Allow me to introduce you to LSLGuy’s Language Uncertainty Principle (LUP).
The LUP holds that the harder you try to believe there’s a clear and bright-line difference between two words, a 'point of divergence" if you will, the less your audience will share your mistaken ideas about linguistic precision and determinism.
The subtlety is lost and the “dissecting knife” turns into a tenderizing hammer in the eyes/ears of one’s audience.
I try to be precise and to set out my context in hopes my audience can follow along. The result is long-windedness. Which is a stylistic defect. But which I hope is not a gross obstacle to, merely a detractor from, comprehension.
Quality communication is 99% the responsibility of the author; the audience just shows up with whatever baggage, interest, prejudice, and agenda they each happen to bring to the mix.
Good luck applying subtlety to people from all over the planet and of every age, socio-economic status, education level, religion, and first language. 'Cuz that’s who’s here. Subtle and precise is a fool’s errand.
Some lions and lambs are snoozing under the crabapple in my back yard.
In other news, a comprehensible GQ post from Leo! Some of these strings of words are almost grammatical sentences. Has he been secretly paying attention?
I know this thread has been up for a bit and I just came to say that I just attempted to read a thread begun by LeoB. I wanted to follow it, I thought I could follow it, but I got lost somewhere in the midst.
These are just elementary steps, but if the calculation as they comment and and interpret [that is to say, Gemara] are predisposed to assay in the darkness [night, pre-sunrise to make a distinction] to calculate each step (in the mo(u)rning (heh heh)…;)?) for millennia, as it equates, the likes of Alos HaShachar according to the Wiki might distinguish darkness given modern-day empirical considerations, other things being equal [equinox], it is always exactly correct (72 minutes).
Is this the part where I’m supposed to skulk in and meekly raise my hand and say, “Hello. My name is Grestarian. I’m a new member and I’m a…a…blathering indecipherable threadshitter.”
Because I know I tend to post some excruciatingly long and sometimes twisted dissertations where simple responses are expected and I know I’ve confused or irritated various fellow Dopers with my colorful separation of content that seems arbitrary but is usually intended to distinguish things like background information or anecdotes from my main points. And my habit is to use semi-relevant quotes from lyrics (and sometimes scripts) as signature lines.
Both are habits I brought over from some earlier fora (some of which seem to still exist, even though my subscription expired long ago) and there were complaints about that behavior on those sites, too, so I figure I’m at least one of those whose irritating habit you’re calling out.
—G!
I’m so vain
I know you wrote that song all about me…
[COLOR=White]…–NOT Carly Simon[/COLOR]
Hahaha. I just read a post of yours somewhere else that confused the hell out of me.
My problem isn’t being indecipherable, but I do tend to wander off topic.
At least, that’s what I was told back in 2007 when I joined the boards. I had only been married a year then. It was a lovely wedding, a balmy 65 degree day…
