RoR: Forum

Thanks, Linz, this is so refreshing. It's good that you're the king.

-Julia

Post 41

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:19pm

Linz: "(Don't you hate it when you have to spoil humor with a smiley face because there's a very good chance someone will think you're serious if you don't? Remember the Prodos drama?)"

Yeah, I do, but I need to get into the habit of adding the damned thing to alot of what I post, because I tend to use humor that can easily be taken seriously. Its just my sense of humor. I need to add the smiley so I stop freaking people out...

BTW--Matt G. still around or did he take off? I dont seem hi around anywhere much anymore...

Post 42

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:29pm

Scott,

How ~dare~ you quibble with my quibble without a signed consent first!

Oh yes. So sorry. Forgot about that rule.

[Regi's rules of life, #17--It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission. So do what you like; if the permission thing comes up, say your sorry.]

Regi

Post 43

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:57pm

[Regi's rules of life, #17--It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission. So do what you like; if the permission thing comes up, say your sorry.]

J's Addendum: Or just kill them and flee to Argentina.

EDIT: Just broke 200 posts. That calls for a shot. See ya!

(Edited by Jeremy on 9/16, 8:59pm)

Post 44

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:29pm

As a person whose native language is not English, I'd never dare to omit capitals or punctuations. And I'd always spell check. Still, there are always things that I miss. For which I do not ask for forgiveness, but I do sincerely appreciate that many people understand what I intend to say and continue communicating with me.

Coming from such perspective, I may have a defect in the ability to fully understand why all-small-case writings are so irritating to many people here, and why it is exploded to such proportion. It seems many people here are deeply offended by the exclusive small-case users, even though I am quite sure Eli et al. never intended to offend.

To me what people say is much more important than how they say it.

And there are a lot of other more important things for me to worry about or enjoy than to let minor irritations get to me.

Post 45

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 11:31am

Spelling, grammar and punctuation are important philosophically. I recommend Leonard Peikoff's "Principles of Grammar". It is one of his best efforts.
I find myself more challenged on these rules the older I get, which tends to make me both more appreciative of how important they are and more understanding of mistakes people make than I used to be. However, I see no justification in consciously breaking the rules and great benefit in doing your best to follow them. Let's all sit down with Linz over some "quibbles and beer" and admit he is right on this one.

Post 46

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 11:42am

Pah - Scott, you're just itching to make your structured language appear more sophisticated, thus validating your content through form. Superiority never even came in on any of my posts - that's your little potty-chair, so deal with it.
I'm trying to argue that with minds in a similar frame as my own it's often more effective to use 'short-hand', 'poetry' or even 'rambling' - whatever gets the idea across; yes even philosophical ideas!
Btw. Nature: I always found the 70 page speech of Galt boring as hell! And correct grammar did not make it one iota easier to read! What remained with me was the passionate ideas of the book which were far more clearly articulated in some of Dagny's or Hank's 'emotional outburst'.
There are people I can use exactly this kind of 'fast forward' language where not everything has to be spelled out again, as it is either obvious or already discussed. A communication which in these special cases is indeed superior to any punctuation, grammar, semantics, what-not.
That's why I agree with Linz's preference for structure in this forum; far be it from me to snuck by under his radar when talking to people who's mindsets I have no idea of.
What I'm trying to get into that organised brain of your's though is the idea, that sometimes you do not think as structured as you'd like to pretend in forums, or as your final edited version comes out. And in the process of editing you may lose a) time for more reflection and b) some of the original ideas in that mess you just untangled in your mind; or barely got your brain around.
So don't get me started at putting the crutches of language on my mind. It's bothersome enough to edit my posts ;-)
VSD
Don't knock it till you tried it!

Post 47

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 3:56pm

Computers have completely changed the way that I create anything written. Prior to computers one was constrained to think and write in a channelled, linear way. Now, it's almost complete freedom. I write anything that comes into my head, as it comes into my head. But now I have the ability to rearrange sentences and create a flowing, intelligible train of thought that others can understand.

What's all this piffle about potty-chair anal retentive rhetoric? You are trying to impose your own internal neural connections and associations on everyone else and expect them to interpret them through some magical translation program. If you want others to read your postings and fully understand them you'll need to edit them.

Sam

Post 48

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 8:39am

"you do not think as structured as you'd like to pretend in forums, or as your final edited version comes out."

You're right. But if I were a robot, I would think in really structured ways, though. Plus, I would probably have a jet-pack and could fly around. I would probably live for a thousand years, until my atomic energy pack ran down. And I wouldn'[t need a potty chair of any kind. I don't really think I need one now, but evidently, you think I do. Robots would probably have a hard time understanding context, so they wouldnt know when concise or playful or fanciful or shorthand communication would be most appropriate. It's a good thing we didnt have robots back during the times of the telegraph, because a robot would probably want to recite a book, when "The Indians are a'comin'" would have sufficed. On second thought, I guess Im glad I'm not a robot. But I would still like a jet pack and 1000 year productive life span...

Post 49

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:08pm

Hong wrote: "To me what people say is much more important than how they say it."

