2 edits
Originally posted by BlackampBut you know that he does it on purpose, so why take him at face value?
i might have got a little over-excited, as GF is usually graced by a surfeit of unsound advice, courtesy of you know who, couched in obscurantist and grammatically suspect language and delivered in stuffy tone.
When the old gent at the pub starts his rants about the end of civilization, I have two options. Lead him on, sit back and enjoy the show or confront his ideas. I love doing the first. It's not like the latter is going to give me a stimulating debate and all he wants is attention anyway.
Originally posted by Palynkaagreed. assuming, though that the communicative purpose of HA's post was to encourage others (or perhaps just BOC) to act in a certain way, this might be a case of a message well-suited to prosaic expression.
Are those ultimate goals? It all depends of what you want in each case.
clarity of language makes the message easily understood, which i think is a plus when tendering advice.
and sure, there's nothing original in the message content, but originality is not an ultimate value either. if the message inspires or reminds someone to act along the lines it advocates, then i suppose it will have achieve its communicative purpose, which seems to me to sound enough.
Originally posted by BlackampFair enough. I think HA is a valuable forummer, so I don't want to seem I'm dragging him down. It's just that your obsession with GB is nagging me. Don't know why.
agreed. assuming, though that the communicative purpose of HA's post was to encourage others (or perhaps just BOC) to act in a certain way, this might be a case of a message well-suited to prosaic expression.
clarity of language makes the message easily understood, which i think is a plus when tendering advice.
and sure, there's nothing original in th ...[text shortened]... n i suppose it will have achieve its communicative purpose, which seems to me to sound enough.
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynkai would characterise it rather as a keen interest in dis-covering and drawing attention to the underlying communicative purpose of texts as i perceive them. people can read the original post - and my interpretation, if they can be bothered - and make up their own minds. the smart kids of course can interpret for themselves, but there are some others here who seem easily taken in by dressed-up nonsense. one or two of these are apparently hopeless cases that just seem incapable of seeing beyond the surface meaning of texts,.
It's just that your obsession with GB is nagging me. Don't know why.
i can, however, only do this interpretation in cases where i perceive a discrepancy between the prima facie communicative purpose of a post, and an underlying communicative purpose: that is, posts that are, in a sense, deceitful - linguistic trojan horses, if you will - even tho they may contain no untruths of fact. posts that contain 'spin' or which are leading in some way. for another example, think of how political parties routinely 'spin' various events to suit their own purposes. it just so happens that one particular poster here is supernova-like in this regard, imho. of course, others may disagree with my interpretations, but there is remarkably little, if any, reasoned response with reference to the original text along those lines.
i'd like to do a book about 'Pathological Communications' some day. i think there is a lot of spin out there even in everyday life. there's probably even some spin in this very post. it's hard to completely avoid being self-serving in some contexts.
Originally posted by Big Orange CountryYou could do that.. if you honestly felt that you were helping people and not just exploiting
so i should sell marijuana to highschoolers as a part of an effort to create a new generation of prematurely enlightened people?
their weaknesses. But then you'd be thumbing your nose at society, which is why your post
was removed in the first place.
There are better ways of attracting attention.
