Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How To Write Like Mark Zuckerberg

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the read-between-the-suspension-points dept.

Facebook 139

newguy77 found a story talking about the results of a linguistics expert being brought in on the Facebook ownership case. They claim the emails are faked since Zuckerberg uses apostrophes correctly and opens sentences more casually than the damning emails.

cancel ×

139 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350938)

Mark Zuckerberg is my hero.

Nobody other than Google have invaded more privacy while making more money than Facebook.

Truly an American icon.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351008)

You forgot the government.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (1)

meloneg (101248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351348)

He did specify that he was talking about groups that made money off their invasion of privacy. Lot's of people may make money off of the government's efforts at privacy-erosion, but they aren't the government itself.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351482)

The two don't have to be directly linked. They do both, and they're doing their damndest to make invading your privacy even more legal. I'm sure they do plenty of invading illegally too, when they can get away with it. The government also get money from those they help out, and the privacy erosion helps to ensure that any who want to dispose of the current crooked system get wiped out.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (1)

2names (531755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351490)

So, you call requiring every adult in the country to report all of their financial information every year to the government so that said government can tell each person how much money said government is going to forcibly take from each person NOT an invasion of privacy? (I hope that sentence didn't sound too much like Mark Zuckerberg.)

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (2)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351628)

No, I call that part of the social compact that defines society :p

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353390)

When did anyone sign said compact? In the case of immigrants, it's easy, because they make pledges and the like to enter. What about those of us born here? Is our signature made when we don't leave? Birth? I'm curious as to what others think.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (1)

JonStewartMill (1463117) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351664)

So, you call requiring every adult in the country to report all of their financial information every year to the government so that said government can tell each person how much money said government is going to forcibly take from each person NOT an invasion of privacy?

I don't. I call it a reasonable approach toward getting everyone who uses the common infrastructure to actually pay something approaching their fair share of society's costs. Maybe it's not the best approach, but it sure beats any proposals I've seen from the libertarians. Wait, have there even BEEN any? I'm not including the puerile rantings of Ayn Rand and her disciples.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (1)

2names (531755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351902)

Did you write that comment...wait for it...of your own free will?

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352288)

You haven't been paying attention. The (US) government hasn't been "making" money since Bill Clinton was in office.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351022)

I really don't want to write like Mark Zuckerberg.

Side note: raving fans like Sakura are able to differentiate themselves from their hatedoms, while still retaining the individual will to live.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (5, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351430)

The basic difference between the two is how they manage harvested data.

So, you come to Google, "I have this gizmo for sale, help me sell it." and Google goes "Fine, we found 2000 customers who purchased your gizmo, ship the gizmos here and here (or let us handle it), and here's your money, after we took our cut."

So, you come to Facebook, "I have this gizmo for sale, help me sell it." and Facebook goes "Fine, pay us our cut and here's your 20000000 records of our users data, emails, phones, home addresses, we guess at least 2000 of them are bound to be willing to buy your gizmo if you market it to them."

It's definite oversimplification but it seems your data is much safer with Google than with Facebook.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351690)

What you wrote was a simplification - if it had been an oversimplification, that little prefix, 'over', would mean you had gone too far in simplifying and there was no truth left in your statement. There's still plenty of truth in your two examples - the real contracts Google and Facebook use have proportionate and analogous differences in both just what they offer to do for a customer and how they treat the third party data they hold. You are making a good point - don't bury your own light under a bushel basket.

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352396)

The government sets tax rates to low for the services it provides.

A global military empire isn't cheap, and Americans are too stupid to fund it or end it, so it goes on our credit card.

To make things worse, Ameicans are so unforgivably stupid that they actually vote for tax cutting morons as a way to cut the deficit, which means the government loses money. In other words, the government doesn't make money, and you don't make sense.

Libertarians are the worst. They wouldn't know an unworkable governing system if it cockslapped their sister.

8==L=I=B=T=A=R=D==D ~~-.
Your slutty sister loves it >;-O

Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352768)

Easy to say coming from your garden-variety NYU Digg-reading liberal troll. The kind who would be $250k in debt if his daddy weren't making $750k/year sleeping at his executive desk job at the bank. And the type that is so smart that he invents everything that he knows.
 
I know, I know. Don't feed the trolls.

In a nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350944)

Mark Zuckerberg never makes mistakes.

grammar nazis find work (4, Interesting)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350956)

So all those years of being a grammar nazi can result in actual gainful employment? Who knew?

Also:

They claim the emails are faked since he uses Apostrophes correctly

But did he use Capitalization correctly?

Re:grammar nazis find work (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350976)

Well you now know that CmdrTaco will never be able to pass himself off as Zuckerberg since he was the one who added that sentence.

Re:grammar nazis find work (2, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350988)

In the US they only care about market capitalization.

Re:grammar nazis find work (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350996)

Perhaps they are referring to Frank Zappa's album called "Apostrophes (')"?

Re:grammar nazis find work (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351176)

It's more likely they are referring to the Frank Zappa album "Apostrophe (')", since he never made an album called "Apostrophes (')". ;p

Re:grammar nazis find work (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351256)

Yeah I caught it after I posted :p I type too quickly for my own good sometimes. I really should use the Preview more often.

Re:grammar nazis find work (0)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351960)

Isn't Apostrophes the great philosopher of the ancient island Gramatica?

Re:grammar nazis find work (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352052)

Perhaps they are referring to Frank Zappa's album called "Apostrophes (')"?

"Apostrophes" was the Greek scholar of Grammar.

In addition, a Thesaurus was a small dinosaur that used flowery language to extricate itself from dangerous situations. (Dennis Miller)

Re:grammar nazis find work (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352300)

Obviously you've never been to Apostrophes. It's in Greece. You should go. You can get great rates because of the debt crisis, and the weather is perfect this time of year. The best way to use Apostophes is as a getaway from Turkey, which is still chilly this time of year and makes you sleepy after you eat. BTW, Apostrophes used to be the Capital until they lost a war with neighboring city-state Athens in ancient times. Apparently ancient history and geography aren't being taught either.

The Real Mark Zuckerberg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350958)

By giving people the power, to share we're making the world, more transparent.

Re:The Real Mark Zuckerberg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351028)

By giving people the power, to share we're making the world, more transparent.

Obviously not Mark Zuckerberg.

Not a Reliable Method (0)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350980)

Zuckerburg's writing style of 2003 needs to be compared with emails of that era, not today. Furthermore, he could have been off on some random day in 2003 because he had a cold and wasn't thinking. This just isn't that reliable of method of determining authorship.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (4, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351024)

Zuckerburg's writing style of 2003 needs to be compared with emails of that era, not today. Furthermore, he could have been off on some random day in 2003 because he had a cold and wasn't thinking. This just isn't that reliable of method of determining authorship.

It is a reliable method of creating doubt though. Once he has doubt on his side, the case becomes a lot more difficult for his opponent.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351246)

The case is not being held to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt but rather the balance of probabilities.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351460)

I'm certain jurors will put aside their prejudices and think like a statician. I am rather curious (I am assuming this is a jury trial) who they managed to get for untampered jurors given how much "Facebook" is a household name, like Jello, Google, and Toyota.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351840)

First, many people (including my mother) have little to no idea what Facebook is.

Second, it isn't a criteria of jury selection that they never heard of the company.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352062)

First, many people (including my mother) have little to no idea what Facebook is.

Possibly though these people--at least by my observation--are becoming quite rare, and generally geriatric and very rural.

Second, it isn't a criteria of jury selection that they never heard of the company.

True, but from my experience people usually have a polarized opinion about the site.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

David Chappell (671429) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352744)

First, many people (including my mother) have little to no idea what Facebook is.

Possibly though these people--at least by my observation--are becoming quite rare, and generally geriatric and very rural.

Sure, Facebook is very popular, but I don't think one has to be computer illiterate in order to know "little or nothing" about it. Well, lets see what I know about Facebook:

  • It is a website
  • Its users create personal web pages
  • They can link these web pages to the web pages of other users
  • I suppose there are one or more ways for the users to send messages to one another
  • This website belongs to a category called "social networking"

I would call this "little or nothing". Nor do I think this weird. I know about Facebook about as much as I know about the NFL, Dancing with the Stars, or the Ford Motor Company.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352978)

That really doesn't have to do with the "bias" issue I was trying to raise. The goal of jury selection is to obtain a panel without preconceived bias. Lay persons such as you elude to with your example can very well, and as far as I can tell generally do have a strong opinion about the service. Typically favorable. An attack on Facebook is an attack on their way of life. Or, for those in the know, the opinion seems to strongly swing negative. For them an attack on Facebook would be a way to stick it to Zuckerburg for selling out people's privacy.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (0)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351074)

Things like spacing out ellipses as well as not using apostrophes correctly is a great sign of a computer illiterate, dumbass scam artist at work.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351104)

are* damnit. Always get myself with the re-writing of parts of sentences.

On a side note, I found it interesting that the Zuck capitalises "Internet". I suppose it's valid, though I've never thought to do so myself.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

zegota (1105649) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351194)

That's actually the proper way to write Internet, according to most style books. Grammatically, I'm not sure it matters.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351546)

Yes, it's a proper name of the network - like Fidonet, or Freenet. (as opposed to generic names like darknet or intranet. Ethernet, on the other hand, is a brand name.)

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352762)

Yeah, if it's a proper noun (as in referring to *the* Internet, then it should be capitalised). Back in the day the word internet may have been used as a common noun to describe *an* internet. That practice has probably declined.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351802)

On the other hand if you're a smartass silver-spoon kid you're going to write differently to your ivy-league friends than to a wood pallet salesman that you need favors from. You're going to dumb-down your writing so the wood pallet salesman can relate to you and won't think you're an elitist dweeb.

So if I was on the jury I don't think this evidence would really be that compelling.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (4, Informative)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351078)

According to the actual court document: " KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerbergexchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails

Re:Not a Reliable Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351098)

I was thinking the same thing. Emails I wrote in college (same time frame) are radically different than the emails I've written more recently. Beyond that, emails to different people have different amounts of care put into them, so some have good grammar and then others make you think I'm in grade school.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351450)

Right. On the other hand, is he going to write like a doofus to the owner of half his company? I'm not saying it doesn't have merit, it just isn't that reliable compared to other methods of determining authorship.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351116)

They used emails between Zuckerburg and Cegelia from that time period from his email account at Harvard. Not current emails.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351138)

They were compared with emails of that era.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351140)

Zuckerburg's writing style of 2003 needs to be compared with emails of that era, not today.

If you had read the article, you would have had the opportunity to read the report yourself, within which was the following:

I was retained in this matter by GIBSON DUNN and was asked to determine,to the extent possible, the authorship of a series of QUESTIONED writings excerpted into an Amended Complaint in this matter, by performing a stylistic analysis of those QUESTIONED writings vis-à-vis KNOWN reference writings of Mr. Mark Zuckerberg. KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerberg exchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails.

Certainly sounds like the comparison material was taken from the same time period as the presented document is suggested to have originated...

Re:Not a Reliable Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351178)

maybe he started using a little something called SPELL CHECK!!! www.awkwardengineer.com [awkwardengineer.com]

Re:Not a Reliable Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351584)

Why? Is he casting spells?

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351182)

The article didn't mention what samples were compared only that 35 of them were used. Maybe they used some from that time. Also according to Zuckerberg's side, Havard has no records of the "suspect" emails that are in question. That isn't definitive either but if Havard has all his other emails, it would make it less plausible that they are real.

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351272)

Maybe they used some from that time.

It's well beyond a "maybe".

KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerberg exchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails.

Jeez...

Re:Not a Reliable Method (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351464)

That is a more reliable method.

Styles change. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351032)

It's easy to learn to use apostrophes correctly, and find out that charm works better than being stiff.

I will admit, in general, it shouldn't change with all those points in just a few years, but it's hardly 'proof'... Just a likelihood. Certainly not enough to throw the case all on its own.

Re:Styles change. (0)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351106)

...and find out that charm works better than being stiff.

Ron Jeremy begs to differ.

Re:Styles change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351126)

RTFA According to the actual court document: " KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerbergexchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails

stolen from aladrin.

Re:Styles change. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351234)

yeah, I could write "proper" english quite well, but most of the time i wouldn't bother, however if I was writing something serious, like a blog posting that I knew would get printed on paper media and attributed to me as a writing then I might put in the effort to write in that style, style is also all about who will be doing the reading, I don't think Zuckerberg bothers maintaining specific style to every letter - and if it's a business dealing then it's quite usual to switch to a wholly different approach to writing.

but if some emails are all they got, it's not going to matter that much(I would think that they would need at least a money trail through some bank, some written things, photos and the whole 9 yards to prove now that they deserve all that internet money which is largely still just internet money, can't be cashed out).

