Forum Policies- Crackpot Theories
The web wouldn't be the web without its crackpot theories, and we have been honoured with a fair number of these, ranging from the latest artificial universal language that promises world peace and happiness before disappearing without trace to novel ways of viewing the English language, including a theory about how English would have to become a tonal language as we can only remember a tiny fraction of the number of words Chinese speakers can commit to memory, and have also declined disastrously in our memorisation powers since Shakespeare's time, though the connection to tonal languages and our historical decline was less clear.
Sadly, the academic world had refused to publish this theory because it was backed up with made-up statistics rather than proper ones, so we were regarded as publishers of last resort. We've also had, among others, a taster of a revolutionary view of phrasal verbs and a view of stative verbs that was reinforced by a conspiracy theory about native speakers, who are often viewed as an obstacle by such theorists.
As long as the crackpot theorist doesn't expect to make too many converts, can keep any racism or hatred of native speakers in check, and has a reasonably thick skin and sense of humour or proportion, there shouldn't be any problem. People are free to express their views, and that can include criticism of the theory, which is where sparks tend to fly and fights start. None of the crackpot theories posted has been deleted, but some of the theorists have been banned, not for their theories, however colourful and imaginative, but for breaking forum rules about getting abusive and fighting.
Categories: Editorial Policies
ARE YOU trying to INFER that i am a potcrack??!?? And I am abusively?!?! I will have you KNOWN that my theories in stative VERBAL PHRASES (GET IT RIGHT!!!)have been disregarded by leading proffesors through the world. Unless you immediately and PUBICALLY RECANT your SLENDER !!! I shall make sure that you and all IGNORANT NAIVE SPEAKERS can never work in the world more.
How exactly does the fact that leading professors disregard a theory prove it is right?
I have to wonder if ENGLISHPROFESSIONAL is being deliberately humorous. :-)