CDZ What's with the TL;DR thing?

[320 Years of History]

... No need to "fully develop" with examples and references to other works as if submitting an assignment to a lit professor. If needed such development will happen through the discussion format of the message board.

Red:
I certainly agree there's no express need to do so.

By the same token, I think if one has something one thinks is worth saying, presenting one's thoughts cohesively and completely in one post is the most effective and efficient way of doing so, certainly more so than having them spread in dribs and drams over scores of posts. The latter approach makes it nigh impossible for readers to keep focused on the central themes of one's remarks, and that ultimately leads to a largely incoherent discussion.

Many of my very long posts discuss and link to the background information readers need to understand to fully engage in the discussion with approximately the same degree of comprehension a given post aims to. Given the "open to all" nature of this forum, I provide that information to facilitate making the post/topic accessible to folks who may not, prior to reading the post and linked content, have the experience/training participate at that level of comprehension.

Obviously, folks who truly are well informed/schooled on, say, economic theory and analysis, don't need to read most of a long post on that topic; they can scan the post and quickly pick up the non-didactic parts of it and discuss them while applying the same principles and ideas that I included in the post for the benefit of folks who don't "come to the table" already knowing that stuff.

Does that mean I'm including everyone in target audience for the post/discussion? No, it merely means I'm not in an active sense trying to exclude folks who may care to follow the conversation between myself and the people who are in the target audience.

As for the references, the main reason I put them in is to show a theme or idea I note is not merely a lightly arrived at opinion, or that it's not an opinion at all.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're not afraid to stand your ground with anyone here, and you can do it without relying on base insults. Also, it would seem that you're used to getting a certain amount of respect from your audience, and are not interested in those who don't like the way you write.

Red:
That bothers me not regardless of the venue and so long as "my ground" is solid. Make no mistake, however, there are plenty of topics for which I have "no ground."

For example, on the matter of whether a bridge should be rebuilt/repaired or is well designed bridge, I have very little of substance to contribute to that question, whereas a structural engineer or bridge construction manager surely does. If such an individual makes an argument about a bridge/road, I don't need to know much about roads, bridges or engineering to recognize the structural shortcomings of an argument they may present about the bridge/road, but whether those shortcomings are due to their poor word choice/thought organization or due to something else, I can't say. I have to ask them to clarify their remarks to discern that.


Blue:
Truly, if the only means one has for standing one's ground or making a point is a bevy of insults, one is standing on some mighty shaky ground. Let's be real here. Insults are nothing more than the human manifestation of "all bark and no bite." As I know you've seen, if pushed, I "bite." LOL

​

Green:
I am interested in what folks have to say, just not what they have to say about my writing style or the length of my prose.

 

[320 Years of History]

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

Whether he considers himself a lefty or not, he's clearly one.

Pumpkin knows best eh ;-)?

He's just not a lefty that has no idea how the economy works. If that were the case, he'd be a Socialist~

Like lil 'ol me, huh ;-)?

I don't back down. I just don't need to keep reiterating that lefties and Socialists are nutjobs, because it's an easily observable fact.

Careful, those are fighting words .

It's pretty clear that he's trying to impress himself, his posting style has won over far fewer people(If any at all) than it has turned away.

He seems to be fine with the amount of people that don't mind the way he posts. Not everything is a numbers game.

A skilled writer tries to target as wide of an audience as possible, and that being the case, it would make far more sense to not waste everyone's time fluffing out his post.

He feels that the way he writes his posts is fine. He generally doesn't use base insults, which is what I primarily object to in posts as you know, and, the economy aside, he and I tend to agree on things, which is certainly another plus.

People don't use most of the words he goes out of his way jam into his post because it hinders a conversation for someone to look it up.

I think he may have mentioned to me in the past that he's around 60. Different generations communicate differently. I also think he's fairly well educated. My guess is that he's not going out of his way to use words that to many are exotic- my guess is that's just the way he communicates in general.

People don't make long speeches in the midst of a conversation because it prevents people from being interested. Sure, someone could be excited at the start, but about the time you realize most of the words are fluff, you realize it's a gigantic waste of time. As a writer, you should try NOT to waste everyone's time, you should be clear, concise, and to the point. He is none of those things, and there's no point to that other to impress himself with his post size.

Tell me, does he remind you of anyone you know ;-)?

