Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.I don't know where this came from originally, but I should also say... cut the technical jargon to a minimum. Not everyone knows everything you do and even if they know all the words laymans terms may be a better way of explaining it. Give an analogy, if they don't get it; Reduce it to the simplest possible terms.
Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
** ** In other words, talk plainly, briefly, naturally, sensibly, truthfully, purely. Keep from slang; don't put on airs; say what you mean; mean what you say. And, don't use big words!"
P.S. I pissed someone off because I told them it wasn't my understanding that was the problem it was there ability to explain things simply, and then gave them a link to this. I did eventually get why X was a good thing in spite of the overcomplicated explanations.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI don't allow profanity here anymore. If you don't like it go someplace, no one forces you to come here and read my opinions.
ReplyDeleteIf you are so against people expressing their opinions when they run counter to yours, regardless of their expertise on the subject matter, why bother enabling comments at all?
ReplyDeleteAnd why participate on the Iron Man feed in the first place if you don't want to engender community participation?
You are absolutely correct that no one forces us to come read your opinions, but it is implicit that you /want/ someone to read them, or else why be on the feed?
Please be a better community participant and learn from the wisdom and knowledge of subject matter experts.
No I'm against people swearing at me (or anyone else) on my blog. On my last post I had to delete an ethnic slur. If you wish to abuse people do so elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteHonestly? if you can't say something without being profane do you really believe it's worth saying? To be fair I probably won't care if you swear as a descriptor, as I believe profanity is just words, but if you're directing it at someone then I have a problem.
ReplyDeleteThis being my blog it's my responsibility to insure things remain civil here. I can't do anything about other 'forums'.
You suggest that I have something against learning. It has nothing to do with that at all. There is no knowledge to be gained from people swearing at other people (at least in relation to programming, psychology or culture, etc on the other hand).
Also this being /my/ blog it makes it harder for me to ignore. I know I'm a moth to the flame and have trouble staying out of flame wars. I'd rather end a discussion that appears to have no more real value and let's me get back to doing something else, than let it continue 'till I'm foaming at the mouth.
Example: no one has yet to really say anything worthwhile about my password post besides the fact that they do not believe it generates enough randomness/entropy. So I ended the discussion because it was loop say "it doesn't matter in practice"; say "it does, and it's not random enough";. Once I closed in an IRC discussion I was told it would take ~$12k in AWS servers to break my shadow file. That's secure enough for most things in my mind. But I don't really see anyone else saying new things. I've heard the argument, I and at least 1 other person disagree with it, and now it needs to end.
There is a difference between using big words and using correct terminology. When I say things like "closure" or "autovivification" I mean very specific things. There has to be good faith on both sides: the writer should avoid obscure terminology when it isn't necessary and the reader should look up words he or she isn't familiar with.
ReplyDelete@Chas well of course sometimes it's exceptionally difficult to explain something without correct terminology.
ReplyDeleteYou should replace your policy of not allowing profanity with a policy of not allowing *stupidity* -- stupidity is far more damaging. Then, per policy, you should delete all of your posts.
ReplyDelete"You should replace your policy of not allowing profanity with a policy of not allowing *stupidity* -- stupidity is far more damaging. Then, per policy, you should delete all of your posts."
ReplyDeleteHobbs you're absolutely right. My policy should be no trolling. This comment is trolling. Please take it elsewhere, they are of no value. Further comments like this will be deleted.
@nperez do you see any value in this second comment by hobbs?
ReplyDelete"The basic reason for newspeak is to remove all emotion from the language itself and to dumb language down to remove conflicting ideas. Big Brother enforces newspeak because it reduces the amount of descriptive words in the language. The language promotes a narrowing of thought and awareness. If a person doesn't think, then a person doesn't act simple as that." - In reference to George Orwell's "1984"
ReplyDelete