Dueling quotes [Archive] - pistol-forum.com

CCT125US

08-20-2011, 11:35 AM

Quote 1: How does the amateur define right? This implies that there is a test of some sort with a clear cut winner... does the amateur know enough to determine what test is an accurate test of abilities? Also, how do we define the word Pro? This is usually reserved for those that get paid handsomely or are highly regarded by their peer group in that field. The pro would have access to the appropriate "tests" to determine ability... however just because some people are good at tests does not always translate into real life / match / win results. Training to push yourself to get it right simply means you have studied / shot / practiced enough to get it right.... on that test.

Quote 2: Again, how does the amateur define excellence? They would be looking at some metric or skill set as laid out by the "pro". If that amateur uses the metric of others and places that on a pedestal, it may seem unreachable to them, however they may be able to break through and go beyond what they ever thought possible based on the results of others. This also implies that there is an ending point in skill development, which clearly there is not. However the professional that seeks adequacy is very simply looking to win or prevail at the given task, whatever that may be. He / she is looking to be adequate on an ever increasing learning curve that is either self imposed or laid out by other professionals.

Wheeler

08-20-2011, 01:03 PM

"Amateurs train until they get it right. Pros train until they can't get it wrong." -- variously attributed to Pelé, Stephen Hillier, and others

"The amateur seeks excellence. The professional seeks adequacy." -- Jeff Cooper

Discuss.

Amateurs (like me) train to reach a certain point. That point is a pinnacle for them. Much like an Olympic athelete who reaches an all-time high, and gets a medal to prove it. Professionals train to maintain a standard as their job/career/life depends on it.

Once again, the amateur is trying to reach a pinnacle of achievment. The professional needs to have an ongoing, maintainable proficiency to be able to get the job done.

Maple Syrup Actual

08-20-2011, 03:35 PM

Hello all, this is my first post here.

I would tend to look at these two quotes as possibly describing different aspects of professionalism and amateurism.

The first quote recalls to me a description of conscious and unconscious competence I once read. A professional, in this case, is trained to a much higher level; they are looking not simply to get to a point where they understand what is required of them and to be able to make that happen, but to have ingrained the correct responses at such a core level that it is very unlikely they will respond in a manner other than the most appropriate and efficient one possible under the circumstances.

Of course there is never REALLY a point where you can't get it wrong, but the goal is obviously to reduce the likelihood dramatically.

The second quote, to me, is more interesting, in part because I think it is open to a few interpretations.

You could look at it in terms of the elevation of the "professional" mindset to the point where concepts like "excellence" become very difficult to define, and instead the goal is to realistically assess probable tasks and respond appropriately. That is one way to look at "adequacy" vs "excellence".

On the other hand, it is also possible to look at this quote in a much less flattering light; amateurs do what they do because they love doing it. Professionals are paid to do it. No doubt we all know private citizens who are (like me) effectively hobbyists of the pistol, who have a much greater interest in shooting than most rank-and-file police or soldiers. Considering this context, you could interpret the quote as a description of the difference between the motivated amateur interested in winning a competition, and the disinterested professional who simply needs to qualify to continue with his job.

At any rate, I think that any time you discuss someone else's aphorisms, you're effectively interpreting poetry. There are a lot of ways to look at any idea which is expressed in very simple terms, so to approach the quotes with a very firm, exclusive interpretation is, in my opinion, a bit of a mistake. The real value is not in the quotation but in the ideas that come out in the discussion.

LOKNLOD

08-20-2011, 03:41 PM

The quotes are not dueling. They are complimentary to one another; two views of the same scene through different windows. Thinking about it terms of the FAST drill we all know and love, someone with an amateur mindset looks at the drill and says "I need to shoot that in expert time". Someone with a professional mindset sees the drill and says "If my draw, splits, and reload meet certain criteria, I'll shoot that in expert time". Those criteria then become the adequacy he seeks. Down the road, if amateur guy gets his desired score a single time, he's thrilled to have reached excellence. The pro guy will probably not be be satisfied until he can do it consistently. Therefore the amateur's excellence becomes the professional's adequacy. Cooper's quote describes situation this as a goal, and the first quote describes the path taken to reach that goal.

