posted
I had always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that one could communicate in writing, rather than in speech and thus be able to more effectively express nuanced ideas. In the past few days, however, I have come under intense criticism for writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational.
This is how I always write, this is how my friends write (and, to a large extent, speak), this is how my teachers write and this is how the newspapers and books I read are written. So what, I may ask, is the problem which some feel to be so pressing?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, the preceding post is perfectly acceptable.
Of course, I don't frequent the threads you frequent, it seems, so I can't make any comment on a more general "how you write is okay" scale.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
You take yourself far, far too seriously and often seem to set out, not to contribute meaningfully to the conversation, but to show off how smart you are. Because of this, it's hard to take you seriously.
---
Of course, I've been criticized for having an overly pendantic way of expressing myself too, so there you go.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've just recently been criticized ( Squick) for one of my posts, Pel...don't take it too seriously.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should capitalize the first letter of the first word within a quotation. See your subject line.
Take comments on your grammar in stride. Comments on your grammar merely show that they find nothing really wrong with the ideas your are presenting.
Not every comment on your grammar is valid, just as not every idea expressed in this forum is correct, see KOM's posts for proof of that. <3 KOM just playing.
Don't take yourself so seriously, if somebody says something about your grammar, examine it, and if its useful, take advantage of that. If it is not useful, simply ignore it, and continue discussing the ideas you have presented.
I personally have no problem reading your posts, outside of the slight feeling that your use of words can be alienating and thus less accessable to those with an average grasp of English vocabulary.
If you are addressing those who prefer that style of writing, by all means ignore those such as myself that have to visit dictionary.com when reading your posts.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like your writing style. Of course, I am a somewhat "school-marmy" and rather prim geek. So there ya go.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, if someone were asking me to come up with a single word to describe kmbboots, I'm not utterly sure what it would be, but I can say with certainty that it wouldn't be "prim".
posted
Oy. Try sprinkling some Yiddishisms throughout your posts. People just love that. Nu? Hock mir nisht en chinik!Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say you tend to use overwrought language. Here's how I would have written your post:
I'd always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that communicating in writing, rather than in speech, enables people to express nuanced ideas more effectively. In the past few days, however, I've been soundly criticized for writing in a less-than-conversational style.
This is how I always write. It's how my friends write (and, to a large extent, speak), how my teachers write and how the newspapers and books I read are written. So what's the problem that some feel to be so pressing?
Having said that, I don't think your prose is significantly more pretentious than the prose of plenty of other forum members (myself included), so I don't really know why some people are reacting so strongly to it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like FlyingCow said, the first post of this thread is fine.
This, however:
quote:Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is, at best, semi-valid, bears any relevence here, as I have not used any particularly esoteric language here, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex; rather, I have strived for clarity.
is cumbersome, because the mind naturually pauses when it sees a comma. It's a bit repetitive, and reads as if you've run a series of thoughts together to create one long, comma-spliced block of text. That same post would be clearer this way:
quote:Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is at best semi-valid, bears any relevence here. I have not used any particularly esoteric language, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex.
I removed the commas around "at best" because you are parenthesizing a statement which is already contained in another parenthetical statment.
I removed the word "here" after "esoteric language" because you've already used that. If you read it aloud it sounds odd.
I removed the last part ("rather, I have strived for clarity") because it just repeats the last statement.
Personally, I wouldn't write quite so many parentheticals because they aren't really necessary.
Don't take this as an attack; it's just what I've observed.
--j_k
Edit: heck, you could even shorten it more:
quote:Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument bears any relevence here. I have not used any particularly esoteric language, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex.
because the statements that his argument is (a) only semi-valid to the discussion and (b) irrelevant are very similar.
[ July 06, 2006, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing that someone told me way back when that might help you: don't use overly complicated words or phrases when simple ones will do. I used to annoy people with that, because it seemed like I was trying to impress them with my vocabulary.
I still do it on occasions when I want to get under someone's epidermis. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is "have strived" even correct? Wouldn't it be "have striven?" Or am I out to lunch?
By the way, Pelegius, in my rephrase I corrected the "which" in your last sentence -- it ought to be a "that."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You should capitalize the first letter of the first word within a quotation.
Not always. If a quote is spliced into the syntax of the surrounding sentence, then it starts lowercased.
quote:Take comments on your grammar in stride. Comments on your grammar merely show that they find nothing really wrong with the ideas your are presenting.
