what do ye all say, what is bad, what is good english, should mudders write in different style on boards than they do while mudding, is 318 an ok protocol for electronic conversation on boards. or should the gramatical rules and spelling rules be specified and put in a disclaimer that has to be agreed on b4 posting?
does all posts have to make sense to everyone?
w ever/fil
InLiZh!!
Err.. what's 318?
I'd only say that your posts should be understandable by the people you are directing them at. If you direct a post at me, and I can't decipher it then you've failed. *shrug*
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
I'd only say that your posts should be understandable by the people you are directing them at. If you direct a post at me, and I can't decipher it then you've failed. *shrug*
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Oh, right.
[sarcasm]
In that case Fildur, go for it. I'm sure the amount of people who understand you would go up exponentially. [/sarcasm]
Sarvis, who keeps forgetting to check the show signature box.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 02-15-2002).]
[sarcasm]
In that case Fildur, go for it. I'm sure the amount of people who understand you would go up exponentially. [/sarcasm]
Sarvis, who keeps forgetting to check the show signature box.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 02-15-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Malacar:
dewedspeak (or as I call it, idiotspeak) for 'elite'</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
D00D3!
imho L8 cx kz 1z !re:*2, b7 (x=w&a uz 1t)?(tz a k) :(! & b !dr(std)*2).
point is readability is a thing you, as a reader, construct during reading, _that_ goes for all languages, if ye dont get it then you arent reading carefully enough./fil
[This message has been edited by fildur (edited 02-16-2002).]
dewedspeak (or as I call it, idiotspeak) for 'elite'</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
D00D3!
imho L8 cx kz 1z !re:*2, b7 (x=w&a uz 1t)?(tz a k) :(! & b !dr(std)*2).
point is readability is a thing you, as a reader, construct during reading, _that_ goes for all languages, if ye dont get it then you arent reading carefully enough./fil
[This message has been edited by fildur (edited 02-16-2002).]
I'm confused... readable is defined as:
'Able to be read easily.'
Is it not then the author's function to construct a message that is easily understood by others?
If you're actually trying to tell someone something, why would you want them to sift through your bastardized english/code to be able to understand?
For that matter, you say it applies for all languages... So would you post in Russian or Chinese and expect everyone to sit around and decipher your message?
Not everyone on this board understands Russian, Chinese, English, or 318.
I hesitate to call it a language... I read it carefully, and I still find myself wondering if you suffer from some sort of mental deficiency...
D00D3!
I am sorry if you take offense to this, try to take it light-heartedly... that is how it is intended.
(The base message being serious though)
Zalkenai - Loquacious to a fault.
___________________________________________
No keyboards were harmed during the making of this post.
'Able to be read easily.'
Is it not then the author's function to construct a message that is easily understood by others?
If you're actually trying to tell someone something, why would you want them to sift through your bastardized english/code to be able to understand?
For that matter, you say it applies for all languages... So would you post in Russian or Chinese and expect everyone to sit around and decipher your message?
Not everyone on this board understands Russian, Chinese, English, or 318.
I hesitate to call it a language... I read it carefully, and I still find myself wondering if you suffer from some sort of mental deficiency...
D00D3!
I am sorry if you take offense to this, try to take it light-heartedly... that is how it is intended.
(The base message being serious though)
Zalkenai - Loquacious to a fault.
___________________________________________
No keyboards were harmed during the making of this post.
I'll support anybody's desire to speak anyway they want, as long as they don't interrupt my RP! ::grin::
Truthfully, though, the "readability" you give your written word is your choice. The question is, what audience are you targeting, and how much do you want them to get your message? If you're targeting the general mud, and you want the general mud to understand what you're saying, then either you'll use a written style that the general mud can understand, or you should accept that your posts won't get their attention in the way you're hoping for.
Being a good speaker doesn't mean having a great audience, although that helps. Being a good speaker means addressing your audience in a way that makes them *want* to listen to you. The same goes for writing. If you want to get your message across, then you have to address your audience in a manner which will convey your meaning clearly in a manner they understand.
Does all posts have to make sense to everyone? No, only to those you're trying to reach. If it doesn't make sense to them, then you're defeating your own purpose.
Truthfully, though, the "readability" you give your written word is your choice. The question is, what audience are you targeting, and how much do you want them to get your message? If you're targeting the general mud, and you want the general mud to understand what you're saying, then either you'll use a written style that the general mud can understand, or you should accept that your posts won't get their attention in the way you're hoping for.
Being a good speaker doesn't mean having a great audience, although that helps. Being a good speaker means addressing your audience in a way that makes them *want* to listen to you. The same goes for writing. If you want to get your message across, then you have to address your audience in a manner which will convey your meaning clearly in a manner they understand.
Does all posts have to make sense to everyone? No, only to those you're trying to reach. If it doesn't make sense to them, then you're defeating your own purpose.
