Mr. Peng is wrong.

[Guest aaronb]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis:

(The idiots needed someone to respond for them.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as I'm being pedantic, I suggest that you mean 'Ignoramuses'. It's not an insult: ignorance can be cured, idiocy most often not.

[Moriarty]

Hakko,

I shake my private parts at you, English pig-dog type.

Let's raise the level of this thread. Bring on the Pythonisms

------------------

We are both men of action. Lies do not become us. — Westley

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 06-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 06-10-2000).]

[Guest aaronb]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng:

my philosphical background is logical positivism. I am particularly fond of Skinner's analysis...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Logical positivism looks to be an epistemology rather than a full-blown philosophy, but it certainly aligns well with objectivism, and beats the hell out of whatever Shirley MacLaine uses. And it's better than solipcism of the extreme moment.

I've never read Skinner. He's on the list.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is soooo OT that it is not likely to make it much longer. However, I will continue the discussion as long as the thread remains open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as we're talking smilies/emoticons, it's somewhat on-topic. As if I was the final judge of that!

I look forward to continuing tomorrow.

[MrPeng]

aaronb, you make some excellent points. However, methinks you are starting to get a teensy bit wobbly in the continuity and relevance departments. to wit: We are speaking of the use of smilies on a BBS. It could be this BBS or any BBS or simply private email. But we speak of the written word. It seems unlikely that either of us will do much public reading of these posts (with perhaps exception for close personal friends who will humor us and tolerate our drooling), so I am at a loss to understand how a 16th century playwrite and poet (despite Mr Simon Fox's assertions to the contrary "Out damn smiley, out!") has relevance to the instant case. Shakespeare's plays were performance pieces - they were supposed to be enhanced by all of the contextual cues the body brings to the spoken word. Shakespeare didn't use smilies - he didn't need them, being as clever as he was, plus he had an advantage over us, he got to use actors to convey meaning. These missives are meant to be read, not acted out or mimed or pantomimed or set to music.

Yes, it is much harder to get it right using only the written word, but that's what I'm on about...my complaint is that just because it is hard, doesn't mean one should give up and use some goofy little bit of shorthand that is either ignored, mis-interpreted, or in my opinion, just clutters the landscape, making understanding all the more difficult.

You claim that the difference between the written and spoken is quantitative, not qualitative. With this I must strenuously disagree. First, for there to be a quantitative difference, there must be measured quantities. I understand that we are saying that only 7% of the meaning of spoken words are conveyed by the content. However, this number, (while I have previously stipulated by tacit acceptance of the number without question or argument to be valid) leaves much to be desired. When we measure the Meaning of a statement, how exaclty are we measuring the Meaning as a quantity? How do we arrive at 7% of the meaning comes from content. Where does the Meaning of a statement live? Does it reside in the writer/speaker? or does it live in the reader/listener? Is it shared?

Skinner used two broad categories, mands and tacts: loosely speaking mands are akin to "demands" in the vernacular (its not a derby). "hand me that piano" is a mand. While tacts are more akin to statements of relative fact: "it is cold in here." However, the content does not necessarily convey the meaning. The EFFECT of the statement on the listener is where the meaning lies. While the statement "It is cold in here." LOOKS like a tact, and a listener may respond to it by what Skinner called 'tracking' (e.g. "yes, it is cold in here.") The REAL meaning may be a mand. If I were to turn up the heat, in response to "it is cold in here." analysis of that behavioral chain would indicate a mand sequence by its effect on my behavior. The implicit (again in the vernacular) meaning of "It is cold in here." was "Please turn up the heat." The context of the speaker listener dyad assists in determining the effect of the speech. Ten years of marriage will do that to one.

I would argue that the difference between speaking and writing is in fact qualitative, and not quantitative. {We could engage in a dialectical analysis to determine when changing quantities result in a shift in quality I suppose: when does a reduction in real wages (a change in quantity) result in a plunge into poverty from the middle class (a change in quality)}

The sensory modalities used to interpret the stimuli in written and spoken words are very different. It is not a numbers game but a real and important difference in the quality of the stimuli that make reading and listening different.

Your statement about political and industrial speech mystified me. Please explain.

I would stipulate that not ALL meaning conveyed by the written word is conveyed by what is written alone. However, lacking a context we will ascribe the vast majority of meaning to the words themselves. In my original post I was bemoaning the shorthand. I claimed that it did not enhance our language. I stick to that claim. I said we should try harder to take the time to cram meaning into what we write. Yes people are for the most part lazy slugs, and yes the internet is a fast paced thingy that has made the rat race even rattier and racier than ever. If I choose to insist that my own little slice of it dispense with Hurry and Slack and adhere to Modertation and Rigor, that is my own funeral. I will tolerate the slovenliness of others who need the shorthand of heiroglyphics, but I will not enage in such abuses myself.

