Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Sorry... | |
| Posted By: Sl'askia <dragatora@hotmail.com> | Date: 2/2/11 10:35 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Sorry... (paulmarv) : Before my post were essentially 89 posts of criticism. Do you expect me not : to respond to that? Of course not. But you could have organized it in a way that didn't have one massive text wall as the fourth paragraph. Text wall = bad. : I'm no longer talking about whether or not you should read my big OP on Bnet
The scholars and lawyers bit was directed solely at the SC, not your response to critisim. I could actually read and understand what you are saying here on HBO...with the exception of the text wall that is the forth paragraph. To show you what I mean this time, I'll show you using said paragraph: Original Alright, now I can get onto the meat of the issue here. Here is my big problem that I need to get out of the way: the accusations regarding the style and length of my "mega-rant" (I'll call it that to be lighthearted about it). Like some of the other unfair accusations in this thread, it is hard and redundant to reply to someone who hasn't read the entire thing. This I regret: I foolishly excluded some sort of disclaimer at the beginning that said "If you don't read the entire thing, please don't complain to me." I understand the length; it actually took me about an hour to read when I sat down I went back through it to fix spelling/grammar errors. So, I will entertain these accusations and provide a general defense. I anticipated these specific accusations, and therefore wrote what I did in the second addendum at the end. It's really short; please read. It builds off of what I say in "Idealism and Implicitness" and "Question of Identity", but at that point you should just read the entire thing. Please do that - that's a request. But when you accuse me, it is sort of an accusation. Again, I'm cool about it; I'm not offended, and I'm just going to ignore statements like "guy who wrote this Summa Canonica needs professional attention" (Quirel - I appreciated your specific criticism before this and I'll get to that). I wrote how I wrote to A. communicate the info I needed to in B. the most concise way possible, WITHOUT sacrificing detail, specificity, and important subtle meaning. I chose my words very carefully; there's a big difference between "talk" and "speak" in popular usage the way I see it. Granted, I had a little fun. I had a little fun with the name and structure on the first page, making it seem like it was something much more important than it really was (although I do think it is importance) by using fancy Latin mottos and throws to St. Aquinas, etc. The fun ended there. (Even though it did have the effect of establishing the style and effect I was going for). Let's actually examine the meat, the body text, and not some affected legalese ostentation that I obviously had fun with on page 1. It ended at "Overture... to be oversimplified" and continued in seriousness until the end of the "mega-rant". If in the actual content, I included language or a word that was unnecessarily verbose and could have been condensed without shrinking the meaning... I made and error and do apologize. I am not perfect. The ironic thing is, to all you people who criticized me for this but didn't read the Summa in entirety, I discuss the utter uselessness of choosing a language other than the common vernacular for the communication of ideas. That was part of one of my biggest arguments! Bernard... You seem like a really smart guy. I know we think alike because in your critique of my work, your argument was so similar (in your last on-topic post) that you practically to it straight from SC! I DO NOT believe that; I am not accusing you, but I just think it is funny how similar you "word games"/"perversion of language" argument is so similar to what I said in SC. I addressed this argument of yours. I addressed the argument of "well, this guy is just making an aspirational definition of THC and then arguing THAT canon which is a useless philosophical exercise...". Just read the entire thing, and then I'll be happy to hear why I'm wrong. Back to the topic of my apparent bad style, I must admit I am somewhat embarrassed. For me, whenever I see a paper or something that was obviously written by some kid but tries to sound all smart by thesaurusing every single word... it just looks like the most stupid and juvenile thing in the world. Its awkward. And it is wicked obvious that this kid was just using a thesaurus to find longer words to make him look smart... which makes him look dumber, but most of all, makes him look young and immature. So, that this perception is taken in regards to my work is a source of embarrassment to me, however I know that this is inaccurate. I did not slave over this; I have a life. I started this thing over 1.5 years ago. I would work on it when I'm being driven somewhere in the car, when I got some free time, or when I could spend a day or two off from everything else. I chose my words carefully. I did not sit there and try to make them sound "fancy" because I know how stupid that sounds. But then I read Erasmus for example, and I'm just struck by how ingenious the use of language is. Not just words, but constructions. I profess: I will likely never be that good a writing, nor do I think I am the best writer as I stand. But I just spent more time perfecting sentences that a better writer would have needed to. So you can attack SC on that account, but until you've read the entire thing and can find an instance where I used an unnecessarily verbose word (btw I'm sure you could, a few times), then I'm not very interested in entertaining that discussion. But your complaint is heard and I have a completely open mind. -- Modified Alright, now I can get onto the meat of the issue here. Here is my big problem that I need to get out of the way: the accusations regarding the style