-
Jasix Prowlingwolf
- Sojourner
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Forster Keys, NSW Australia
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>I'm confused... readable is defined as:
'Able to be read easily.'
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
if you are able to read easily is a matter of _your_ training, background and mental capabilities. an open mind allways helps in trying to understand a certain text.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>
Is it not then the author's function to construct a message that is easily understood by others?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why should it be, how should an author write isnt a 2-liner q&a in some silly faq somewhere, anyway, if it was, that faq would be worthles...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>
If you're actually trying to tell someone something, why would you want them to sift through your bastardized english/code to be able to understand?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>
For that matter, you say it applies for all languages... So would you post in Russian or Chinese and expect everyone to sit around and decipher your message?
Not everyone on this board understands Russian, Chinese, English, or 318.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so? not everyone on this board likes jell-o and not everyone here likes sauerkraut.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>
I hesitate to call it a language... I read it carefully, and I still find myself wondering if you suffer from some sort of mental deficiency...
D00D3!
I am sorry if you take offense to this, try to take it light-heartedly... that is how it is intended.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i wont take offense, but ye got the things confused on communication.
/fil
<B>I'm confused... readable is defined as:
'Able to be read easily.'
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
if you are able to read easily is a matter of _your_ training, background and mental capabilities. an open mind allways helps in trying to understand a certain text.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>
Is it not then the author's function to construct a message that is easily understood by others?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why should it be, how should an author write isnt a 2-liner q&a in some silly faq somewhere, anyway, if it was, that faq would be worthles...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>
If you're actually trying to tell someone something, why would you want them to sift through your bastardized english/code to be able to understand?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>
For that matter, you say it applies for all languages... So would you post in Russian or Chinese and expect everyone to sit around and decipher your message?
Not everyone on this board understands Russian, Chinese, English, or 318.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so? not everyone on this board likes jell-o and not everyone here likes sauerkraut.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>
I hesitate to call it a language... I read it carefully, and I still find myself wondering if you suffer from some sort of mental deficiency...
D00D3!
I am sorry if you take offense to this, try to take it light-heartedly... that is how it is intended.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i wont take offense, but ye got the things confused on communication.
/fil<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
<B>
Being a good speaker doesn't mean having a great audience, although that helps. Being a good speaker means addressing your audience in a way that makes them *want* to listen to you. The same goes for writing. If you want to get your message across, then you have to address your audience in a manner which will convey your meaning clearly in a manner they understand.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
does the radio-metaphor for communication hold, that is, is it a good and comperhensive way to speak about communication in the sender-reciever way. this way of viewing communication isnt very old, it date back to the 30's, other ways of analyzing communication exist, but they dont have the easy rethorical ways of the radio-metaphor.
the point is, theories that are easy to understand, are easy to accept. are they true is a very different thing.
do i want to see this post as a message? no, because the message relies on the radio-metaphor, id rather see it as an agent of intentions. this post will be used _by_ _its_ _readers_ to make connections with the readers previous and maybe future experiences to in some way alter the way alter the perceptive capabilities of the same readers. in light of what is written here future judgements will be made, the way the reader will read other posts from me will be altered too. this is not a matter of giving myself divine status or putting myself on a pedestal, its just the nature of communication.
on the other hand as the creaor of this object of intention i might as well be God, and if ye dont get that, plz read again B)
/fil
ps och jag tänker inte hålla käft gakka:P
<B>
Being a good speaker doesn't mean having a great audience, although that helps. Being a good speaker means addressing your audience in a way that makes them *want* to listen to you. The same goes for writing. If you want to get your message across, then you have to address your audience in a manner which will convey your meaning clearly in a manner they understand.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
does the radio-metaphor for communication hold, that is, is it a good and comperhensive way to speak about communication in the sender-reciever way. this way of viewing communication isnt very old, it date back to the 30's, other ways of analyzing communication exist, but they dont have the easy rethorical ways of the radio-metaphor.
the point is, theories that are easy to understand, are easy to accept. are they true is a very different thing.
do i want to see this post as a message? no, because the message relies on the radio-metaphor, id rather see it as an agent of intentions. this post will be used _by_ _its_ _readers_ to make connections with the readers previous and maybe future experiences to in some way alter the way alter the perceptive capabilities of the same readers. in light of what is written here future judgements will be made, the way the reader will read other posts from me will be altered too. this is not a matter of giving myself divine status or putting myself on a pedestal, its just the nature of communication.
on the other hand as the creaor of this object of intention i might as well be God, and if ye dont get that, plz read again B)
/fil
ps och jag tänker inte hålla käft gakka:P
"if you are able to read easily is a matter of _your_ training, background and mental capabilities. an open mind allways helps in trying to understand a certain text."
This isn't about having an open mind. It's about being able to understand what you are trying to tell us. If we can't figure out what you are saying, we can't accept it no matter how open our mind is! Try keeping an open mind and reading anything in a language you don't know, then tell us what you got from it.
