Comments on: The Simple Dollar Weekly Roundup: Sister-In-Law Visit Edition

By: Leah W.

Leah W. — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:20:15 +0000

Pnut, #32, no you aren’t. Trent, next time a woman comes to visit you, never tell her it “should be a fun PERIOD.”

Duh!

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:04:05 +0000

Michelle et al are correct about the usage of “actually” in this context. It implies that this is unusual. I think Trent is the type of person who welcomes others’ perspectives in order to improve his writing, so I think bringing it up here is appropriate.

By: jackie.n

jackie.n — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:33:37 +0000

@45. is it a personal crusade if you don’t know the individual personally? PERSONALLY i don’t feel that pointing out false information re: tax information/retirement advice dispensed to the TSD mass audience could conceivably be construed as “stalking”. JMHO.

By: AnnJo

AnnJo — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:50:12 +0000

Johanna raises an interesting point at @13, but a) begging pretty much gets past the ‘dignity’ issue to start with, and b) it stands to reason that a fair number of people who are begging for money are indeed too “stupid or untrustworthy” (or more likely drug or alcohol impaired) to manage their own money. Does giving those people money help them or harm them? Since the only reason any of us would be likely to want to give money to total strangers is to help them, that question needs to be answered.

I feel more comfortable making cash donations to organizations that are competent to make those judgments, like the Salvation Army.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:46:06 +0000

@Gal: Do you really mean to imply that posting comments on a blog that allows comments is anything at all like stalking? Because if you are, then wow.

By: Gal @ Equally Happy

Gal @ Equally Happy — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:25:37 +0000

But if you are really that upset about Trent’s writing, why are you still here? There are a thousand and one PF bloggers for you to stalk and correct. Heck, if you want a target rich audience, try some of the personal fitness bloggers and enjoy correcting posts about homeopathy and primal living. What’s the point of this personal crusade against Trent?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:08:02 +0000

Re: panhandlers–The moment you give your money to anyone it ceases to be yours and becomes theirs to do with as they see fit. It what they want to do is buy drugs or alcohol that is what they will do. If this bothers you do not give them money! Just don’t whine about your lack of control.

By: JackieBooks

JackieBooks — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:52:01 +0000

I don’t think Trent was being mysogynistic at all.I think he was using an informal writing style, like “wow, I actually like my in-laws!” At the same time, feminist criticisms should not be shot down by commenters implying that a feminist education is bad and something that should be made fun of. Hey Borealis, lemme guess what you are! Baby Boomer with too much time on his hands? Start giving people the benefit of the doubt. It’s easier!

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:55:28 +0000

Marta hit it on the head. There’s a reason why the tone in the comment section has developed (devolved?) to this point. With a few exceptions, I don’t think people really want to “hate on” Trent.

By: marta

marta — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:53:28 +0000

@Bill: ha, that’s my trick for the “I/me” issue and it’s surprisingly easy, too.

And here you have another boggling thing: the “professional writer”, who does a “pile” of writing drills and whatnot, can’t figure this out, even after many people have explained this (with different degrees of politeness, I’ll admit).

By: David

David — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:45:16 +0000

No, no. The grammarians would reject “negativity is not” on the grounds that it is a double negative, while the logicians would reject it on the grounds that it is a tautology. You can’t win, but this does not mean that you shouldn’t try.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:43:53 +0000

@#37 Borealis

I would never criticize Trent’s grammar or spelling as it is far better than I could do.

However,

I have never understood when to use I or me. A comment I read here gave this nugget of wisdom “leave out the first person and see if the sentence still works”. That made more sense to me than all the ‘object of the adjective adverb’ stuff.

I’ve been so secretly proud of working in ‘me’ properly into written conversation.

I consider that ‘negative’ comment very ‘constructive’, I learned something I’ve struggled with for a long time.

By: marta

marta — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:41:15 +0000

Borealis, many people have left many *constructive* comments, pointing out (politely) which aspects of the blog/post/whatever could be improved. But after it becomes pretty obvious that Trent doesn’t care about constructive criticism, you can’t blame people for getting a tad cranky in their comments. One instance is the constant erroneous tax “advice”, without Trent ever acknowledging or correcting it, even after comments point it out. Or the weird insistence that a Roth IRA is the way to go (because taxes are going up), despite comments repeatedly stating that you don’t pay taxes on your money until a certain threshold, and so on, and on.

It’s not about “hating” Trent. It’s about reading all these poorly researched posts and then groaning inwardly whenever Trent claims this blog and writing to be his passion.

By: Borealis

Borealis — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:11:19 +0000

I am glad all you Trent Hating guys are looking out for what is best for Trent. However if you actually consider his thoughts, try reading below the comments you type:

“Constructive comments of all kinds are welcome. Negativity is not.”

By: jackie.n

jackie.n — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:00:05 +0000

i agree with interested reader and adam. i think there would be a different mindset if this blog was a “hobby”. anyone who reads this blog regularly knows this is trent’s job, aka line of work/livelihood. to profess that this is your passion and that all you have dreamed of was to be a writer doesn’t make sense if you ignore suggestions to improve on the very basics–grammar, sentence structure, mispellings, overuse of some words (simply, actually, whatever the flavor of the day). this is the face of your business. this is your career. you are married to an educator of children. i am curious as to your wife’s take on the comment section of your posts.
people interested in personal finance will read other blogs and compare, and possibly comment. i would think anyone in the business of financial blogging would welcome input and consider all feedback to improve and capitalize on this particular “income stream”.

By: Borealis

Borealis — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:50:01 +0000

The “unintended subconscious misogyny” is the most insidious kind, because it reveals the mind of the listener and not the speaker.

By: Marsha

Marsha — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:34:05 +0000

@18 Adam P.–

Well, there’s at least two of us.

By: Des

Des — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:10:20 +0000

“unintended subconscious misogyny” is the most insidious kind, and is also the only kind worth pointing out (since, we can assume, the intended conscious kind would be obvious to everybody).

By: Johanna

Johanna — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:35:23 +0000

“Quite” is worth avoiding, if only because it has two possible meanings that are almost opposites: It can mean “very much” or “completely,” or it can mean “somewhat” or “partially.” Which meaning you see in a particular context depends on what variant of English you grew up speaking – some variants don’t have the second meaning at all. So there’s potential for confusion there.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:13:42 +0000

Regarding word choice, I thought “quite” was more awkward than “actually”.

Anyone with me? This may be a personal preference. I prefer a spare style.