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. The problem is that often the "how" makes the "what" difficult or impossible to understand. For instance, if capitals are not used, it is easy to mistake the period at the end of a sentence for a fleck of print or dust -- particularly on a computer -- and since the next word is not capitalized, the reader won't be aware that a new sentence, that is, a new thought, has begun. Similarly, if one is reading quickly, one may go right through to the next uncapitalized word, again thinking it is part of the same sentence of thought. These and other problems that arise, contribute to making such easily-avoidable difficulties very irritating.

On a different but related issue: Stream-of-consciousness writing, without punctuation, capitalization, or concern with spelling, grammar and objective meaning, presents these and a host of other problems as well. Professional writers don't edit their work just for fun; often, it's a very demanding activity. They do it for many reasons, chief of which is the conviction that if you are expressing an idea or an emotion or a state of consciousness or anything else, it's as well to make yourself understood as not -- old-fashioned as such a concern may be. Clearly, a great many people care to consider carefully thought-out and presented ideas. Stream-of-consciousness writers ought to ask themselves if anyone cares what is streaming through their consciousness.

Barbara

Post 50

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:25pm

Sam, you wrote: "I write anything that comes into my head, as it comes into my head. But now I have the ability to rearrange sentences and create a flowing, intelligible train of thought that others can understand."

Isn't it wonderful?

When computers first became popular, I began to notice something that fascinated me, and I wonder if others noticed it, too. I would be reading a book, and I would idly think that the writer must be using a word processor. I'd stop, and wonder why I thought so. Then I realized why -- and I'll explain this as clearly as I can. When writing in longhand or even on a typewriter, the "chunks of thought" one can express at one time are limited by the speed at which one can write or type. When using a word processor, one can work much more quickly; hence the chunks of thought, the breadth of concept, that one can deal with and express is fuller and more complex.

I became aware, both about others and about myself, that we were actually better writers because of word processors, that we could deal with more complex ideas and multiple ideas more clearly and quickly, and that we had been limited by the lack of speed of a pen or a typewriter.

Sam, I can't imagine that you especially won't have something to say about this.

Barbara

Post 51

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 3:49pm

Barbara: Yes, I agree completely. That's been my experience also. I'm not a particularly verbally fluent person but I find I can express myself much more coherently and persuasively by the written word. I can't imagine how constricted I would now feel if word processors suddenly disappeared. I'd probably be getting out the scissors and paste pot and literally 'cutting and pasting' words, sentences and paragraphs.

Seeing manuscripts, with crossed out words and insertions, of gifted writers leaves me in awe of their ability to construct such prose. Undoubtedly you have seen Rand's original manuscripts. Do you have any observations you'd like to share about how she went about the physical act of writing? Did she make an overall plan and work 'from the top down' in a structured way? Or did she have a plan in her head that she generally adhered to; or did she just wing it and do a lot of repetitive editing? (I suspect, not the latter)

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/19, 3:55pm)

Post 52

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 8:22pm

Barbara,
Thank you for taking the time to explain the basics. I understand that many people at this forum are published authors. (By the way, Barbara, I am reading you Rand biography right at this moment). I myself have also been publishing in scientific journals, in English, and thus I am well aware of the painstaking processes of editing, revision, and proofreading.

However, I've always thought that internet forum is more conversational. Unlike published works, there can be immediate clarification or rebuttal on any points that are unclear or dubious. People often communicate on internet in a form somewhat between oral and written English, and it is in general more lively. While I appreciate well-thought-out essays, I also enjoy many quick witty responses.

I must confess that I myself also don't like grammatically problematic posts, and I usually don't read them. But that's irrelevant. Everybody here has the freedom not to read or respond to any post. But I am still a bit shocked that brutal force (aka administrative measure) is used to shut out those posts regardless of their contents.

Perhaps, as a newbie on this site, I don't yet fully grasp all the rules that are in practice at SOLOHQ. For a person who 1). is an atheist and 2). is genuinely interested in Rand's philosophy, the world can be a rather lonely place. SOLOHQ is a wonderful place (the only place?) for such like minded to exchange ideas. I'd wish that the forum could be more tolerant on issues that are not fundamentally deviate from the basic principles of Objectivism.

Post 53

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 5:54am

Hi Hong,

I may be wrong but I think issue about Lindsay's rejections on sloppy grounds were about the "posted" articles and not about the "posts" on the threads.

Michael

Post 54

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:25am

Hi Michael,

"I may be wrong but I think issue about Lindsay's rejections on sloppy grounds were about the "posted" articles and not about the "posts" on the threads."

I wouldn't have any problem with that!

Post 55

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 2:04pm

I knew I should have put that smiley somewhere in the post ... or maybe should have been more specific with quotes what my 'anal retentive rhetoric' tries to flush down the 'potty chair' ... or should have just refrained from posting so much, since my Shakespearean got a little rusty over the years :-)

My apologies that my attempt at levity was mistaken as an insult - that ironic remark was directed at the somewhat strong remarks of Scott in posts 28 and 29 (highly appreciated by Sam in consecutive posts), where he argues that

'... any higher levels of abstraction require a systematic way of categorizing stuff (language) ...'

