Video: The Syndicate Play 2 Truths, 1 Lie

 Cringey but true I suppose.

 @willdavidson9595: Yea I guess so. I understand all the negativity surrounding paywall this, lame article that. I guess sometimes I just get disappointed how everyone comes into the comments section guns blazing ready to roast pb for whatever they can. I am not innocent of this myself, but I would love to see us all as a community realize how cool it is that a bunch of weirdo mountain bikers can all globally joke around and harass each other in good fun online, and take it upon ourselves to continue to invest in promoting a more positive response and culture within pinkbike. I'd love to be known as a group of fun loving positive and encouraging mountain bikers here on pinkbike. It would only help the general attitude of everyone within the sport.

 @sonuvagun: You missed the "would," which makes what he said still grammatically correct.

 @person-named-john: How? I am reasonably sure you don't know what you're talking about. But it wouldn't be the first time I've ever been wrong, so please explain to me what you mean with an example.

My case is this:

If we would + action, then we would + present simple = wrong. It's just plain ol' grammatically wrong.
If we + past simple, then we would + present simple = right.

 @sonuvagun: I think I understand, but I'll be honest, I don't have the grammatical proof to back anything up. "If we all just rode bikes more" would be correct, but I don't see what's wrong with "If we would all just ride bikes more." Maybe the first is more correct than the second, but either works for me, and gets the point across. It could also be something that doesn't inhibit understanding at all, while getting the message across and sounding reasonably correct to most people (sort of like the decreasing use of "whom" in the US - does it lead to inaccuracies? Technically. Do those matter? Not really imo) (Sorry to everyone else reading this). Technically speaking though, you probably are right.

 @person-named-john: The grammatical proof doesn't exist to back you up.
My interpretation of what you're arguing is if enough people make the mistake then it must be right, in some way. If so, then to the extent that people understand it, then yes, I see what you're saying. But it's still incorrect, and to your credit, you've conceded as much.

The thing is language is code and the rules of grammar, syntax, etc exist to help us express ideas. Deferring to ignorance in order to reset code worsens communication. If a person were to take that route then they might as well go all the way and just grunt and hope everyone works out what they mean.

Does this potentially make me a c*nt by c*nting it up over grammar points on pb?
Yes, but I couldn't give a toss.

 @sonuvagun: Ok, makes sense.

 @sonuvagun: @sonuvagun: dude... if you're so into language, you would know its a fluid thing, influenced by time, culture, etc. Also... just chill tf out. This is the kind of shit I'm trying to say needs to be lessened and it seems most people agree.

 @dairydolores: Chill tf out? I guess it's easy to give away advice when you're not using it.
But, nothing I wrote should have led you to the conclusion that I might be unaware of the fluidity of language and how it changes. That said, placing "would" in the clause of a conditional is just an error of ignorance, it communicates you don't know have a solid grasp of your own language.
Take your last sentence is exhibit A; aside from making no sense, it showcases ignorant reasoning. If popularity were the measure to go by, then fast food, tik tok, and video games would all be healthy and wise choices.
I get it, you didn't know any better and you'll be damned if you learn anything. Don't let me get in the way of that.

 @sonuvagun: yikes

 Should’ve seen the other guy

 yeah, the last one with you and your boyfriend was subpar thb!

 Ummm sarcasm?

 To be fair I would assume any carbon fram would snap when it gets shit whipped into a solid post going half the speed Minaar rides.