Again, not always. It's possible to find problems with both grammar and content.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have nothing against you, Pelegius; but if you felt concerned enough about the issue to introduce a new topic about it, you must really want to know what it is about your writing that sounds ... "un-conversational". Well, since you asked:
"... the primary advantage of internet fora ..."
(giggle)
"... writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational."
(This is how you would converse? Really? You'd take the time to put that many $10 words in a conversation?)
"So what, I may ask, is the problem which some feel to be so pressing?"
(What's wrong with just, "So what's the problem?")
Just out of curiosity ... what books do you read?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How about 'outwardly prim'?
I suppose if she were sitting there knitting, not speaking to anyone, it might be possible to mistake her for "prim", but that's the only circumstance I can think of in which a person might think that the term applied.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The great thing is, if you use big words often enough in real life, it becomes normal. Stick to your guns, people, and it will pay off!
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I like that writing allows us the time to "spruce up" our writing. I have no problem with "... writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational."
I try to write the way that I would speak if my brain worked quickly enough to do it correctly. Okay. Maybe not "prim". Old-fashioned?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You should capitalize the first letter of the first word within a quotation.
Not always. If a quote is spliced into the syntax of the surrounding sentence, then it starts lowercased.
Yeah I knew that, but he is not quoting within the middle of a quote.
quote:Take comments on your grammar in stride. Comments on your grammar merely show that they find nothing really wrong with the ideas your are presenting.
quote:Again, not always. It's possible to find problems with both grammar and content.
I meant that if they only point out your grammar and ignore your ideas that that is the case. Or I might conceded that grammatical criticisms are evidence of a lack of motivation to address the others ideas.
As for the, "Stived," "Striven," debate. I would just avoid that obstacle by saying,
"I strive to..."
Strived/striven indicates (at least to me)that you have done it once, but may not be doing so anymore.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I find your writing pompous (a pomposity which is belied by your less than perfect grammar) I don't particularly object to that. I can read a wide range of styles comfortably. What I object to is your tendency to belittle those you disagree with, and to condescend to everybody. (Here is your first hint: at your school you may well be considered brilliant, but a whole heck of a lot of people here were/are similarly regarded. Welcome to the big pond.)
Here is where I think we come at the fora from different directions:
quote:I had always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that one could communicate in writing, rather than in speech and thus be able to more effectively express nuanced ideas.
Communicate . . . why? Seriously. does "expressing nuanced ideas" hold intrinsic value? For you, communication seems to be a one way street; you seek to express your opinions, and that's all. What I like about sites like Hatrack is the give and take. Communicating in an atmosphere of mutual respect with people that are like me in some ways and different from me in others. I don't primarily seek to convince people that I am right, but to understand why they don't already agree with me. In my attempt to do that, I will present my opinions as convincingly as I am able, and expect others to do the same, so that we can then analyze how we can still see things differently. In the end, neither of us may change our minds, but we both understand each other better. I've had instructive disagreements here with people who liked movies I hated, people with significantly different religious outlooks, people with very different political views, and people foolish enough to think that toilet paper should roll from the bottom of the roll. And I have friends I have met here (and gone on to meet in real life) who have worldviews different from my own and different from each others'.
(And in the end, maybe that's what it's about to me. Friends. I consider Hatrackers real people, and many of them to be real friends. Have you given people reason to be your friend? Are there people here you want as friends, or do you see everyone as some sort of an intellectual foil?)
There are people who I feel have hampered my enjoyment of Hatrack. (I know: I don't own Hatrack and don't have the right to expect anything particular from it. I'm just saying how I feel.) These people include Christians, Jews, and Atheists. They include Republicans and Democrats. They include Americans and non-Americans. What I believe they have in common is that they treat other Hatrackers with disrespect. (And so yes, I fall into the moral trap of trying to beam their own disrespect back at them, with less than stellar results.)
But I will always be grateful for the friends I have found here. And those friends also include Christians, Jews, Atheists, Republicans, Democrats. Americans, and non-Americans.
