Maybe you didn't notice, Faldage, we, the party of truth and consequences, have our own convention.
If you and tsuwm and your gang - Musick, can play fast and furious with the King's own punctuations, well then, so can we. Watch me now...
(Paul Violi's poem, reproduced below, inspired my invention of the punctuation mark -> i <-.)
APPEAL TO THE GRAMMARIANS
We the naturally hopeful, Need a simple sign For the myriad ways we're capsized. We who love precise language Need a finer way to convey Disappointment and perplexity. For speechlessness and all its infections, For up-ended expectations, For every time we're ambushed By trivial or stupefying irony, For pure incredulity, we need The inverted exclamation point. For the dropped smile, the limp handshake, For whomever has just unwrapped a dumb gift Or taken the first sip of a flat beer, Or felt love or pond ice Give way underfoot, we deserve it. We need it for the air pocket, the scratched shot, The child whose ball doesn't bounce back, The flat tire at journey's outset; The odyssey that ends up in Weehawken. But mainly because I need it - here and now As I sit outside the Caffe Reggio Staring at my espresso and cannoli After this middle aged couple Came strolling by and he suddenly Veered and sneezed all over my table And she said to him, "See,that's why I don't like to eat outside."
...and so that is why I invented the upside down exclamation point - " i " for the computer keyboard. I hope people don't confuse it with the small case i that is almost identical.
And as for conventions, you may use them or not use them, but you may wish to recognize them when used by others. It's always better to understand than it is not to understand.
'Twas not I. I will say here that I have been very puzzled as to how an unregistered person can post. I thought it was one of the rules that you had to.
and it should be noted that "username" duly registered that ID and is, appropriately, a "stranger"; it is "anonymous" (hi Milo) who seems to have discovered a new feature.
[being "unregistered" may have happened in all innocence, but one does wonder why someone would *try to re-register with the name "anonymous"..]
Who is the mystery poster "Anonymous" who has the ability to post "Unregistered" with impunity, and who is well read in eclectic books that "jump-start" the complacent mind? Mmmm...
Nobody but The Great Anu. The Anu who is the keeper of the keys. The Great Anu who at will descends from the hieghts of Mount Aloofity to walk again among the minions (not millions) who dwell in a hopeless everday squable of pomp and routine. Yeah, it must be The Grand Anu...or else some fifteen year old kid who can bluff with the best of 'em and gets his kicks by exposing the pretense of his betters and elders.
Whew! That solved, let us determine just who is "username" and why doesn't she darest...
Now think for a minute...who among us has ample terse wit as well as ample skills of mechanical manipulation?
But mind you, Faldage, the AP article is written in a straightforward manner. James P. Hogan's research and insight into the politics of AIDS Management gone amuck gives backdrop to the story.
Now, now, etaoin, foxnews yes! Remember the operative premise of this thread.
Besides, the Associated Press throws a hissy fit if the ramble rousers over at Fox gets caught altering their multiculturalistic prose carefully written by their own fine cadre of the Politically Correct.
And yes, if you can't find fault with the message, find fault with he who bears the message.
Sure etaoin, good manners notwithstanding, the point I made was apolitical - The Associated Press released the story, Foxnews simply copied it. I confess that I suspected the term "Foxnews" would not delight. Smiley withstanding.
Terry Pratchett - a good writer with a wonderful commmand of the English language and a biting, hilarious wit. He also likes to prod our prejudices and comfy beliefs. Highly recommended. Tim Cahill (travel writer - sorta). Try "A Wolverine is Eating my Leg", or "Jaguars Ripped my Flesh". Or how about "The Alphabet Versus the Goddess" by Leonard Shlain?
That would be "find fault with him who bears the message", not "he". Sheesh! I wouldn't normally do this, but your post was an invitation to find fault......
You plainted, “What does all this have to do with words, Milo? Just asking...”
Well if you say, write, or sign something you are using words after all! But the title of this forum is the following:
Looking for (writers, speakers, ...)
I’m guessing that few of the participants in all these fora are mute, so they are certainly almost all speakers. Also in some sense participants can write (or at least type). And, since they must do so to participate, it would seem that the aim implied by the title can be easily fulfilled—just sign up virtually any one of us!
But it isn’t that simple is it? The Chief One is looking for calls for those who would and preferably can as well perform these functions in a professional way perhaps even (gasp!) for filthy lucre. But what if anything do most of the posts so far concern? I aver that most of them have absolutely nothing to do with its announced purpose, yours included dear Ana!
I see exactly one post that actually fits the avouched purpose of this forum, viz.
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS for Publication of "Jaisini G
An early example of writings he is looking for would be I believe, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” I hope he is putting us on.
My post to our esteemed leader Anu Garg and the one from the purveyor of bawdy language are in fact only indirectly on point. We are a speaker and a writer respectively volunteering to be called upon. What the forum’s purpose was however was:
A place to post calls for writers, speaker requests, and the like.
In fact I find it extremely ironic that having been counseled as a newbie to eschew all political and religious topics, I should find long contributions on AIDs and Creationism (anti-Creationism actually). Really! You actually want to talk about something interesting! How dare you!
