My apologies, bj0rn (or björn). Your posts aren’t incoherent. It’s only an issue of “difficulty of comprehending”.
Only humans commit inhuman acts.
Wild species of sheep have a short, woolly undercoat covered by long, coarse, straight hair. The hair has entirely disappeared in domestic breeds; selective breeding has improved both the quality and abundance of wool. Wool production of sheep is also influenced by nutrition, climate, and care. Neglected domesticated animals have a tendency to produce hair instead of wool.
(it makes as much sense as any of this thread)
sunbear:
It appears you’re trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a yarn. 
Consider this, if you will, as an explanation of the peculiar nature of Internet communication:
I read your post, the originating post of the thread. In it you have attempted to put forth an argument in favor of some issue, and some sort of evidence that that argument has merit. I write a post in reply, mentioning that your argument is based on your definition of the issue, which I feel is incorrect. I do not dispute your argument, but find it irrelevant to the issue. In the mean time, before you can respond to my post another argument is put forth, specifically disputing your argument, but by logical extension affirming your view of the issue. At this point, three of us are in disagreements, each with both others, and none of us are in accord.
That was just the first three of us. Let us hope that no grammarians enter the thread, or a very interesting discussion might get lost in acrimony and pointless nit picking.
Correct spelling and grammar somewhat in accord with the normal standards of published English are very powerful aids in argument. They are not, however germane to the argument. A person who finds it necessary to address them has made the weakness of his own position in the debate immediately apparent. If that person then finds it necessary to engage in characterization of others posters because of those grammatical elements, he has as much as resigned the debate, for lack of substantive reply. (This particular thread might just possibly be a counter example of that general case.)
Any serious corespondent to a forum such as this should give editorial pretension the level of disdain it rightly deserves. No reply, no mention in passing to others, treat it as a camel in the Drawing Room. Perhaps boredom will suffice to send those who use the Little-Brown Handbook as the source of their entire philosophy to more rewarding realms of exchange. Their absence will reward us for our patience.
<p align=“center”>Tris</p>
Triskadecamus: that was a post i hope those grammarians read. but still, correcting spelling and grammar mistakes, is in my opinion, quite all right. trying to diminish the truth of the argument by basing your reply on how grammatically wrong the original statement was isnt, like you pointed out, a very substantive reply. that reply totally ignores the truth of the statement and engages in a debate about something else. thus the replier has failed to see the truth.
thank you for your very good post.
Durnovarianus: very interesting indeed 
and very true.
bj0rn
Tris and Bjorn, excellent points. However, I wouldn’t be me if I were not to raise an alternate issue.
All writing is attempted communication. Someone once used a comparison to sex that I find useful. If you are only interested in “expressing yourself” you are engaged in masturbation; if you attempt to share your views with others you are engaged in lovemaking.
This being so, any post is justly judged primarily on its thought content. Does it indeed express a valuable view or datum? Even humorous posts meet this criterion by injecting wit in an effort to make a given point, and winning people to that view, not by a ponderous argument, but by a play to their sense of fitness, which is challenged by the witty remark. In evidence I would adduce a serious post by Gaudere in which she pointed out the parallels between my “God works through the laws of nature” argument and the hypothetical and humorous concept of small barely perceptible fairies that push atoms around (their work being what we interpret as the laws of physics). She closed that analogy with the question of whether we should feel sorry for the poor persecuted Perceptible Fairy Church. My response brought up the idea that we agree that Fred Phelps (who “persecutes fairies” by a play on words) is obnoxious. We both made our points by humor rather than drawn-out argument.
It is, however, not inappropriate to expect that a poster will make his/her best efforts to communicate within the rules of the game. This is a secondary criterion for judgment. If a post is incoherent to the reader, it has failed, no matter the worth of the ideas the author was trying to convey. All other things being equal, a post should employ good grammar, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, and so forth, simply because such a post communicates the thought being expressed better than a 120-line single paragraph with no capital letters and what appear to be random punctuation marks.
In applying this second criterion, one must (a) not take it as more important than the first, (b) give enormous leeway for those who for good reason violate it. Bjorn is a primary example in my mind, since he is working in a second language. My posts would be substantially muddier in expression if I were working in Spanish, and the few other languages I have are so rudimentary that I could only phrase a “See Spot run” post or puzzle out the gist of a technical post by commonly-held technical terms. A person with a paralyzed hand who fails to capitalize would have my sympathetic understanding and if necessary my defense in response to post criticizing lack of style.
i too can post in all miniscules or SCREAM IN ALL CAPS.andi can run things to getherin flagrant disregarda proper english.butidontcauseicaraboutbeinunderstood.
polycrap: a very good post indeed. although there are a few things i want to comment on.
that is very true. but is the post incoherent? if the post IS incoherent then it sure has failed. but if the post is only incoherent to that reader. the problem is not in the post. the problem is then the readers. so either the post is incoherent, or the reader didnt comprehend it.
i felt that your definition of the coherency of a given post was missing that, which i added.
a painting or a drawing does as much good as a written sentance or even a whole book. it is the way we paint our lives, how we communicate.
when we speak correctly we are adding color to our speech, if we speak truthfully we are adding understanding to our speech and if we combine those two expressions of speech we have the kind of perfection where no one has to understand, just listen. for the listener will know the words to be the truth.
in the written language grammar and spelling is the color in our speech but adding understanding through truth is another matter entirely. for if we could write a truely truthful speech we would never have to utter another word about that matter but to communicate the message to read that true text.
sometimes, color can hide the truth. color can paint over the fine words that should stand out in a speech. located between the all important two words in the speech, there is located a small “in” or was it “on”? i didnt notice. was his/her hair dark brown or black? does it matter?
the colors guide us through a given portrait. adding importance to certain words, but bright colors also hide their shade.
i could speak in all capitals, i have the caps-lock on my keyboard. i wouldnt be making any mistakes, for as much as i know there doesnt have to be a small letter anywhere in a given word. therefore i would never capitalize wrong.