JAD

08-20-2011, 07:01 PM

"Amateurs train until they get it right. Pros train until they can't get it wrong." -- variously attributed to Pelé, Stephen Hillier, and others

"The amateur seeks excellence. The professional seeks adequacy." -- Jeff Cooper

Discuss.

Got a cite on the guru quote, Todd? Sounds familiar but I can't place it. I'd like to review the context.

If I had to guess, I'd say jeff was using 'amateur' in the sense of 'enthusiast.' An enthusiast's marksmanship goals, for example, far exceed those required for an armed professional.

It's interesting how people confuse 'professional' with 'accomplished.'

Jon
Taipei

JAD

08-20-2011, 07:05 PM

It's interesting how people confuse 'professional' with 'accomplished.'

"once they're dead, they're pretty much just hookers."

Tom Givens

08-20-2011, 09:51 PM

I knew Cooper pretty well, and Misanthropist nailed it.

Jeff was saying two things with his statement. The first was that someone who likes to shoot, will do better than someone who shoots merely as a job requirement.

His other point was that advancements in the art come from the private sector (amateurs) rather than the public sector (professionals). During Cooper's time, the only "professionals" to do well in competition were those who would have been there anyway as enthusiasts, whether they were in an armed job or not. Jack Weaver, for instance, used two handed, eye level sighted fire to beat everyone at the Leatherslaps, while at the same time period still being required at the LASO Academy to teach belt level, one handed unsighted fire at 7 yards and in. It took years for the public sector to catch up to what the private sector was doing.

Jay Cunningham

08-20-2011, 10:35 PM

I am digging this thread.

:cool:

Slavex

08-21-2011, 02:48 AM

Odin Bravo One

08-21-2011, 03:20 AM

"A professional trains until he can't get it wrong" seems to me to be more of a modern day Zen approach to training, where "The Art becomes an artless Art, flowing out of the unconscious." Certainly things can still be done wrong, but a professional will train to the point where he is at the highest level of unconscious competence, so that an input stimulus is met immediately with a reaction, without thought, and without contemplation, regardless of the circumstances. Whereas the "Amateur" trains to the point where they have reached a pre-established goal, without thought to contingencies or "worst case" scenario.

I completely agree with Tom and TG's comments from a few weeks back on PT.com about how paid professionals are not necessarily "better" than an enthusiast (and in many cases not at all "better"), and many of the winning techniques used by enthusiasts for competition take some time before they become accepted into professional circles. However, at the same time, we must examine the consequences for an "Amateur" or "Enthusiast" if they cannot default to the software developed in conjunction with "can't get it wrong". If they have a malfunction during competition, they get a Mulligan.

How many of the truly gifted or accomplished shooters will have the same response and level of proficiency to the violent input stimuli faced on a daily basis by the professional? Will those skills be the same? Or have the same degree of efficiency? In some cases, sure. But in most cases, unless the individual in question has prior software programming on which to rely on, we see time and again competition shooters do very well in the "shooting" only portions of a stress course, yet their name is at the bottom of the list when times are posted because they have not developed skills for use under the same circumstances as a professional, which are not ideal or picture perfect.

In my mind, the Amateur trains to an established and tangible goal for a specific set of circumstances, either measured or imagined. The professional trains to develop a level of skill that will be available on demand, under all circumstances the professional could possibly find himself in.

But I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

Maple Syrup Actual

08-21-2011, 09:59 AM

jesus, your first thread and you get props. how sick is that dude (you got those notes yet by the way?).

a good post as always dude, I've written and deleted six different replies to this, not quite happy yet with my ability to explain what I mean.

I admit to feeling pleased with myself over that.

I work on the notes here and there but I'm moving (actually the eye of the relocation storm is right on the day of your barbecue) so most of it is packed away at the moment...ambitious project which is kicking my ass, frankly.

David Armstrong

08-21-2011, 12:18 PM

"Amateurs train until they get it right. Pros train until they can't get it wrong." -- variously attributed to Pelé, Stephen Hillier, and others

"The amateur seeks excellence. The professional seeks adequacy." -- Jeff Cooper

Discuss.