and length of my "mega-rant" (I'll call it that to be lighthearted about it). Like some of the other unfair accusations in this thread, it is hard and redundant to reply to someone who hasn't read the entire thing. This I regret: I foolishly excluded some sort of disclaimer at the beginning that said "If you don't read the entire thing, please don't complain to me." I understand the length; it actually took me about an hour to read when I sat down I went back through it to fix spelling/grammar errors. So, I will entertain these accusations and provide a general defense. I anticipated these specific accusations, and therefore wrote what I did in the second addendum at the end. It's really short; please read. It builds off of what I say in "Idealism and Implicitness" and "Question of Identity", but at that point you should just read the entire thing. Please do that - that's a request. But when you accuse me, it is sort of an accusation. Again, I'm cool about it; I'm not offended, and I'm just going to ignore statements like "guy who wrote this Summa Canonica needs professional attention" (Quirel - I appreciated your specific criticism before this and I'll get to that). I wrote how I wrote to A. communicate the info I needed to in B. the most concise way possible, WITHOUT sacrificing detail, specificity, and important subtle meaning. I chose my words very carefully; there's a big difference between "talk" and "speak" in popular usage the way I see it. Granted, I had a little fun. I had a little fun with the name and structure on the first page, making it seem like it was something much more important than it really was (although I do think it is importance) by using fancy Latin mottos and throws to St. Aquinas, etc. The fun ended there. (Even though it did have the effect of establishing the style and effect I was going for). Let's actually examine the meat, the body text, and not some affected legalese ostentation that I obviously had fun with on page 1. It ended at "Overture... to be oversimplified" and continued in seriousness until the end of the "mega-rant". If in the actual content, I included language or a word that was unnecessarily verbose and could have been condensed without shrinking the meaning... I made and error and do apologize. I am not perfect. The ironic thing is, to all you people who criticized me for this but didn't read the Summa in entirety, I discuss the utter uselessness of choosing a language other than the common vernacular for the communication of ideas. That was part of one of my biggest arguments! Bernard... You seem like a really smart guy. I know we think alike because in your critique of my work, your argument was so similar (in your last on-topic post) that you practically to it straight from SC! I DO NOT believe that; I am not accusing you, but I just think it is funny how similar you "word games"/"perversion of language" argument is so similar to what I said in SC. I addressed this argument of yours. I addressed the argument of "well, this guy is just making an aspirational definition of THC and then arguing THAT canon which is a useless philosophical exercise...". Just read the entire thing, and then I'll be happy to hear why I'm wrong. Back to the topic of my apparent bad style, I must admit I am somewhat embarrassed. For me, whenever I see a paper or something that was obviously written by some kid but tries to sound all smart by thesaurusing every single word... it just looks like the most stupid and juvenile thing in the world. Its awkward. And it is wicked obvious that this kid was just using a thesaurus to find longer words to make him look smart... which makes him look dumber, but most of all, makes him look young and immature. So, that this perception is taken in regards to my work is a source of embarrassment to me, however I know that this is inaccurate. I did not slave over this; I have a life. I started this thing over 1.5 years ago. I would work on it when I'm being driven somewhere in the car, when I got some free time, or when I could spend a day or two off from everything else. I chose my words carefully. I did not sit there and try to make them sound "fancy" because I know how stupid that sounds. But then I read Erasmus for example, and I'm just struck by how ingenious the use of language is. Not just words, but constructions. I profess: I will likely never be that good a writing, nor do I think I am the best writer as I stand. But I just spent more time perfecting sentences that a better writer would have needed to. So you can attack SC on that account, but until you've read the entire thing and can find an instance where I used an unnecessarily verbose word (btw I'm sure you could, a few times), then I'm not very interested in entertaining that discussion. But your complaint is heard and I have a completely open mind. -- The spots where I separated it into new paragraphs may not be perfect, but it does make the whole thing a lot easier to read. Not to mention it makes the reader a bit more willing to actually read the whole thing. Ease of reading is important, especially on the net: it is a lot harder to look away for a moment and not lose your place when the text is on a computer screen. Text walls do not help in this regard (I am addressing both the SC and your response here). I know I keep harping about the text wall thing, but from my experience on the message boards is that text walls are usually the first thing people gripe about in a post. Overall length is another one that is griped about (thus the calls for tl:dr summeries). When I write my stories, particularly the ones I intend to post on the net, I keep my chaps no more then 3k...maybe 4k words long: I found from reading other works that anything longer is exhausting to read. Perhaps that is just me, but because of that I keep the overall length in mind for the sake of comfort for the audiance. I do hope you take this advice into consideration for future articles/posts.
| |
|
| Replies: |
| Summa Canonica | Cody Miller | 1/30/11 8:22 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Hyokin | 1/30/11 8:26 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Pkmnrulz240 | 1/30/11 8:26 p.m. |
| Also... | Pkmnrulz240 | 1/30/11 8:29 p.m. |
| Re: Also... | Cody Miller | 1/30/11 8:50 p.m. |
| Re: Also... | Stephen L. (SoundEffect) | 1/30/11 9:41 p.m. |
| Re: Also... | sithhead | 1/30/11 11:04 p.m. |
| Re: Also... | SonofMacPhisto | 1/30/11 9:41 p.m. |
| Re: Also... | Pkmnrulz240 | 1/30/11 9:42 p.m. |
| Re: Also... | SonofMacPhisto | 1/30/11 9:48 p.m. |
| amazing *NM* | kidtsunami | 1/30/11 8:46 p.m. |
| Wtf | Avateur | 1/30/11 8:57 p.m. |
| Actually... | NartFOpc | 1/30/11 10:46 p.m. |
| Re: Actually... | Buttskunk | 1/30/11 11:05 p.m. |
| Utterly Glorious | Hawaiian Pig | 1/30/11 10:47 p.m. |
| I don't understand people sometimes. | uberfoop | 1/30/11 11:21 p.m. |
| Ahhhhh.... my brain!!!! *NM* | Chris101b | 1/30/11 11:35 p.m. |
| Re: I don't understand people sometimes. | Hawaiian Pig | 1/31/11 12:41 a.m. |
| Paul Marv, eh? | Salazar14 | 1/31/11 12:04 a.m. |
| I am an aspiring author... | Quirel | 1/31/11 12:30 a.m. |
| The Turn of the Screwloose | topleybird | 1/31/11 10:22 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Narcogen | 1/31/11 2:20 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Cody Miller | 1/31/11 11:54 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Narcogen | 2/1/11 12:18 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Cody Miller | 2/1/11 1:49 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | The Loot | 2/1/11 3:41 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Narcogen | 2/1/11 10:00 p.m. |
| Okay, wow. | BlueNinja | 1/31/11 3:03 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Louis Wu | 1/31/11 3:46 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Quirel | 1/31/11 10:44 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Hawaiian Pig | 1/31/11 3:46 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Louis Wu | 1/31/11 3:50 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Hawaiian Pig | 1/31/11 5:28 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Quirel | 1/31/11 5:44 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Morhek | 1/31/11 5:10 a.m. |
| Haha | Archilen | 1/31/11 8:41 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 12:04 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Avateur | 1/31/11 12:23 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 12:24 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Cody Miller | 1/31/11 12:36 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 12:51 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Stephen L. (SoundEffect) | 1/31/11 1:24 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Bry | 1/31/11 1:45 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Stephen L. (SoundEffect) | 1/31/11 1:47 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Louis Wu | 1/31/11 1:54 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Stephen L. (SoundEffect) | 1/31/11 2:29 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Cody Miller | 1/31/11 2:32 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | The Loot | 1/31/11 2:44 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | SonofMacPhisto | 1/31/11 3:10 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Cody Miller | 1/31/11 3:14 p.m. |
| WingsOfLibertyIsNotCanon.net *NM* | The Loot | 1/31/11 3:43 p.m. |
| It isn't? | Quirel | 1/31/11 5:14 p.m. |
| Re: It isn't? | General Battuta | 1/31/11 6:54 p.m. |
