Why do I see a lawsuit coming???

Boldface was designed for displays, as in heads. It's rarely used in running text. Although it's the easiest to see, it's not the easiest to read. The contrast tends to shout at the eye, so to speak.

david wrote:

I fully support the rights of leftists to dislike me and the freedom that I advocate.

Quote:

No actually you don't

I DECLARE my support of the rights of leftists
to dislike me and the freedom that I advocate;
what do u ASK of me in proof ???

Declaring is all I can think of, offhand.

Quote:

and you don't advocate freedom

That is a FALSE defamation ( shame on u ) :
I have always supported a l 'assez faire free market,
and each and every of the Bill of Rights.
Accordingly, I did whatever I cud to oppose the McCain-Feingold
Campaign Finance Reform, as raping the First Amendment,
and I have energeticly opposed gun control, as raping the Second Amendment, etc.
( I don't choose to run thru the entire Bill seriatim ),
but this disproves your allegation that I don 't advocate freedom.

Quote:

other that to say you advocate freedom to voice your opinion
while denying that right to others,
you are, in fact, a bigot.

WHO have I stifled ?

Who ?

Did I stop YOU from expressing yourself ??
Did I ever even go so far as to order u to " Shut up " ???

Did I say that to anyone else ?

Where do u GET that nonsense ?

You are just semi-hysterically slinging mud.
U shud be ashamed of yourself.


You are just mad because I do not agree with your welfare state collectivism.

David

Quote:

A discussion of type and legibility. I know something about this.

Although it is a subject open to debate, the consensus is that the kind of typeface easiest to read (for blocks of copy) is a standard serif typeface. A rounded sans serif is (like the one we use here) is also easy to read and seems to work well on a computer, where serif faces might tend to get a bit fuzzy.

Boldface was designed for displays, as in heads. It's rarely used in running text. Although it's the easiest to see, it's not the easiest to read. The contrast tends to shout at the eye, so to speak.

I suspect that, to an extent, what's easiest to read is what we're accustomed to seeing.

There can be no room for doubt
that the position that u have expressed
represents the overwhelming consensus of comment
concerning my use of font size and color.

I don 't remember ANYONE cheering me on for this.

However, I feel a need to use occasional EMFASIS to express my ideas optimally.

I recall ( negatively ) a professor of Asian History I had in college.
I used to think of him as sleeping thru his own lectures,
as he droned on, on, on n on in a ( seemingly ) endless monotone.

The words n concepts that I set down r NOT of equal value.
Some concepts deserve special and particular attention;
therefore, I try to call special attention to them by enlarging them or by coloring them.

I also save myself the trouble of quoting parts of
some other poster 's text, to which I refer, by coloring it, to display it so as to attract attention.
That saves me from writing unnecessary length of critical and explanatory text; its efficient.

I keep getting beaten up because I use EMFASIS in my posting,
which is DIFFERENT than shouting.
People use different forms of emfasis all the time, when speaking,
( hopefully not screaming ) and no one condemns them for this.

I am trying to do that here, to make my thoughts CLEAR.

I also block my text in boldface, or use color,
to set it apart from the text to which I am responding,
so that MY text will contrast with the earlier text of someone else.

Sometimes, my response will seek to make multiple points,
that do not necessarily relate to one another
( e.g., first, the value of the gold standard, and later, the need for defensive war )
in which case, to suggest a change, I might sometimes
set the new point, on a different subject, in a different color.

I support hedonism; I have no wish to make my fellow citizens unhappy.

Quote:

By the same token, nonstandard spelling tends to slow down the reader
since a "translation" is necessary: u to you, r to are, etc.
People who are accustomed to seeing this won't be slowed down by it.

I know.

I am an old man.
For the vast majority of my life, I used conventional spelling,
narrowly turning my attention to successfully accomplishing
the project at hand, and taking for granted, never considering spelling.
My memorization of conventional spelling, during my earliest years,
was pretty good. I used to correct the spelling of my legal secretaries,
enforcing the old paradigm; ( this was before computers, with spell check ).

Subsequently, after retiring from the practice of law,
I realized that I had helped to perpetuate a defective paradigm of spelling,
in that it reflected obsolete remnants of the Germanic origins of English.
The pronunciation of English has evolved,
but its spelling remains an atavistic throwback to obsolete usage.
We do NOT still speak like Chaucer.

Sound reasoning requires that spelling purely reflect
pronunciation, unless there is a good reason against it,
for instance, I 'd not spell " rite and rong " because
the word rite has been dedicated to mean a ceremony;
i.e., it has already been taken. ( The w was of no help on rong; dump it. )
Whereas, on the other hand for HEFT, I can spell wate,
in that this word has not yet been taken,
thereby dumping the useless old gh in weight.

I leave it for others to polish fonetic spelling to perfection.
I will be satisfied to tear down as much of the non-fonetic paradime,
as I can by leading by example, to show that there r easier ways to do it.

It is as if I see everyone carrying around ten pounds of useless iron,
in service to tradition, because their old school teachers told them to do it.
Enuf is enuf; useless burdens shud be laid down and abandoned.

or

It is as if we were all riding in the same car,
and I see that we have a flat tire.
I suggest that we change it, and I am condemned for apostasy,
on the ground that we have been riding on that tire for a long, long time
and it is traditional. I choose to support sound reasoning,
subordinating tradition thereto.

If we don 't take care of fixing this problem,
our children will have to abandon it sooner or later.
Let 's lay the burden down sooner.

I support hedonism; I have no wish to make my fellow citizens unhappy.


David

Also -- I think I've said this before when it's come up so forgive my repetitiveness but I'll say it again -- there is plenty of software available (some free) that allows you to adjust how you view screens. So if, for example, it's easier for you to read font that is very large and high-contrast, you can adjust it to appear that way on YOUR screen -- without subjecting everyone else to the same thing.

Joe Nation wrote:

After tonight's run I am going to GoggleMap the location just to see how boondockish it was.

It's unfortunately just outside a better pictured area - otherwise I'd posted it already earlier.

I know.

I am an old man.
For the vast majority of my life, I used conventional spelling,
narrowly turning my attention to successfully accomplishing
the project at hand, and taking for granted, never considering spelling.
My memorization of conventional spelling, during my earliest years,
was pretty good. I used to correct the spelling of my legal secretaries,
enforcing the old paradigm; ( this was before computers, with spell check ).

Subsequently, after retiring from the practice of law,
I realized that I had helped to perpetuate a defective paradigm of spelling,
in that it reflected obsolete remnants of the Germanic origins of English.
The pronunciation of English has evolved,
but its spelling remains an atavistic throwback to obsolete usage.
We do NOT still speak like Chaucer.

======

How does the above writing suffer from being placed in the "normal" font?

Joe(beats the hell out of me)Nation

I will endeavor to reduce the amount of coloration
and of large fonts, to some extent, consistent with expressing my ideas.
David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will endeavor to reduce the amount of coloration
and of large fonts, to some extent, consistent with expressing my ideas.
David

Quote:

Thanks David.
I've noticed your efforts and wish to acknowledge and thank you for that.

U r welcome.
Have we met before ?

Quote:

It does indeed make your posts much easier to read and comprehend when you use less
of the decorations that clutter and distract from what you are expressing.

A lot of people seem to agree with u.

I wonder whether when thay attend lectures,
thay demand of the speakers that thay rigorously employ MONOTONE delivery.

Quote:

When you say that you use the bold attribute to distinguish your responses from others,
I'd like to point out that you are already doing that by using the quote
block to display the words of someone else and it is redundant to then
also use the bold attribute for the same purpose.

As a retired trial attorney,
redundance is an acquired trait,
from abundant practice thereof;
say the same thing 1000 ways,
in hope that the jury or the court will
get the point from at least ONE of your endeavors.

Quote:

If you weren't consistently using the bold attribute to highlight your responses,
it would give you one more tool in the utility box to use when wishing
to emphasize words and phrases.

I know.

Quote:

That, too, would reduce the need for the enlarged fonts of expression that people find annoying.

Somewhat

Quote:

Since you were the only one reading the books, it is a technique to be applauded.

It was helpful in committing the material to memory
and to enabling a faster finding of certain points thereof, in the future.

Quote:

However, in this instance, you are, in essence, marking up the pages of a publicly shared book
that many others attempt to read to also find the language that is of particular importance to them.

I have never been averse
to SHARING my library.

The books which I deemed of greatest value
r the most marked up.

If I lend someone one of my books,
that act does not divest me of my right to have marked it up,
however I chose to mark it,
and in fact I HAVE done so.

When I have shared my books with friends,
I have usually intended to share certain particular ideas included therein.
Those ideas have been marked with colored ink,
for the convenient reference of myself,
or of any future reader of the book.

Quote:

What makes an internet message board any different than a publicly shared book
that you would not deem to mark up because others use it too?

I wud not write in someone else 's book,
the same way that I wud not write on the walls of his house.

My posts, if I write them at all,
r MY posts, for me to construct them however I please,
consistent with the rules of our host.

My posts r not the property of the readers thereof.

The same as if I am going to write a poem, a song,
or a story: I make it as I c fit
( as does every other author ).
David

Quote:

Yes, David, we understand that you believe your form of posting to be a style,
a personal art, and you think it brings more clarity and force to the words because of the impact of the form.

That 's the idea:
to BRING OUT the more significant thoughts,
that thay be not LOST among the surrounding material.

On another forum, someone challenged me to prove thus-and-so.
I accepted his challenge and did so,
at some length, having invested too much free labor, like a fool.
He subsequently asked me to do it again,
denying that I had done so,
eventually admitting that it was his policy to only SKIM my work
( produced at HIS behest ).
I doubt that he is the only skimmer.

Making my more important ideas stand out
seems like a good idea, as distinct from allowing them to be lost in ambient camoflage.

Quote:

Sadly, for you, because I know you must take extra time thinking about what tools to use,
what words to enlarge or colorize, it does neither.

Shocking art first repels, says the ArTwoRld, then draws you in.
I would add, then beats you to death if taken repeatedly.

You're right. None of us would want to attend a lecture of monotone,
but, David, none of us are here at the foot of any lecturer.

Then the alternative is to render only snippets, one-liners,
and couplets, shunning any analysis in depth,
like saying " W is neat " or " Clinton is a bum " without explaining Y or how.

Quote:

Big and bold helped you memorize,
it causes the rest of us to scroll by.

I understand.

Quote:

Joe(yes. I know this parenthethis thing is as obnoxious. Cheers)Nation

U employ it to good advantage.
I have no objection to it.