"<i>why should it be, how should an author write isnt a 2-liner q&a in some silly faq somewhere, anyway, if it was, that faq would be worthles...</i?
No, but one of the first things they teach in any writing class is to write to your audience. If an author is writing a textbook for a 6th grade biology class he needs to keep his grammar a lot simpler than he does for a college level biology class. Otherwise no one would by the 3rd grade text, because students wouldn't be able to learn from it!
In a written argument class they teach the same thing for slightly different reasons, which are more applicable to this discussion. Write so that your readers can understand, or they won't bother to try and you won't get your point across to them. No one is going to try and understand what you write if they are in a debate opposed to you. Why should they? They want to be right, and it's easier to just assume the other person was wrong if you can't make sense out of what they wrote.
"if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes..."
I hope your joking. If not then this entire discussion is wasted.
"so? not everyone on this board likes jell-o and not everyone here likes sauerkraut."
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
"do i want to see this post as a message? no, because the message relies on the radio-metaphor, id rather see it as an agent of intentions. this post will be used _by_ _its_ _readers_ to make connections with the readers previous and maybe future experiences to in some way alter the way alter the perceptive capabilities of the same readers. "
This can only happen if the reader understands what you said. If not, they have gained nothing and are not altered in any way.
I have never heard of this radio metaphor before, but I doubt it's much in style anymore. Especially in written communication it is generally accepted that more care needs to be taken when creating your message these days. Email has even come under criticism recently because people can take things in the wrong context. A sarcastic remark that would be fine in spoken communication can come across as serious, causing resentment and hurt feelings for the reader. It's even happened on this board; first during the gun debate with ShaylaRose, and more recently with Lalisa.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
This isn't about having an open mind. It's about being able to understand what you are trying to tell us. If we can't figure out what you are saying, we can't accept it no matter how open our mind is! Try keeping an open mind and reading anything in a language you don't know, then tell us what you got from it.
"<i>why should it be, how should an author write isnt a 2-liner q&a in some silly faq somewhere, anyway, if it was, that faq would be worthles...</i?
No, but one of the first things they teach in any writing class is to write to your audience. If an author is writing a textbook for a 6th grade biology class he needs to keep his grammar a lot simpler than he does for a college level biology class. Otherwise no one would by the 3rd grade text, because students wouldn't be able to learn from it!
In a written argument class they teach the same thing for slightly different reasons, which are more applicable to this discussion. Write so that your readers can understand, or they won't bother to try and you won't get your point across to them. No one is going to try and understand what you write if they are in a debate opposed to you. Why should they? They want to be right, and it's easier to just assume the other person was wrong if you can't make sense out of what they wrote.
"if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes..."
I hope your joking. If not then this entire discussion is wasted.
"so? not everyone on this board likes jell-o and not everyone here likes sauerkraut."
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
"do i want to see this post as a message? no, because the message relies on the radio-metaphor, id rather see it as an agent of intentions. this post will be used _by_ _its_ _readers_ to make connections with the readers previous and maybe future experiences to in some way alter the way alter the perceptive capabilities of the same readers. "
This can only happen if the reader understands what you said. If not, they have gained nothing and are not altered in any way.
I have never heard of this radio metaphor before, but I doubt it's much in style anymore. Especially in written communication it is generally accepted that more care needs to be taken when creating your message these days. Email has even come under criticism recently because people can take things in the wrong context. A sarcastic remark that would be fine in spoken communication can come across as serious, causing resentment and hurt feelings for the reader. It's even happened on this board; first during the gun debate with ShaylaRose, and more recently with Lalisa.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
"if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes..."
You have GOT to be kidding!!!! And you obviously have never taken any classes in communications ... It is the responsibility of the message SENDER to ensure his mesage is received correctly ...
Rofl have you ever seen the exercise where a group of people start a message at one end .. whipser it to the next person .. and so on .. and when it reaches the send it is NOTHING like the original???
I'd hate to see the pilot bomb the wrong target because he misinterpreted his orders :P
You have GOT to be kidding!!!! And you obviously have never taken any classes in communications ... It is the responsibility of the message SENDER to ensure his mesage is received correctly ...
Rofl have you ever seen the exercise where a group of people start a message at one end .. whipser it to the next person .. and so on .. and when it reaches the send it is NOTHING like the original???
I'd hate to see the pilot bomb the wrong target because he misinterpreted his orders :P
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
"if you are able to read easily is a matter of _your_ training, background and mental capabilities. an open mind allways helps in trying to understand a certain text."
This isn't about having an open mind. It's about being able to understand what you are trying to tell us. If we can't figure out what you are saying, we can't accept it no matter how open our mind is! Try keeping an open mind and reading anything in a language you don't know, then tell us what you got from it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and the issue is, how an we understad, you cant say you understand by understandng, thats circular. whats thedifference between something you can and can not understand, is it within or outside the understander? if its outside the understander, how can that be?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
"why should it be, how should an author write isnt a 2-liner q&a in some silly faq somewhere, anyway, if it was, that faq would be worthles...
