9/11 - 10 Year Anniversary

[Jonathan]

I agree with the last few posts on the previous page. While I do think it would be more pleasant even for Phytotron himself if he would just let go more often, he does have a point most of the time. He really just wants you to learn. If you open yourself to it, instead of automatically working against him as soon as you see his pseudonym, you'll find he's actually quite helpful.

[Concord]

Of course, to the unlearned it just looks like word-padding.

It weakens one's argument. If your audience can't understand you or can dismiss you for being an elitist snob on account of your language, then you've weakened your argument; unless the goal is to intimidate them and talk above their heads, which does sometimes work, though much more often in speech and in person than in writing.
So either it is word-padding or it is an intimidation tactic. In either case, it is not very successful.

[sinewav]

It weakens one's argument. If your audience can't understand you or can dismiss you for being an elitist snob on account of your language, then you've weakened your argument...it is word-padding or it is an intimidation tactic. In either case, it is not very successful.

Not to make this conversation about another member who has the capacity to speak for himself, but has since left the thread...

Before I posted I considered the "writing for your audience" angle and I decided it doesn't need to apply here because the "audience" is a large number of people ranging from semi-literate children to multiple-degree-holding adults. It's probably best to just speak in your own voice. I'm sure that's not a satisfactory answer for you. Break it down however you want.

Also, since when is mastery of the English language and the proper use of it elitist and snobby? Good grief. You are also confusing the difference between writing that can't be understood because it is obtuse or vague and readers who engage in willful ignorance or laziness.

Intimidation? I'll show you intimidation: Martin Heidegger's "The Concept of Time." I'm glad it's short because I had to read it twice and I still don't fully understand it. It's not even the full work, it's a lecture about the work.

Comparatively, I find Phytotron's writing much more easy to ingest.

[Word]

The German version of that text sounds easier somehow...(I suppose that's partly because we distinguish genders by articles and add more commas). But I didn't understand everything either. (yet )

[Clutch]

My high thought of the day is:

if so many people don't understand it, who even knows if hes making any sense

This has been high thoughts with Jreeves, stay classy san diego

[Concord]

Also, since when is mastery of the English language and the proper use of it elitist and snobby? Good grief. You are also confusing the difference between writing that can't be understood because it is obtuse or vague and readers who engage in willful ignorance or laziness.

I'm not confusing the difference; the difference is irrelevant. The argument is weaker if it cannot reach those readers; it doesn't matter whose fault it is.

[Phytotron]

I lie on the ropes for the first four pages of this thread, and you wail away. Now you seem tired, like you've punched yourself out.

Oh, what, you fancy yourself Muhammad Ali, now? Puhlease.


In addition to what's already been said on the subject (and I think Word and sinewav pretty well got it; and a tip to Jonathan ), I guess I'll further address this spurious complaint about my use of "multiple adjectives" (and, ironically, coming in a post that included the clause "constantly pessimistic, egotistic, and bombastic") one more time. And I'm gonna go at it at length, too, so you don't have any excuse to bitch anymore. So read up.

When I use these strings of words, usually adjectives—and yeah, I'm well aware I do it, and quite frankly enjoy it, you warthog-faced buffoons, you miserable vomitous masses*—there are a few things you few who are so hung up on it (ItzAcid, INW, Olive, Desolate, Gonzap, whomever else) need to understand:

Sinewav already touched on one, a point I've made before, and put it well. To reiterate, if you guys were more literate, you would realise that those aren't just an unnecessarily verbose string of synonyms. They aren't redundant, interchangeable synonyms at all. They are distinct words with distinct meanings, chosen purposefully.

And they aren't pulled from a thesaurus; they come right from my little old noodle. See, I read. That's what happens when you read: you learn words and how to use them. And you don't even need to read highfalutin academic books. Just read the dang newspaper and you should understand every word I type (though book-readin' is good, too).

They aren't "big words" that should require any sort of advanced vocabulary. Indeed, I would say I use a rather average, conversational vocabulary (and grammar) on this forum (and even dumb it down a bit)—hardly flowery or sophisticated. Therefore, there certainly isn't any pretense or pedantry about it, of it being used as some rhetorical device to lord myself over anyone. It's my natural, everyday vocabulary, with no ulterior motive in affecting any sense of interpersonal status. I'm not trying to impress or intimidate anyone.

