Sirkickyass, Moderator.

[Hopper]

For the life of me, I don't know why you have to write "mebbe" instead of "maybe" or "richea" instead of whatever the hell you that means or many of the persona words you choose to use. If I have to read a post and try to decipher what the words are supposed to mean, I'm not sure I have time for that. That's my complaint with you....you sure as hell aren't making it easy to understand a damn thing you are writing.

Well, Blood, I understand what you're sayin, I really do. But sometimes making sure everyone can "easily" understand you can be a secondary consideration, ya know?

Many people have simply given up on even tryin to read a classic like "Huck Finn," because it's just takes more effort than they're willing to put forth (or perhaps no amount of effort would make it comprehensible to them). Twain knew that when he wrote it. So why would he write it that way?

The funny thing (to me, anyway) is this: If you want to make something "hard to read" or "hard to understand" for the average sports message board member, perhaps the surest way to do it is to use an advanced vocabulary. They won't know half the words, and certainly won't want to go to the effort of looking them up. But that sort of "incomprehensibility" seems to be praised by many, rather than scorned. Why is that, ya figure?

 

[Hopper]

I didn't shed a tear when you were banned on the previous board because your posts just got harder to read, so much that I felt they were little more than pollution on the board. Does this make me an elitist? Probably. I really do wish that you would post in a written way that is easy to read. That's all.

I mentioned Twain as an example, but you could throw im Shakespeare, Joyce, and a lot of other brilliant authors as examples too, I suppose. But let's stick with Twain for a minute. If people don't want to go to the trouble to plow through a book like Huck Finn that is "difficult" to read, I certainly wouldn't try to force them to. But, on the other hand, should they be entitled to force me "not" to read it?

There have been school boards that have banned "Huck Finn," although admittedly not because it is hard to read. The complaint has been along the lines that it's "racist," or "offensive" or such things as that. In truth, Twain's message was really anti-racist, but so what? If school board members can't see that, what difference does it make?

I say it does make a difference. Those school board members should wake up. Twain's work shouldn't be banned just because some people misconstrue it's meaning.

 

[YB85]

Wait. Did you just compare yourself to Twain? Or Shakespeare or Joyce?

 

[Hopper]

Wait. Did you just compare yourself to Twain? Or Shakespeare or Joyce?

I really hope you're just bustin my chops, Blood, and don't honestly think that.

 

[YB85]

I really hope you're just bustin my chops, Blood, and don't honestly think that.

Hopper, I've had a couple of beers tonight and I'm listening to music from my college days. Nothing about anything I am doing is serious. Except thinking about having one more beer.

 

[Hopper]

Except thinking about having one more beer.

Yeah, and I spoze yo gunna hawg it all up yo own damn self, too, eh, Blood? I mean, like, I could use a few beers too, ya know?

 

[moevillini]

A few quick questions Mo.

1. You have no doubt noticed that some of the members here speak English as a second language, and they don't always say things in a way that is "readable to everyone." You have probably also noticed how frequently they get pounced on and ridiculed by certain posters. Do you support those doing the ridiculing?

2. If it were your board, would you ban such posters, and any others who didn't measure up to your standards of "readability?" Would you require that members pass the equivalent of a GED test for literacy before they could join, for example?

3. Doesn't "readability" depend in part on the comprehension skills of the reader? To have everything "readable by everyone" wouldn't you have to limit permissible post content to that which the 10-year old members could understand?

my responses:
1. Small errors are ignored, either because they're too small to even be noticed, or because they don't significantly affect readability. I know I have pointed out grammatical and spelling errors to a number of posters, I hope for the most part it's taken without rancor. I will admit to occasionally making fun of a poster for their errors, but often it's because I think the poster didn't realize the mistake or wasn't aware of it being a mistake. Many posters accept the criticism good-naturedly, but some have called me out for it. For the most part, I am sincerely sorry if I've hurt somebody's feelings. I do try to make allowances for those that seem to be non-native English speakers. People who seem to purposely make frequent posts in a manner that is incomprehensible are not in the same category as someone who makes an inadvertent error or someone who makes an error because English is not their first language.

While I cannot absolutely speak for other jazzfanz members, I believe that most of them have good intentions most of the time. There have been occasions where I have felt some of the ridiculing of other posters goes too far and at those times I have let these posters know that I think they've overstepped the bounds of what I consider appropriate.

2. Yes, if I absolutely made the rules, and I felt the poster was purposely trying to subvert them, then eventually a ban might be effected. But I really don't like the idea of a permanent ban, so it might just be a series of 90 day bans interspersed between 30 days of posting activity or whatever the rules stated.
But no, there would not be any tests given. It would be my decision, based upon input I received from others who were active on the board in addition to my own personal preferences. There are plenty of other options on the internet for folks who might object to my rules and the manner in which they're enforced.

3. Yes to the first part of this question, no to your second part.

Well, that might be a matter of interpretation, Mo, but here's what I had in mind.

