighten me.

Still other 'extremists' deliberately miss the very simple point I am making - mocking by way of encouraging Andy to write in Midieval English, or some derivative thereof. Of course, I never suggested such a thing. I do, however, feel that Roddick could have, with just slightly more effort, produced a 'letter' which was of a noticeably higher standard and was better written than the one presented. Something worthy of an adult, for example. And, yes, this would have an influence insofar as young fans are concerned - it would encourage them to higher standards of writing, which is an entirely positive thing.

What I saw was an 'open letter' written by a 23 year old which was written in the 'literary style' (if one can call that a style) of a young adolescent who had learned his 'literacy' from the internet exclusively. That the majority here have defended his writing - obviously feeling that dear (or is it 'poor') Andy could do no better - rather strongly - and disappointingly - suggests a comfort and contentment with a very low standard of literacy among adults.

Samuel Clemens (among others, to be sure) is no doubt rolling in his grave.

Every time I feel that this culture has been 'dumbed down' to the lower limit, I see this kind of reaction (of posters in this thread), and realize that it apparently has still greater depths to explore. When there is such objection to what was never before considered a HIGH standard, but merely an average standard - that of adults actually producing proper sentences, capitalizing proper names, beginnings of sentences, and the word 'I', and spelling 'you' using all three letters rather than but one - it is clear that the erosion is disturbingly incomplete.

Don't you think it's possible for people--even youngsters--to learn to write and speak in multiple registers for different audiences? Why is it good (or even desirable) to write in Standard English in every single instance of your life? If Andy was writing an academic paper on his website, I'd say you might have a point here. But it was an INFORMAL LETTER for a YOUNG FANBASE posted on the INTERNET. I think people are capable of learning multiple sets of writing conventions. My students do it all the time.

Deuce, you're a smart guy, but you're awfully condescending sometimes. This is definitely an area you could stand to learn a bit more before you go off judging people. (The history of Standard English is fascinating. Its politics actually run against many of your other left-leaning views, so I'd be interested to hear if you read up more on the topic.)

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, seriously, please enroll in a basic linguistics (or even a composition) course. One of the basic things you learn about language use is that language conventions differ markedly in different communities and for different audiences. There's nothing inherently "better" about the Standard forms you're prescribing, except that you've bought into the myth that for some reason non-slang and formal sentence structures are just inherently good for human beings. Moreover, callitout's excellent parody already made the point better than I could here: the use of formal structures may in fact be less effective at communicating certain ideas for certain audiences.

Check out the book Verbal Hygiene before you call people out on their grammar again.

Where, exactly, did I call for Roddick to write with any degree of 'formality'?

I merely stated that it would be nice - aye, better - if adults wrote like adults have written traditionally - i.e. employing a more experienced and higher quality of literacy than that of a young adolescent.

Once again, if this is too much to ask, then we are in even greater trouble than it appears.

 

[alienhamster]

Where, exactly, did I call for Roddick to write with any degree of 'formality'?

I merely stated that it would be nice - aye, better - if adults wrote like adults have written traditionally - i.e. employing a more experienced and higher quality of literacy than that of a young adolescent.

This is a fair question, because we're all assuming that employing the forms you suggest would make the letter more formal. Let me reverse the question to you: is it possible to write informally using all the standard rules you expect? I don't think it is possible, much less desirable. Andy would probably lose some credibility with his audience ("Who is this guy, and why is he talking like a robot suddenly?")

And, I hate to break this to you, but I think you're over-rating adult literacy in letter writing. You think most adults write the way you describe? I bet statistics would suggest otherwise. (And, most importantly, adults probably communicate just as effectively without employing the standards you think they do.)

 

[Deuce]

Let me reverse the question to you: is it possible to write informally using all the standard rules you expect?

Of course it is. How in blazes does capitalization, proper spelling, and proper sentence structure necessitate formality exclusively? This is very basic stuff I am referring to - a very basic standard. Or, what used to be a very basic standard. Certainly nothing even remotely radical or extreme. Capital letters, proper spelling. Decent sentence structure. Basic stuff for an adult.

I don't think it is possible, much less desirable. Andy would probably lose some credibility with his audience ("Who is this guy, and why is he talking like a robot suddenly?")

Is it 'robotic' to write with proper punctuation, correct spelling, and decent sentence structure? I, personally don't think so at all.

And, I hate to break this to you, but I think you're over-rating adult literacy in letter writing. You think most adults write the way you describe?

Well, today - no, unfortunately. And it will only continue to spiral downwards as 'famous' persons (those who possess the highest degree of influence in North American culture by far) produce more and more illiterate drivel once thought to be the exclusive domain of young teens, placing more importance on trying to be 'cool' than on intelligent, mature, and thoughtful expression.

I bet statistics would suggest otherwise. (And, most importantly, adults probably communicate just as effectively without employing the standards you think they do.)