I speak to 60, 70, 80 year olds who don't use those words. Passing it off like Banality and excoriate were normal words to use in a conversation is plane ignorance. Most people avoid words that are longer to type or say in favor of shorter ones so a conversation or post is quicker and smoother.

You're also speaking as though I'm saying he can't or shouldn't be able to post incompetently when that wasn't my argument in the first post. My point is that it makes no sense and he's trying to impress himself. I'm perfectly fine with him trying to impress himself and inflate his ego with his posts, he just shouldn't make a thread complaining about people not bothering to waste their time reading said posts if he insists on posting that way.

No, most people learn not make needlessly inflated posts when people keep saying it's too long and they didn't read it, so no, he doesn't remind me of anyone.

Banality and excoriate ARE "normal" words. 320 uses plenty that aren't, but you should know those two. You'd best keep reading. And it's plain ignorance.

TY.

And, yes, occasionally I use "non normal" words.

As I wrote earlier of it, I don't want to be a "buzzkill," which is why I don't knowingly act to forfend or dissuade authentic displays of effort and expression extant among seemingly abiturient folks, but upon discovering the video's proliferation I feel less abashed in sharing that it is too jejune for me.

FWIW, I do think it's important, whenever one can, to choose words that accurately convey the denotation and connotation one intends. For example, "jejune" and a variety of other words basically mean dull, there are subtle distinctions, "hues," among them. (click on synonym guide at the link) One must know those nuances to fully comprehend a writer's meaning.

Strangely, people seem to place great importance on choosing the "right" shade of red paint or nail polish, but when it comes to something vastly more important -- effective communication -- many folks seem not to care.

P.S.
FWIW, readers who desire to have a strong working vocabulary would do well by learning and using Shakespeare's words along with those on the SAT vocabulary list. (There is overlap between the two lists.)

 

[phoenyx]

Banality and excoriate ARE "normal" words. 320 uses plenty that aren't, but you should know those two. You'd best keep reading. And it's plain ignorance.

TY.

And, yes, occasionally I use "non normal" words.

As I wrote earlier of it, I don't want to be a "buzzkill," which is why I don't knowingly act to forfend or dissuade authentic displays of effort and expression extant among seemingly abiturient folks, but upon discovering the video's proliferation I feel less abashed in sharing that it is too jejune for me.

I admit I'm a bit of a word buff sometimes. So when I saw abiturient, I had to look it up and see what it meant. It took a bit of time to pin down, but it looks like it's actually a german word meaning a high school graduate. It seems you either had somewhat forgotten the meaning of the word, or you had forgotten the fact that the person you were referring, only being 14 years of age, was unlikely a high school graduate. An issue I've found when using words that aren't commonly used is that, due to lack of use, even people who do use them on occasion can forget their meaning. I know this happens to me from time to time.

 

[320 Years of History]

or you had forgotten the fact that the person you were referring, only being 14 years of age, was unlikely a high school graduate.

Actually I hadn't checked to find out the person's age when I wrote that sentence. I assumed him/her to be an adult who graduated from high school, much as I assume that of everyone else. I realize that could be an assumption that doesn't pan out to be so. As fate would have it, I'm aware it's been a poor assumption for that member and one other.

 

[OldLady]

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

Whether he considers himself a lefty or not, he's clearly one.

Pumpkin knows best eh ;-)?

He's just not a lefty that has no idea how the economy works. If that were the case, he'd be a Socialist~

Like lil 'ol me, huh ;-)?

I don't back down. I just don't need to keep reiterating that lefties and Socialists are nutjobs, because it's an easily observable fact.

Careful, those are fighting words .

It's pretty clear that he's trying to impress himself, his posting style has won over far fewer people(If any at all) than it has turned away.

He seems to be fine with the amount of people that don't mind the way he posts. Not everything is a numbers game.

A skilled writer tries to target as wide of an audience as possible, and that being the case, it would make far more sense to not waste everyone's time fluffing out his post.

He feels that the way he writes his posts is fine. He generally doesn't use base insults, which is what I primarily object to in posts as you know, and, the economy aside, he and I tend to agree on things, which is certainly another plus.

People don't use most of the words he goes out of his way jam into his post because it hinders a conversation for someone to look it up.

I think he may have mentioned to me in the past that he's around 60. Different generations communicate differently. I also think he's fairly well educated. My guess is that he's not going out of his way to use words that to many are exotic- my guess is that's just the way he communicates in general.

