On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:33:28PM +0100, Walter Alejandro Iglesias wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 09:55:04PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:07:36PM -0800, Chip Camden wrote: > > > Quoth Chad Perrin on Tuesday, 03 January 2012: > > > > > > > > So . . . please start with the denotative meanings of words, consider > > > > your audience, and use words accordingly. If you wish to use a term > > > > differently than how it is understood, make sure you clarify that fact > > > > up > > > > front. If others refuse to go along with it, find a different term to > > > > use that can better convey the meaning you wish to convey. > > > > > > > > > > If everyone followed your advice here, Chad, then 99% of the arguments on > > > the > > > Internet would evaporate. > > > > Thanks for noticing! > > Well Chad, you crossed the line. I don't need any > "clarification" to understand this last statement like a poor > insult. Let's do an exercise; you need it:
Wait -- what? I responded to someone other than you who commented (humorously, I thought) on the fact that the majority of arguments on the Internet are about terminology. How the heck is that an insult to you? > > 1) "popularity" "demagogy" "rights" > 2) "lawyer" "demand" "rights" > > By analogy: > > 1) "bicycle" "road" "wheel" > 2) "Unix" "groups" "wheel" > > See? Not really. > > In that first paragraph where I mention "rights" in > a "popular" context, I am exactly denoting the bad use people do > of the word "rights". You killed the messenger. I didn't kill the messenger. I tried pointing out a misuse of terms in the hope it would help people be clearer when talking to each other. This was not an attempt to belittle anyone. Beyond that, I don't know what the heck your problem might be. > > Talking about an "audience" is beyond my goal. I expect just a > human being on the other side; not necessary too much cleaver or > cultivated just not having a MS Word Spelling Checker by brain > is enough. So, I will not waste my time in quoting, sub > quoting and meta quoting myself with "this is a metaphor; this > is a sarcasm; this is a hyperbole; this is a joke" to the > infinite; I made this in the past with people like you and I > know that it is a waste of time. Whenever one tries to make a point, one's audience (to a significant degree) *is* the point. That is, the person or people you are trying to influence, inform, or engage with whatever you are saying must be important, or you probably would not be trying to influence, inform, or sway that "audience". It is thus a good idea to keep that audience in mind when choosing one's words, especially where clarity is intended. The only exception that comes immediately to mind is the case where you may actually *want* to confuse and annoy people, and spark flame wars on the Internet, but it was not my belief anyone was trying to do that in this case. It's nice that you can dismiss people as irrelevant or unreachable when they try offering information in the spirit of helpfulness and correctness so easily. It must make things easy for you, I guess, though in this case I am not really sure how. > > Anyway, thanks for your teachings. Given the fact you have declared what I said an insult for some reason, I suspect this is sarcastic -- but you're welcome anyway. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