People communicate just as effectively as they did in past decades/centuries? Not even close. The role models of today occupy a decidedly lower standard than did the role models of years past (part of the 'dumbing down' phenomenon). The communications influence of Mark Twain and Virginia Woolf vs. the communications influence of Andy Roddick and Britney Spears. Quite beyond apples and oranges, I'd say.

The lowering of standards of literacy has produced a plethora of University/College graduates who've no clue how to spell properly - let alone write a cohesive paragraph. How does this (once) embarrassing phenomenon lead to effective communication?

Once again, what I am saying simply is that higher standards are a positive thing for any society. Certainly better than are lower standards. You, it seems, are arguing that a lack of punctuation and spelling skills, and sentence structure which is in no way structured is not indicative of a lowering of the standard. With this, I obviously disagree.

 

[aj_m2009]

Deuce, he was typing something for the internet, not an english class. In this case of course he is going to write like that.

Now let me guess, Deuce, you're a 60 year old english teacher, right?

Oh and I hope my english was alright!:roll:

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, he was typing something for the internet, not an english class. In this case of course he is going to write like that.

One need not be writing for an English class in order to write well. This seems to be the growing problem with this current lazy culture - that doing things well should be reserved for special circumstances exclusively, with the rest of the time - the great majority of the time - being indifferent, lazy, and apathetic.

Why can't the internet be a literary haven? The opportunity to write has increased greatly with the internet - but why must the standard of writing decline with the increased opportunity to write?

Now let me guess, Deuce, you're a 60 year old english teacher, right?

No. I'm a high school drop out in my mid thirties. Really.

Oh and I hope my english was alright!

Actually, the word English should be capitalized. (Could this be proof of Roddick's influence?)

 

[aj_m2009]

Why is it such a big deal how people type? Just because people (myself included) use "u" or "wanna" or "gonna" doesnt mean that they couldnt write "properly" to save themselves! I talk like Andy was talking but I can still write the way you want everyone to write fairly well. I mean of course Im going to make some mistakes here and there, but what do you expect, Im only 14!

High school drop out wouldnt surprise me much either.

And really, I dont care!:mrgreen: Like I said, I make mistakes, thats life! (now only if I would think that when I play tennis...)

 

[Polaris]

I find myself agreeing with Deuce about the letter's language.

1. It is very likely that Roddick wrote the letter and, even though I don't like his playing style, I like the maturity he displays in dealing with defeat and in communicatiing his thoughts to his fans. I hope he returns with a vengence.

2. That said, I think that Deuce is right (maybe too severe, but correct overall) in saying that the content could have benefitted from following the rules of English more closely. This is just my personal opinion. The first thing I thought of when I was reading it was, "Why doesn't he capitalize "i", and the first letter of "andy" ?". This led me to think that whoever wrote it - Roddick, or an intelligent member of his team - had the internet demographic in mind. People who indulge in internet messaging, text messaging etc, frequently shun all these rules. Being admittedly old-school in this respect, I despise that particular style.

Flame me if you like, but please do not call me a Roddick-hater. I hate Federer's frequent "you know"s, but I absolutely love his game, so one thing doesn't necessarily imply the other. And aj_m2009, you don't have to be 60 to feel picky about English usage. I am under thirty and spend many hours on the internet everyday, but I still cringe when I see the language written like that.

 

[t-serve]

I have to agree with both Polaris and Deuce. In the lives of famous people perception and deciet go hand in hand. What is the perception of all my tennis fans after my first round loss at the Open? Now, let me say what they want to hear. I've often thought how wonderful it would be to actually hear our President give a speech that he actually wrote.

 

[callitout]

Perhaps I Should Write Only In Bold. It's Great To Substitute Shouting For Thinking. How Do You Get The Red And Blue Colors. Well Done. I Mean, Well Said.
Oh, You Know, Btw Dont Waste Too Much Time Expecting Someone Who Spends All His Time Bashing A Yellow Ball To Conform To The Chicago Manual Of Style On A Web Site. If A Rod Spent More Time In School, He Might Be Paul Goldstein.

 

[Noelle]

Okay. Whatever. This thread has diverged from a discussion about the contents of Andy's letter to the form of his letter.

Can we just stop pontificating about this already? :roll:

 

[juu]

[post deleted]

 

[idj49]

You do realize this letter was written mainly to a bunch of 16 year old girls sitting at home mourning Roddick's loss. Not the weirdos on here who are actually analyzing sentence structure and grammar usage. To take the time out to say something about it is highly amusing though.

 

[liionel]

You do realize this letter was written mainly to a bunch of 16 year old girls sitting at home mourning Roddick's loss. Not the weirdos on here who are actually analyzing sentence structure and grammar usage. To take the time out to say something about it is highly amusing though.

i agree. its just a letter man. and this is a tennis forum, not an english forum or what. chill on the formal and informal english already!