Case 1: I say: Mo, you're a damn fool.

Case 2: I say: Mo, you're a damn fool because (x,y, and z)

In case one I have stated a conclusion, but provided no substantive reason for it. In case two I tell you "why" I think you're a fool, which would give the post some substance, as opposed to the mere raw assertion of a conclusion.

OK, so ignoring for the moment the fact that you're calling me a fool, please list some substantive reasons for doing so, in order to fulfill the scenario you describe as "Case 2"

 

[Hopper]

Thanks for your responses, Mo. I guess I wasn't really expecting any at this point. There are a couple of things you say that I find a little confusing, but I know you don't like being questioned much so I won't disturb you with that.

OK, so ignoring for the moment the fact that you're calling me a fool, please list some substantive reasons for doing so, in order to fulfill the scenario you describe as "Case 2"

Well, Mo, it wouldn't matter what x, y, and z were for the purposes of making the distinction you asked about. But, if it helps, it could be sumthin like this:

Because:

x: You think 2 + 2 is 5, and it aint.

y: You think K-Y is the best player on the team, just because you think he's cute, and

z: You told me you're considering buying the Brooklyn Bridge for a mere $100,000.

At that point you have some substance. If you want to defend your positions, or ask me why I disagree with them, then at least you know what to address.

Or maybe you would want to simply correct my misinterpretations and tell me that you do NOT think 2 + 2 is 5, and so forth. Again, you can only do that if I provide you will some substance, and not just my conclusion.

 

[Hopper]

Like all threads, Mo, this one has gone completely "off-topic," but as I think you know, I don't find that objectionable. In most threads there comes a point where it either:

1) Just dies, or

2) The topic starts to change from post to post.

But, to kinda elaborate on this "substance" vs. "raw assertion" distinction, let me ask you (or anybody else who cares to venture an answer) what you would do in a case like this:

You have been selected to be a juror. The DA comes in and says something like this:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I have worked as a prosecuting attorney for over 25 years. I'm not bragging, but simply stating the facts, when I tell you that our staff contains some of the most brilliant legal minds in the country. Our police department and it's detectives are also highly competent professionals, surpassed by no one in this country.

Collectively, we have looked at all the relevant facts, and have reviewed the applicable law. We have impartially and objectively analyzed and dissected these things, with an eye to serving justice only. Had we concluded that there was any reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, we would not have brought this case to trial, but I can tell you this: The defendant is guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. I therefore ask you to convict him. The judge will then sentence him to 10-20 years, at his discretion. Thank you.

That's it. That's all he says. That's the entire case presented to you.

Would you, as a juror, vote guilty on that basis? I don't think I'm just being cynical when I tell you that I think a whole lot of people would (vote guilty). Would you?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Like all threads, Mo, this one has gone completely "off-topic," but as I think you know, I don't find that objectionable. In most threads there comes a point where it either:

1) Just dies, or

2) The topic starts to change from post to post.

But, to kinda elaborate on this "substance" vs. "raw assertion" distinction, let me ask you (or anybody else who cares to venture an answer) what you would do in a case like this:

You have been selected to be a juror. The DA comes in and says something like this:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I have worked as a prosecuting attorney for over 25 years. I'm not bragging, but simply stating the facts, when I tell you that our staff contains some of the most brilliant legal minds in the country. Our police department and it's detectives are also highly competent professionals, surpassed by no one in this country. Collectively, we have looked at all the relevant facts, and have reviewed the applicable law and I can tell you this: The defendant is guilty. I therefore ask you to convict him. The judge will then sentence him to 10-20 years, at his discretion. Thank you.

That's it. That's all he says. That's the entire case, and all the "evidence" you get.

Would you, as a juror, vote guilty on that basis? I don't think I'm just being cynical when I tell you that I think a whole lot of people would (vote guilty). Would you?

If you were the defendant, then yes, I'd vote guilty.

 

[Hopper]

...sometimes making sure everyone can "easily" understand you can be a secondary consideration, ya know?...Twain knew that when he wrote it. So why would he write it that way?

The funny thing (to me, anyway) is this: If you want to make something "hard to read" or "hard to understand" for the average sports message board member, perhaps the surest way to do it is to use an advanced vocabulary. They won't know half the words, and certainly won't want to go to the effort of looking them up. But that sort of "incomprehensibility" seems to be praised by many, rather than scorned. Why is that, ya figure?

Blood, you never responded to these questions, so I will make a brief observation about them. To begin with, it seems to me to be impossible to choose any mode of expression which suits the needs and desires of EVERYBODY in a large audience. Any given statement may be composed in such a manner as to be more readily understandable (and tolerable) to some than others. No matter what segment you may try to address your comment to, there will always be the remaining segment which may be left dissatisified with your manner of "communicating."

 

[TroutBum]

Taint, you never responded to my post at the top of the thread either. Sucks to suck, eh?