No, but one of the first things they teach in any writing class is to write to your audience. If an author is writing a textbook for a 6th grade biology class he needs to keep his grammar a lot simpler than he does for a college level biology class. Otherwise no one would by the 3rd grade text, because students wouldn't be able to learn from it!
In a written argument class they teach the same thing for slightly different reasons, which are more applicable to this discussion. Write so that your readers can understand, or they won't bother to try and you won't get your point across to them. No one is going to try and understand what you write if they are in a debate opposed to you. Why should they? They want to be right, and it's easier to just assume the other person was wrong if you can't make sense out of what they wrote.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you making sense of something someone else wrote seems like a pretty much propperty of you...
thing is, not understanding is so easy, anyone can do it at any time, understanding involvs uing your brain tho...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
"if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes..."
I hope your joking. If not then this entire discussion is wasted.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no im not joking, it works.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
"so? not everyone on this board likes jell-o and not everyone here likes sauerkraut."
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well, food, just as langage is a matter of personal preference...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
This can only happen if the reader understands what you said. If not, they have gained nothing and are not altered in any way.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
just as i said above, you are suggesting understanding to explain understanding, circular.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
I have never heard of this radio metaphor before, but I doubt it's much in style anymore. Especially in written communication it is generally accepted that more care needs to be taken when creating your message these days. Email has even come under criticism recently because people can take things in the wrong context.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
who criticizes e-mail, and in whos interest are they criticizing it, thats the main point in analyzing these criticizms. that there exist criticism is more in the nature of human intelect than e-mail. whats new/different scares the crap out of ppl. the general acceptance of caretaking as a major aspect of e-mailing is due to ppl w o any experience of computers starting to use them a couple a yrs ago, newbies just dont have the cultural competence to be able to create meaning in the events happening.../fil
<B>
"if you are able to read easily is a matter of _your_ training, background and mental capabilities. an open mind allways helps in trying to understand a certain text."
This isn't about having an open mind. It's about being able to understand what you are trying to tell us. If we can't figure out what you are saying, we can't accept it no matter how open our mind is! Try keeping an open mind and reading anything in a language you don't know, then tell us what you got from it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and the issue is, how an we understad, you cant say you understand by understandng, thats circular. whats thedifference between something you can and can not understand, is it within or outside the understander? if its outside the understander, how can that be?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
"why should it be, how should an author write isnt a 2-liner q&a in some silly faq somewhere, anyway, if it was, that faq would be worthles...
No, but one of the first things they teach in any writing class is to write to your audience. If an author is writing a textbook for a 6th grade biology class he needs to keep his grammar a lot simpler than he does for a college level biology class. Otherwise no one would by the 3rd grade text, because students wouldn't be able to learn from it!
In a written argument class they teach the same thing for slightly different reasons, which are more applicable to this discussion. Write so that your readers can understand, or they won't bother to try and you won't get your point across to them. No one is going to try and understand what you write if they are in a debate opposed to you. Why should they? They want to be right, and it's easier to just assume the other person was wrong if you can't make sense out of what they wrote.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you making sense of something someone else wrote seems like a pretty much propperty of you...
thing is, not understanding is so easy, anyone can do it at any time, understanding involvs uing your brain tho...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
"if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes..."
I hope your joking. If not then this entire discussion is wasted.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no im not joking, it works.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
"so? not everyone on this board likes jell-o and not everyone here likes sauerkraut."
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well, food, just as langage is a matter of personal preference...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
This can only happen if the reader understands what you said. If not, they have gained nothing and are not altered in any way.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
just as i said above, you are suggesting understanding to explain understanding, circular.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
I have never heard of this radio metaphor before, but I doubt it's much in style anymore. Especially in written communication it is generally accepted that more care needs to be taken when creating your message these days. Email has even come under criticism recently because people can take things in the wrong context.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
who criticizes e-mail, and in whos interest are they criticizing it, thats the main point in analyzing these criticizms. that there exist criticism is more in the nature of human intelect than e-mail. whats new/different scares the crap out of ppl. the general acceptance of caretaking as a major aspect of e-mailing is due to ppl w o any experience of computers starting to use them a couple a yrs ago, newbies just dont have the cultural competence to be able to create meaning in the events happening.../fil
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Karikhan:
<B>"if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes..."
You have GOT to be kidding!!!! And you obviously have never taken any classes in communications ... It is the responsibility of the message SENDER to ensure his mesage is received correctly ...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
as a matter of fact, ive been studying communications for hmm...lezz see...
a while...
but thats not the point, even if it is a well known fact that understanding isnt explainable in terms of messages and senders and recievers. my studies of communications dont make me a better or worse person than i already am.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Karikhan:
<B>
Rofl have you ever seen the exercise where a group of people start a message at one end .. whipser it to the next person .. and so on .. and when it reaches the send it is NOTHING like the original???
