Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck;1300945(
No, it's not.
The standards for casual discussion on forums and professional writing are different. Which doesn't mean that typos and bad punctuation don't undermine your argument; they do, in showing that you're not immune to the appeal of instant gratification over quality, which takes longer. But that doesn't make your entire point null and void, and doesn't mean you've committed any great offense.
Firefox has spellcheck built into the browser, and ctrl-plus and ctrl-minus increase & decrease all the elements on a page, text and images.
Your punctuation errors were not matters of style; they interfered with the message itself. Failing to put spaces around parentheses makes a sentence look cramped, and some browsers don't split the words if there's no space, so it can cause long white spaces at the ends of lines.
Also, authors who are writing 100,000 words of entertaining plot with fascinating characters can skip some of the punctuation requirements; many readers will not notice, and many who do notice won't care because they'll be thinking about the story. In a post of less than 1000 words, which isn't being read-and-absorbed but read-and-responded-to, punctuation is more important because minute sections of phrasing may be highlighted in the responses.
Fiction style choices are irrelevant to textual conversation style choices.
Fascinating countershot, that, implying that she (and anyone who agrees with her assessment) are "unthinking."
What, exactly, are the "thinking classes?" Do they include a certain level of education, or a certain job set?
Oooh, we've achieved Hints Of Lawsuits. (Countdown to Godwin... 5... 4...)
Please, prove me wrong about this. Show that you can accept graciously that you ranted about low standards among readers while holding yourself to low standards as a writer, take your lumps, say oops, and move on.
There has never been a ruling group as limited to upper-class land-owning white males, wherein the definition of "cerebral" was defined as having a particular type of personal history, education, and philosophical outlook. People whose communication styles are drastically different from those are not necessarily "less cerebral."
<snip: waxing nostalgic about an era wherein US culture promoted an assumption that white European males had achieved the pinnacle of human literary talent.>
I don't believe that being able to quote Shakespeare or read Greek are indications of intelligence, artistic talent, or breadth of cultural understanding. I can deplore the mindless pap that entertains the masses without believing the foundations of that entertainment were somehow morally better than their application in pop culture.
|
)
Dear Elfwreck:
Thank you for you efforts on my behalf and I don't doubt your high intent, but there are a few misinterpretations I wish to correct. Beginning with the last word in my first paragraph. It is "INexcusable." In which case you should be agreeing with my content, no? I think I denounced myself and then you denounced the denunciation. :..not immune to the appeal of
instant gratification?" Or, am I seeing it wrong?
Brings up another point. I've already copped to my poor eyesight and tecnnological confusion - yes, I am trying to imporve but suspect it's on the double helix - so to keep referring to these particular issues, as example, where I place the parentheses, would seem to me to be an execise in futility.
What is a "firefox" or a "ctl-plus," anyway? "Beating a dead horse," to quote the first of several cliches, no doubt.
Let's skip the punctution thing, read my first paragraph again. But with the "thinking classes," I suppose it ws inapprorpriate. It''s UK stuff but I have spent a lot of time over there, both in Englahd where I once worked and Ireland (even more), and fall into it often in my creative writing There's no dctionary for it so I'll say it's simply the difference between people who read and those who don't. Journalistically it can be a tad ironic; poor choice, I admit (and to Queensee), but I've never been asccused of snobbishness. Maybe this is a first.
aNext, there is no hint of lawsuits against anyone on here, and I believe that's uncalled for. I have never sued anyone and never will most likely. If I enjoyed them I would have gotten in on the WGA suit. A friend of mine got an incredible two million for the number of years of work that policy ("geezerism"") had theoretically cost him. I brought the whole thing up to lry to impress on Queensee that twelve thousand people who are assumedly literate would disapprove of her use of the geezer description and were willing to fight and spend for years to accomplish it.
Onward, I have not attacked any individuals, but have made cultural criticisms. If people refuse cultural criticism they will live in a static, vapid world. And I've talen more lumps than you'll ever know in my past and current life.
As far as your endgame, I didn't see that it requires a response from me, in that you have veered off the thread into ideology and the social sciences which aren't' really sciences anyway, in my view, just a useful but inexact tool (and cultural anthropolgy was my first major).
Hope you had a nice holliday and keep them coming. Beyle.