If any of you feel that the previous three paragraphs aren't true, that's saying more about you, your illiteracy, and perhaps your own insecurities than it's saying anything about me. You know, like Andy in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. He flunked French in high school and ever since he hates France because he thinks everything over there is set up to make people like him look dumb. It's even worse in this case. On this forum we have several people who don't speak English natively, yet speak/write/understand it better than many of those who do speak it natively. That's on you, not me. And is frankly a shameful disgrace, no matter how fashionable anti-intellectualism currently is in our culture. I'm not expecting you to be scholars, but I expect a minimum of not being a damn moron.

See, the importance of having a decent vocabulary isn't in how one projects toward and is perceived by others (although, it's part of it; speak/write like an idiot and you'll get treated like one, except by other idiots), it's that it allows you to better express and convey entire concepts, meaningfully, and understand same. Without it, you're left grasping at how to express yourself, inarticulately, blabbering on giving a description of what you mean when you could have said the same thing better with just one or a few words.

To use a really simplistic example, it's kinda like saying, "I want one of those round foods, I think they're fruits, they're not really round, but kinda round, and they're usually red, but not always, and they have a skin, not human skin LOL, but plant skin, and underneath that is like this white flesh that is sweet and crunchy, but sometimes soft and like, kinda grainy, and sometimes they make juice out of them" instead of just saying, "I want an apple." Look at a great word like "profligacy;" it expresses so much.

Related to that point, you should appreciate that another reason I use those strings is in the interest of brevity, especially considering the medium. You probably have noticed I have an occasional tendency toward long-windedness, and that's one device for attempting to limit that rather than ranting on. Moreover, you kids damn well know that if I gave each of those words in one of those strings its own paragraph you'd be complaining and flaming me about that. At the very least one of your "OMG tl;dr" comments (which, by the way, is also on you if you find a short page too much to read), which I'll probably get in response to this post itself (which is in fact rather restrained and summary).

The next point I'm going to illustrate rather than explain—yet. What's your take on the structure of the following sentence, ItzAcid (et al)?

There's something similarly predatory in searching out these troubled people, these drunks and narcissists, these self-centered, superficial plastic surgery junkies, these screechers and whiners and perpetual adolescents with daddy, esteem or anger management issues, and paying them to let us watch as they implode.

Last point on this (at least until we revisit the previous in a future post): George Carlin. No, I'm no George Carlin, not even close. His ability to wordsmith together long strings of words and phrases was second-to-none. I should only aspire.

Before I posted I considered the "writing for your audience" angle and I decided it doesn't need to apply here because the "audience" is a large number of people ranging from semi-literate children to multiple-degree-holding adults. It's probably best to just speak in your own voice. I'm sure that's not a satisfactory answer for you.

Good point. I was a communications major (foreshadowing), and that's one of the earliest principles they drive into you. Well, I suppose most any writing course does, including formal, scholarly research papers, for example; even my public speaking course made an early point of it. So it's something I always keep in mind when I write, even on this forum. I agree, it doesn't fully apply in this medium, in good part for the reasons you mentioned. And in that regard, my position is not to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but to expect more of people. Too many bars have been set too low in too many areas already. Even on this inconsequential forum I'm going to insist upon that from its readers. (That's right, kids, I expect a better You!) Hell, coming back to the point of our non-native-English-speakers, how many times has one thanked me for helping expand their vocabulary? I feel pretty good about that (and ashamed my Spanish is so limited and sloppy).

Still, you may notice I do tend to slightly tweak my 'voice' depending on the subject. Casual, formal, technical, yadda yadda, sometimes weaving in and out, heh.

It weakens one's argument. If your audience can't understand you or can dismiss you ... on account of your language, then you've weakened your argument....

Ironic statement.

[Concord]

I lie on the ropes for the first four pages of this thread, and you wail away. Now you seem tired, like you've punched yourself out.

Oh, what, you fancy yourself Muhammad Ali, now? Puhlease.