I'd hate to see the pilot bomb the wrong target because he misinterpreted his orders :P </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
doh, military human engineering isnt really aplicable in the real world, civilians socially interacting has nothing whatsoever to do with how one can make efficient chain of commands. in a working sitution it can have some relevance, but not at all as big as some ppl seems to think.
what do we have language for, is it to communicate as efficiant fast and as little intention distorted as possible? if you believe that, youre just naive, thats not the way language is used, thats not how we communicate. communication consit mainly of meaningless or redundant utterances, if it wouldnt you would think that the conversations would sound military or very rude. /fil
<B>"if im trying to tel someone something, its the responsibility of that peron to understand it, in practice it really works, ive being traveling eastern europe only speaking swedish, it all works, if ppl dont understand say again, but louder, try it sometimes..."
You have GOT to be kidding!!!! And you obviously have never taken any classes in communications ... It is the responsibility of the message SENDER to ensure his mesage is received correctly ...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
as a matter of fact, ive been studying communications for hmm...lezz see...
a while...
but thats not the point, even if it is a well known fact that understanding isnt explainable in terms of messages and senders and recievers. my studies of communications dont make me a better or worse person than i already am.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Karikhan:
<B>
Rofl have you ever seen the exercise where a group of people start a message at one end .. whipser it to the next person .. and so on .. and when it reaches the send it is NOTHING like the original???
I'd hate to see the pilot bomb the wrong target because he misinterpreted his orders :P </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
doh, military human engineering isnt really aplicable in the real world, civilians socially interacting has nothing whatsoever to do with how one can make efficient chain of commands. in a working sitution it can have some relevance, but not at all as big as some ppl seems to think.
what do we have language for, is it to communicate as efficiant fast and as little intention distorted as possible? if you believe that, youre just naive, thats not the way language is used, thats not how we communicate. communication consit mainly of meaningless or redundant utterances, if it wouldnt you would think that the conversations would sound military or very rude. /fil
Posted by Fildur:
"just as i said above, you are suggesting understanding to explain understanding, circular."
And you're trying to turn a simple question over communication into a philosophical treatise.
If you ran up to me on the street and told me that my child had swallowed poison and needed to be rushed to the hospital, but you said it in Russian, for example, it would not matter how loudly you told me, the only thing I would get out your spoken words alone might be a sense of urgency from the volume. You would be giving me a very important, life-changing piece of information, but if you did not present it to me in a manner which I could understand, my child would still die. Is it my responsibility to run out and take a Russian class until I am fluent, then? Is it my responsibility to learn every language used around the world just in case this scenario ever happens? No, it is not. It does not matter how much of an "open mind" I have, my life is not long enough to research and comprehend every form of spoken, gestured and written language ever conceived of, not to mention forms of implied communication.
So then could we say that it was the speaker's responsibility to communicate the news of my child's state to me in a manner which I could understand? No. If the speaker attempted to communicate with me in the only manners that he knew, then he performed his function, and the lack of understanding is a result of circumstance.
The original topic of the thread referred to understanding as it refers to various types of communication, and how well a message is relayed in written medium from one who wished to communicate a form, to one who was a potential receptacle for the form, not of the deeper, more philosophical meaning of understanding. In simple communication, such as the written word, you must consider your audience. If you only want to speak to those who know Chinese, you use Chinese, if you want to speak to a four year old, you use simple terms, if you want to speak to a biology major, you don't use terms that only an advanced engineer could understand. You certainly don't walk up to an average four year old and spout your latest theory on quantum physics, including your numeric calculation, then blame the four year old for not understanding you. You might think your communications to be genius, but even the four year old is smart enough to know that if he speaks in babbletalk, none of the adults are going know he wants a piece of cake.
"just as i said above, you are suggesting understanding to explain understanding, circular."
And you're trying to turn a simple question over communication into a philosophical treatise.
If you ran up to me on the street and told me that my child had swallowed poison and needed to be rushed to the hospital, but you said it in Russian, for example, it would not matter how loudly you told me, the only thing I would get out your spoken words alone might be a sense of urgency from the volume. You would be giving me a very important, life-changing piece of information, but if you did not present it to me in a manner which I could understand, my child would still die. Is it my responsibility to run out and take a Russian class until I am fluent, then? Is it my responsibility to learn every language used around the world just in case this scenario ever happens? No, it is not. It does not matter how much of an "open mind" I have, my life is not long enough to research and comprehend every form of spoken, gestured and written language ever conceived of, not to mention forms of implied communication.
So then could we say that it was the speaker's responsibility to communicate the news of my child's state to me in a manner which I could understand? No. If the speaker attempted to communicate with me in the only manners that he knew, then he performed his function, and the lack of understanding is a result of circumstance.