I'm from the camp of the Russian quote (also multi-sourced) on the issue that goes "Perfect is the enemy of good enough." And for me that sort of explains the difference in the dueling quotes. What is your goal? The professional is concerned with the goal of getting the job done. For that one needs adequacy, or "good enough." The amateur is concerned with maximizing performance (perfect) because that is the goal, the performance itself. So the quotes don't really duel with each other, they just express the different goals of the parties. It is sort of like the discussion Todd and I had at the dinner in OKC (apologies in advance if I mis-state your position, Todd). I teach CCW to the masses, and thus my goal is a safe, highly controlled presentation by those with limited training and experience. My goal is overall safety and security in a typical DGU incident. Todd teaches those with experience to maximize their speed of presentation with a high level of precision accuracy. The goal becomes maximizing the presentation and precision itself. Todd has little or no concern with my training issues within his environment, I have little or no concern with his within my area.

My $.02.

ToddG

08-21-2011, 01:21 PM

I'm glad this has been such a great discussion so far.

I think the reason the quotes appear contradictory -- unless you use some verbal gymnastics -- is that the word "professional" is being used in an equivocal manner.

The first quote uses "professional" in what we could call the SeanM sense of the word... the guy we look up to as a BTDT real world stud who trains like mad and then puts that training to use. It's "professional" in the top of the game sense. Which is why the quote appears to have its origin among a person or persons who were at the top of their profession.

The second quote uses "professional" in what we could call the Barney Fife sense of the word... the guy who gets paid to do it, no more, no less. It's "professional" in the it's my profession sense. The quote comes from someone who saw amateur shooters (enthusiasts) performing better than occupational shooters (non-enthusiasts) all the time.

Tamara

08-21-2011, 03:24 PM

IIRC, and it's been a couple years since I read any Cooper stuff, but he was very fond of pointing out the fact that the the very definition of the word "amateur" means "someone who does something for the love of it". It does not mean "incompetent". (And Jeff Cooper sure did love him some etymology. :) )

As an illustration, the dedicated CCW toter who attends training classes, practices regularly, and carries every day does so because he wants to, not because his boss makes him do it.

jlw

08-21-2011, 05:18 PM

Amateurs (like me) train to reach a certain point. That point is a pinnacle for them. Much like an Olympic athelete who reaches an all-time high, and gets a medal to prove it. Professionals train to maintain a standard as their job/career/life depends on it.

Once again, the amateur is trying to reach a pinnacle of achievment. The professional needs to have an ongoing, maintainable proficiency to be able to get the job done.

I don't see the two as being necessarily mutually exclusive. By your connotation, I would fall into the professional category, and to a certain extent I agree. I see a distinction between the gun games and real training and tactics. However, in my own eyes when it comes to the gun games, I am an amateur. The matches are my practice time, and I have been known to experiment during a match and to knowingly sacrifice score by not pushing to the edge.

Wheeler

08-21-2011, 06:22 PM

I don't see the two as being necessarily mutually exclusive. By your connotation, I would fall into the professional category, and to a certain extent I agree. I see a distinction between the gun games and real training and tactics. However, in my own eyes when it comes to the gun games, I am an amateur. The matches are my practice time, and I have been known to experiment during a match and to knowingly sacrifice score by not pushing to the edge.

I'll agree with your interpretation. I was thinking more of myself when I wrote that. I was also looking at it from my personal professional standpoint as there are certain tools of the trade that I need to have to accomplish my job. Although it's rather far-fetched someone that wants to do my type of work as an amateur might go above and beyond the tools and standards that I find as acceptable. There's good enough to meet code requirement, good enough to exceed code requirements, and then there's "Man! That sure is nice, how much time did you say you put into that anyways?"

Looking at it from your point of view I can see completely different interpretation. Thanks for pointing that out.

Wheeler

Dagga Boy

08-27-2011, 05:50 PM

I'll add another analogy to make a point here. Professional gun carriers often have to be good at a whole bunch of things that go along with using a gun as part of your work tools. Equally, among those professionals, some will be in a group that use them a lot (same with 'amateurs...some have a CCW permit, some are shooting daily), and their idea of "adequate" is very different from Barney Fife. Different "Pro's" also have to be good at different things to excel at their job. A street cop working crime suppression in a major city ghetto has a far different set of priorities of skills than a US Military Special Operations soldier.....but they both need to be "adequate" with a firearm.