You're not Zuckerberg. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351448)

You apparently can't be bothered to make the trivial motion required to use your shift key.

You're not Zuckerberg; and holding such laziness, I doubt you're capable of brutally executing like he has. Your anecdote, good sir, is invalid.

Re:Styles change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352018)

Clearly you don't think Slashdot posting is serious enough to write proper English for. Get 'em, boys!

Re:Styles change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351236)

Zuckerberg went to Harvard, so I assume he knew the rules of English grammar, then and now.

If there was a change in style over time, you'd expect it in the direction of being more casual rather than more strict, in keeping with the general twitter vibe.

Re:Styles change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351254)

Doesn't matter if sytles change. They have 175 emails between Zuckerburg and Cegelia from that period from the Harvard account. The comparison between styles was done with those. If two people are working together then there will be alot of email between the two. If the Cegelia emails don't match in style to the rest of the conversation then it is good evidense of a forgery.

Re:Styles change. (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351650)

I will admit, in general, it shouldn't change with all those points in just a few years

The whole point is that the linguistics experts compared the alleged fake emails to proven-real emails _from the same time_, not to his current ones.

Atleast I find it very much unlikely that Zuckerberg would've somehow unlearned how to use apostrophes, capitalization and ellipsis correctly every time he contacted the other person, but again picked up on the correct grammar every time he was communicating with other people.

Re:Styles change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36353172)

You are in college, somebody approaches you to do some business... of course you make sure that your apostrophes are in the right places, no?
When discussing beer and cheeks, who cares...

Re:Styles change. (1)

firewrought (36952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353192)

I find it very much unlikely that Zuckerberg would've somehow unlearned how to use apostrophes, capitalization and ellipsis correctly every time he contacted the other person, but again picked up on the correct grammar every time he was communicating with other people.

I see five possibilities:

  1. The emails are fabricated and Ceglia's claims are false.
  2. The emails are fabricated and Ceglia's claims are true in substance. (E.g., the emails were fabricated to bolster a weak but legitimate case.)
  3. The emails are not fabricated and the expert (who was hired by the defense) is compromised.
  4. The emails are not fabricated and Zuckerberg used a different linguistic style by accident. (E.g., personal style can shift depending on audience [do you cuss in front of your parents?] or technology [do you use shorthand when texting?].)
  5. The emails are not fabricated and Zuckerberg used a different linguistic style on purpose. (E..g, to purposefully deny authorship later.)

Interesting facets about these conclusions:

  • Conclusion 3 seems unlikely because the linguistic arguments stand on their own... you and I can read them and make sense out of it without problem (unlike, say, a debate about climate change). If there's a hole in the argument (such as incorrect citing or an incomplete corpus), the plaintiff will be able to find and explain it to a jury easily.
  • It's hard to imagine a college student to have the foresight required by conclusion 5, but as linguistic analysis becomes more widely known and understood by the general public, so too will the number of folks who deliberately plan this obfuscation ahead of time.
  • (Opinion) To me, the affidavit seems to overwhelmingly favor conclusion 1. If the emails were fabricated, watch for the plaintiffs to try ignore or hand-wave the linguistic arguments aside.

Re:Styles change. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353806)

I was actually rooting for that scum bag businessman Ceglia. Whatever, I still hate Zuckerbergs guts. Hes a big asshole that doesn't deserve his position in life. He came from money, had opportunities handed to him, acts like an asshole with his "Im CEO Bitch" business cards, isn't even as intelligent as that shitty movie makes him out to be, and stole the idea for his website from some other Harvard assholes. Hes as bad as those dickheads at Zynga that steal everyone's ideas and charge people for imaginary items. Funny how they are in cahoots. I don't even have a problem with Jewish people or any race for that matter, but Zuckerberg comes across as the biggest stereotype for the idea of what a "Jew" is by antisemitic people everywhere.

I'm conflicted (1)

Linsaran (728833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351084)

Can I still blame Facebook and other social media sites for the gradual acceptance of butchered English? Since Zuckerberg doesn't seem like he goes around shortening 'cause' to 'cuz', leaving 'I' as 'i' and neglecting punctuation wherever possible; can I still put part of the blame on him when it becomes proper 'english' to open a formal letter with 'sup', and close it with 'holla back'?

Re:I'm conflicted (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351118)

The blame probably goes much further back to something like IRC. Although that probably attracted a more intelligent crowd - perhaps blame AOL. Usually a safe move.

Re:I'm conflicted (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351462)

AOL wishes to plead innocence through reason of insanity.

Re:I'm conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351606)

You forgot your Oxford comma, and that misguided semi-colon makes you look like a fucking dumbass.

Also, you forgot to capitalize 'English'.

You're so far from being proper yourself that I can't possibly understand why you're bitching.

Zuckerberg in my pants (1)

slashpot (11017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351134)

I have Zuckerberg in my pants.

yeah, sure. (0)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351142)

The writing style of people never changes between 20 and 35. Its totally constant and als always the same regardless with whom they communicate.

Re:yeah, sure. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351230)

Try reading the article, the comparison documents were taken from the same period as the questionable document.

Slashdot commenters aren't even trying these days...

Re:yeah, sure. (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352546)

And while we're at it, there are ways a person's writing style might change and ways it simply never will.

        I just deliberately shifted to a more casual mode, by using the opening phrase "And while we're at it", as though I was standing physically next to 'Richard_at_work' and just adding my two cents without much reflection, immediately after he had finished. As part of giving my post that slightly more casual flavor, I used the contraction "we're". I might have been more formal than to presume acquaintance with 'Richard_at_work' just because I find myself in agreement with him on this point, but I'd feel pretty silly going to casual mode and then turning around and insisting on "we are".

            OTOH, I know the difference between the contraction 'it's' and the possessive 'its'. If for some reason I'm more concerned over getting an answer off quickly than writing well, I would still try to avoid mangling those two. I might write more run on sentences. I might fail to spot a case where I had a singular/plural mismatch. But, If all those things are happening many times as often as I usually make such mistakes, it's not a stylistic change, it's a cerebral haemorrhage. There are things that have become real pet peeves of mine - such as people using the word 'between' when there are less than three things implied in their statements. (an object has to be between at least two other objects - if there is only one other object, the first object is beside it, not between it). I'm never going to write 'for all intensive purposes', or call a porpoise a fish, or think a light year is a unit of time, and if I use etcetera more than once in a row, I'm channelling the King of Siam. My writing style simply won't change in such ways.

      I'll save time abbreviating On The Other Hand to a ETLA if I think the typical person I'm posting to will understand it. I'll push the envelope and use ETLA in a place such as Slashdot where some readers will recognise the joke. I'll ignore the English standard spell checker that wants me to go back up and ad a 'u' to 'flavor' in my second paragraph, and If I'd spelled 'recognise' with a z in common American fashion, I would have left it. However, when I caught myself writing "like Slashdot", I couldn't relax until I corrected that mistake.

          It's very unlikely anyone learns to write properly, in even the most modest degree, and doesn't pick up some pet peeves. They get worse, not better, with time.

Re:yeah, sure. (1)

bitflippant (2198664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353384)

Flavor only contracts for U ads in the US, In the UK the U is added automatically.

Re:yeah, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352626)

Actually, TFA never mentions the time period. You have to follow a link in TFA to the actual court documents.

Re:yeah, sure. (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351380)

And I'm needing chest-waders for all this BS and bad "science".

Re:yeah, sure. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351752)

Good thing that the linguist was comparing against emails from the same period of time, no?

Re:yeah, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352170)

Were they comparing emails addressed to the same persons too?
Because I bet it must be only you who uses the same writing style no matter if you are sending an email to your friends, your girlfriends, your teachers, your probation officer, ...

Re:yeah, sure. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352352)

Were they comparing emails addressed to the same persons too?

Yes.

KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerberg exchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails.

Re:yeah, sure. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352058)

The writing style of people never changes between 20 and 35. Its totally constant and als always the same regardless with whom they communicate.

A fact which should haunt you.

Grammar can change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351168)

a lot in 10 years.

Re:Grammar can change... (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352556)

Give a computer + Internet for 60 year old person and teach how to use email + chat and in few months grammar have changed a lot.
Give same for a 10-15 year old and you just get l33t or SMStalk

This Entire Lawsuit Just Makes Me Believe That (1)

The O Rly Factor (1977536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351224)

Now that Zuck has a good 12 billion to his name, he is really desperately trying to bury this skeleton in his closet by throwing money at it. Come on, we've all been 17 and unemployed at one time, and would sign just about any piece of paper that would promise us better work than bagging groceries. Sure Ceglia is a grade A scumbag, but so is Zuck, and he deserves to have a stupid mistake like this come back and bite him in the ass now that his ass is actually worth something.

