The article referred to in the opening post states that, in correcting grammar, a racist contributor to a web page " ...was using his education and his superior knowledge to put someone down and make them feel bad about themselves". The author then examined his own motives and realised that he was much the same:

"I wasn't trying to show people they were wrong, or using intelligent arguments to change their minds. I only wanted them to feel demeaned. I wanted to dominate them, and show that I was better than them"


I can see how the thread drifted from grammar to irritating phrases, expressions and tautology. However, arguing that a word "is plain ignorant, whether or not it's become 'standard English' " or that a commonly used expression "is ignorant because what you've done is copied what you've heard another ignoramus say without bothering to check what it means", seems to miss the whole point of the original article. Suggesting that those who use expressions that don't fit your own personal preference are "clumsy (though technically correct)" and, "as a result, you sound ugly, inelegant and ignorant and cause a raised eyebrow or two", is doing exactly what the article asks us not to do.

DC