People don't make long speeches in the midst of a conversation because it prevents people from being interested. Sure, someone could be excited at the start, but about the time you realize most of the words are fluff, you realize it's a gigantic waste of time. As a writer, you should try NOT to waste everyone's time, you should be clear, concise, and to the point. He is none of those things, and there's no point to that other to impress himself with his post size.

Tell me, does he remind you of anyone you know ;-)?

I speak to 60, 70, 80 year olds who don't use those words. Passing it off like Banality and excoriate were normal words to use in a conversation is plane ignorance. Most people avoid words that are longer to type or say in favor of shorter ones so a conversation or post is quicker and smoother.

You're also speaking as though I'm saying he can't or shouldn't be able to post incompetently when that wasn't my argument in the first post. My point is that it makes no sense and he's trying to impress himself. I'm perfectly fine with him trying to impress himself and inflate his ego with his posts, he just shouldn't make a thread complaining about people not bothering to waste their time reading said posts if he insists on posting that way.

No, most people learn not make needlessly inflated posts when people keep saying it's too long and they didn't read it, so no, he doesn't remind me of anyone.

Banality and excoriate ARE "normal" words. 320 uses plenty that aren't, but you should know those two. You'd best keep reading. And it's plain ignorance.

I wouldn't say they're -that- normal. I certainly haven't heard them in a while, and I had to check banality just now as I had a vague understanding of what it meant but wasn't quite sure. I'm a big fan of reading though. I remember when I first started reading posts online as a teen, I kept a dictionary handy .

If guess I figure if I know them, they can't be that special. Pumpkin Row is bright as a button, but only 14, so it's not time for her to start turning up her nose at vocabulary building. We build our lexicon primarily from encountering words in context. And yes, I purposely put on the dog with that one.

 

[320 Years of History]

If guess I figure if I know them, they can't be that special. Pumpkin Row is bright as a button, but only 14, so it's not time for her to start turning up her nose at vocabulary building. We build our lexicon primarily from encountering words in context. And yes, I purposely put on the dog with that one.

Well, who among us hasn't been an infallible and omniscient 14 year old? LOL I know I've "been there; done that." That's partly why, in general, I don't talk with teenagers, or, for that matter, adults whose ideas and/or mode of presenting them have approximately the same rational and compositional merit as those of teenagers.

I'm not at all deriding the experience of being a teen. It's part of maturing and, ideally everyone goes through it. I'm just implying that now that my own kids have moved well past being teens, I'm reticent to willfully engage, in anything other than a didactically aimed conversation, with teens other than the pair or three I mentor at any given time.

Red:
I strongly agree with you on that point. My own kids have had to deal with my and their mother's vocabulary (which occasionally came their way in French and/or German along with English) from about the time they were old enough to use a dictionary. The dog eared and well worn ones in our homes are testament to that. LOL I think all five of us agree they are better off for having been "pushed" beginning at a pretty early age, and have suffered no losses for having developed a powerful working vocabulary.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Pedantic dissertations that amount to little more than discussions of how many angels can dance on the head of pin, and crafted in such a way as to include preemptive dismissals of everybody else as lesser is not an actual invitation to discussion, but merely a means to prop up one's ego.

 

[320 Years of History]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Something said briefly can be the fruit of much long thought: but the reader who is a novice in this field, and has as yet reflected on it not at all, sees in everything said briefly something embryonic, not without censuring the author for having served him up such immature and unripened fare.
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human
​

Brevity is fine when everyone involved knows the subject equally well. When that state doesn't exist among an audience, brevity dissembles.

 

[320 Years of History]

And how long did it take to obtain a brand new illustration of Nietzsche's point? (post #149) About three hours:

• http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15220892/
  
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15220928/

TL; DR, yet had something to say about that which was not read.

 

[320 Years of History]

What is the point of posting on USMB. When one spells out thoughts in detail, folks gripe because the post is too long, so they didn't read it; thus they don't have any idea what one thinks. When one posts briefly, folks don't know understand that either.

• http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15231699/

It doesn't matter what one does....folks here are just shift between being incapable of comprehending what one writes or they refuse to read what one writes. If that's the way the "average" American truly is, it's no wonder they can't get "good" jobs and feel left out of and ignored by the political process and elected office holders. Sooner or later, one must put forth some actual effort to get something in return. What is there to say that's positive about folks who find objectionable putting in the slightest effort possible -- sitting on their asses and reading something?