Peng

[DrAlimantado]

Hmmm...here I am just about to go to bed, and then I find a thread containing references to objectivism/relativism and logical positivism. How do you think I will be able to go to bed now??

The majority of those participating seems to lean towards logical positivim, (even if MrPeng admitted to being a pragmatic regarding truth issues, something that is not so very compatible with logical positivism.). This leads me to the shaky conclusion that there ought to be less smilies on this forum, as objectivists and logical positivists do not need that in order to communicate clearly.

And to aaronb: if you ever get the urge to join the dark side again, skip Nietzsche and go directly for Wittgenstein, (why smoke weed when one can smoke crack?).

Sorry for butting in (YES, I am a weakling, but then I am a feminist too), but I felt that I wanted some form of confirmation that I have learnt something by studying philosophy for too many years.

[Lee]

I think Mark IV has said it well when he says that smilies can be a good tool

when not used as a substitute for making your point in an intelligent and

effective manner. One could not use them at all and still convey his exact

meaning, but this could easily require much more text than a post with

smilies and the author may well not have the time to write at such length.

Peng has a point when he says that one's history on a forum can provide

very strong context for one's words. But Peng himself is not a very

good example of this in action, because his posts are so commonly goofy

that it is taken for granted that virtually nothing he says, no matter

how mean it may sound, can be taken at face value. *Very* few posters have

the luxury of such an extreme "history" to work from and thus keep smiley

use to a minimum. In that sense, Peng is lucky, especially considering

the fact that he likes to post nasty comments as often as possible and his

severe dislike of smilies in the first place.

For others (even those who have some of that prized context to naturally

give additional texture to their words), I think smiley use is fine

and adds to the correct interpretation of the tone they are trying to get across.

[Notnowjohn]

Gentlemen,

Never has so much been written about so little by so many...

In this case, you may rest assured that I would not dare to inflame the oh so tender sensibilities of you, my esteemed comrades, therefore, know that my tongue rests firmly in my cheek. (Isn't that much better than a smiley? So much more genteel.)

NNJ..."F*** all that, we gotta get on with these!"

[MrPeng]

Lee,

I would not call it "luck." I would call it a carefully crafted plot to be freed from the conventional shackles of decorum and modesty. By going so over the top so many times and then very precisely and with malice aforethought apolgising at the exactly right time, I no longer have to worry about anyone's feelings. (Insert what, a razz here? or perhaps MrWinky?)

An unlooked for benefit to my little scheme is that I never again have to remember how to make an eek or a razz or even use the shift key to type a 'close parens' to finish off a smilie. I can blithey say what I mean without fear of additional keystrokes of any kind.

Peng BORN FREE AS FREE AS THE WIND BLOWS, AS FREE AS THE GRASS GROWS.....

ahem. sorry.

------------------

Peng sez "die a lot now."

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Logical positivism looks to be an epistemology rather than a full-blown philosophy, but it certainly aligns well with objectivism, and beats the hell out of whatever Shirley MacLaine uses. And it's better than solipcism of the extreme moment.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, my sweet f***ing God, this thread has gone so far over my head I think Gary Powers is at the controls. I'm just a lowly warehouse sweathog and I don't know anything and when someone pisses me off I just squish him, because it's a nice easy response.

I shall return to lurk status lest my ignorance shine forth as bright as I'm not.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[THumpre]

MrPeng,

That was easily one of, if not the, most erudite post I have read in a while. Makes my tiny public-schooled brain spin. Bravo to both you and aaronb.

Note that all smilies in this post were kept after school for a sound hiding.

------------------

No matter where you go, there you are.

[Lee]

I meant luck in the sense that this history you have created is a big asset

to you in your tireless efforts to put down PBEM opponents and such.

There is no doubt that you have, through countless harsh posts, slowly

but surely built this history that you can now bask in without having to

resort to using smilies.

And I'm sure you will make full use of it. I just wanted to point out

that it is highly unusual to be in such a position and that it works

much better for you than it would for almost anyone else, because you so

relentlessly post critical comments that it is very easy for seasoned

board members to know where you are coming from. Most other members

post a vastly wider range of types of messages, and so the use

of smilies for them is far more useful than it would be for you.

[MrPeng]

Lee:

Thanks for clarifying.

Thumpre:

Flattery works very well. As do fat wads of cash. Whom shall I kill? And by all means hide the smilies in every sense of the word.

Thanks for your support.

Peng

[Guest aaronb]

If I simply respond directly to your questions, we could run off-course through inadvertent application of the Socratic method.

Having said that, I think we are winding down in terms of disagreement: I started this freshly moved towards the pro-smiley camp, but am now moderating towards the ‘smiley as necessary evil’ camp due to your cogent observations.

The core of my argument: internet conversations are brief, brief leaves room for misunderstanding, smilies alleviate (briefly) some misunderstanding.

The core of your argument: smilies are for lazy, slack-ass posterboys (this is a broad paraphrase).

So, co-existence is possible, and I am now shifting my position to co-existence. This is not a nancy-boy compromise: “Slack-ass posterboys” will be with us for some time, and we can tolerate them for the other useful things they bring to the table. Fortunately, we also have some people who have the time, etc., to write in a way that does not require emoticons. I will note that symbols such as “!” and “?” are primitive emoticons, could be done without in grammatically-clear writing, and are widely accepted.

To crystalize our viewpoints: I am taking a utilitarian approach, yours is more idealized. As a tip-of-the-hat, all human progress relies on the idealized approach (“man, not only as he is, but as he ought to be”). Perhaps we can use the utilitarian approach while in transit to the ideal? With you leading the way during the co-existence period.

To address some of your questions/statements:

“my complaint is that just because it is hard, doesn't mean one should give up and use some goofy little bit of shorthand”. In principle this complaint has merit, as most easy things are not worth doing. In practice, the disintermediation of the internet (specifically, taking human editors, dictionaries, et al out of the loop) tends towards to quick (i.e., easy) communications (interesting sidebar: this highlights the need for intermediaries to promote a sober second look). Again, the dichotomy of the utilitarian/idealist divide.

“The context of the speaker listener dyad assists in determining the effect of the speech.” True, both in your example (marriage) and in my fuzzily-worded previous example (to expand: public speakers with reputations/contexts such as political figures. Also public speakers, who are well known in a specific industry, speaking to a group of representatives from their industry). Moreover, you’ve used ‘dyad’ correctly in a sentence – more cool points. I believe that your argument is “context obviates the need for emoticons”. I would modify this: “context moderates the need for emoticons”, as context is not a binary but a continuum.

Your argument about verbal vs written communications is well-taken (especially vis-à-vis differing sensory modalities), and complex enough that I’ll have to investigate more (over months, not hours). Since I brought up a supposed linkage, I should defend it, but I can’t, at least at this point. So we can toss out my referenced study. I can side-step defending the reference: if we re-interpret this discussion, as I have done, as a utilitarian vs. idealist discussion, we don’t need the study anyway.

“I will tolerate the slovenliness of others who need the shorthand of heiroglyphics, but I will not enage in such abuses myself” – well-said, and in-line with my new position of co-existing utility and idealism. In the spirit of accountability, I’ll point out that your anti-smiley post was the antithesis of tolerance! Which is what made it so hilarious.

I think we’ve beaten this until nearly-dead. If there are any dribs-and-drabs left, let’s take it to email before exhausting the BBS’s patience. Of course, if there’s something substantive that I missed, “lay on MacDuff!”.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aaronb:

As long as I'm being pedantic, I suggest that you mean 'Ignoramuses'. It's not an insult: ignorance can be cured, idiocy most often not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no! The correct phrase is 'Ignoranus',

meaning stupid and an asshole.

------------------

Dulce Et Decorum Est

[Guest aaronb]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

I'm just a lowly warehouse sweathog and I don't know anything <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume you know how to whup at least somebody at CM, which is why we're here anyway. If it makes you feel better, I tossed in solipcism as an in-joke to the philosphy crowd. And Shirley MacLaine has looney beliefs: for example, she believes she has had multiple previous lives, including one as the mistress of a long-dead french emperor. In spite of (or because of) this, she's richer than I am.

[Guest aaronb]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrAlimantado:

if you ever get the urge to join the dark side again, skip Nietzsche and go directly for Wittgenstein<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It took a big chunk of superhuman will-to-power to get away from Nietzsche, so I'll stay as far away as possible!

[Guest aaronb]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

No, no! The correct phrase is 'Ignoranus',

meaning stupid and an asshole.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Oh no, I just did a lazy, slack-ass posterboy shorthand!

[MrPeng]

" context is not a binary but a continuum."

That is so totally brilliant! (no sarcasm intended - really - I love that statement. way cool)

OK so I guess we can wrap this up with just one more little thing from you: It is a small thing, but I think it is very important, as my huge ego is involved. Please retract the statement "Peng is wrong."

We have seen by your excellent prose that there indeed is a place for smilies in the world. However, I think we also agree that as far as enhancing communication in general, emoticons are of extremely limited value. My opinon of the rotten little things is the same. I do not like them. I will not use them, Sam I am. They are not as helpful in enhancing communication as is "simply" choosing the right words, in the right context.