'... that stream of conciousness is a series of half-digested thoughts expelled onto a page. Art requires craft and skill ...'

(to shorten it to only these two remarks, ignoring no 37) ...

I could have just tried a rational objective argument to this tripe, but frankly, when I've had too much tripe I simply flush once in a while ... so let me regurgitate this time:

Higher levels of abstraction do absolutely not require a systematic way of categorisation (though for many people this may actually be a requirement of their personal minds). My personal experience is very much to the contrary, deriving from years at a university (English Literature Studies if you must know) and from many more years as a computer systems analyst. The higher my level of abstraction became, the more 'unsystematic' my 'mind processor' was working, simply because I did not have to deal with the nitty-gritty of grammar or bit-and-byte of code anymore, but was dealing with the idea I wanted to express. Of course if I wanted to present these levels of abstractions to others, like writing papers for my profs, or making a presentation for my customers, I again have to go down exactly to that kind of systematic categorisation, to communicate my ideas, to prove, that I do actually know what I'm talking about and not just 'spouting high-faluting nonsense'. Thus my argument (as already stated in my slanderous comment) was not on the superiority of one form of language over the other (that was Scott's big beef), but on the applicability of each to the realm best suited to. Not the higher level of abstraction requires categorisation, but the communication of this level to others who may or may not be on such a level.

If I talk to my English prof I don't need to go into the details of the linguistic value of stream-of-consciousness, I can assume that many of it's finer points are already understood, either because we already discussed it in class or because I assume he actually has read some of it's finer works or he wouldn't be an English prof. In fact if I started such a discussion with the grammar and punctuation of stream-of-consciousness, he'd already be bored two minutes into that discussion. Same applies if I talk to a systems-engineer. I can skip some of the bits-and-bytes of code-language, which have to go into a technical concept I want to sell to a customer. Just as I have to edit and re-edit my posts to SOLO so as not to step on too many well-manicured toes (would this qualify as another place for a smiley?).

Yes in many situations I do bother to edit my words, yes I am trying to use systematic and objective language to communicate with others, because most people get drilled from childhood on throughout school and university that form is often more important than content, that content to be communicated must have a specific form, but just imagine what kind of communication we could have if we were not hampered by grammar, by the bits-and-bytes of our daily world, if my communication could fly as free as my mind sometimes does without having to bother to explain why I think of 'potty-chairs' and why I found it funny to put Scott's 'language-superiority' on one? What would our computer coding languages be capable of if they matured another 2000 years into the powerful expressions that poetry has become in a few lines, sometimes mere words?

If we had that kind of language, what would our philosophy look like? All just garbage and tripe - all some half-digested vomit on a page - would there be any pages at all?

Yes we are currently 'hampered' with our present language - and yes again it is better than 'apish grunts' (to build up another Feindbild), but why this slavish concern with language and grammar, when we are talking about ideas? When word-processors do give us the liberty to eschew some of those constraints? When even Ayn's philosophy derives a great part of it's popularity from her fictional novels and not from her philosophical works.How many of you 'structured philosophers' remember Galt's speech by heart and how many funny, sad, intriguing or down-right 'every-day-had-it-myself' passages from Atlas can you quote without much straining your poor brain-cells?

And why vomit on the pages of someone else's stream-of-consciousness (or any other not-so-structured language) just because your structure cannot encompass 'half-digested thoughts'?

VSD

PS: Sam and Barbara - up to a certain point I actually agree with you, that our language is 'going to hell', but definitely not because some of us try to find a 'fast-forward' communication, but more so because most of us don't have anything to communicate at all anymore ... empty language does not come from empty words, but from empty minds ...

Post 56

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 9:18pm

God of SOLO:

It must be easy being so closed-minded as to dismiss all music outside the realm of classical music as "headbanging caterwauling." Life should be so simple.

For someone seemingly so bright, you're one of the more ignorant people I've met in a while.

Relax and take a deep breath, but don't forget to pull your head out of your ass first. I've only been here on this site for a few days, but so far it seems that everything with you has to be an aggressive attack on rock music. It's insanely childish, and I can only imagine how much more of an impact a man of your intelligence could make on the world if such immaturity didn't take up so much of your time. You have the ability to operate with the efficiency of a state-of-the-art hybrid automobile, but instead you choose to operate with the efficiency of a 70s muscle car.

You will get no gripe from me if you moderate this post and remove it from the site so long as you come away from it with the understanding that you have a gift of knowledge and that wasting it is offensive to those less fortunate. You wouldn't wipe your ass with $100 bills right in front of a family living in poverty, so why shit on the efforts of others to gain intelligence by wasting your own on meaningless and ignorant bashing?

I like this site and I like you, but I can't pretend to respect your ignorance. I want to respect you, and I'd like to think that you want to be respected. So can't you just drop the headbanging caterwauling thing? I can't imagine that it truly affects you as much as you imply by all the attention you give the subject.

Jake

Post 57

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:56pm