Some of my posts are often confused, so perhaps I’m the pot calling the kettle black, but …
Include me among those baffled by that OP. I think he’s suggesting that some of the Thread Games threads have become more personal and he views that as a positive development. Did I guess that much correctly?
I’d have preferred that he make his point in a more straightforward way. And what’s with terms like “intra-OPs”? Is it supposed to tantalize us to guess what such words mean?
One or two Dopers asked for clarification in a very polite way, and drew this insolent response:
Now I learn that, apparently, Leo Bloom isn’t incoherent because he has trouble expressing clear thoughts, but because it’s his deliberate stylistic fetish to appear incomprehensible? :eek:
I’ll be interested to observe myself and see whether I read Bloom posts with greater or less attention in future.
I think that’s because he sounds upset, or maybe it’s just that usually a stream of words like that would be because someone was too mad to pause and choose their words wisely. After re-reading it, it looks it can be read either way, but I’m not convince that what he’s upset about is as simple as “Thread games = more personal”. And when he finally returns to the thread to scold everyone who asked for clarification, he’s definitely pissed off.
Yeah, for the sake of my sanity, I’m going to try “less attention”, but I do have a fascination with dougie-level trainwrecks (well, more like slow-motion pile-ups involving multiple ice cream trucks)…
Maybe if you try reading through that thread with NO PRECONCEIVED IDEAS (I know, can’t be done) you might see why **Leo **got so defensive. Some people seemed to have no trouble understanding and actually replied to the OP, but everyone else got really snotty about how they did not understand what he said, and some even said, basically, “as usual”. Must be frustrating for Leo. It’s true he doesn’t use words of one syllable or present simple ideas. I don’t know. Having to work a little to understand a post doesn’t seem too burdensome to me.
I spend my career reading complex scientific literature and enjoy fine literature. I found it virtually unintelligible, and his explanations did not help me.
That’s great it was easy for you, but to dismiss anyone else who had trouble as demanding simplistic words because we don’t want to work at it is just simply a crummy thing to say.
OK, then, can you explain to me what part seems hard to understand? I feel like this has been asked before and the answer seemed to be “because the OP is always hard to follow”. I certainly don’t mean to say that everyone who didn’t get it was asking for simple ideas simply expressed, but a few people did say if they didn’t immediately grasp the first sentence of an OP they would go elsewhere.
Obviously that was not you. So please, parse it for me if you can?
I have no idea what an “intermittent topic’ within a “Thread games OP” means.
If I could figure that out, I’m not sure “as well as” is now comparing to, and a threads’ raison d’etre (which I know what teh term means) has to do with it.
What is an “intra-OP”/group topic? These are nonstandard ways of describing things, and I have no clue what they mean. So then comparing “Have you ever” to it helps me none.
He participates as an “intra-thread participant”- does that mean he posts?
So, as I posted in that thread- I tried to parse it to a couple of questions, in which the answers were just as confusing.
I asked:
“And in entire OPs newly posted’… has “sub topics”… “not related to topics where teh temperature of the interplay”…
Sure, I know the vocab and can piece bits together, but the overall question is utterly obscured. I don’t like the snarky responses to him either, but that doesn’t make me want to defend his posting as unquestionaingly clear.
Again, that’s great is was easy for you. You two speak the same language. But, leaving the snark against him aside, can’t you at all see how it could be (in good faith) hard for someone else?
And FWIW, I’m not asking anyone to explain it to me now. I got the jist and really am not interested in the particulars being explained to me.
I’m also a professional writer and scientist, and Leo’s prose is quite difficult to follow.
What are “intermittent topics”? How is a raison d’etre a place? How can posters be both asked and answered in the same OP (or intermittent topics in the OP)?
Again, it is very unclear what “intra-OPs (occasional group questions)” is intended to convey.
Yes, it’s possible to get some sense of what is being asked after repeated readings, but it’s by no means clear. About 75% of the words are unnecessary and only serve to create confusion.
I find that his questions are phrased is such a way to make them appear sophisticated, but are actually needlessly verbose and obfuscatory.
His M.O. seems to be: “Never use 5 words when two paragraphs will do.”
ETA: this pitting is long overdue.
The thing is, Leo can write in a more straightforward way when he tries to. I don’t know how much of his circumlocutionary style is just his habitual way of expressing himself, and how much is deliberate. But he’s been told for years that his style is confusing. Rather than making more of an effort to write clearly, he gets defensive and snarky when people say they don’t understand him.
That’s the part that bugs me. In his latest thread he is asking us for input. He has a question and is inviting us to discuss it with him.
Writing is for communication and if the people he needs to interact with to get his question answered are telling him that his communication is getting in the way, don’t berate and be dismissive. Apparently he felt his reply to me was nice. I’ll take him at his word, but it sure didn’t feel that way.
Hey, I’ve taught students who are trying to understand Joyce, and I only occasionally understand Leo Bloom …
ETA: Nobody uses convoluted English like that by accident, and works that hard to make a simple question that difficult.
I can’t believe he’s not doing it on purpose.
In the thread in question, the first two posters who responded, including ITD, politely asked Leo to clarify what he was asking. But rather than actually try to be clearer, he gave this perfectly asinine response. He not only is snarky, he responds by just referring people back to his OP.
Now I can understand him being annoyed by some of the other joking responses, but this kind of reply is totally counterproductive.
Later he says this, which demonstrates he can communicate clearly if he tries to (or maybe if he doesn’t try to be deliberately complicated):
When I read this part of Colibri’s post, my internal reaction was Did anybody suggest to Leo that this would have been a good way to present his OP? Because it seems like that would have been an on-point remark.
And in fact, that re-write is pretty much the vibe that I got from Leo’s OP. But because I don’t follow Thread Games, I didn’t feel like the thread would be terribly edifying wrt Mr. Shine’s OP. So I never drilled down deep enough to learn whether my impression was itself, on point.
Leo has had feedback many many times over the years about how to write more clearly. In the thread in question, Riemann gave him an extensive explanation of what was wrong with his OP. Leo mostly put the blame on other people for failing to understand his posts, rather than trying to take any responsibility for trying to communicate better.
Leo is kind of like the person who can’t sing who grabs the mike in the karaoke bar, and when people criticize his singing he insists it’s their fault for not appreciating music.
Include me among those baffled by that OP. I think he’s suggesting that some of the Thread Games threads have become more personal and he views that as a positive development. Did I guess that much correctly?