Be as pompous as you want, and it won't make me respect you less (or more). Treat other people like they are stupid, and I will despise you.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I question whether the primary objection to Pelagious is, in fact, either his grammar or his pomposity. I suspect it is neither.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take for example, "The Institutionalized Untermnesch". This is not, to me, a title that was created with communicating clearly as a primary goal.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel, I apologize if my responses to you in other topics have been belligerent, I just got somewhat frustrated by the way you were writing and responded more harshly than I would have normally. I do, however, think that my points were at least partly valid. You speak in a very pretentious manner that is a little offensive to be honest. There are many intelligent people on this forum who find much less pedantic ways of expressing their thoughts and opinions. I actually think you should read that Orwell essay. Back in high school when I first started writing academically, I wrote very similar to the way you do, but slowly I learned that if you follow advice like Orwell's (or like my teachers' in high school, and later, my proffs' in university) your writing will become much stronger (in that you will be able to convey and convince to a greater extent). Try using a simple word instead of a more complicated one if you can (and you almost always can), and avoid too many commas or semi-colons. Apart from that you seem to be a very smart person, and for the most part your arguments have been thoughtful and interesting.
But please, you don't expect me to believe that you actually talk like you write. No one from the 20-21th century talks like that conversationally. Unless you are a time traveller...
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I have had friends that speak exactly the way Pelagius writes. I always poked fun at them because it sounded like they were studying for the SATs half the time. Still, that was how they spoke and wrote. One went to law school, the other to med school.
Still, maybe try to take the advice of Abraham Maslowe: Don't use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FlyingCow, you seem to be implying that people who use big words are more intelligent. While this is somewhat true, I think that there are people who are even *more* intelligent, who understand those words, and could use them if they wanted, but choose rather to speak in a clear and presentable way, such that their opinions can be more easilly communicated to others. I think that there are alot of these people on hatrack.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, there is a difference between taking a Thesaurus to every word you write and using a slightly more complicated word to better articulate a single important idea. But I'm in the camp of people who find superfluous Big Words slightly offensive.
edit: wow, lots of people got in there before I did
Also, I type exactly how I talk, so I understand how that can sometimes come off weird on the internet. Though, for me, it makes me come off a little silly instead of pompous.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:FlyingCow, you seem to be implying that people who use big words are more intelligent.
::blink, blink::
I am?
I just noted that one went to law school and the other to med school. That has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with education.
Those two were highly educated, very well read (though, their favorite books were all written previous to the 20th century and both shunned this century's writing almost entirely), and yet amazingly dim - especially when it came to being wholly ignorant of the world around them, social interaction, and global issues (too much time with noses stuck in books, and not enough time paying attention to anything else).
This is not saying Pelegius is dim, lest you tell me I'm implying that, too. I'm just describing the two friends I had in college who spoke that way.
I also had an 8th grade student who spoke that way, to the point that none of the other students ever understood him. Of course, he had Asperger's Syndrome, which led him to focus more acutely on language.
Again, not implying that Pelegius has Asperger's, either.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yeah I knew that, but he is not quoting within the middle of a quote.
I'm not talking about the middle of a quote. That has no bearing on the capitalization. I'm talking about the difference between "He said, 'I hate it when people do that,'" and "He said that he hates it 'when people do that.'"
I'm only saying that your rule was wrong, not that the beginning of the quote in the thread title shouldn't be capitalized.
quote:Strived/striven indicates (at least to me)that you have done it once, but may not be doing so anymore.
The present perfect form ("have strived" or "have striven") indicates that a past action has relevance to the present. The simple past ("strived" or "strove") would indicate that it was a remote event that is not ongoing.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, personally, have no problems with people using AP words in everyday conversation. It can be quite a bit of fun. Also, I agree with what someone said about writing as you would talk if you had a few minutes to think about everything that you said. I used to take the time to do this, but found I was constantly a few minutes behind in conversations. Meh.
On the other hand, being a big fan of Kerouac, I also enjoy writing exactly as I speak, which frequently includes excessively run-on sentences, sentence fragments, non-sequiturs(sp?), colloquialisms, curse words and just plain nonsense. In fact, I just picked up a copy of Long Dark Teatime of the Soul and Adams is making me chortle endlessly with his extensively long sentences including all of the parentheticals that a word addict would hope for.
In short, whatever way you choose to write, someone will not like it. If you make a mistake, someone will point it out. And everyone at hatrack is smarter than you (except me of course). Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: FlyingCow, you seem to be implying that people who use big words are more intelligent. While this is somewhat true, I think that there are people who are even *more* intelligent, who understand those words, and could use them if they wanted, but choose rather to speak in a clear and presentable way, such that their opinions can be more easilly communicated to others. I think that there are alot of these people on hatrack.
I love you for this. I really wish more people understood this. Posts: 464 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:FlyingCow, you seem to be implying that people who use big words are more intelligent.
::blink, blink::
I am?
I just noted that one went to law school and the other to med school. That has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with education.
Those two were highly educated, very well read (though, their favorite books were all written previous to the 20th century and both shunned this century's writing almost entirely), and yet amazingly dim - especially when it came to being wholly ignorant of the world around them, social interaction, and global issues (too much time with noses stuck in books, and not enough time paying attention to anything else).
This is not saying Pelegius is dim, lest you tell me I'm implying that, too. I'm just describing the two friends I had in college who spoke that way.
I also had an 8th grade student who spoke that way, to the point that none of the other students ever understood him. Of course, he had Asperger's Syndrome, which led him to focus more acutely on language.
Again, not implying that Pelegius has Asperger's, either.
Just sayin'.
My misunderstanding then, because I completely agree with what you just said, and thought you meant something else.
and james, don't worry about it Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with squick's first post in this thread.
You write like a show off, albeit a bright one. But my reaction to 'look at me!' has always been to not look. So anyone who's obviously trying so hard to impress everyone with how smart they are immediately makes me wonder why it's so important to them that they be perceived that way.
I then decide that it's a defense mechanism, covering up for a deep seated fear that they're *not* as smart as they pretend to be, and one day they'll be found out and people will point and laugh.
<------- took psych 101, and occasionally went to class.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Just out of curiosity ... what books do you read?"
Some of my favorites: Life of Pi The Once and Future King A Separate Peace No Exit Bel-Ami Catch-22 anything by Shakespeare or Molière "The Withered Hand" by Tchicaya U Tam'si And, for non-fiction: the Works of Michael Grant.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're smart, we get that. You have to understand - OSC's boards don't care. Really, we don't. I care how you post, what you present, and how you present it.
I'm sorry to say, there are issues with each of those three. Just the fact that you created this post is a big indicator. It seems that you didn't learn the lessons that were presented to you on Ornery.
I think that when you do learn, you'll be a great poster. As it is, I honestly skip your threads or read them with the same horrified fascination with which one views a car wreck.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you didn't learn the lessons that were presented to you on Ornery" Clearly true, as I am still "debating" with starLisa.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I had always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that one could communicate in writing, rather than in speech and thus be able to more effectively express nuanced ideas. In the past few days, however, I have come under intense criticism for writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational.
I think its what you choose to SAY that's a little more important than your style. You're entirely too self-conscious for comfort, and that shows pretty clearly in what you talk about, which is often yourself. Even when you aren't talking about yourself, your talking AS yourself, as it were, and projecting your presence into the discussion as an issue all its own. I only know because (as you can observe in this ironic aside), I can see myself doing the same thing sometimes. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How about 'outwardly prim'?
I suppose if she were sitting there knitting, not speaking to anyone, it might be possible to mistake her for "prim", but that's the only circumstance I can think of in which a person might think that the term applied.
Even then, the bright shades of purple, cranberry, etc. would give her away.
Not to mention the impish gleam in her eyes. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the posting style should fit the topic. If I were discussing politics, religion, science, philosophy or some other scholarly pursuit, then I would want to offer an intelligent, well thought-out post. On the other hand, if I'm just talkin' 'bout the new Superman flick I'll post more relaxed like.
Now, refering to your mention of posting in forums to "more effectively express nuanced ideas", I have to disagree. It seems to me that such ideas are more effectively expressed in person where inflection, tone and body language can be observed. I feel these can be important in discussing difficult or esoteric ideas.
quote:Originally posted by Jacen: It seems to me that such ideas are more effectively expressed in person where inflection, tone and body language can be observed.
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: "let us all tell Pelegius how to write."
"let's all tell Pelegius how to write."
Would it kill ya to use a contraction now and then?
I was going to say the same thing. That's one thing that really stands out to me in your posts, Pelegius - you avoid contractions like early Faye of Questionable Content fame.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would it kill ya to use a contraction now and then?
I'm sometimes a little afraid that I'll use a contraction wrong and the rest of the thread will be dedicated to lofty corrections. Specifically when dealing with your/you'r/you're and its/it's. That's just me being slow thow.
Edit: I have just become aware of my mispelling of 'though', but I like it, so I'm leaving it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Squick) for one of my posts, Pel...don't take it too seriously.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
