I am far above the literacy standards in my country. I do not know why I even bother coming here because most people on this board have not read 300+ classic books. I have. And I am much smarter than all of you. Through all standardised tests, I am a master of the English language.
>>24883896Uh huh. That's why you had to tell everyone what a big smart boy you are.
>>24883896>I do not know why I even bother coming here because most people on this board have not read 300+ classic booksIsn't that a better reason to come here? You will know everything about classics, thus you can teach and guide others and refute retards
>>24883897Something tells me you have not read Christopher "Kit" Marlowe's entire corpus, nor grasped the weightiness of John Milton's oeuvre...
>>24883900You may not realise this, but smart people have to scaffold for the dumber interlocutors. I need to disrupt my day by doing so. I boil down complex texts and world-spanning themes into the rudimentary broth of basic information, so that I can spoonfeed those that I am trying to teach. This is just so the dumber interlocutors get anything out of what is being discussed. It's called the Zone of Proximal Development, and I am doing free labour by trying to lift people out of ignorance. I see no benefit in conversing with a stupid illiterate unless they do some of the heavy lifting, which means reading every day and reflecting on their learning process. Most people do not even do that in a classroom.
>>24883905So you came here literally just to brag? Very good.
>>24883906Did you even understand what I said? Did the complex verbiage, those strange lemmas, make your eyes glaze over? I do not take it you ever did very well in school.
>>24883908lmao
>>24883896Quick open your mouth OP, I can't hold it for much longer!>starts pissing profusely!!
>>24883912Is this to be vulgarity, as a jibe, or do you insult my intelligence through sheer obscene dehumanisation? A curious creature, the gods have made,This dullard may think its thoughts forbade!
>>24883902I dabble in the finer readings of Dr. Seuss and J.K. Rowling.
>>24883965This board is for children.
>>24883896>I don’t know why I come here Me either, you should stop
>>24884053A "literature board" for dullards who cannot read.
>>24883896I will think about this issue
>>24884264Cute little photo you saved on your computer. Have you even read a fucking book before, please be honest. You sound like one of those "visual learners" who gets everything mediated through the internet or social media, so the thinking is already done for you.
It is very funny, this intellectual posturing while doing nothing but waiting on these people supposedly beneath your notice. You can respond to this in a smug way and then I can respond to that response in a smug way. We can take turns, and eventually one of us will either be slightly more smug, or the thread will be archived from reaching the post limit. This is great.
>>24884536I'm just trying to lift you out of ignorance out of my benevolence and beneficence.
>>24883896I'm getting second hand embarrassment from reading your posts. Surely this is bait?
>>24884548>t. didn't get perfect marks in school
if op's so smart and insightful how come i never see any smart and insightful posts on this board
>>24884590My good fellow, one cannot blame the sun for failing to illuminate a room whose occupants insist on drawing the curtains.
>>24884591i'm serious, i never see any good posts on here except my own, yet you say you've been worn down by your constant efforts to spread the light of your knowledge. i see plenty of posts by people more well-read than me, by they seem to waste their education on bickering about the canon, or power ranking the Greats, or determining who influenced who, and from the way you post here i kind of think you might be one of that lot.
>>24884600plus at the risk of sounding even madder than i am (and i'm mad because i also hate the sorry state of this board and the general lack of imagination among posters) i should add that in no period of english literature would the phrase 'grasped the weightiness of John Milton's oeuvre' have been considered good style
>>24884614When it comes to quips and insults, anonymous here is lacking. Your thoughts amount to a tame, insipid abortion. You are a lost, lesbian Napoleon, dawdling idly in the literary section of a bookstore when you should go back to the YA shelf with the assorted board games.
>>24883896You’re doing a parody of some self obsessed fucktard but it brings up an annoyance of mine; when people want to have some moral lesson about not assuming competency. Like we just can’t know if someone is smart, or they start rambling about Dunning-Kruger or say something about “studies say” people overestimate their skills so confidence is bad it means you know nothing. Except “studies say” relies on psychometrics being valid to begin with and the strongest part of said psychometrics concern IQ testing and determining competency in specific skills which is why we use them as the basis for the entire educational system. Most countries have an SAT equivalent and they can be mapped to IQ distributions. It’s not accidental and that’s the entire point. So when faced with the question if you feel like you’re smarter than other people you’re just not allowed to make it an empirical question of fact. Because that suggests whatever unhealthy priors about your personality. It’s as if people in Olympic weight lifting competitions were asked if they “feel stronger” than other people and then got a “tut tut” if they answer in the affirmative. But because we’re to pretend intelligence is unmeasurable mysticism (except for all the cases in life we absolutely don’t) then it’s not allowed.
>>24884631That's because intelligence is extremely broad and has many different applications. It isn't as straightforward as strength, which is a linear, objective trait that can be mapped against bodyweight, height, age, limb length, and sex. >But because we’re to pretend intelligence is unmeasurable mysticism (except for all the cases in life we absolutely don’t) then it’s not allowed.Define intelligence.
>>24884616'When it comes to quips and insults' - hard to imagine a stronger opening in response to a quip or insult. i can see you knowledge of elizabethan stagecraft has payed off, and i apologise for underestimating your powers of composition.
>>24884653Strain to type this out?
Show don't tell.
>>24884657i don't get this one, sorry
>>24884661Chekhov's gun...
>>24883896You speak of scaffolding, yet it is your ego that requires constant structural support. A man who has truly read Milton would understand the difference between height and hollow elevationVanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas
>>24884688You don't know what the term "scaffolding" means, do you?https://www.structural-learning.com/post/scaffolding-in-education-a-teachers-guide
>>24884692Every post you make is going to be undermined by the fact you created a thread as pathetic and needy as this in the first place.
>>24884523digital is the way
>>24884692Apparently, you don't know, or you've already forgotten what you wrote in your previous posts. At this point, I believe you're a bot with an LLM trained on aristocratic and decadent literature, because otherwise, your writing wouldn't feel so artificial and annoying.
>>24884715Poor Anonymous! His fancy is so feeble that, finding no purchase upon the heights of my wit, he must suppose some infernal machine devised it for me—since his own imagination could never climb so far.
