Yikes...a forum guide gets caught!
pueo
I regret my last comment, almost to the point of editing it. Variety of viewpoint is a truly good thing, and I wish to see such variety here. But there is a style of discourse or discussion which in itself can become a hindrance to the goals of discussion. Claims which are peppered with logical fallacies, for example, take up a lot of room (and peoples' time) for no good purpose.
Where anyone uses generalities (nominal claims, in dys' terminology) such as 'conservatives all think X', everyone else has to take the time to go back and get the poster to be specific, and to clarify instances, before the discussion can have any value at all, except as a means to support some simplistic fixed idea.
dlowan
That can happen, but I'd argue not in this case. One can, for example, look at the posts of others (eg Walter Hinteler) and though the grammar may have errors, or the spelling may be incorrect, or the words sometimes not the best for that context, there is no sign of such generalizations/nominalitizations. It is a distinct rhetorical style. But I think I'll end off on this particular subject at this particular juncture.
Hmmm - that is interesting.
I sometimes wonder if a better tactic with such posts is to simply proceed with the discussion - I do not mean so much the sort of posts made by the member who was mentioned, but the really ridiculously ignorant ones?
So often discussion then revolves for ages around one obviously ridiculous statement, and this holds things up for the rest, who are able to discss in a way more pleasing and fruitful for them.
The whole thing then becomes a sort of gladiatorial contest - which is sometimes fun, to be sure, but not often fruitful.
dlowan
In fact, prevention of just such was the fundamental, if optimistic, goal of the guidelines.
It's a tough problem, particularly on-line where there is no constant moderating presence (as there would be in a college classroom) and as the number of posters increases. Though many may pass over the questionable rhetoric, some other may be drawn into it, and the resulting posts may take up pages. Also, those posts may have (usually do have) good bits in them which readers may feel compelled to speak to.
dlowan wrote:I sometimes wonder if such communication difficulties are partly the result of imperfect grasp of the language being written in?
i think there is an element of truth in that but what i am refering to is more in terms of value laden words that have no operational (concrete) definition that are all too often bandied about, we might in common discourse refer to someone as "crazy" with a common understanding but it is still quite nominal in not implying a DSM diagnosis. Forums, i think even more than common conversation, do require more precise usage of language to prevent the oft times seen flaming, vitriolic exchanges, "conservatives are war mongers" "liberals are pansy-assed do-gooders" etc etc etc. (not to say that i am above all that)
There is a wonderful concept from a rather old book on cults (I've forgotten title) where the author described one characteristic common to them as 'the thought-terminating cliche'.
Terms often become so value-laden to certain speakers and listeners that they function in precisely this manner. Commonly, of course, this is intentional (see Orwell's wonderful essay 'Politics and the English Language'). One doesn't have to go to the trouble of thinking, it is already done for one. The conservative movement did a very effective job with the term 'liberal' in this regard, redefining it to refer to an entire package of notions, and for many undiscerning readers/listeners, this term now functions precisely as a thought-terminating cliche.
Sure...pretend you are all surprised...you big fat conservative you.
Blatham; that was a most "liberal" way of putting it; here, here.
(Figure that one out!)
not sure if this belongs here but doesn't the use of the phrase "you know" annoy you?
listened to a radio interview from san francisco and the use of "you know" over and over again was maddening. talk about discord.
you know
I sure hope so, pueo. That's the only reason I use it - for sure.
We humble Canadians, having been borne of a merciless, character-building climate that any Calvinist would envy, if he were allowed envy, harbor close our syllables, and so, do not to witness our sentences growing syllabically fat and lethargic like those of our southern neighbors, eh?
You know pueo humor is hard to understand if you are born and raised in another country and english is not you native langauge, I think. Of course I always understand completly what dys is saying because we are both Colorado natives even if it does not make sense because that is the way it is.
well yeah, you know............ :wink:
Pueo you know I know that you know more about what I know than you know.
Is someone accusing my sentences of being fat?
\l/
O-< 8 =
/l\
well no so much fat as, well, you know... :wink:
i think this is what dys meant when he posted this topic.
