Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Any time there is a gathering a people there is culture, some more defined than others. This culture is predominantly english-speaking Americans.
    I'm not necessarily inclined to buy into that idea so readily (unless you're loosely defining American as anyone living in the Americas with no qualification about length of tenure).

    Yes, I think it is. I refer to this post and the responses it generated as my proof.
    Not even everyone who posts to the board has responded, so it's not even universal in that respect.

    There is a way to criticize that will get people on your side. Attacking merely puts people on the defensive.
    Most assuredly, but different people have different temperaments. My method of dealing with dissatisfaction holds no bounds upon how others express theirs.

    Yes, they can. Why does the term "dog" refer to a four legged, furry animal that barks?
    But that isn't the only possible meaning.

    Because of universal differences that have been objectively assigned. This is the case with any given word in a given language.
    No, it isn't, especially when a given word can have multiple meanings in that given language. Not to be too Clintonesque, but that depends on what "is" is.

    Your point hasn't come across that way.
    That's not particularly surprising. My default way of expressing myself seems rather cryptic to most. I sometimes forget to correct for general consumption.

    You're right, the idea is what matters. But would you accept a present wrapped in toilet paper smeared with feces?
    What sort of person would wrap a present like that?

    Language is the wrapping of an idea with terms that have universal differences that have been objectively assigned.
    There is no such thing as objective assignement where language is concerned. Yet another thing that I find highly unlikely that we'd be able to reach an understanding on, though, so I don't see a point in going into it further.

    You choose the proper wrapping and your idea is accepted. You wrap your idea in words that are offensive and people forget the idea and look at the words. Wrap your idea with words that attack something someone holds dear and they defend their choice.
    I'm well aware of that, not that it necessarily makes sense to me, but then again, I'm a very small minority in a temperamental sense.

    If timpearson had rephrased the question along the lines of, "I disagree with Handspring's policy of refusing to exchange a gift for something different, anyone else?" people would have had a much different response.
    Sure, but that evidently wasn't in line with his temperament.

    People wouldn't have dismissed the issue as someone fuming, but rather as a potential problem for themselves sometime down the road.
    They obviously didn't just dismiss it as someone fuming, or the post wouldn't have received such a response. Dismissing it would have been the more productive response for all involved, i.e. no response at all.

    I am. That's been my point from the beginning. By being "mean" he alienated his audience. By attacking Handspring he put people on the defensive and didn't elicit any positive response/change.
    Then my original post really had nothing to do with you.

    As I said before if a Presidential candidate swears in a national debate he will not get elected, regardless of his policies.
    Well, I find that odd as well, but...

    Yes, we have. Connotation does play a role. A very big role. Connotation is taken into account constantly throughout a given day.
    Sure, but too often the speaker's connotation isn't the one that's taken into account. People tend to impose their own values on what others say.

    And it starts early on. A child wanting to keep a lost dog will ask if he can keep the puppy. Why use the term "puppy"? It evokes a different response than "dog".
    I think you're reading too much into that situation. The majority of children aren't able to make that level of distinction. Their manipulative skills are seldom that well defined.

    Same for people trying to get someone to agree with them.
    But this assumes that the original poster was looking for agreement. The original post suggests no such thing. It rather suggests that it was emotional venting of frustration and a warning to anyone that might find themseves in a similar situation.

    I notice you haven't used any offensive words in your posts, save as reference. Why?
    Mainly because I offend enough people with my ideas (not necessarily intentionally), so I consider offensive words superfluous. "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." - Sam Brown

    Is it to get people to look at your ideas, rather than dismiss them and focus on your terminology?
    No, and it would have obviously been fruitless anyway since people did focus on my terminology instead of the ideas.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #42  
    I'm not necessarily inclined to buy into that idea so readily (unless you're loosely defining American as anyone living in the Americas with no qualification about length of tenure).
    Length of time has nothing to do with culture, save as a defining factor. For example VisorCentral has a culture. The longer that culture remains the more defined that culture can become. English culture of medieval times was vastly different than English culture today. So yes anyone living in the Americas contributes to American culture. This isn't to say that they don't also contribute to other cultures as well (e.g. Irish-Americans, Native Americans, etc.)