The original topic of the thread referred to understanding as it refers to various types of communication, and how well a message is relayed in written medium from one who wished to communicate a form, to one who was a potential receptacle for the form, not of the deeper, more philosophical meaning of understanding. In simple communication, such as the written word, you must consider your audience. If you only want to speak to those who know Chinese, you use Chinese, if you want to speak to a four year old, you use simple terms, if you want to speak to a biology major, you don't use terms that only an advanced engineer could understand. You certainly don't walk up to an average four year old and spout your latest theory on quantum physics, including your numeric calculation, then blame the four year old for not understanding you. You might think your communications to be genius, but even the four year old is smart enough to know that if he speaks in babbletalk, none of the adults are going know he wants a piece of cake.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
<B>Posted by Fildur:
"just as i said above, you are suggesting understanding to explain understanding, circular."
And you're trying to turn a simple question over communication into a philosophical treatise.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
who ever said that any question concerning communication is a simple one.
if i was trying to turn it into a philosophical treatise i wouldnt waste my time on spreading onthological dung in hope of a big harvest, i most certainly would keep it all shorter and i would be more careful with introducing new terminology.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
If you ran up to me on the street and told me that my child had swallowed poison and needed to be rushed to the hospital, but you said it in Russian, for example, it would not matter how loudly you told me, the only thing I would get out your spoken words alone might be a sense of urgency from the volume.
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
sure there are special situations where efficiency in terms of speed is the main concern for communication, in general that is not the case tho, if i ask my collegue if we gonna have a coffee break its at many times preferable to say it in the not 100% clear way, in this case we both have grounds for on equal grounds depthening our common communications-intelligence
<B>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
The original topic of the thread referred to understanding as it refers to various types of communication, and how well a message is relayed in written medium from one who wished to communicate a form, to one who was a potential receptacle for the form, not of the deeper, more philosophical meaning of understanding.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and im not talking about some strange philosophical understanding that is much deeper than the plain everyday understanding, im talking just about the same understanding that is the basis for you to see whats written exactly here. its a very practical pow i got.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
In simple communication, such as the written word, you must consider your audience. If you only want to speak to those who know Chinese, you use Chinese, if you want to speak to a four year old, you use simple terms, if you want to speak to a biology major, you don't use terms that only an advanced engineer could understand. You certainly don't walk up to an average four year old and spout your latest theory on quantum physics, including your numeric calculation, then blame the four year old for not understanding you.
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
dont under-estimate the four-year-old. how can the four-year-old learn to use and understand abstract terminology? well, give it to him and let him toy with it, in that way hell be able to set himself in situations where learning according to this terminology is posible. this ofcause dependent on that you speak serios to the four-year-old, its just as training muscles training the brain...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
You might think your communications to be genius, but even the four year old is smart enough to know that if he speaks in babbletalk, none of the adults are going know he wants a piece of cake.
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its because the adults dont listen to their kids if they use the oppurtunity to try and communicate in a way controlled by the four-year-old. this makes the grownups forcing the four-year-old speak in a way he dont really want fascists.
/fil
<B>Posted by Fildur:
"just as i said above, you are suggesting understanding to explain understanding, circular."
And you're trying to turn a simple question over communication into a philosophical treatise.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
who ever said that any question concerning communication is a simple one.
if i was trying to turn it into a philosophical treatise i wouldnt waste my time on spreading onthological dung in hope of a big harvest, i most certainly would keep it all shorter and i would be more careful with introducing new terminology.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
If you ran up to me on the street and told me that my child had swallowed poison and needed to be rushed to the hospital, but you said it in Russian, for example, it would not matter how loudly you told me, the only thing I would get out your spoken words alone might be a sense of urgency from the volume.
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
sure there are special situations where efficiency in terms of speed is the main concern for communication, in general that is not the case tho, if i ask my collegue if we gonna have a coffee break its at many times preferable to say it in the not 100% clear way, in this case we both have grounds for on equal grounds depthening our common communications-intelligence
<B>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
The original topic of the thread referred to understanding as it refers to various types of communication, and how well a message is relayed in written medium from one who wished to communicate a form, to one who was a potential receptacle for the form, not of the deeper, more philosophical meaning of understanding.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and im not talking about some strange philosophical understanding that is much deeper than the plain everyday understanding, im talking just about the same understanding that is the basis for you to see whats written exactly here. its a very practical pow i got.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
In simple communication, such as the written word, you must consider your audience. If you only want to speak to those who know Chinese, you use Chinese, if you want to speak to a four year old, you use simple terms, if you want to speak to a biology major, you don't use terms that only an advanced engineer could understand. You certainly don't walk up to an average four year old and spout your latest theory on quantum physics, including your numeric calculation, then blame the four year old for not understanding you.
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
dont under-estimate the four-year-old. how can the four-year-old learn to use and understand abstract terminology? well, give it to him and let him toy with it, in that way hell be able to set himself in situations where learning according to this terminology is posible. this ofcause dependent on that you speak serios to the four-year-old, its just as training muscles training the brain...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
You might think your communications to be genius, but even the four year old is smart enough to know that if he speaks in babbletalk, none of the adults are going know he wants a piece of cake.
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its because the adults dont listen to their kids if they use the oppurtunity to try and communicate in a way controlled by the four-year-old. this makes the grownups forcing the four-year-old speak in a way he dont really want fascists.
/fil
Heh, you're funny. I never said to not speak to children like that... miscommunication? My son and I had a long, in-depth conversation about personal philosophies, but mainly revolving around solipsism, when he was six years old. I didn't start the conversation, he did. He understood topics like that because I made it a point to speak to him about as much as I could as if he were an adult, because I've always believed that children are much more capable of absorbing and assimilating information than people give them credit for.
My children, however, were not the point of the conversation, but I thought that not only fitting to the topic, but a great point where I could crow about my kids.
When I have a conversation with children and use a term they do not understand, I break it down into more simple terms until they grasp it, then go back to using something more complicated, which they should then be able to assimilate. If they are interested in continuing the conversation, this method works, if they lose interest then I have to find another method. The same goes with adults, if I want to convey something to somebody, I use a form which best conveys the information, if that doesn't work, I find a method which will get us on the same track, then work my way back to a form which best suits what I am trying to express.
If I knew Russian, from completely out of the blue I could tell my child in Russian that chocolate is one of the many foods which has been known to stimulate acid reflux. If my child did not know Russian, it would not matter how many times I repeated the phrase, without some other learning tool (like hand gestures, for example), the idea would not get through. If you're going to take your audience to a different level than they are accustomed to, then there are different stages to get them to that point, it's not like you just open your mouth and they automatically understand because the genius of you washes over them.
"and im not talking about some strange philosophical understanding that is much deeper than the plain everyday understanding, im talking just about the same understanding that is the basis for you to see whats written exactly here. its a very practical pow i got."
Okay, you'll have to use a series of stages here if you expect me to understand what's written exactly there. Just what is a practical pow? Is that one of those made up words you're assuming I know?
Fildur, your original post asked if all posts had to make sense to everyone, and the answer to that is "no." The issue at hand was that several people could not understand your posts due to their garbled nature. You want to convey something to a group of people, yet not everybody is patient enough to dissect your posts for what they might really mean. You shouldn't demean them for that and indicate that they are incapable of understanding, or that the issue is with their closed minds, just as they shouldn't demean you for your limitations with the written english language.
"if you are able to read easily is a matter of _your_ training, background and mental capabilities. an open mind allways helps in trying to understand a certain text. "
An open mind helps, yes, but as YOU say, it's a matter of your training, background, and mental capabilities. When you address an audience, your target audience usually holds some common thread which binds them together on a communication level, and a really good speaker can speak to them on that level, pique their interest, and lead them to a higher level.
I have no interest in Russian. If you were to post in Russian I would probably just scan past it. I greatly doubt I would go to the trouble of trying to translate what you were saying. That doesn't make me stupid, incapable, or closed minded, that makes me not interested in learning the Russian language at this point in time. If I was the audience you were targeting, then you failed to find a means that communicated effectively... or at all.
My children, however, were not the point of the conversation, but I thought that not only fitting to the topic, but a great point where I could crow about my kids.
When I have a conversation with children and use a term they do not understand, I break it down into more simple terms until they grasp it, then go back to using something more complicated, which they should then be able to assimilate. If they are interested in continuing the conversation, this method works, if they lose interest then I have to find another method. The same goes with adults, if I want to convey something to somebody, I use a form which best conveys the information, if that doesn't work, I find a method which will get us on the same track, then work my way back to a form which best suits what I am trying to express.
If I knew Russian, from completely out of the blue I could tell my child in Russian that chocolate is one of the many foods which has been known to stimulate acid reflux. If my child did not know Russian, it would not matter how many times I repeated the phrase, without some other learning tool (like hand gestures, for example), the idea would not get through. If you're going to take your audience to a different level than they are accustomed to, then there are different stages to get them to that point, it's not like you just open your mouth and they automatically understand because the genius of you washes over them.
"and im not talking about some strange philosophical understanding that is much deeper than the plain everyday understanding, im talking just about the same understanding that is the basis for you to see whats written exactly here. its a very practical pow i got."
Okay, you'll have to use a series of stages here if you expect me to understand what's written exactly there. Just what is a practical pow? Is that one of those made up words you're assuming I know?
Fildur, your original post asked if all posts had to make sense to everyone, and the answer to that is "no." The issue at hand was that several people could not understand your posts due to their garbled nature. You want to convey something to a group of people, yet not everybody is patient enough to dissect your posts for what they might really mean. You shouldn't demean them for that and indicate that they are incapable of understanding, or that the issue is with their closed minds, just as they shouldn't demean you for your limitations with the written english language.