DEATH: ITS BETTER THIS WAY. TRUST ME! (terry pratchett)
polycrap: you gave a good argument, but a bad example. thenagain you said “should”. so i guess we are talking about the same thing here. ill just shut up now
bj0rn - by the power of the shift-button.(Hey…it worked for He-Man).
bj0rn: I read your posts, sometimes several times, because sometimes it takes that to comprehend them. But I do try, I suppose because there’s enough going on in them that might be worthwhile. And I give you credit in posting in a non-native language.
Can you clarify your style? Why do you abhor the use of capital letters? To my mind, capitals serve as signals that help us to comprehend a sentence. By breaking up large chunks of information, we can more easily understand what the writer(or in the case of these boards- speaker- in deference to the technology at hand) intends to say.
I’m a big fan of my homeboy William Faulkner, and have no trouble understanding his stream of consciousness style. But I do have difficulty understanding your posts. The lack of breaks, vis-a-vis capital letters, is one of the main reasons. Can you please clarify this?
bj0rn:
Sometimes an editorialist-type post does need to be interjected into a thread, if only to avert or correct a mistake, which, however innocent, carries the potential for insulting someone for whom one wishes to show respect.
For instance: Your recent post responding to Polycarp appeared to be respectful, and even friendly. But if you continue to spell his name as “polycrap,” instead of “polycarp,” he might be forgiven for wondering if you don’t even care enough to read his name correctly.
BTW, the seventh grader in Texas volunteered to read to his class a horror story he had written as part of an assignment (the assignment was to write a horror story). The horror story he had written apparently contained such literary devices as the use of the real names of his acquaintances. Also included were some plot points that involved him shooting some of his classmates and teachers. Evidently, his Stephen King act hit a bit too close to home for his teacher (and in the age of Columbine High School, it’s not difficult to understand why), so an investigation was launched. I’m not clear on the process that was used which ended with the lad being incarcerated, but he did get to spend several days in the slammer before local authorities determined that he posed no significant threat to the community.
oh, sorry about that polycARp. it was my mistake. no insults intended.
elelle: i feel my previous statements could clarify why my style of writing is the way it is. perhaps not accurately, but as a reason. another reason is, i am used to writing like this when im typing (my word processor has this nice feature called “auto correct capital letters”).
i do want to point out though, that in all my years on the internet this would be the first place where someone feels it uncomfortable to read only in only miniscules(i think i go that right…). no other mailing list, message board or email buddies have ever complained. so i have continued my “wrong” style and have gotten used to it. never before(im repeating myself)has anybody complained about it. but i belive the pit people started it and from there it became a subject.
texas kid:
uh…strange indeed, but i guess a paranoid society like we have in the us. deserves this. somewhere, someone did very wrong thing in the upbringing of this kid. i dont know if i should blame societies morale or not…but that would be another thread.
bj0rn - uh, forgot my power…
it had nothing to do with the kid’s upbringing. HE WAS TOLD TO WRITE A HORROR STORY. what would be more scary to a bunch of 7th graders than something like Columbine happening to them? so he read it to his classmates, in my oppinion this kid could be a talented writer, albeit who is not likely to use that talent ever again, our loss really.
sorry, off topic continue whith your debate
that sure is another way…although he could have used a slightly more subtle approach, and gotten alot more horror out of it. by just hinting that he was talking about his classmates and stuff. that makes the listeners imagination run wild. you are always your worst enemy
bj0rn
I’ll keep this one brief, since not many people read posts that are over a screen long:
bj0rn, I read most of your posts and I increasingly understand them. In my view, your english grammar as well as english voacbulary is improving quite swiftly.
But that is beside the fact, that I -as other posters mentioned too- sometimes have to read your posts for 3 or 4 times in order to understand them. In some cases, I fail to understand them at all. I, too, am a non-native speaker of English, as most of you will know by now. I’m sure I make a few mistakes every now and then, and I’m fine with that. I also know (trying very hard not to sound cocky here) that my reading skills in this language are comparable to that of a more than averagely educated Brit or American (Aussie, Kiwi, pick one…). Therefore, if I don’t understand a post, there are a limited number of options:
a) I have no knowledge about the topic in question;
b) I’m drunk;
c) The post contains vital words unknown to my vocabulary;
d) The post is incoherent.
It’s a matter of ticking off. Option A happens sometimes - however, it has not yet occurred regarding one of bj0rn’s posts. Option B happens quite frequently, although I need to be REALLY drunk not to understand a post. Option C, although VERY rarely, is a real possibility.
What’s left is D.
And quite frankly bj0rn, your posts that I did not get no matter how many times I read them, clearly fall into the D category.
And I see that statement backed up when other posters (who are native speakers) also voice their confusion.
Having said all that, you’re still improving. And I applaud you for that.
I would also applaud you for posting a topic that ISN’T about yourself…
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
coldfire: ill put that into my compliment list, although im not sure about how to classify it
i would like to add to that d of yours though, as i did after polycarp posted earier in this thread. when you say incoherent there are a couple of things you have to consider. please take note of my post: posted 11-07-1999 05:51 PM.
it is true, no matter how proficient the reader is in his reading skills. im beginning to wonder if misunderstanding other people is somehow built into the human brain. how to aviod that, was posted in the op.
bj0rn
OK, once and for all.
“and” is a conjunction p /\ q
“or” is a disjunction p u q
“therefore” is an implication p -> q
At least in syllogistic logic. I don’t know what English rules you use.
you didnt get it occam?
bj0rn