Only in regards to my involvement in the conversation. Most groups are made up of people who have something in common, interact with one another, and are interdependent. I’ve been able to pick up the meaning of these phrases second handed and figure out some of the Jargon they use such as “Browncoat” so the communication is effective on some level. It’s just rather limited when it comes to me and the other odd men out.
Let’s face it, if I was in a group of moder art enthusiast I’d probably be confused by the jargon they used and their efforts at communication would likely be hindered.
I’ll give you #3. Hi Opal!
Christ, how in the hell did that ever start and why did it continue for so long? I got nothing against Opal but enough is enough.
Marc
I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, but I’m curious – how do you decide something’s well-known enough to quote in “mixed company”? Is Shakespeare? Beatles lyrics? Only the popular Shakespeare plays or Beatles songs?
Anyone who quotes anything without context should know that their message won’t be as effective with people ignorant of their source, but that can be offset by a greater reaction among people who do get the reference.
Your user name references a book that I’d wager most people on the boards haven’t read; do you think you’re being exclusionary?
No, because I’m not trying to communicate anything with my username. If I were using it in conversation to make a point, that would be different, and yes exclusionary.
But I’m not sure how I decide if a reference is well enough known to work in mixed company. I guess you just know. And of course, the more the meaning of the reference stands alone, the more communicative. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” communicates what it communicates very clearly; the fact that it’s from Shakespeare is entirely irrelevant to that meaning. The kind of references I’m talking about here are the ones that are totally meaningless without a knowledge of their context.
)