Idea for a game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351334)

Mark Zuckerberg and the Privacy Mindbenders

Re:Idea for a game (2)

Trilkin (2042026) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351932)

Sounds more like a band name.

Bonus points for the semi-colon! (3, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351432)

Off-topic and pointless maybe, but I use them a lot in my own writing. I remember a handful of esoteric grammatical tips from way back in high school that I've found really help out with bringing the context of conversation to the written word. I'm no grammar god, but it's disappointing to see how much knowledge of the intricacies of our written language is being lost in the era of LOLs and ZOMGs. I'm a casual reader of the classics, and it's amazing how pervasive beautiful writing was even at the lowest tiers of education; e.g. Civil War-era letters from soldiers to their loved ones (lol).

Re:Bonus points for the semi-colon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351812)

One of my most common edits to Wikipedia articles is to replace commas with semi-colons; it's a dying art!

Re:Bonus points for the semi-colon! (2)

sodul (833177) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352096)

I would assume that the lowest tiers were not even able to read, so the soldiers you mention might have been the equivalent of upper middle class nowadays. See Literacy in North America [wikipedia.org] : "In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population was illiterate, and 80 percent of the black population was illiterate".

So when (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351492)

do they compare the emails in question to Ceglia's writing style?

roofl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351536)

ignorant slashdot niggers commenting in this article

the missing step (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351722)

1. steal idea
2. hack up code
3. lawyer up
4. profit!

our work is done

When CmdrTaco wrote Apostrphes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351738)

I think we all know he meant apostrophe's.

Sig-nature (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351936)

Pre-Investment Zuckerberg: j00 sux0r! 4ll ur B4ss R b3long 2 Z!

"On October 24, 2007, Microsoft announced that it had purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook for $240 million, giving Facebook a total implied value of around $15 billion." - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Post-Investment Zuckerberg: I, Mr. Zuckerberg, am sorry to inform you that you are inadequate for consideration. Hence force, I will purchase all of your base. To wit I declare, "For great justice."

The crux of the biscuit.... (1)

davek (18465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351950)

is the apostrophe [dweezilzappaworld.com]

aka (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352338)

American Standard Sociopath.

Harvard Student (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352670)

Who woulda thunk a Harvard student would have no problems keeping track of where apostrophes go. I can't imagine proper use of the English language was something that he only recently developed...

Re:Harvard Student (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353890)

Who woulda thunk a Harvard dropout would have no problems keeping track of where apostrophes go. I can't imagine proper use of the English language was something that he only recently developed...

There, fixed that for you.

you'll see a lot more of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352942)

anytime you see more circumstantial evidence, just remember "yep, slashdot told me this would happen."

The fact is, the case is so watertight that the only defense Facebook has is to deny the whole thing took place in any way, shape, or form - that it is a fabrication whole cloth. But it wasn't, so you can't have Zuckerberg on the jury stand saying "I've never met the guy, never signed that contract in the hotel room, never collaborated with him on a yearbook site" because it's not true, the Zuck would be in prison for perjury before you know it. So, instead, you will have Facebook adamantly insist that the whole thing is invented out of thin air, without Zuckerberg saying so himself in front of the camera; meanwhile Facebook will start producing circumstantial arguments in line with their "whole sale fraud" position.

Believe me, I've been on the other side of this. The facts are clear as daylight, Zuck is Fucked, and he can't say a word about it -- can't say a word matching Facebook's position. He has to hide behind facebook lawyers bringing up circumstantial refutations.

Remember, you heard it here first guys!

how come Zuckerberg doesn't come out and say he di (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36353072)

how come Zuckerberg doesn't come out and say "What! I never wrote ANY of those emails". That's what a real person's reaction would be, if they were this associated with a brand. Only a guilty party would say "Actually, let's see what this forensic expert has to say about these emails".

A fun version (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353210)

Similar in technique to this: http://iwl.me/ [iwl.me] - give it a few paragraphs of your own writing and you'll get a comparison to some famous person or other.

Simple (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353794)

He has a better version of office than he had back then.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>