    Not even everyone who posts to the board has responded, so it's not even universal in that respect.
    Not everyone has to post to make it universal.

    Most assuredly, but different people have different temperaments. My method of dealing with dissatisfaction holds no bounds upon how others express theirs.
    True.

    Because of universal differences that have been objectively assigned. This is the case with any given word in a given language.
    No, it isn't, especially when a given word can have multiple meanings in that given language. Not to be too Clintonesque, but that depends on what "is" is.
    Any of the other definitions are the result of universal differences that have been assigned as well (I've ammended the objectively-there is no way to tell the objectivity of the person/persons who first used a concrete term as a metaphor for something else). Without universal differences between words language would be so much sound. Even animals have universal differences between sounds. A dog that is growling is definitely expressing something that is universally understood by other dogs.

    Your point hasn't come across that way.
    That's not particularly surprising. My default way of expressing myself seems rather cryptic to most. I sometimes forget to correct for general consumption.
    ok

    You're right, the idea is what matters. But would you accept a present wrapped in toilet paper smeared with feces?
    What sort of person would wrap a present like that?
    Hopefully no one, but I've seen enough to refrain from making assumptions. It was merely an analogy for a good idea wrapped in a poor choice of words.

    Language is the wrapping of an idea with terms that have universal differences that have been objectively assigned.
    There is no such thing as objective assignement where language is concerned. Yet another thing that I find highly unlikely that we'd be able to reach an understanding on, though, so I don't see a point in going into it further.
    I do agree that objectivity is impossible to determine.

    You choose the proper wrapping and your idea is accepted. You wrap your idea in words that are offensive and people forget the idea and look at the words. Wrap your idea with words that attack something someone holds dear and they defend their choice.
    I'm well aware of that, not that it necessarily makes sense to me, but then again, I'm a very small minority in a temperamental sense.
    I never said that I agreed with it either. In fact I wish people would read an idea rather than how someone wishes to phrase it. I think a lot more would get accomplished. I'm just calling it as I see it.

    If timpearson had rephrased the question along the lines of, "I disagree with Handspring's policy of refusing to exchange a gift for something different, anyone else?" people would have had a much different response.
    Sure, but that evidently wasn't in line with his temperament.
    Interesting to note that temperment can get in the way of clarity of communication.

    People wouldn't have dismissed the issue as someone fuming, but rather as a potential problem for themselves sometime down the road.
    They obviously didn't just dismiss it as someone fuming, or the post wouldn't have received such a response. Dismissing it would have been the more productive response for all involved, i.e. no response at all.
    They did dismiss the idea he was trying to get across. They focused on the terms used instead.

    I am. That's been my point from the beginning. By being "mean" he alienated his audience. By attacking Handspring he put people on the defensive and didn't elicit any positive response/change.
    Then my original post really had nothing to do with you.
    Well then.

    Yes, we have. Connotation does play a role. A very big role. Connotation is taken into account constantly throughout a given day.
    Sure, but too often the speaker's connotation isn't the one that's taken into account. People tend to impose their own values on what others say.
    But one can usually identify how someone will respond. Again we learn as we go.

    And it starts early on. A child wanting to keep a lost dog will ask if he can keep the puppy. Why use the term "puppy"? It evokes a different response than "dog".
    I think you're reading too much into that situation. The majority of children aren't able to make that level of distinction. Their manipulative skills are seldom that well defined.
    Let me identify the child as older than 7. The scenerio I identified still occurs.

    But this assumes that the original poster was looking for agreement. The original post suggests no such thing. It rather suggests that it was emotional venting of frustration and a warning to anyone that might find themseves in a similar situation.
    A warning requires agreement that there is a problem. With the way he worded his post very few people agree that there is a problem. If I were to warn you that little green men being led by Elvis were planning to conquer the world you would most likely dismiss the warning. You wouldn't agree that there was a problem.

    I notice you haven't used any offensive words in your posts, save as reference. Why?
    Mainly because I offend enough people with my ideas (not necessarily intentionally), so I consider offensive words superfluous. "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." - Sam Brown
    emphasis mine
    Without a doubt. I'll pray for your soul.