So, my initial rant, while an intolerant rant, still has a nut of truth about it. If you are unwilling to entirely retract the "Peng is wrong," acceptable variations include: "Peng is not entirely right" or "Peng makes good sense but is still a bit wrong," or even, "Peng is a complete idiot bastard with chowder for brains but I agree that smilies are only fit for use in certain situations."

There you have it. I agree that we can and should put this baby to bed. It was a pleasure discussing this with you.

If you require any concessions from me please don't hesitate to ask.

Peng

------------------

I'm talking and I can't shut up!

[Guest aaronb]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng:

Please retract the statement "Peng is wrong."

[...]If you require any concessions from me please don't hesitate to ask.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since I can't change the title of the thread:

MrPeng is partly correct, and was manly about admitting it.

As for concessions, you can spot me a Tiger II in our first PBEM game.

C'ya.

[MrPeng]

Uh, roger that Tiger II?

hooboy, am I in for it now!

Peng

------------------

I'm talking and I can't shut up!

[Bobbaro]

Spitting out some of the dictionary, into the hands of an EMT fellow, I ask of Mr. Peng, would you extend your objection of smilies to military abbreviations and acronmns and consider their use as the work of slackassed lazy boys or the reaction of individuals overwhelmed by the unnecessarily inflated military termonology or something else?

Gee, emulation is the greatest flattery, I never saw so much dictionary chewing in one thread, even if some were dictionaries of philosophical terms.

Mr. Peng did a fine job of explaining that he would supply the smilies in the text of his writing and not need the items themselves. Now, how is that for identifying his text as a smilie equivilant or compound smilie equivelent as the case may be? (Note: can't find the E section, haven't spit that out yet, using area fire.)

[This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 06-11-2000).]

[MrPeng]

Bobbaro, Bobbaroonie, Bobbarama, Baron von Bobbenhoffer...

In my humble opinion I suggest that Acronyms are one of the ultimate in context- based linguistic devices. Is a PDA a Public Display of Affection or a Personal Digital Assistant?

I have witnessed daffy executives kissing their PALM VIIs in some strange places so in that context the abbreviation stands for both. Having no dictionary handy and relying solely on my own little brain, when does an abbreviation become an acronym? Is it when the abbreviation can be pronounced as a word itself? I do not know off hand. I think this is so.

Anyway, back to the contextual nature of acronyms and abbreviations. They often help us in our own little worlds. Computer guys like to say DOS a lot (less than they used to, I think) rather than Disk Operating System. Both are kind of ugly to say, but the former at least is an understandable and useful (AHA! The utilitarian argument!) thingy that allows people who muck about with computers to save time and energy.

I'm told military types have a rich and colorful variety of Acronyms. Our own Captian Foobar's name comes from one of them. I would have to say my all time favorite of these is DILLIGAS.

My point (and do I have one?) is that I have no problem with a limited number of useful and clever acronyms and or abbreviations. However, when one goes over board and gets into an AFEM (Acronym For Everything Mode), one tends once again to muddle rather than clarify or enhance and enliven communication.

Regards

Peng

------------------

I'm talking and I can't shut up!

[Mikester]

I have no comments on this subject other than to state the following:

1) This discussion has been somewhat interesting and to a certain point, even entertaining.

2) I'm glad Steve didn't shut down this thread for reason 1 above.

3) NOW, for the love of God, please BTS, release the game! So that this non-sense will be ended and this thread can die it's own death in due course. (Down Mr. Winky. He tried to slip in there, but I beat him senseless with a big stick.)

Mikester out.

[Kurtz]

No smilies needed

Combaiku conveys image

everybody smiles

[Bobbaro]

Ah Mikester, do not call upon the name of Bigtime in vain. Although I can completely understand your abundantly justified motovation regarding this thread, I, having discovered the fine art of exercising patience through humbly submitting to the will of Bigtime, will wait for Judgement day to arrive in its own good time. In the meantime I join with you in giving thanks for the comforting rituals of threads, on and off topic, even wildly off topic. Perhaps the mixed feeling you seem to have about this thread involves a little puritanic reservation with some shortfalls in seriousness and appearantly wayward paths. The only solace I can offer, is that Judgement day will certainly arrive, and that all subjects are, however remotely, connected.

And Mr. Peng, thank you for your generous response to my query. I see you offered an opinion in consistancy with your slight retreat on the smilie issue, although you seem to see fit to be less vehelment concerning your personal use of the items. In retrospect it seems that I appear to follow a simular line of practice concerning these uses. I do not know that this is due to any doctrine or some accident of habit. I have done some expermenting that satisfied my curiosity and make no apoligies to the doctrinare.

Be kind to little smilie faces, keep them in a closet, pet them occasionally, and do not let them breed. Only take them out on special days in the presence of close, forgiving friends.