 

[NoBadMojo]

I too dont think it's a big deal, but I do think that since Roddick is influential and a 'role model', it would be better he aired on the side of correctness rather than the side of sloppy writing and 'u''s instead of you's and such. He's certainly much better than say a Ray Lewis who is a convicted murderer, so we also need to keep this in perspective. It's like the tv shows in an effort to be more 'real world' often have the actors lines in really poor grammar which does nothing more than teach people to speak badly. it's one thing for NoBadMojo to not use caps and be sloppy and such, as i'm not andy roddick or even andy's mojo even though they stole that one from my moniker ;O I have even been trying to correct my sloppy writing recently in this forum just in case I do have an influence on someone. I laughed when I read all the 'u's instead of you's in Roddicks letter...It made me feel like he tries just a bit too hard to be cool, and also he seemed alot like a kid rather than an influential adult...

 

[FedererUberAlles]

So. Much. Bad. Grammar.

 

[Love40]

Good grief, this thread certainly took a left turn into weirdsville.

It's apparent to me that the letter was intentionally written in that "style".
The lack of capitalization, "u", and such is an attempt to be hip and to connect with the perceived audience.

I'm definitely not a fan of that writing style, but I'm not having intense heartburn over it, either. It would have been nice if, as a role model, Andy had used correct grammar. It's interesting to note that he capitalized the first word of each paragraph. Maybe he wrote the thing on a Blackberry or PDA? It does take extra effort to capitalize using those things.

Also interesting to note he did not misspell any words, other than the intentional "u" for "you". He also used commas mostly appropriately (except before the word "and").

At least we didn't see things like "turnament", "formost", and "huricane". He even spelled "Ginepri" correctly.

I posted his message here because I thought it was neat to hear directly from the man regarding his US Open loss. I raised an eyebrow, but gave him the benefit of doubt on the grammar choice.

 

[tangysox]

Love40 don't worry, your thread is very good and let's face it: anything Roddick-related gets a lot of attention on the tennis boards. Popular tennis stars tend to do that.

And if anything, we've all learned two things from this thread: 1)Deuce is the resident TW jackass and 2)the haters are still scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to legitimize their feelings toward Roddick (how evil of Roddick to be lacadasial about grammar. lol). Good job exposing their idiocy.

 

[alienhamster]

i agree. its just a letter man. and this is a tennis forum, not an english forum or what. chill on the formal and informal english already!

Sorry I went on some rants here, but these boards seem to draw out the grammar police all the time. These topics are in my research and teaching areas, and when I hear people pulling out a lot of common (and IMO baseless) assumptions about language to judge and dismiss people, I feel the need to go deeper into the issues.

I still haven't heard anyone on here argue why exactly the use of higher standards in an internet letter is "better," other than the old "well, it just is" argument. The only thing that comes close is Mojo's point that it seems like in this case Roddick might be trying too hard to look cool--that perhaps he's overdoing the informal.

Why do people keep saying that Andy's letter shows a lack of spelling skills? The spelling is fairly consistent (and deliberate, I'd guess), following the typical internet conventions these days. Why do you assume these are errors?

And sorry again, Deuce, but historical studies on literacy and letter writing in English (since the late medieval period) show pretty consistently that letters are the written medium that most closely resemble spoken forms of the language. This is consistent with internet usage today. I'm not sure what "better time" in the past you're referring to--most of the authors you cite played around a lot with non-standard forms in their writing (both published and private). One thing that has been really consistent over the centuries is the feeling that language use is always just getting worse and worse, but the facts don't really bear that out. (Honestly, I don't know how you could fairly quantify "better" or "worse" language.) Is slang worse than formal phrasing? This is a silly question because there's no absolute answer. It depends on the effectiveness of the writing choice in individual contexts.

When Andy posts his dissertation on his website, let's return to discuss how effective his sentence structure is.

 

[fishuuuuu]

Hey Deuce ...

Andy is like ... so cool right?

 

[Tenez]

And let's not lose sight of the fact that you are entirely biased and extremely star-struck, Susan - and because of this clear bias, your perspective on 'Andy', or 'Rafa', or any other male tennis 'star' you might go 'ga-ga' about in the future, is essentially worthless.

Noelle - you, as well, possess a clear bias on the subject of Roddick.
I believe that a 23 year old supposed adult ought to be able to write better than a semi-literate 12 year old. Especially if the former is 'famous' and wishes to be known as a positive role model.

I happened to look up the meaning of "ad hominem" the other day. The post above precisely typifies an ad hominem attack. Person A has demonstrated <XYZ> characteristics, therefore their opinion / argument must be <wrong, misguided, not worth being paid attention to, worthless>.
So much flame power, so little hesitation in using it...
I guess proper capitalization and grammar is more important than resisting the urge to attack people with little provocation.
--Tenez

 

[companzo]

Good grief, this thread certainly took a left turn into weirdsville.