    Is it to get people to look at your ideas, rather than dismiss them and focus on your terminology?
    No, and it would have obviously been fruitless anyway since people did focus on my terminology instead of the ideas.
    Unfortunately your terminology is the only way the rest of the world can try to understand what your ideas are. If I've focused on your terminology I apologize. It hasn't been intentional.

    [Edited by ****-richardson on 11-25-2000 at 01:31 PM]
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Length of time has nothing to do with culture, save as a defining factor.
    What I was suggesting was that not everyone here is from the United States of America, even if that is their current country of residence. Of course, we could also get into the idea that there really isn't an American culture per se. My own native culture dovetails quite well into most of the traditional ideas of "American" culture (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-rule, etc.), but its genesis was quite organically separate (especially considering that we were living in this part of the country before the U.S. even existed).

    For example VisorCentral has a culture. The longer that culture remains the more defined that culture can become. English culture of medieval times was vastly different than English culture today. So yes anyone living in the Americas contributes to American culture. This isn't to say that they don't also contribute to other cultures as well (e.g. Irish-Americans, Native Americans, etc.)
    Don't forget the Canadians and our compadres south of the border.

    Not everyone has to post to make it universal.
    No, but its universality cannot be proven otherwise.

    Any of the other definitions are the result of universal differences that have been assigned as well (I've ammended the objectively-there is no way to tell the objectivity of the person/persons who first used a concrete term as a metaphor for something else). Without universal differences between words language would be so much sound.
    Languages that you do not know are basically that. Were they universal, you'd understand what was being said.

    Even animals have universal differences between sounds. A dog that is growling is definitely expressing something that is universally understood by other dogs.
    Perhaps, but not necessarily universally understood by all humans.

    Interesting to note that temperment can get in the way of clarity of communication.
    Of course it can, and from both the transmitter and the receiver's perspective.

    Well then.
    I intended no offense with that statement.

    Let me identify the child as older than 7. The scenerio I identified still occurs.
    Perhaps, but I'm still dubious as to whether the motivations are as you say.

    A warning requires agreement that there is a problem.
    How so? A warning only suggest that the "warner" thinks there is a problem.

    With the way he worded his post very few people agree that there is a problem.
    Then they obviously weren't the intended audience.

    If I were to warn you that little green men being led by Elvis were planning to conquer the world you would most likely dismiss the warning. You wouldn't agree that there was a problem.
    I definitely wouldn't phrase it that way. I wouldn't perceive a problem with such a statement since I find the reality of such an event unlikely. OTOH, I wouldn't deny that you perceived a very real problem in your world and thought that it bore sharing. IOW, I'd think you were a kook, but I'd think you were a well-meaning kook since you thought enough of your fellow man to warn them of the "danger".

    Without a doubt. I'll pray for your soul.
    No prayer necessary. The offense is also seldom intentional, but it happens anyway.

    Unfortunately your terminology is the only way the rest of the world can try to understand what your ideas are. If I've focused on your terminology I apologize. It hasn't been intentional.
    No apology necessary. Communication is a process in my view. It's not finished until both parties get the correct and intended messages across AFAIC.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #44  
    What I was suggesting was that not everyone here is from the United States of America, even if that is their current country of residence. Of course, we could also get into the idea that there really isn't an American culture per se. My own native culture dovetails quite well into most of the traditional ideas of "American" culture (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-rule, etc.), but its genesis was quite organically separate (especially considering that we were living in this part of the country before the U.S. even existed).
    Mine as well (a part anyway). American culture takes that into consideration. Take my family, for example. Our culture is a conglomerate of Scottish, Irish, English, French, and Cherokee (in no particular order), yet we honor them all even though some may seem contradictory. Contradictory cultures in America don't invalidate American culture. Just make it interesting. And I never meant to imply that VisorCentral's culture was American. VisorCentral has a culture all to itself.

    Don't forget the Canadians and our compadres south of the border.
    Isn't Canada part of America? (Just a joke to our Canadian friends - I've heard that rankles .) I believe VisorCentral is host to a handful of Europeans as well.

    Not everyone has to post to make it universal.
    No, but its universality cannot be proven otherwise.
    I was pointing out that a lack of posts doesn't preclude universality, a premise that has governed American voting since the get-go (unfortunately).

    Languages that you do not know are basically that. Were they universal, you'd understand what was being said.
    I was speaking universal for a given culture, and language is part of culture. We're finding out how great a part language plays in culture in the Southwest with a high population of Americans who speak only Spanish. And even at that there are sounds/gestures/etc. that are universal regardless of language (laughter, music - more or less, etc.).

    Even animals have universal differences between sounds. A dog that is growling is definitely expressing something that is universally understood by other dogs.
    Perhaps, but not necessarily universally understood by all humans.
    Humans aren't part of "dog culture".

    Interesting to note that temperment can get in the way of clarity of communication.
    Of course it can, and from both the transmitter and the receiver's perspective.
    And being that discussion boards strip everything but what's written means that temperment plays an even larger role. Without body language to clarify we're left with our own temperment to try to dicipher what's meant. That means being a little more careful with what we post.

    Well then.
    I intended no offense with that statement.
    None taken. I try to respond to every point you make (either agreeing, disagreeing, or clarifying) and I had none for this. It does well pointing out how temperment interferes with communication, though. In fact I rather enjoy arguing when it is done well. You argue well, and resorting to personal attacks is counterproductive.

    Let me identify the child as older than 7. The senerio I identified still occurs.
    Perhaps, but I'm still dubious as to whether the motivations are as you say.
    My point was not about children trying to keep pets, but rather that connotation is used often as a method of communication. "Bunny" evokes a different response than "rabbit"; "doggie" vs. "dog"; ad nauseam.

    A warning requires agreement that there is a problem.
    How so? A warning only suggest that the "warner" thinks there is a problem.
    Not by the perceiver. I'll explain in my next response.

    If I were to warn you that little green men being led by Elvis were planning to conquer the world you would most likely dismiss the warning. You wouldn't agree that there was a problem.
    I definitely wouldn't phrase it that way. I wouldn't perceive a problem with such a statement since I find the reality of such an event unlikely. OTOH, I wouldn't deny that you perceived a very real problem in your world and thought that it bore sharing. IOW, I'd think you were a kook, but I'd think you were a well-meaning kook since you thought enough of your fellow man to warn them of the "danger".
    Most wouldn't make the distinction. I think the definition would stop at kook. My perceiving a problem, real or not, doesn't make it a warning. I'm defining warning as something perceived as real by both the communicator and the communicatee (is there such a word?). I'm reminded of a debate between the NWF and some oil corporation. The NWF agent told the oil corporation that they had received plenty of warnings about harm to the environment and the oil agent responded that he received no such warning, just blathering from the NWF.

    With the way he worded his post very few people agree that there is a problem.
    Then they obviously weren't the intended audience.
    He doesn't have the luxury to choose his audience. This is an open, public forum. Everyone registered is his audience whether he likes it or not.

    Without a doubt. I'll pray for your soul.
    No prayer necessary. The offense is also seldom intentional, but it happens anyway.
    Sorry, years of pent up parochial school frustration coming to the fore.

    Unfortunately your terminology is the only way the rest of the world can try to understand what your ideas are. If I've focused on your terminology I apologize. It hasn't been intentional.
    No apology necessary. Communication is a process in my view. It's not finished until both parties get the correct and intended messages across AFAIC.
    So let's get this straight. We both agree that communication is a work in progress. We agree that the original poster offended people. We agree that if his intention was to elicit change he failed, but if it was to vent he succeeded. We agree that people need to be careful with what they say to insure that their message gets across, but that responsibility also falls on those reading the message. We agree that it would be nice if communication didn't involve something as fallible as language, but we need to deal with things as they are, not as you or I would have them. What are we going to talk about now? How about hunting, abortion, religion, gambling, the relationship between church and state, politics (I'm rather sick of politics), or the legalization of various drugs?
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions