About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Thursday, October 7, 2004 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw that posted at work some months ago, and thought to myself, " What would 'Roland Pericles' think?"
Go ahead, Barbara, I dare you to ask him! :)



Post 1

Thursday, October 7, 2004 - 10:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Taht was fscianitnag, Braebra.



Post 2

Thursday, October 7, 2004 - 10:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Joe, you wrote about Roland Pericles, "Go ahead, Barbara, I dare you to ask him!"

Sadly, after the names he called me on Atlantis II -- even though we've been friends for 30 years -- I'm not likely to be asking him anything. I don't know why he reacted so violently to our disagreement.

Barbara



Post 3

Thursday, October 7, 2004 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jnnieffr, tanhks.

Dno't seepd cehck yuor ptsos.

Braebra



Post 4

Thursday, October 7, 2004 - 11:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As a scofflaw with a long record of spelling tickets and having been twice served an editor's order to punctuate, I hang my head in shame.  (then fall prostrate)

Seriously, while I think scriptural conservatives get obsessed with the tools of good writing for their own sake and am angered by the kind of professors who throw away a brilliant term paper for a typographical error (yes, I had two like that), I have no more use for the "details don't matter" scriptural liberals.  I don't think the genius is in the details, but in the ability to express essentials in details.

As for the article, I am trying to imagine how much time (and funding) had been invested in this 'research' which Mme. Branden just devastated in one short paragraph.

Jeanine Ring  {))(*)((}




Post 5

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara, I'm sorry, I was unaware of that situation, sorry to hear that...let me go remove foot from mouth.



Post 6

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh Barbara!

I laughed and am still laughing now. Clever, poignant, and spot on.

Michael




Post 7

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You know, Brae is "hill" in Scottish...




Post 8

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 2:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No doubt this will cheer the advocates of whole language - the ravages of which, it seems, will not only leave the reading abilities (and all that follows) of generations in ruins, but evidently the English language itself.

Just a thought: to what extent are learning and behavioural difficulties - even something like dyslexia - the product of whole language teaching methods? I've heard of increasing numbers of children being categorised as with ADD, or dyslexia for example... in this age of the medicalisation of everything, could it be that this is one grand cop-out and that the real root of these problems in many cases is the inability to read?

Does anyone have any evidence for this? It's just a suspicion I have but would be interested to know if there's anything to back it up... if there is, it's frightening to think of a world where kids who fall through the gaping holes of whole language methodology will be told they have some innate disability and drugged accordingly.

(Happily help is at hand, as SOLO will soon announce... once a certain someone has finished his Honours theses very shortly. Sorry Joe!)




Post 9

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I hate to admit it, but that research may be on to something. Personally, I had no difficulty reading Ms. Branden's paragraph, or any of the misspelled responses. It read (almost) as smoothly as if had it been written properly.



Post 10

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 3:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But Gordon, the only reason you could read it at all was because you knew how the words were spelt in the first place.  So it doesn't prove that spelling is unimportant, far from it in fact.




Post 11

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 4:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The problem with poor spelling is that it is JaRrInG. It makes the reader, at some level, ask himself, "Is this a misspelling, or is it a word that I'm not aware of? Am I reading it in the right context?"

I agree that the example that Barbara gave is quite readable almost as readable as if it were spelled correctly. But this is after the mind has cottoned onto the fact that all the words may be misspelled.

Take the example of the sentence: "Now that I have read this example it's amazing that I could aulaclty understand what was printed." Without the experience of the context of this posting, one would be hard-pressed to avoid halting when coming across "aulaclty."

In my opinion, sloppy spelling is just pure inconsiderateness on the part of the writer and it isn't in his interest.  After all, the writer must think that he has something to say and, if the reader has to hesitate time and time again, the flow and hence the intelligibility will be lost.

I do the "Jumble" in the newspaper every day. These transposed letters are sometimes quite hard to sort out. Presumably the author of this puzzle knows that  the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the wonrg pclae.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 10/08, 4:21pm)




Post 12

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cameron-

Yes.

Although I'm a Szaszian who doesn't think "psychological disorder" is a valid concept, I have known one person who was psychological diagnosed as dyslexic precisely for those reasons.  It destroyed her life.  I don't know whom to hate more, the pragmatists who taught her to seek selfhood in emotions terrified  of thought, or the empirical psychologists who then crushed her self-esteem with a label, or her mother, who used the diagnosis to break the spine of her independence to further her own power (specifically by linking it to the Paul's original presentation of original sin in Romans)-lust, or her father, who did try to help her recover her soul, but through a one sided, frustrated demand for "standards" which to her looked like just another cruel axe of judgement coming to descend upon her.

She became a person of wonderful romanticism, with wonderfully, passionate ideas that went through terribly, wasteful epicycles to get anywhere because she simply could not think in language.  She could handle calculus, but not arithmetic; she could compose music, but feared studying it, she could understand Heidegger on a single reading, but could not write coherent sentences.  She became scared of putting thoughts in any public language, and performed most analytic tasks in her own private language which she then *translated* into English.

She became a person who simply did not have any ability to choose her actions because her entire experience of life was tacit.  She had a vivid imagination and a tacitly powerful ability to reason, but she volitionally stopped reasoning as soon as she consciously identified what she was doing as such.  And she feared any kind of conscious ordering of her life as the preparation for a damning torrent of condemnations... with the result of paralysis in achieving any passion as soon as it began to make sense.

It took her 12 years and the creation of a new self for her to regain her pride, and even now, her independence is only a simulacra of what it could have been.  The damn progressive educators pretend to be rebels, but really they just exist in a divide-and-conquer symbiosis with conservative patriarchs.  Half of the people are taught to bear any orders, despite any suffering, for fear of an enervating feeling, while the other half are taught to be terrified of logic and seek solace in snuggling up to power.

Forgive me if I speak angrily; she was my lover, for five years.  She taught me much, including some things that her own miseducation had made easier than my own.  But she will never completely recover from what they did to her.

Jeanie,
no titles





Post 13

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 5:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder if the way the brain figures out these misspellings when the first and last letter is correct is by first sounding out the word (most of the words in Barbara's post sound like the correct word).

If that doesn't work the brain could then look at the context and simultaneously do a 'directory' search for all the words it knows that fit with that first letter..and then eliminate the ones with a different last letter.

(That's my hypothesis for a three step process which happens at lightning speed.)

-Phil



Post 14

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Perhaps there's a flaw in the system. I wrote this to Jennifer:

"Dno't seepd cehck yuor ptsos."

But when I saw it posted, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out what I had said.

And Sam,what on earth does "aulaclty" mean?

Clearly, the writer of the paragraph I posted must have worked long and hard to choose just the words that would make his point.

Barbara



Post 15

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Joe, you have nothing whatever to apologize for. It probably was tactless of me to mention it.

Barbara



Post 16

Friday, October 8, 2004 - 10:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's interesting, Barbara -- that particular paragraph you posted was very easy to read.  But my own mangling of "fascinating" was more difficult for me to read, as was your reply to me at first.  My eyes had to adjust, and Sam's post *really* struck me, because his jumbling of "actually" did stop me dead in my tracks.

I think you are correct about the writer of the paragraph.  Still damnably interesting, however.




Post 17

Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 7:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara:

You apparently unjumbled 'aulaclty' correctly when you quoted:             :-)
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg
Jennifer:

It wasn't I who jumbled 'actually', it was the original writer.

Sam




Post 18

Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Where the hell is Linz???

Actually, I am so liberated by this that I am considering learning English and writing something without "spellcheck"...
(Now "spellcheck" tells me that "spellcheck" isn't a word..)



Post 19

Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 7:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does anyone have any evidence for this? It's just a suspicion I have but would be interested to know if there's anything to back it up... if there is, it's frightening to think of a world where kids who fall through the gaping holes of whole language methodology will be told they have some innate disability and drugged accordingly.

In America's past, this mentality bred 'miracle cures' for previously imputed diseases.

See why the FDA regs are so tight? Stubbornness & pragmatism  =>...




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.