| Re: It isn't? | Quirel | 1/31/11 7:32 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Stephen L. (SoundEffect) | 1/31/11 5:49 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | General Vagueness | 1/31/11 2:54 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Hyokin | 1/31/11 4:44 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | General Vagueness | 1/31/11 5:24 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Hyokin | 1/31/11 5:35 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | General Vagueness | 1/31/11 5:38 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Hyokin | 1/31/11 5:43 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Bernard Strauss | 1/31/11 6:20 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Hyokin | 1/31/11 6:31 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 5:14 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Quirel | 1/31/11 5:29 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | General Vagueness | 1/31/11 5:37 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 5:45 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Joe Duplessie (SNIPE 316) | 2/1/11 5:16 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | The Loot | 1/31/11 6:13 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Quirel | 1/31/11 6:42 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | General Battuta | 1/31/11 6:56 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 7:03 p.m. |
| Team Edward or Team Jacob...? | Devil Mingy | 1/31/11 8:13 p.m. |
| Team Edward! | Hyokin | 1/31/11 8:30 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | The Loot | 2/1/11 12:14 a.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Bernard Strauss | 1/31/11 12:37 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 12:49 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Bernard Strauss | 1/31/11 1:31 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 1:38 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Frankie | 1/31/11 1:39 p.m. |
| HBO: We're old school, yo. *NM* | Hyokin | 1/31/11 1:48 p.m. |
| Re: HBO: Word *NM* | Schedonnardus | 1/31/11 3:08 p.m. |
| Re: HBO: Word | Hyokin | 1/31/11 3:44 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Beckx | 1/31/11 1:38 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | elessar787 | 1/31/11 1:48 p.m. |
| Re: Summa Canonica | Bernard Strauss | 1/31/11 3:36 p.m. |
| dude... | Hawaiian Pig | 1/31/11 3:53 p.m. |
| Re: dude... | Bernard Strauss | 1/31/11 4:24 p.m. |
| Re: dude... | Hawaiian Pig | 1/31/11 5:30 p.m. |
| My poor brain.... | Sl'askia | 2/1/11 12:01 p.m. |
| Looks like I've got some explaining to do... | paulmarv | 2/1/11 2:54 p.m. |
| tl;dr | bluerunner | 2/1/11 3:08 p.m. |
| Re: tl;dr | paulmarv | 2/1/11 3:17 p.m. |
| Sorry... | Sl'askia | 2/1/11 6:33 p.m. |
| Re: Sorry... | paulmarv | 2/1/11 8:22 p.m. |
| Re: Sorry... | Sl'askia | 2/1/11 11:35 p.m. |
| Re: Sorry... | Leviathan | 2/2/11 12:57 a.m. |
| Re: Sorry... | Sl'askia | 2/2/11 9:56 a.m. |
| Naw, it was pretty spot on, I'd say. :P *NM* | Leviathan | 2/2/11 10:57 a.m. |
| Re: Sorry... | paulmarv | 2/2/11 8:56 a.m. |
| Re: Sorry... | Sl'askia | 2/2/11 10:35 a.m. |
| Re: Sorry... | paulmarv | 2/2/11 12:16 p.m. |
| Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do... | General Vagueness | 2/1/11 8:10 p.m. |
| Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do... | paulmarv | 2/1/11 8:29 p.m. |
| Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do... | General Vagueness | 2/1/11 8:42 p.m. |
| Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do... | paulmarv | 2/1/11 9:07 p.m. |
| Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do... | General Vagueness | 2/1/11 9:20 p.m. |
| Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do... | paulmarv | 2/2/11 8:57 a.m. |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |