Terrestrial comments from Will Schryver thread

[_EAllusion]

Any rule for good writing is going to just be a rule of thumb that can be violated to good effect. The Elements of Style, while offering lots of good advice, also has its own biases. There are circumstances where double negatives a perfectly good choice, for instance.

It's still the case that an economy of word choice is generally advised. And constantly using groupings of semi-sophisticated words where one will do sounds like mediocre intellect trying to sound smart by way of thesaurus. It's not that it never can be done, but that doesn't excuse terrible instances of it like Droopy's usual walls of text.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Any rule for good writing is going to just be a rule of thumb that can be violated to good effect. The Elements of Style, while offering lots of good advice, also has its own biases. There are circumstances where double negatives a perfectly good choice, for instance.

+1. Most good writing guides make mention of exactly what you've just said, too. E.g., Orwell's advice at the end of "Politics and the English Language."

[_wenglund]

Lol. Wade, why don't you just say, "It's all subjective"? That's pretty much the extent of your argument, isn't it?

Oh darn...there ya go flunking the logic test. You really ought to try and avoid putting words into people's mouths. It's bad logic, bad manners, and bad writing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

Where is this need to poke fun of Droopy and Wade coming from? They represent the diverse in the diversity of opinion on this board.

Are you guys against diversity???

[_Droopy]

Yeah, I don't care, but postmodern writing is notorious for being unnecessarily dense. So at least this made me chuckle.

Laugh yourself into near catatonia Delusion, because I did no postmodern writing at all, and never will. I wrote a thesis paper of the philosophy of Michael Foucault, not an imitation of postmodern verbiage. It was philosophical writing, which is what I said it was.

You tend to use what appears to sound to you like sophisticated vocabulary poorly.

I'm just devastated...

You often use a lot of redundant words and phrases. Years ago you would misuse jargon and more complicated vocabulary so consistently that it was more sad than annoying. To your credit, you have improved this significantly. But you still err enough that it doesn't come across well. You also often will opt for the "fancy" word over a more plain one when the plain one would communicate your idea more clearly.

Mortified...

You frequently try to shoehorn in intellectual sounding references when they are awkward or irrelevant.

Cut to the quick...

On top of that, most of your posts are far more bluster than they are content. You have a habit of being frequently wrong - really wrong - and tend to project your faults and the faults of those you support onto objects of criticism.

This is a true therapeutic cleansing...

All this together makes you look like someone desperately trying to sound learned when you aren't. There are very good writers here. Look at how they write.

My soul crieth out...

Case in point. I realize so nakedly criticizing you this way, especially when what I'm saying is true, is a rough thing for me to do. I wouldn't feel comfortable with it if not for your tendency to be a condescending jerk. I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you about our relative brain power.

For a number of years now, I and others have waded through your self satisfied, intellectually convoluted mutterings and, unfortunately perhaps, responded to you seriously at times, thus giving the impression that you'd said something intellectually substantive and worth engaging.

I remember Daniel simply giving up discussing anything with you as far back as the mid 2000s because of your long winded, obfuscatory ramblings and snobbish intellectual posturing.

Nothing, it seems, has changed.

[_Droopy]

I know it does no good, but as a professional writer, I can tell you that overuse of secondary vocabulary marks one as a poor writer, whether one is or is not. For example, a good writer would never say "thinks and cogitates" because the phrase is redundant and thus comes across as overblown.

Not even for nuance and metering?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, to think is a very broad category encompassing:

1. To have or formulate in the mind.
2. To reason about or reflect on; ponder.
3. To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering. thinking what to do.
4. To judge or regard; look upon.
5. To believe; suppose.
6. To expect; hope.
7. To intend.
8. To call to mind; remember.
9. To visualize; imagine
10. To devise or evolve; invent
11To bring into a given condition by mental preoccupation.
12. To concentrate one's thoughts on
13. To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.
14. To weigh or consider an idea.

Etc.

To cogitate connotes a similar body of elements, but its fundamental definition is much more severely circumscribed:

1. To take careful thought or think carefully about; ponder.

So by saying "to think and cogitate," I encompass a wide range of mental activities (thinking) while at the same time focusing on intellectual rigor, depth, and detail (cogitation) with the other term.

Again, above 7th or 8th grade, this would probably not be much of a point of contention. Nor would it be much of a point if I were not both a TBM apologist and settled conservative/libertarian whose views of pretty much everything provoke contention and conflict here no matter what the subject matter.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So by saying "to think and cogitate," I encompass a wide range of mental activities (thinking) while at the same time focusing on intellectual rigor, depth, and detail (cogitation) with the other term.

Yes: hence why it's redundant. It's like saying that you ate and consumed your lunch today, or that you read and perused your copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[_Droopy]

Go ahead and cite the style guide that affirms your point here that redundancy is okay "even for nuance and metering." Where is your cite? The Elements of Style? Writing with Style? The Little English Handbook? By all means, Wade---demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

Its all B.S. Its all a show with all the props and stage effects in their proper places.

Its contention and argument for their own sake because the TBMs must be argued with, no matter how trivial or silly the argument.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Go ahead and cite the style guide that affirms your point here that redundancy is okay "even for nuance and metering." Where is your cite? The Elements of Style? Writing with Style? The Little English Handbook? By all means, Wade---demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

Its all B.S. Its all a show with all the props and stage effects in their proper places.

Its contention and argument for their own sake because the TBMs must be argued with, no matter how trivial or silly the argument.

I don't think so, Droopy. Why don't you check out one or more of these books from your local library and look them over? Maybe you'll glean some valuable advice. You're a pretty avid reader from what I can tell, so why not add these to your "To Do" list? Heck, just read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." It's not that long and you can read if for free online.

[_Droopy]

Yes: hence why it's redundant. It's like saying that you ate and consumed your lunch today, or that you read and perused your copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

No. Its like saying that you "ate" your lunch today, but that you also savored it.

Struggle, Scratch. Struggle for intellectual substance and scrape and claw to meet someone at least half way in a nuanced, multifaceted argument.

The sheer artificiality and tenacity of this entire line of discussion is a testament to the allure of the Trailerpark for a particular kind of mentality.