You're sure seeming like George Foreman.

Anyway, I'm still awaiting an explanation for why you think the following points are wrong.

1.) In the case of Iraq, the Americans of the time did not benefit from the war, but those of the future might well.
2.) Environmental protections are essentially investing in the future at the cost of the present
3.) It naturally is easier to do [vote with the future in mind] when one has a job, and a house, and some food, and whose children getting a real education.
4.) Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception.
5.) I also believe that the goal of a man or woman elected to some position of federal government in the United States of America is morally beholden to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States of America.

The others that you claim are wrong I can imagine your response to or position on. These are harder for me to foresee your defense of.

[Gonzap]

It's funny you phytotron say you want to go straight to the point when you use 10 words to say the same thing. Thet don't have the same meaning? Well we can still understand you. For example, your last post without the strings of adjectives was easier and comfortable to read (except for the fact you are pointing me directly in your attacks).

I can tell you I read quite a lot. I'm not illiterate, and i'm not stupid. If this forum was in spanish and not in english you'd hardly ever name a word i wouldn't undertand or i'd fail at gramma. Because I never do. With english is different. Education in Spain towards english is awful. Mostly all i know was self learned. So yeah i'm kindof illiterate in english, that still doesn't make you any better than me or your points valid. Look at sinewav, he's just as good clarifying points as you, and he uses half as adjectives as you.

When you use 5 words to describe something you don't look smarter, you look haughty and it's really not necessary. Also, opinions are opinions and none of them are true or false, they are just what they are, opinions. If Concord has an opinion on something you are no one to tell him he's wrong. You can disagree, but you can never claim he's wrong.

As an end, try not to name me from now on, because you don't know me, so let me be as I left you alone since that sarcastic posts couple months ago.

I still find you annoying and arrogant, but that's my opinion, right?

[sinewav]

Barely related, hilarious.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110922.gif

[Desolate]

While I did go off on that tangent making fun of you Phytotron, for the most part I did understand what you were trying to convey, with the exception of some of the larger adjectives you decided to use to better convey your meaning. It was completely meant as a joke. Especially now, after reading Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," in AP language and composition. Although the opposite point came be made, he does say, "Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person" (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm%20). I've seen you practice the latter part of the quote more and more recently.

[sinewav]

All the writing advice is hilarious. While you're at it, send off and email to composer John Williams and let him know you'd like less violins and more beats in his movie scores.

[Concord]

You pay Phytrotron to write?

[Z-Man]

I assume nobody took this on because it's so obvious; but something has to be said. (I intended to stay out so I can moderate without bias in case of need, but oh well.)

0.) Morality stops at borders.

No. Why should it? It's natural and unavoidable that compassion dilutes with distance, but moral choices should not. There is no sensible justification for weighing benefits of people on the other end of the world any lower than your own morally. You can do so anyway, of course, but you can't claim it's right by any moral standard.

1.) In the case of Iraq, the Americans of the time did not benefit from the war, but those of the future might well.

Please clarify the future benefits for Americans. Wealth? Cheaper oil? In that case, you're trading lives of Americans and foreigners alike for economic benefits, which is just wrong. Safety? There's no evidence for that, not a little bit. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not hoard weapons of mass destruction.

2.) Environmental protections are essentially investing in the future at the cost of the present

True. In this case however, the present cost in industrialized countries is just a slightly lowered standard of living, and the future benefit is better health for everyone. That's different from taking lives now in the hope it will improve your own life in the future, I hope you see that.

3.) It naturally is easier to do [vote with the future in mind] when one has a job, and a house, and some food, and whose children getting a real education.

What are you even trying to say with that?

4.) Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception.

As are slavery, child labor, no voting rights for women, heck, even no voting rights at all. No justification.

5.) I also believe that the goal of a man or woman elected to some position of federal government in the United States of America is morally beholden to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States of America.

True. But, going back to 0), if you think your own personal interests should be served no matter the cost for the rest of the world, you are THAT American. The American those people who hate America think all Americans are like. The "We take it because we can" American. The Bully. It is your right to hold that opinion, but don't even try to pretend it's morally right.

[LucK]

Z-man ftw

/thread