Just had a pretty entertaining Pharos run.

[Huntington]

Without lowering this to an argument of semantics, anyone that speaks English wouldn't need to doubt the veracity of the two words being used in a simple fashion unless they wanted to make an argument over it in the first place.

[Bombast]

Without lowering this to an argument of semantics, anyone that speaks English wouldn't need to doubt the veracity of the two words being used in a simple fashion unless they wanted to make an argument over it in the first place.

No. You need to understand this.

Alexander the Great was not named that because he was decent. The Great Wall of China is not named as such because it was 'adequate.' They were named as such because they were exceptional, above the normal, and far beyond 'decent.'

This isn't semantics. This is either you backpedaling from a mistake, or displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of basic English vocabulary, both as a dictionary example and as it is commonly used in normal speech.

[Huntington]

No. You need to understand this.

Alexander the Great was not named that because he was decent. The Great Wall of China is not named as such because it was 'adequate.' They were named as such because they were exceptional, above the normal, and far beyond 'decent.'

This isn't semantics. This is either you backpedaling from a mistake, or displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of basic English vocabulary, both as a dictionary example and as it is commonly used in normal speech.

A large vocabulary is one of my strong-suits, because a word might not fit it's literal Encyclopedia Britannica usage does not mean I can't easily use both words in a similar context. Exceptional, Fantastic, Superb, Phenomenal. Any of those could be supplemented for "Great". Because Decent might have a different listed description does not mean they aren't still similar in some facets.

"Oh hey did you go see that new movie? I thought it was pretty great."
"Ehh, it was decent I suppose."

So Dude A thinks it was Great, Dude B said it was only decent. Therefore someone doesn't know how to use rudimentary English because two words weren't identical to the point that you can't make a distinction between them. That about right?

@Madoka, with all the attitude and cursing and shouting you were doing to the OP in the other large thread in the DPS section, I wouldn't be inclined to believe you on anything except for the fact that your attitude is probably worse than mine.
Example:

Again, a real pet class would not work in this game.
You physically cannot control two avatars at once in any capacity to do end game content. And a "real summoner" would not work either as you'd just be casting one long thing to make a summon show up and nuke an area. That's not fucking fun for an MMO. You'd be a blm with ifrit popping up to shit out the fire 3. XIV's summoner is actually the first time where they tried something besides "X + bahamut access" in any FF title
An SMNs working the way they used do only works with the ATB system anyway, look at bravely default. Summoner is probably the worst class in the game despite being the strongest a summoner has ever been.

Logical points of unique class LBs, or discussing what future pet roles will be is fine. Complaining about SMN and asking for a complete class revamp from the ground up is retarded and would piss off far more players than you realize AND would serve no goddamn purpose. Who gives a shit if we're a WoW warlock with a green turret, we're still a more fun class than nearly every other dps in the game and strong as hell to boot."

Rage much?

(Hit my posting limit for the day, I'm out. Bombast, baby, you know Hunt, since I know have a pet name now I guess, is not even on the same page as "Deficient". Y u do dis 2 me?")

[Bombast]

A large vocabulary is one of my strong-suits, because a word might not fit it's literal Encyclopedia Britannica usage does not mean I can't easily use both words in a similar context. Exceptional, Fantastic, Superb, Phenomenal. Any of those could be supplemented for "Great". Because Decent might have a different listed description does not mean they aren't still similar in some facets.

"Oh hey did you go see that new movie? I thought it was pretty great."
"Ehh, it was decent I suppose."

So Dude A thinks it was Great, Dude B said it was only decent. Therefore someone doesn't know how to use rudimentary English because two words weren't identical to the point that you can't make a distinction between them. That about right?

@Madoka, with all the attitude and cursing and shouting you were doing to the OP in the other large thread in the DPS section, I wouldn't be inclined to believe you on anything except for the fact that your attitude is probably worse than mine.

I'll give you this, Hunt. You are blowing my mind.

As they say elsewhere on the internet, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your trolling, and not simply deficient.

[Viridiana]

A large vocabulary is one of my strong-suits, because a word might not fit it's literal Encyclopedia Britannica usage does not mean I can't easily use both words in a similar context. Exceptional, Fantastic, Superb, Phenomenal. Any of those could be supplemented for "Great". Because Decent might have a different listed description does not mean they aren't still similar in some facets.

"Oh hey did you go see that new movie? I thought it was pretty great."
"Ehh, it was decent I suppose."

So Dude A thinks it was Great, Dude B said it was only decent. Therefore someone doesn't know how to use rudimentary English because two words weren't identical to the point that you can't make a distinction between them. That about right?

If you're going to claim to look educated in your posts, I have no qualms tearing them apart.

1) "Strong suit" should not be hyphenated.

2) Your first sentence is a run-on sentence.

3) It's is the contraction for it is. What you want here is its.

4) Encyclopedia Britannica, as a title of an encyclopedia, should be italicized.

5) You should avoid starting noun clauses with because. Even if you want to argue that it's grammatically correct, you'll meet a lot of opposition. Of course, opposition to your ideas should be nothing new to you at this point.

6) Your second sentence is a fragment.

7) Each of those words has its own connotations. While each may be somewhat similar to great, to say that they are completely interchangeable is dishonest.

8) The first sentence of your dialogue is missing two commas.

9) The second one is missing another comma.

10) Your first sentence after the dialogue is a run-on. In addition, it's missing a comma.

11) In the same sentence, you capitalize one word you're talking about, but you don't capitalize the other. There's no reason to capitalize either word. Besides which, this sentence shows a lack of consistency.

12) The next sentence is missing a comma.