It's apparent to me that the letter was intentionally written in that "style".
The lack of capitalization, "u", and such is an attempt to be hip and to connect with the perceived audience.

I'm definitely not a fan of that writing style, but I'm not having intense heartburn over it, either. It would have been nice if, as a role model, Andy had used correct grammar. It's interesting to note that he capitalized the first word of each paragraph. Maybe he wrote the thing on a Blackberry or PDA? It does take extra effort to capitalize using those things.

Also interesting to note he did not misspell any words, other than the intentional "u" for "you". He also used commas mostly appropriately (except before the word "and").

At least we didn't see things like "turnament", "formost", and "huricane". He even spelled "Ginepri" correctly.

I posted his message here because I thought it was neat to hear directly from the man regarding his US Open loss. I raised an eyebrow, but gave him the benefit of doubt on the grammar choice.

Thank you for posting the letter Love40 I would not have seen it otherwise.
I hope I used correct grammer and spelling here.......

 

[callitout]

I happened to look up the meaning of "ad hominem" the other day. The post above precisely typifies an ad hominem attack. Person A has demonstrated <XYZ> characteristics, therefore their opinion / argument must be <wrong, misguided, not worth being paid attention to, worthless>.
So much flame power, so little hesitation in using it...
I guess proper capitalization and grammar is more important than resisting the urge to attack people with little provocation.
--Tenez

When I wasnt doing premed, I took lots of philosophy courses and got a masters in it. Philosophy almost never comes up so I have to respond.
"Ad hominem" is considered a fallacy in argument because you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We see lots of that on this board. When people devolve into saying someone's a jerk, or fat or even a teenager that is often a substitute for attemtpting to refute their argument. Whether or not the person is a jerk doesnt mean they dont make a valid point.
Yeah, I agree with others this has nothing to do with tennis and is not relevent to much other than reasoning.

 

[Deuce]

I happened to look up the meaning of "ad hominem" the other day. The post above precisely typifies an ad hominem attack. Person A has demonstrated <XYZ> characteristics, therefore their opinion / argument must be <wrong, misguided, not worth being paid attention to, worthless>.
So much flame power, so little hesitation in using it...
I guess proper capitalization and grammar is more important than resisting the urge to attack people with little provocation.
--Tenez

You are wrong, actually.
Had you made the effort to read my post in the proper context, you would have easily understood that I wrote that 'Person A' - in this circumstance, Susan - possesses a very obvious bias in favor of the players with which she has 'rubbed shoulders' and created and/or maintained websites about. Andy Roddick is one such player. This bias has been very blatantly observed by many posters on this board apart from myself over the past two or three years. As Susan obviously lacks any objectivity on the matter at hand, her perspective is entirely worthless, as it is inherently and wholly unbalanced.

Seeing as you seem to be making an effort to recognize "ad hominem attacks", I submit the following, which fits the said category much better than does the example you used:
"And if anything, we've all learned two things from this thread: 1)Deuce is the resident TW jackass and 2)the haters are still scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to legitimize their feelings toward Roddick (how evil of Roddick to be lacadasial about grammar. lol). Good job exposing their idiocy." (posted by tangysox)

alienhamster - You do spell words properly, and even use proper punctuation. But why? Doing so seems to undermine and counter your point that language cannot be measured in terms of 'better' or 'worse'; that all language is of the same quality, and exists on the same level. Again, if this is the case - or, at least, if you believe it to be so, then why do you bother to spell correctly and to use proper punctuation? Why are your sentences well structured?

You wrote:
"...most of the authors you cite played around a lot with non-standard forms in their writing (both published and private)."

Indeed, many wonderful authors - I dare say most - did "play around" with language. But this was done within an entirely different context than is the current trend of slang and words made up on the spot, as well as deliberate misspellings. Fine authors of years past "played around" with language in an effort to squeeze the most potential out of words as possible. They 'pushed the envelope', to use a term which is perhaps more recognizable to people. Their attempts were to elevate language; to combine thought and imagination to more accurately and vividly describe. They most certainly did not lower language to the level of using 'u' in place of 'you', or 'wanna' in place of 'want to', or 'would like to'.

I thus believe that language quality can most certainly be measured. Allow both Mark Twain and Britney Spears to describe the same event, and then try to tell me honestly that one description is not better than the other.

"The difference between the right word and almost the right word is akin to the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." - Mark Twain.

Thank you to Polaris, t-serve, and Ed for understanding the point I was making without deliberately blowing it out of both proportion and context, as others have done.

 

[Noelle]

Maybe he wrote the thing on a Blackberry or PDA? It does take extra effort to capitalize using those things.

You could be right, Love40. Andy's notes to his fans are copied and pasted directly from emails he sends to his website's maintainers. If I remember correctly, the last time he sent a note, it was written in informal English with the occasional common misspelling, but none of this "u" and non-capitalization. He may have been able to sit down and type at a computer previously, but for this particular note he might have found it more convenient to use a Blackberry.

Again, Deuce, I don't see how being biased automatically renders worthless a person's opinion about something. It's only opinion after all.

If I've learned anything from my Journalism professors, it's that hiding behind "objectivity" is more dangerous than actively and humbly acknowledging one's human-ness and owning up to certain biases.

 

[VamosRafa]

When I wasnt doing premed, I took lots of philosophy courses and got a masters in it. Philosophy almost never comes up so I have to respond.
"Ad hominem" is considered a fallacy in argument because you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We see lots of that on this board. When people devolve into saying someone's a jerk, or fat or even a teenager that is often a substitute for attemtpting to refute their argument. Whether or not the person is a jerk doesnt mean they dont make a valid point.
Yeah, I agree with others this has nothing to do with tennis and is not relevent to much other than reasoning.

And using ad hominem attacks actually undercuts the argument you are making. That is one thing that judges typically lecture lawyers about -- get to the point of your argument, without all the junk. Their view is "We already know you don't like the other side and think they are wrong. You don't need to tell us that. What you do need to tell us is why you are right."

 

[Deuce]

You could be right, Love40. Andy's notes to his fans are copied and pasted directly from emails he sends to his website's maintainers. If I remember correctly, the last time he sent a note, it was written in informal English with the occasional common misspelling, but none of this "u" and non-capitalization. He may have been able to sit down and type at a computer previously, but for this particular note he might have found it more convenient to use a Blackberry.

Indeed - a Blackberry is a most convenient tool upon which to type up a few paragraphs, isn't it?
Come on - Roddick had plenty of time to compose this little 'letter' - and a guy with his money no doubt owns about seven laptops. If he did type this on a Blackberry, though, then that is a sure sign of disrespect to his 'fans' - not even bothering to make the effort to type it up on a proper keyboard.

Again, Deuce, I don't see how being biased automatically renders worthless a person's opinion about something. It's only opinion after all.

That's the angle Ford uses to claim that, in their 'opinion', their cars are "the best". Do you believe them?

If I've learned anything from my Journalism professors, it's that hiding behind "objectivity" is more dangerous than actively and humbly acknowledging one's human-ness and owning up to certain biases.

Ok, then... I am admittedly biased against lazy, effortless writing, and its authors.

. . . . ..

 

[armand]

If I've learned anything from my Journalism professors, it's that hiding behind "objectivity" is more dangerous than actively and humbly acknowledging one's human-ness and owning up to certain biases.

Very interesting. Do they say you shouldn't even attempt to be objective? Or how should you approach things?

 

[Noelle]

Very interesting. Do they say you shouldn't even attempt to be objective?

I think it's more like a person can't really claim to be objective. Acknowledging biases, one can then attempt to see past them and try to be fair, balanced, and complete in writing a news article. (Op/Ed articles, by their very nature, take certain standpoints.) This underscores the view is that any form of writing is a product; it doesn't just come about of itself, and it certainly is no voice of God.

That's the angle Ford uses to claim that, in their 'opinion', their cars are "the best". Do you believe them?

They're entitled to their opinion. I don't know enough about their cars to have an opinion of my own about them.

If he did type this on a Blackberry, though, then that is a sure sign of disrespect to his 'fans' - not even bothering to make the effort to type it up on a proper keyboard.

And that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, too. My opinion is that I, as a Roddick fan, am not bothered by this. But maybe I'll go make a suggestion on his website about him writing in proper English. Maybe.

 

[hopeless]

Roddicks grammar is fine in my opinion, his sentence structure is acceptable. Its just that he (probably) intentionally wrote it without the use of caps, and deliberately misspelled some words to suit the informal context of his letter.

I would prefer to look beyond his language to the fact that he displays maturity of thought in his writing. I really think he wrote this letter bearing in mind his duty to be a positive role model to his fans. That to me is much more important than having caps or not, which is really trivial in comparison.

Anyway, I thought it was rather cute to see a high school dropout attacking his use of English and philosophy and journalism majors (or whatever) defending it. I wonder if anyone else apart from me thinks there is any deeper meaning to this?

 

[Tenez]

You are wrong, actually.
Had you made the effort to read my post in the proper context, you would have easily understood that I wrote that 'Person A' - in this circumstance, Susan - possesses a very obvious bias in favor of the players with which she has 'rubbed shoulders' and created and/or maintained websites about. Andy Roddick is one such player. This bias has been very blatantly observed by many posters on this board apart from myself over the past two or three years. As Susan obviously lacks any objectivity on the matter at hand, her perspective is entirely worthless, as it is inherently and wholly unbalanced.

Seeing as you seem to be making an effort to recognize "ad hominem attacks", I submit the following, which fits the said category much better than does the example you used:
"And if anything, we've all learned two things from this thread: 1)Deuce is the resident TW jackass and 2)the haters are still scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to legitimize their feelings toward Roddick (how evil of Roddick to be lacadasial about grammar. lol). Good job exposing their idiocy." (posted by tangysox)

I guess it's an ad hominem attack only if Deuce is at the receiving end of it . As they say, if you live by the sword...
--Tenez

 

[larrhall]

What comes through in all of Deuce's 'objectivity' and claim to be the purest moral being of those posting on the Boards is that:

He is really a frustrated idol worshiper. While claiming to be opposed to the starmaking culture that exists today, his real complaint seems to be that the would-be 'gods' are not godly enough. Of course, there is a problem when womanizing gamblers like Michael Jordan or those like Rafael Palmeiro eagerly adopt the mantle of Official Role Model when they are nothing of the sort. Yet, look at Roddick - he is self-deprecating. He roots for other players to do well. He admits that he is not about to be a PhD candidate (pros and cons there too). He's just a nice kid with a helluva serve and a reflective side.

I have read enough posts by Deuce over the years (something I surely regret) to know that his own attitude is hypocritical. To be a fan-addict of pro tennis is one thing - a lot of us have fallen into this category (and sometimes this trap). Yet Deuce has written proudly of his harassment of pro players, begging for leftover equipment, basically...jock-sniffing. The irony is that Andy Roddick seems to be saying basically what a guy like Barkley has said -

"I'm not your role model, I'm a big kid who was born with a certain set of gifts."

So it's Andy who is telling us to get off the hero worship/idol worship bandwagon, and Deuce lamenting that these jocks are not what they - or few others - can ever really be.

Aside from that, the need to overtly insult literally hundreds - or thousands - of posters over time shows exactly what sort of a posting role model Deuce is - a bad one.

 

[Roger is Boring]

good letter from the a-rod...

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

those like Rafael Palmeiro eagerly adopt the mantle of Official Role Model when they are nothing of the sort.

I was dismayed with Palmeiro's lying testimony before congress...I thought he was more of a [size=+3]stand UP[/size] guy.

Yet Deuce has written proudly of his harassment of pro players, begging for leftover equipment, basically...jock-sniffing....... and Deuce lamenting that these jocks are not what they - or few others - can ever really be........Aside from that, the need to overtly insult literally hundreds - or thousands - of posters over time shows exactly what sort of a posting role model Deuce is - a bad one.

I think this calls for a flame-war!!! :razz: I can't believe you'd let him take such as swipe at you like that deuce!! Bonhomme Richard-city!!

 

[FedererUberAlles]

I think it's great how frustrated people get when Deuce owns them.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

One other thing, Lawrence

one other thing Lawrence of Fantasia:

Though I wasn't involved in that recent thread that was deleted Larry.....you know the one Larry: the one where you pretended to get bent out of shape over Rabbit's playing around with the name Shlomo---calling Rabbit an anti-Semite? That is, trying to pull a Rabbit (or was it a Rabbi) out of a hat, Mr. Sanctimonious Cheapshot Artist?

Since the thread has been deleted, I cannot respond to your vile accusations aimed toward El Rabbit on a point-by-point basis. Consider yourself lucky. Your post contained "more than enough rope" needed to hang you with. I was a day late (as it seems they've deleted it), but I did read what you wrote. I found it dispicable to "use" your own religion in order to stage such an empty accusation and in such an unseemly, disingenous manner. Very low-brow. Very, very low brow.

If that wasn't bad enough, I now find out that you're some llegal alien interloper of sorts? Nice Larry...real nice. :razz:

 

[Rabbit]

What comes through in all of Deuce's 'objectivity' and claim to be the purest moral being of those posting on the Boards is that:

He is really a frustrated idol worshiper. While claiming to be opposed to the starmaking culture that exists today, his real complaint seems to be that the would-be 'gods' are not godly enough. Of course, there is a problem when womanizing gamblers like Michael Jordan or those like Rafael Palmeiro eagerly adopt the mantle of Official Role Model when they are nothing of the sort. Yet, look at Roddick - he is self-deprecating. He roots for other players to do well. He admits that he is not about to be a PhD candidate (pros and cons there too). He's just a nice kid with a helluva serve and a reflective side.

I have read enough posts by Deuce over the years (something I surely regret) to know that his own attitude is hypocritical. To be a fan-addict of pro tennis is one thing - a lot of us have fallen into this category (and sometimes this trap). Yet Deuce has written proudly of his harassment of pro players, begging for leftover equipment, basically...jock-sniffing. The irony is that Andy Roddick seems to be saying basically what a guy like Barkley has said -

"I'm not your role model, I'm a big kid who was born with a certain set of gifts."

So it's Andy who is telling us to get off the hero worship/idol worship bandwagon, and Deuce lamenting that these jocks are not what they - or few others - can ever really be.

Aside from that, the need to overtly insult literally hundreds - or thousands - of posters over time shows exactly what sort of a posting role model Deuce is - a bad one.

Insults? Are you kidding me? You've hurled more insults around here than ten Deuces. And yours are downright lies.

You are exactly what you hold in contempt, Precious.

 

[krazeekevin]

Roddick is one of the funniest...i remember him saying that him and the other tennis guys should all join forces like the power rangers to stop federer....??

 

[Deuce]

Why exactly is Larry still posting on these boards?

Between his many, many "permanent retirements" - most all of which were revealed to us by Larry himself with much Pomp and Circumstance, as if he truly believes himself to be of much significance on these boards, and his perpetually abusive and dishonest posts (the recent ones about Rabbit being anti-Semitic because he was having a little fun with the name 'Shlomo' being but the most recent example) I cannot help but wonder why in the world he is still here. Surely, if he has not removed himself from here via at least one of his "permanent retirements" from the boards, then the folks at TW should have escorted him out on the basis of his ongoing abusive and dishonest posts.

He is the worst type of cancer - the one which keeps returning.

 

[alienhamster]

alienhamster - You do spell words properly, and even use proper punctuation. But why? Doing so seems to undermine and counter your point that language cannot be measured in terms of 'better' or 'worse'; that all language is of the same quality, and exists on the same level. Again, if this is the case - or, at least, if you believe it to be so, then why do you bother to spell correctly and to use proper punctuation? Why are your sentences well structured?

You wrote:
"...most of the authors you cite played around a lot with non-standard forms in their writing (both published and private)."

Indeed, many wonderful authors - I dare say most - did "play around" with language. But this was done within an entirely different context than is the current trend of slang and words made up on the spot, as well as deliberate misspellings. Fine authors of years past "played around" with language in an effort to squeeze the most potential out of words as possible. They 'pushed the envelope', to use a term which is perhaps more recognizable to people. Their attempts were to elevate language; to combine thought and imagination to more accurately and vividly describe. They most certainly did not lower language to the level of using 'u' in place of 'you', or 'wanna' in place of 'want to', or 'would like to'.

I thus believe that language quality can most certainly be measured. Allow both Mark Twain and Britney Spears to describe the same event, and then try to tell me honestly that one description is not better than the other.

"The difference between the right word and almost the right word is akin to the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." - Mark Twain.

Thank you to Polaris, t-serve, and Ed for understanding the point I was making without deliberately blowing it out of both proportion and context, as others have done.

Deuce--the point I've repeatedly made to you is not that all language use is of equal quality, but that any use of language can be potentially effective depending on its CONTEXT. A sort of blanket statement like "This guy's an idiot because he uses 'u' and 'wanna' " is judgmental, dismissive, and pays no attention to the actual content/emotion the language is trying to get across. (And this is on top of the fact that you understand full well what's being communicated--you just choose to be irritated by it.)

And my use of "proper" structures (as you call them) is necessary for this very reason: you'd dismiss or dis my points, regardless of the argument, if I used primarily non-standard forms. In this context, this was the best decision to make. (And besides, in this thread I've been writing in my general style on these boards anyway, so why would I suddenly shift here?) You're just looking for an easy way out here, bud.

And dude, Shakespeare made up words like crazy--it's just that many of these innovations later became standard so we don't recognize all of them as slang or "words made up on the spot." Keats pissed off a number of people because of his use of cockney (even in poems that are now canonical).

Methinks you've idealized the past, BUUUUDDDDY (to be heard in a Pauly Shore cadence). That was a horrible use of "methinks," btw.

 

[VamosRafa]

Larrhall, thanks for your take on things here. I think you make some good points. Maybe it should get us all thinking about making judgments about others. Jock-sniffing??? *ewww*

 

[Deuce]

Larrhall, thanks for your take on things here. I think you make some good points. Maybe it should get us all thinking about making judgments about others. Jock-sniffing??? *ewww*

Yes - god forbid we have an opinion - or make a judgement - which isn't popular - and actually are not frightened to express it - oh, my!

Larry & Susan - there's a match made in heaven, huh? Talk about deserving each other...

Alien... I stand by every single thing I wrote. You've completely failed to convince me of anything.

By the way - if you wish to be taken even remotely seriously, it is best to avoid any and all mention of Pauly Shore.

 

[Noelle]

Okay, so I actually did go through with asking on the official website about Andy's message (link, registration required if you want to read). I got two responses so far; one person said that it's not a big deal about capitalization and slang, and the other said that using that type of writing style made Andy seem more accessible, since most of the people who write on the forum type like that.

My guess is he was just trying to communicate to his fans in their vernacular (as if he were just a friend sending an informal email), and that's the reason he wrote it that way. Also, this message was written to a niche market, not to the whole world.