If we look at Football as a random example-I am sure a devoted non pro athlete who loves football could go out everyday in shorts and a jersey and throw several thousand passes on an unoccupied practice field. After several years of this daily ritual (of course adding in some camps and training with pro's), I would venture they could throw farther, and faster with a level of precision that would rival or beat any QB in the NFL...............I bet they couldn't do it against the Pittsburg Steelers, and they would have no clue how to call plays (communicate under pressure), read defenses and make split second decisions based on that read (threat assessment), roll out of a pocket with a sense of when to run and when to throw or when to take the sack (force options) or even how to perform in full pads and a helmet ("pro" required equipment). How to react when hit by a 6'5" 265 pound linebacker (mindset) may also be an issue you can't really gauge. With that said, I would love to watch a regular guy throw 80 yard spiral strikes and have nothing but huge respect for the dedication it takes to achieve that skill.............but he ain't Troy Aikman (THE greatest QB of our time...:)).

SLG

08-27-2011, 08:42 PM

Not being one to buck the great philosophers of our time (those quoted, as well as those who responded to this thread before me) I will simply say that since my experience is minuscule compared to the mass of experience out there, I choose to hedge my bets by being both an amateur, as well as a professional.

jetfire

08-28-2011, 10:49 AM

@nyeti, I'm pretty sure you meant "Joe Montana" was the greatest QB of our time. 4 rings > 3 rings. ;-)

Dagga Boy

08-28-2011, 02:55 PM

@nyeti, I'm pretty sure you meant "Joe Montana" was the greatest QB of our time. 4 rings > 3 rings. ;-)

Yeah, but Troy was also coaching the team for the third ring...........:eek:. To tie it in the subject at hand...........leadership while executing the whole package.

jetfire

08-28-2011, 04:28 PM

Great players make everyone around them better, look what Montana did with the guys around him. With the exception of Jerry Rice, Montana's career had a string of average receivers and running backs, whereas Emmitt Smith practically carried Troy Aikman to three Super Bowl wins. To tie things back to the original quotes, Troy Aikman practiced until he was good enough to not lose games for his team, Joe Montana trained until he could be the source of greatness for his team.

Dagga Boy

08-28-2011, 08:24 PM

We will just need to disagree on this one.

jetfire

08-28-2011, 10:12 PM

Ah, football. A surefire way to bring a Texan and a Californian to violence!

Dagga Boy

08-28-2011, 10:39 PM

I actually just moved to Texas last week after 46 years in SoCal. I have always been a Texan at heart and trapped in a California body. Spent the 70's at the 50 yard line just behind the Rams bench (thus an early hate for the Niners), and then my parents moved to Irving,TX. in the late 80's and I began calling TX. "home", while California was where I lived and worked.

jetfire

08-29-2011, 10:08 AM

The Rams thing explains it. I developed my hatred for the Cowboys during the years that they were constantly beating the Niners in the playoffs.

superscribe

08-29-2011, 11:12 AM

Hello all.

This is my first time posting. I've recently gotten into competitive pistol shooting, but have been generally enamoured with guns for most my life, though I'm probably not as well versed as most people here. I also play an amateur sport at a very high level (fencing). Analogies in sports seem to be the most relevent, because that is where amateurs and professionals are expected to pretty much do the same sort of thing. Comparison of "amateur" to "professional" in the shooting world seems to be fallaciously stacking "civilians who shoot a lot" against police officers and soldiers. That's like measuring up a sprinter and a soccer player by having them do a foot race. It's an incomplete picture and seems to mislead people. Of course the sprinter is going to win. Typically, anybody who does an activity a lot is better at that activity then somebody who does the same activity, less. The soccer player has a lot more to worry about then just running fast. It's a simple logic, but it seems to be overlooked. It is also very frustrating. Ask any Navy SEAL who has had a cocky varsity swimmer ask to compare 200m swim times.

There is really no money in fringe, "amateur" sports, but the level of excellence and dedication at the upper ranks is the same as any highly paid sports professional. I understand the dictionary definition of a professional, but the stigma betweent the two words, for me, seperates those who are both highly motivated and have lots of experience from those who are not both high motivated and experienced. I see no difference between a poorly paid slob and an amateur. So you don't have to have a big salary to be professional, but if you do have a big salary, you are probably professional about what you do.

A professional knows to do only what is necassary because doing extra just means there is an opportunity for mistakes to happen. He/she also knows what the priorities of his/her job are and does not forget them. (quote 2)

A professional knows that things go wrong, has experienced things going wrong, anticipates things going wrong and trains accordingly (quote 1).