"if you are able to read easily is a matter of _your_ training, background and mental capabilities. an open mind allways helps in trying to understand a certain text. "
An open mind helps, yes, but as YOU say, it's a matter of your training, background, and mental capabilities. When you address an audience, your target audience usually holds some common thread which binds them together on a communication level, and a really good speaker can speak to them on that level, pique their interest, and lead them to a higher level.
I have no interest in Russian. If you were to post in Russian I would probably just scan past it. I greatly doubt I would go to the trouble of trying to translate what you were saying. That doesn't make me stupid, incapable, or closed minded, that makes me not interested in learning the Russian language at this point in time. If I was the audience you were targeting, then you failed to find a means that communicated effectively... or at all.
*cheer Ashiwi* I've always thought that about children too. I plan to speak to my children like I would any normal adult... err... when I have children that is.
Fildur:
You're missing the entire point. you, as the author, are trying to convince us, the audience, of a point. How can you convince us of that point if we can't understand what you are trying to tell us?
Here, I'll try your style of things and post in a language I am confortable with.
<pre>
void WriteMessage( void )
{
std::string message;
message = Author::createMessage();
Audience reader = new Audience;
reader.setAge( 4 );
reader.setIntelligence( 90 );
reader.setEducation( KINDERGARTEN );
reader.readMessage( message ) ? Author::Award() : exit( -1 );
}
bool readMessage( std::string message )
{
return understandMessage( message );
}
</pre>
Well, that should be good. Says what I want it to anyway, now it's your job to figure out what that is. Well, according to you at least... heh.
Edit: code html tag didn't work. Bleh.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 02-18-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 02-18-2002).]
Fildur:
You're missing the entire point. you, as the author, are trying to convince us, the audience, of a point. How can you convince us of that point if we can't understand what you are trying to tell us?
Here, I'll try your style of things and post in a language I am confortable with.
<pre>
void WriteMessage( void )
{
std::string message;
message = Author::createMessage();
Audience reader = new Audience;
reader.setAge( 4 );
reader.setIntelligence( 90 );
reader.setEducation( KINDERGARTEN );
reader.readMessage( message ) ? Author::Award() : exit( -1 );
}
bool readMessage( std::string message )
{
return understandMessage( message );
}
</pre>
Well, that should be good. Says what I want it to anyway, now it's your job to figure out what that is. Well, according to you at least... heh.
Edit: code html tag didn't work. Bleh.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 02-18-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 02-18-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tasan:
<B>Wasn't the bible translated into l33t by some wanker?
Ya'll need too grow up just a tad.
Twyl</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It was not some wanker! And if I understand correctly the project is not finished.
<B>Wasn't the bible translated into l33t by some wanker?
Ya'll need too grow up just a tad.
Twyl</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It was not some wanker! And if I understand correctly the project is not finished.
Interesting. There's a post in another thread from Fildur hours ago, yet he hasn't responded in this one. Wonder if he's having trouble figuring out what my message says?
On a different note, I find it interesting that the pre html tag keeps my tabs, but discards all the newline characters so all the code is stuck together. Bleh.
On a different note, I find it interesting that the pre html tag keeps my tabs, but discards all the newline characters so all the code is stuck together. Bleh.
I must concur with Ashiwi's logic. Having spent 15+ years in either public speaking or teaching or both, and having judged national speech and debate tournaments at the high school level, I am familiar with the "standard" rules of effective communications.
Correct me if I'm wrong Fil, but you mentioned in one of your posts that if someone didn't understand you, you simply repeat yourself at a slower rate, and with more volume? If so, this is something that Americans have traditionally been laughed at in Europe and elsewhere as ineffective communication, arrogant attitudes, and boorish. When I went to Europe a couple of years ago, I made every effort to learn essential things in the languages of each non-English speaking nation I visited. As such, I got some great deals on some fabulous wine in France, Port in Portugal, and a Monte Cristo Panama hat in Spain. I was also welcomed for more than my money because I tried to communicate in THEIR language.
By the way, my French, Spanish and Portuguese is Horrible, but it was the effort they appreciated, as is the effort of those to whom English isn't their primary language when attempting to accomodate those of us who do speak English as a primary language.
Good luck on your travels Fil.
Toplack
Correct me if I'm wrong Fil, but you mentioned in one of your posts that if someone didn't understand you, you simply repeat yourself at a slower rate, and with more volume? If so, this is something that Americans have traditionally been laughed at in Europe and elsewhere as ineffective communication, arrogant attitudes, and boorish. When I went to Europe a couple of years ago, I made every effort to learn essential things in the languages of each non-English speaking nation I visited. As such, I got some great deals on some fabulous wine in France, Port in Portugal, and a Monte Cristo Panama hat in Spain. I was also welcomed for more than my money because I tried to communicate in THEIR language.
By the way, my French, Spanish and Portuguese is Horrible, but it was the effort they appreciated, as is the effort of those to whom English isn't their primary language when attempting to accomodate those of us who do speak English as a primary language.
Good luck on your travels Fil.
Toplack
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests