^^^ Umm... Can someone please offset @DJClayworth's downvote?

@DJClayworth: Can you please elaborate? I have no idea where this comment is coming from.

@JimG. I'll offset his tone by saying it nicely, but he has a point in that the answer is just wrong (at least as far as it is assumed to be representative of mainstream Christian theology).

As in it contradicts mainline Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant teachings, all of which are a bit different in emphasis but all pretty much agree that intelligence is not a factor.

@TRiG I'm not even sure that's right. I don't think that is the 1611 King James, I think it's actually the much newer 1700's KJV revision that has a lot of more modern spellings.

Chat Room: Did anyone attend seminary or a parochial school in the Western Church?

@JimG. In the same way that a baby 'knows' their mother.

@bruised reed: A baby is certainly not ignorant of his/her mother! Are you suggesting otherwise?

they are certainly ignorant of many of the attributes of their mother - they would be unable to give an intelligible account of her to anyone

@bruised reed: In other words, they are not ignorant of their mother. Yes, you're correct.

Your emphatic statement signals a change in how you are using the word 'ignorant' and you don't realize it.

@bruised reed: Ignorance: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

@bruised reed: A baby NEVER lacks awareness of his/her mother.

yes - so according to that definition, a baby is ignorant regarding its mother

you are cherrypicking a minor part of the definition and ignoring the rest

@bruised reed: No, never. Ask any pediatrician this question, or any mother on the planet, and they will agree with me.

And you are using the word in the opposite sense in your answer - at least be consistent

@bruised reed: No, sir. You are cherry-picking.

by all means - educate me - how am I doing that exactly?

@bruised reed: Let a newborn breastfeed with his mother. Then let the mother go on a two week business trip. Was that infant ignorant of his mother? ;)

One would hope there is not a complete ignorance, but if they were stolen by another woman and raised as theirs would they know without being told - not necessarily.

there is actually a large measure of ignorance - the degree to how much is critical is debateable, but you show no sense of nuance of that in your answer

interesting discussion - gotta head off now - cya

@bruised reed: One would hope there is not a complete ignorance, but if they were stolen by another woman and raised as theirs would they know without being told - not necessarily. Yes! Yes! 1000 times... Yes! You just made my point! And that would be akin to a baby being raised in another household in another religion! And then this would be a way in which that baby could grow to be a man who is ignorant of the Christian God!

Just in case anyone is jumping in on this conversation, here are direct quotes from Scripture:

@JimG. With your edits, your answer is now significantly different to when it first started. But can you see, the real problem is not 'ignorance' per se, but revealed knowledge ignored - there is a big difference between the two and although there is a tenuous connection between the latter and 'ignorance', it is not common for people to define ignorance that way.

Hey, all! How are you?

A particular user consistently and obstinately uses poor grammar in his posts. I have taken to downvoting them for this, regardless if they are good posts or not.

First, what are other user's opinions on this? Right? Wrong? Justified? Useful and helpful? Not useful? Harmful?

Second, I have also began flagging them as low quality so other users can see it. Is that a good idea? Will they just be rejected? I don't want to get a high flag rejection rate for nothing.

Most recent installment

@fredsbend I'm inclined to give people a pass on poor writing on the basis that they may have dyslexia or something similar, but in that case he deliberately reverted the fixes in an apparent display of petty pique, so yes, I'm with you.

@fredsbend if it interferes with understanding and isn't actually a language barrier, then it is worth down voting perhaps, but if you can understand the meaning, then editing is a better approach

@TRiG Thanks. I'm sensitive to those trouble as well. In fact, we have had one with dyslexia and today one who is legally blind and uses a tts software to participate.

@AJHenderson Well, that's the rub with this guy. He has used proper grammar before and his posts have been edited as well, but he has undone it, intentionally editing the poor grammar back in. I'm not going to bother editing if he's just going to undo it.

@fredsbend yeah, then vote down and flag

it is vandalism at that point

You don't think my flags will be rejected? I'm worried about getting a high rejection rate for nothing.

try doing the edit

then if he reverts flag as vandalism

Now? On this new one?

What about all his future posts too? What's the point really when we know he is capable?

sure, on anything where he is reverting edits that are only touching up grammar

the point is to let moderators know so that they can take action about it

if a user is intentionally vandalizing their posts, that's often a significant enough issue for a moderator to contact the user

the big thing is it isn't really a low quality post neccessarily

especially if the meaning can still be gathered

but it is a problem if he's resisting efforts to improve it

Maybe I'll try that approach. We'll see if I'm up for it. It's more work than what I'm doing now.

@fredsbend I once went on a clean-up spree of Jim Tho's posts across several SE sites. That was the idea, anyway. I must admit I didn't get very far. I do actually enjoy editing (especially when a post needs complete rewriting, as many of his did), but it is tiring.

@AJHenderson I think I should take care of my grammar. ;-)

Evening all

@TRiG I see a similar thing happening for Robert soon, too.

^^^ To God Be The Glory ( Royal Albert Hall, London) :-)