*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

The Associated Press Stylebook gives context clues.

[Poopadoop]

The Associated Press Stylebook gives context clues.

Just admit that you heard it somewhere and ran with it and leave it at that.

Linguists who invented the term used 'cues'. They still do.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...c+context+cues


Laypeople who heard 'cue' and thought they heard 'clue' changed it to 'context clues'.

And it doesn't matter because everyone knows it's the same basic idea behind both terms. It was fun watching you google yourself silly over it though.

[spoonitnow]

Just admit that you heard it somewhere and ran with it and leave it at that.

Linguists who invented the term used 'cues'. They still do.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...c+context+cues


Laypeople who heard 'cue' and thought they heard 'clue' changed it to 'context clues'.

And it doesn't matter because everyone knows it's the same basic idea behind both terms. It was fun watching you google yourself silly over it though.

Feel free to keep digging yourself into a hole on this.



The usage is 57:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years for general usage and 23:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years in published papers.

[Poopadoop]

Feel free to keep digging yourself into a hole on this.



The usage is 57:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years for general usage and 23:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years in published papers.

You're confusing (again) scholars who coin a term with laypeople who change it to something else.

I love that your scientific arguments rests squarely on the shoulders of what you learn from google. Can't wait till you start citing wiki.

[Poopadoop]

Scholars don't use google for research. Students and laypeople do.

This is one search engine scholars use:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...c+context+cues (553 hits)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...+context+clues (26 hits)

Since you're good at math, you'll quickly see that's about a 21.3:1 ratio of academics who publish using 'cues'.


What happens is that students, and a lot of other laypeople, hear 'context cues' and think they heard 'context clues'. Then they go to google to learn about it cause they're not sophisticated enough to use a proper scientific search engine.

And then later, some guy who knows nothing about the topic but heard 'context clues' being used by someone else and wants to win an argument with some guy who does know, uses google search numbers to prove he's not alone in his ignorance.

[spoonitnow]

Scholars don't use google for research. Students and laypeople do.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how Google Scholar works or what its purpose is.

This is one search engine scholars use:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...c+context+cues (553 hits)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...+context+clues (26 hits)

Since you're good at math, you'll quickly see that's about a 21.3:1 ratio of academics who publish using 'cues'.

Pubmed is hardly a representative source for the issue at hand. Moreover, your lack of quotation marks shows you have no idea to use the tools that you're describing or what the difference is between using them and not, but since you've clearly been proven wrong and just want to yap, I'll let you yap in the CUCKposting thread if you decide you want to continue on this topic.

[Jack Sawyer]

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how Google Scholar works or what its purpose is.



Pubmed is hardly a representative source for the issue at hand. Moreover, your lack of quotation marks shows you have no idea to use the tools that you're describing or what the difference is between using them and not, but since you've clearly been proven wrong and just want to yap, I'll let you yap in the CUCKposting thread if you decide you want to continue on this topic.

How gracious of you

[Poopadoop]

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how Google Scholar works or what its purpose is.

I wouldn't know cause i don't use it. And the only people I do know who use it are people who don't know any better.

Pubmed is hardly a representative source for the issue at hand.

Just a guess, but I imagine this is the first time you've heard of pubmed, much less seen it. Interesting that you're so quickly able to judge its relevance though.

Moreover, your lack of quotation marks shows you have no idea to use the tools that you're describing or what the difference is between using them and not,

hahaha. Now comes the changing of the topic to ad hominen.

but since you've clearly been proven wrong and just want to yap, I'll let you yap in the CUCKposting thread if you decide you want to continue on this topic.

That's your happy place buddy. You go there.