Quibbling over Andy's capitalization of letters, use of slang, etc. seems to miss the point of the letter, which was to allay fan's fears, inform them about what's happening in his head and heart, and as a result show (showboat, to some people here) a little bit of Andy's own personality. The letter may not have adhered to Standard English form, but it seems to be coming from a good place in his heart.

(Of course, all IMO. )

 

[Rabbit]

I agree with Noelle.

Larrhall, thanks for your take on things here. I think you make some good points.

Oh ye of little memory. You'd do well to remember the parable about the frog and the scorpion here. I can guarantee you that one mistep and you're the next one to get stung. And, in your case, it would not be the first time.

Maybe it should get us all thinking about making judgments about others. Jock-sniffing??? *ewww*

Would those judgements include those you make about Nadal?

If we're to steer clear of anything that might lead to a differing of opinion, then we're going to have some awfully boring boards here. No, what needs to be steered clear of is the type of personal attack that larrhall launches against those that he has a personal vendetta with.

Let me demonstrate.

Deuce - I don't particularly like the modern shorthand of today's internet generation. That said, I have a little different perspective in that I have a 14-year old daughter. I have at least made her stop writing the letter 's' on it's side. She knows basic grammar and will eventually grow out of this. The kids think it's cool and as long as I don't have to read an inordinate amount of this, I really don't care.

vamos please take note that while I disagreed with Deuce, I successfully refrained from calling him names, making a personal attack, comparing him with evil incarnate in the world ala larrhall.

I can only surmise that larrhall is once again off his lithium.

 

[whistleway]

Great stuff, Andy.

 

[alienhamster]

Yes - god forbid we have an opinion - or make a judgement - which isn't popular - and actually are not frightened to express it - oh, my!

Larry & Susan - there's a match made in heaven, huh? Talk about deserving each other...

Alien... I stand by every single thing I wrote. You've completely failed to convince me of anything.

By the way - if you wish to be taken even remotely seriously, it is best to avoid any and all mention of Pauly Shore.

Deuce, I admire your ability to stand by all your opinions despite how many of them contradict historical and textual fact. Keep up the elitism and baseless judgmentalism!

To the more reasonable people on this thread: I liked the responses to Andy's content and approach in the letter. And big thanks to Noelle for actually researching this a bit more--this is exactly what several of us were arguing, that it was a conscious, deliberate use of the vernacular for an audience that gets it. I'm pretty sure the kiddies can figure out that Andy-style doesn't cut it in formal papers.

 

[VamosRafa]

Rabbit, really, do we ever get stung on messageboards? Perhaps we think we do for a while, but then we realize it is a messageboard. I agree with Larry on this one. Maybe I won't agree the next time. If I don't, I'll say so.

 

[Aeropro joe]

hey andy i kidnapped ur mojo! if u want it bak then u must throw away all of ur tweener frames and get a real racquet. hehehe then u might be able to serve and volley oh and i almost forgot actually be able to beat federer!

 

[nkhera1]

And let's not lose sight of the fact that you are entirely biased and extremely star-struck, Susan - and because of this clear bias, your perspective on 'Andy', or 'Rafa', or any other male tennis 'star' you might go 'ga-ga' about in the future, is essentially worthless.

Noelle - you, as well, possess a clear bias on the subject of Roddick.
I believe that a 23 year old supposed adult ought to be able to write better than a semi-literate 12 year old. Especially if the former is 'famous' and wishes to be known as a positive role model.

If you look at to your favorite tennis player for English inspiration then you have some serious problems.

 

[nkhera1]

Maybe he should've had a Harvard grad proofread it, before he posted it on his website. Or at least Blake could've looked at it first.
As others have posted, isnt the style supposed to match the vernacular. Might look a bit funny if Roddick had written the whole thing in a professorial tone.

Dear loyal fans:
My recent defeat at the US Open Tennis Tournament in Flushing New York, 2005 is terribly dissappointing to me. Although I had hoped my preparation was adequate, I was much like Stendahl's Julian arriving in Paris in The Red and the Black: While attempting to rise above my provincial origins and achieve greatness I embarassed myself. Perahps, a better model would've been Voltaire's Candide; I should return to "cultivating my garden." I hope that like Nietzsche's Zarathustra, that which does not kill me will make me stronger.

Well, the hurricaine puts our mundane problems in perspective. In a similar fashion Wittgenstein came to see the banality of philosophy when he worked in a hospital. I apologize to my fans for the lack of footnotes. I realize on the website of the tennis player, Roger Federer, that he often supports each thesis statement with multiple references to scholarly articles. In the future, I hope not to dissappoint my erudite fans.

On a final note, Im organizing a reading group for tennis pros. Can anyone suggest, who should join and whether we should start with Proust or Rilke. Thanks in advance, you humble author,
Andy Roddick

Lol Thats exactly how it should have been written.