Well, that's a dozen mistakes over three short paragraphs from someone who claims he looks educated in his posts. I wonder what would happen if I scrutinized all of your posts in this thread.

[Huntington]

If you're going to claim to look educated in your posts, I have no qualms tearing them apart.

1) "Strong suit" should not be hyphenated.
Agreed, that was a mistake.

2) Your first sentence is a run-on sentence.
I disagree here, it does not need to be needlessly broken up into two sentences. What grammatical indication is there that it's not a complete sentence with a subject and a predicate?

3) It's is the contraction for it is. What you want here is its.
I agree.

4) Encyclopedia Britannica, as a title of an encyclopedia, should be italicized.
If I was writing a College doctorate maybe, usage outside of professional writings doesn't mean I need to be using Bold or other font styles.
5) You should avoid starting noun clauses with because. Even if you want to argue that it's grammatically correct, you'll meet a lot of opposition. Of course, opposition to your ideas should be nothing new to you at this point.
"Because" can qualify in either manner, some will say it can work. Some won't. The fact there though is that most will say it should be avoided just to be safe, half-point to you.

6) Your second sentence is a fragment.
Agreed.

7) Each of those words has its own connotations. While each may be somewhat similar to great, to say that they are completely interchangeable is dishonest.
Dishonest? I'm not sure that's actually a valid reasoning for how something can be wrong when it's just going to be used in any old sentence. Maybe if I was writing something akin to the Declaration of Independence or Geneva Convention, then maybe.
8) The first sentence of your dialogue is missing two commas.
If you mean: "Oh, hey, did you go see that new movie?" then no, there does not necessarily have to be a comma there, either usage is fine. Simply saying it's wrong does not mean it is unless you're going to provide guidelines that say so.
9) The second one is missing another comma.
Also a matter of opinion, there is no absolute that says there needs to be a second comma present, that's redundant.

10) Your first sentence after the dialogue is a run-on. In addition, it's missing a comma.
You just earlier said a sentence like that would be a fragment, if there is not a subject and predicate to each sentence, it cannot be split into two. Validation for this?

11) In the same sentence, you capitalize one word you're talking about, but you don't capitalize the other. There's no reason to capitalize either word. Besides which, this sentence shows a lack of consistency.
I have an honest tendency to do that, if I'm making a point to illustrate on a word, I'll often capitalize it even if it's not a person, place, or thing. Oops.
12) The next sentence is missing a comma.
Where would the comma go? After "because"? I don't see any other area for one to go if that's not it. That one is up to debate.

Well, that's a dozen mistakes over three short paragraphs from someone who claims he looks educated in his posts. I wonder what would happen if I scrutinized all of your posts in this thread.
It's also a lot of "mistakes" that most Colleges or readers would not frown upon because none of them heavily detract from the point the writing was still making, it's nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

There's a clear and evident difference though to something that seems to be from someone that's educated and posts that are just barren wastelands of spelling errors and improper usages of certain words. Mine may have mistakes, but they certainly look better than a lot of other ones that I see. Have you ever made a mistake? Maybe you'd like to take us on a tour of all of your previous writings.

[Viridiana]

I disagree here, it does not need to be needlessly broken up into two sentences. What grammatical indication is there that it's not a complete sentence with a subject and a predicate?

The problem is not a missing subject or predicate. Rather, the problem is that you have two subjects and predicates expressing two complete ideas with nothing to properly separate them. That makes it a run-on sentence. To correct only the run-on aspect, it should read as follows:

A large vocabulary is one of my strong-suits. Because a word might not fit it's literal Encyclopedia Britannica usage does not mean I can't easily use both words in a similar context.

Alternately, you could change the comma to a semicolon. Either change would properly mark both clauses as independent clauses and make the sentence grammatically correct.

If I was writing a College doctorate maybe, usage outside of professional writings doesn't mean I need to be using Bold or other font styles.

That was should be a were. As to the actual point of the sentence, I've yet to see a grammar publication that says that the rules are mutable based on context. As such, it should be italicized.

If you mean: "Oh, hey, did you go see that new movie?" then no, there does not necessarily have to be a comma there, either usage is fine. Simply saying it's wrong does not mean it is unless you're going to provide guidelines that say so.

Here, you provide another run-on sentence. You should probably stop doing that if you want to continue to say your posts make you look educated. Also, the reference you request is here. Specifically, see the last portion of section 4, which deals with interjections such as hey.

Also a matter of opinion, there is no absolute that says there needs to be a second comma present, that's redundant.

If you continue to make run-on sentences, I'll be tempted to start a tally. Regardless, the phrase "I suppose" is another interjection, and interjections should be separated by commas.

You just earlier said a sentence like that would be a fragment, if there is not a subject and predicate to each sentence, it cannot be split into two. Validation for this?

Really, though, do you intend to write a run-on sentence in every paragraph? I'm starting to think that you don't even know what a run-on sentence is, because the difference between the sentences I tell you are run-on sentences and the one I call a fragment is night and day. The first sentence after your dialogue has two subjects, two predicates, and two complete thoughts. It lacks a comma and coordinating conjunction or a semicolon to separate those complete thoughts. As such, it is a run-on sentence.

Where would the comma go? After "because"? I don't see any other area for one to go if that's not it. That one is up to debate.

Actually, I was thinking it would go after the interjection you started the sentence with.

Have you ever made a mistake? Maybe you'd like to take us on a tour of all of your previous writings.

Oh, by no means are my posts perfect. On the other hand, try finding a post where I say my writing style makes me look educated.

[LukeyP666]

Something, something... Titan... Arcanist better... Educated... Something else...

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

As a Main Tank, I would also have had you kicked from the Duty for being a troll.