I saw NBA players square off against a bunch of guys from AND1. Both are paid athletes. NBA players were professional. NBA players didn't seem to try as hard as the AND1 players. NBA players won.

I think a professional said the first quote. An amateur said the second quote.

NickA

08-29-2011, 01:28 PM

Tamara

08-29-2011, 09:01 PM

Ah, football. A surefire way to bring a Texan and a Californian to violence!

You're both wrong (see location <----. And I moved here from Knoxville.) ;)

Still, though:

Professional gun carriers often have to be good at a whole bunch of things that go along with using a gun as part of your work tools

There can be an over-reverence for "professional gun toters" in the civvie shooting community. I'm no more likely to go ask an IMPD cop for pistol advice because he carries a Glock every day than my roommate the ham operator is to ask him for radio advice because he uses a Motorola.

And he uses that Motorola a LOT more often than he does the Glock.

jetfire

08-29-2011, 10:47 PM

You're both wrong (see location <----. And I moved here from Knoxville.) ;)

You spelled "Peytopolis" (or is it Peytonopolis?) wrong. I don't miss seeing his freakish forehead every Sunday.

ToddG

08-29-2011, 11:13 PM

I think a professional said the first quote. An amateur said the second quote.

Your first post to pistol-forum.com and you call Jeff Cooper an amateur.

I admire your courage. :cool:

http://www.amnesty.ca/site_images/managed/China_Tiananmen_Tank_Man.jpg

JConn

08-30-2011, 12:02 AM

Alright I'm going to go in a different direction with this. I think it is incorrect to compare many of the "professionals" that we are talking about with the "enthusiasts" or amateurs we are talking about. I think if we are going to give these dueling quotes a fair shake we need to define the field the amateurs and professionals are coming from. Ccw permit holders are not training to become amateur police men. None of the people at idpa or uspsa are training to become amateur infantry men. (side note, even though some of these people wish they were, they are by and large probably not. This of course excludes people who are professional policemen or members of the military). Therefore the professionals we should be entering into this conversation are people like Dave Sevigny, Rob Leatham, Jerry Miculek, insert your favorite competitive shooter or professional instructor here. If these people are the pros, the vast majority of amateurs never come close to that level of competence, and if they do, chances are they will be considered....a pro. Now are there amateur shooters who shoot better than some police officers or military personal, of course, no one will argue that. But that is comparing apples to oranges. To put it another way, who else throws 80 yard perfect spiral strikes as a small (but important) portion of their job...

That being said, the quotes are not contradictory for many of the reasons already stated. I am a professional musician. I do things on a daily basis that a hobbiest or enthusiast would consider "excellent." I however, am always raising the bar as to what is adequate. A professional will never feel like they are excellent, they may acknowledge the fact that they have satisfactorily completed a task, but there will always be room for improvement. I have never finished a concert, or finished taps in Arlington, or finished a practice session and said, well there it is, that was perfect, next song. Adequate is always slightly beyond reach for the professional. I'm sure people will disagree but that's my take.

superscribe

08-30-2011, 12:17 AM

Your first post to pistol-forum.com and you call Jeff Cooper an amateur.

I admire your courage. :cool:

http://www.amnesty.ca/site_images/managed/China_Tiananmen_Tank_Man.jpg

I think Jeff Cooper would call my idea of professional, "amateur".

Dagga Boy

08-30-2011, 03:17 AM

You're both wrong (see location <----. And I moved here from Knoxville.) ;)

Still, though:

There can be an over-reverence for "professional gun toters" in the civvie shooting community. I'm no more likely to go ask an IMPD cop for pistol advice because he carries a Glock every day than my roommate the ham operator is to ask him for radio advice because he uses a Motorola.

And he uses that Motorola a LOT more often than he does the Glock.

There shouldn't be an over reverence, because most cops suck with guns (I spent my entire adult life training them)......BUT, they do tend to use them a whole lot more than most, so they a very good laboratory for us students of gunfighting/tactics to study as to what really happens when guns and people interact. Also, the ones who can shoot, AND use them a lot will have a different outlook on things as to what works and what doesn't when using the hardware when dealing with massive input to the software.

How many Super Bowls has Indy won..........?????:eek: (That would be ONE in Indy......Caleb and I are at 5 each..........waiting for the Pittsburg fans to chime in)

Wheeler

08-30-2011, 05:27 AM

There shouldn't be an over reverence, because most cops suck with guns (I spent my entire adult life training them)......BUT, they do tend to use them a whole lot more than most, so they a very good laboratory for us students of gunfighting/tactics to study as to what really happens when guns and people interact. Also, the ones who can shoot, AND use them a lot will have a different outlook on things as to what works and what doesn't when using the hardware when dealing with massive input to the software.

How many Super Bowls has Indy won..........?????:eek: (That would be ONE in Indy......Caleb and I are at 5 each..........waiting for the Pittsburg fans to chime in)

Pittsburg has a football team?

Jay Cunningham

08-30-2011, 05:37 AM

Pittsburgh

Wheeler

08-30-2011, 05:43 AM

Pittsburgh

Does Pittsburgh have a football team?

orionz06

08-30-2011, 07:02 AM

I am not sure I agree with the philosophizing with philosophizers' philosophies about amateur and pro so much or if I just see it as black and white.

Most of you probably know the source and I think it sums up my thoughts.
"...There is trained and untrained. Now which are you?"

Does Pittsburgh have a football team?
I have heard mention of just such a team.

ToddG

08-30-2011, 09:53 AM

Adequate is always slightly beyond reach for the professional.

Bravo.

jlw

08-30-2011, 10:10 AM

Pittsburg has a football team?

Yes, they do. The Pittsburg State University Gorillas (http://www.pittstategorillas.com/home/men/football/).

Tamara

08-30-2011, 10:51 AM

Yes, they do. The Pittsburg State University Gorillas (http://www.pittstategorillas.com/home/men/football/).
That has just replaced the banana slug as my favoritest college mascot ever.

Wheeler

08-30-2011, 01:17 PM

Yes, they do. The Pittsburg State University Gorillas (http://www.pittstategorillas.com/home/men/football/).

There has to be a PETA complaint filed against them for that somewhere....

JAD

08-30-2011, 03:24 PM

I think Jeff Cooper would call my idea of professional, "amateur".
Jeff Cooper certainly would have enclosed the period in the quotation marks.

JAD

08-30-2011, 03:26 PM

That has just replaced the banana slug as my favoritest college mascot ever.
Not even close. http://www.goshockers.com/

superscribe

08-30-2011, 03:34 PM

Jeff Cooper certainly would have enclosed the period in the quotation marks.

i hope you believe me when i say i am i am VERY impressed with your attentiveness to punctuation and other grammatical details on the internet.

JAD

08-30-2011, 04:33 PM

i hope you believe me when i say i am i am VERY impressed with your attentiveness to punctuation and other grammatical details on the internet.
It was less of a flame (sorry) and more of a comment on Cooper; I think it's the kind of thing he would have picked up on. With that said, I think he might have chosen to agree with and be complimented by your comment -- in the "enthusiast" sense I mentioned above. Just a guess, though -- there's a few people on this forum who are in a much better position to estimate his thoughts.

1slow

08-31-2011, 07:53 PM

Colonel Cooper on several occasions stated that students that spent their own money on training tended to be better than those who were sent and paid for by the government.
Every really good shooter I have seen was self driven to improve. Some are public sector some private sector, the main thing is the motivation to achieve.

John Hearne

09-01-2011, 09:47 PM

If you read Cooper, you'll find that he did not consider "professional" a very high standard. He went to some pains to differentiate the professional from the expert. A professional is someone engaged in his profession - he/she is just doing his job. The fact that he/she is getting paid does not confer any type of special knowledge or ability. Someone trying to get a job done with no special motivation will seek the adequate solution but not the best solution - especially if extra work is involved.

The expert is someone who knows his subject matter whether he is paid or not. I rather strongly suspect that Jeff would place the dedicated amateur and the expert above the professional when it comes to competence.

mc1911

09-03-2011, 08:01 PM

Jeff Cooper certainly would have enclosed the period in the quotation marks.

I'm risking being kicked to the Romper Room here, but I think if you dig around on this you will find that placement of the punctuation mark is more a matter of opinion than rule. There are those who believe the punctuation should always be in the quotes and others who believe it belongs there only if part of the quoted material. The latter has always made more sense to me. I read somewhere that the Americans and Brits do it differently, which is probably where the confusion comes from.

ToddG

09-03-2011, 10:04 PM

orionz06

09-03-2011, 10:08 PM

I will do the commas, but it always bugged me to have the period inside the quotations. I got nailed a few times in highschool for it, but once college hit I was able to tell most professors that I felt the stopping point of the sentence was best left at the end, not close. At work none of my writing has quotes and is generally 300 pages of numbers and equations that is proofread and corrected for me. :p

jslaker

09-03-2011, 11:20 PM

Quotations are an enclosing punctuation mark. It only makes sense that periods would be enclosed within them.

agent-smith

09-04-2011, 12:53 AM

Always place a period or comma inside a quotation mark. (http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp)

Universal American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks. (http://grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html)

In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks. (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm)

Period. (quotation mark)

* And just why, you may ask, do they belong there? Well, it seems to be the result of historical accident. When type was handset, a period or comma outside of quotation marks at the end of a sentence tended to get knocked out of position, so the printers tucked the little devils inside the quotation marks to keep them safe and out of trouble. But apparently only American printers were more attached to convenience than logic, since British printers continued to risk the misalignment of their periods and commas.

In some cases, such as when the period governs the sentence as a whole but not the material being quoted, I'll put it outside the quotation marks. Being an Engineer, I'm more concerned with "logic" than "convenience". (<--- See?) I don't even know where I'm going with this...

orionz06

09-04-2011, 07:56 AM

Being an Engineer, I'm more concerned with "logic" than "convenience". (<--- See?) I don't even know where I'm going with this...

LOLZ, another engineer here with the same reasoning.

mc1911

09-04-2011, 08:36 AM

* And just why, you may ask, do they belong there? Well, it seems to be the result of historical accident. When type was handset, a period or comma outside of quotation marks at the end of a sentence tended to get knocked out of position, so the printers tucked the little devils inside the quotation marks to keep them safe and out of trouble. But apparently only American printers were more attached to convenience than logic, since British printers continued to risk the misalignment of their periods and commas.

In some cases, such as when the period governs the sentence as a whole but not the material being quoted, I'll put it outside the quotation marks. Being an Engineer, I'm more concerned with "logic" than "convenience". (<--- See?) I don't even know where I'm going with this...

Validation is a wonderful thing. Sometimes when a rule that doesn't make sense, it doesn't hurt to ask why we follow it or to rebel against following it at all.

ToddG

09-04-2011, 10:00 AM

Being an Engineer, I'm more concerned with "logic" than "convenience".

Hokey logic and ancient typesetters are no match for a good grammar book at your side, kid.

agent-smith

09-04-2011, 10:02 AM

Hokey logic and ancient typesetters are no match for a good grammar book at your side, kid.

:-)

Tamara

09-04-2011, 11:32 AM

I read somewhere that the Americans and Brits do it differently, which is probably where the confusion comes from.
Yes.

British usage puts the full stop inside the quotation marks only if it is part of a sentence enclosed by them (She said 'You should put that down.') but not if it isn't (He bought one of those Hi-Point 'pistols'.)

American usage always puts the ending period inside the quotation marks (He bought that drop-thigh SERPA because he thought it was "tactical.")

I personally like the Limey way.

JDM

09-04-2011, 11:35 AM

British usage puts the full stop inside the quotation marks only if it is part of a sentence enclosed by them (She said 'You should put that down.') but not if it isn't (He bought one of those Hi-Point 'pistols'.)

This is how I was taught.

Maple Syrup Actual

09-12-2011, 08:14 PM

Yes.

British usage puts the full stop inside the quotation marks only if it is part of a sentence enclosed by them (She said 'You should put that down.') but not if it isn't (He bought one of those Hi-Point 'pistols'.)

That is how it is done in Canada as well. The internet, being dominated by Americans, tends to break the other way and I find that if I spend a long time on the internet between doing formal writing of any kind, I have to watch my first paper or so as I will use the US approach to punctuation unconsciously.

Of course, traditionally, at least, the french up here use <<>> marks instead of quotation marks. But I believe that practice is beginning to fall off, probably for the same reason that many Canadians no longer use the spelling "practise" for the verb... The internet is a has a very strong influence on written language.

At any rate it is very strange to see people use the <> marks. <<Je me rends!>> il dit. It just looks so wrong.