So why don’t you take all that political and religious material to the “Miscellany” forum or petition for fora on politics, religion, science, and health? But, if you really want to limit this collection of fora to a discussion of words, I have good news! ALL of these subjects use words occasionally to advance their ends! Who woulda thunk it?
Some of the contributions in the thread labeled “Well, Looking for a Writer...” indirectly indirectly address calls for good writers and speakers of the serious sort in the sense that they critique the competence of a writer. That in fact provoked the interesting, but according to some verboten, disquisitions on subjects political and religiously relevant (if not precisely religious).
So my conclusion is that the wannabe callees have overwhelmed the callers of worthy writers and speakers.
Given the jocular nature of the first caller and the general improbability of postings from callers, do you think that this has all been a gigantic IQ test by the Great Anubis, which all of you BTW flunked?!?
BraverLad
P.S. The moderator (who must stand continually amazed at his own moderation!) stated in the thread entitled “New forum” the following:
Often I receive requests from editors, event hosts, researchers, and others who are looking for writers, speakers, interview subjects, etc. They are welcome to post their messages here. No spam, please. If the post is genuine and relevant, it's more likely to be well-received by the members of this community.
You wrote, "Science is all about overturning received knowledge."
Au contraire Aged Fald (a title of respect)! The mark of true science is that each sucessive theory refines the previous one, not overturns it. Physics which is a true experimental science works by such a process.
I'm with Faldage. It doesn't refine a theory to prove it wrong, it overturns it. Science is rife with examples - like the French astronomer who was called to a village to examine a rock which the ignorant peasants said had fallen from the sky. He explained carefully to them that this was not possible, because there are no rocks in the sky. I think that's been overturned lately - can't see how it could have been refined....
You wrote, "I'm with Faldage. It doesn't refine a theory to prove it wrong, it overturns it."
Let me clarify. I am not referring to the type of knowledge that is very concrete, such as the rocks in my head or in the sky. I am referring to the grand principles of events such as Newton's Laws of Motion. Einstein's Special Relativity modified these, 'refined' them if you will in the sense that in the ordinary case the predicted behaviors closely approximate each other.
Particular facts are like the leaves on a tree. They shake even in a gentle breeze that doesn't even make the trunk tremble. It is to such principles that correspond to the trunk of the tree of knowledge to which I am referring when I claim that refinement is a better description than revolution for real sciences. Most people BTW are not acquainted with such principles, so they will not easily appreciate my point.
My background is in Physics, Math, and Philosophy with a current career serving the Financial Industry with financial software.
Having been involved in technical fields, except for a brief stint in the military, I would occasionally grow discouraged at the dizzying pace of innovation and the difficulty of keeping up with it. Then I realized that the basic principles of the fields in which I was engaged for a living did not in fact change nearly as quickly over time. In fact they were either slowly added to or refined.
In Mathematics for instance, you do not see the sort of wholesale 'overturning' of which you speak, once at least it had become established on an axiomatic foundation. Physics is a distant second as to certainty compared to Physics.
Only in the past few years have I begun to grasp similarly axiomatic foundations of religion and politics. In the case of politics, I reinvented 'deontic logic' when attempting to describe the relationship between 'duty' and 'right.' Deontic logics are varieties of modal logic. In the religious instance, the axioms are those which make the 'Ontological Argument' work.
If Engineering principles changed as radically a the sort of particular 'facts' to which you refer do, then buildings and bridges would be falling down in ordinary circumstances with much greater frequency than they in fact do. But what we see are structural failures in extreme conditions if the engineers and contractors are following those principles. Good thing for us that in so many 'practical' areas that basic principles are more reliable in 'hard' than in 'soft' fields!
I'm not sure. Depends partly on what one means by 'modern science.' Caloric theory and Bode's Law have been debunked, but were legitimate science with evidence to support them.
I think the problem with the characterization isn't whether science can overturn old ideas. Whether we view it as an overturning or a refinement seems a semantic argument to me. The thing is that even when science has overturned old ideas, that hasn't been its goal. There's nothing in science that says, "Everybody's too comfortable, we have to switch things around a little." Rather, things have had to change (overturn or refine, I dont' care which phrase is used) because while the existing theory seems to explain X and Y very well, it's a little weak on Z.
You wrote, "Science is all about overturning received knowledge."
Au contraire Aged Fald (a title of respect)! The mark of true science is that each sucessive theory refines the previous one, not overturns it.
Yes, and I went on to say, "If a theory is accepted by the main body of science you best know what you're talking about if you're thinking of overturning it."
And, while Fald and age are the lexemes in question, the latter has nothing at all to do with senectitude, irregardless of whether or not I am or am not a geezer or not.
I am the best known of Financial Astrologers, and have written a financial newsletter for 28 years, with one of the finest written records. On CNBC fincl TV 4-5 times a year, also speak at fincl conferences.
And the best writers, such as Steinbeck in Of Mice and Men, never are echoed by real life stories that make the same point, which are considered too bizarre or abnormal. Why?
Tell you what, Anonymous--you tell me who you are in a way I can verify, and tell how you got on here without registering, and I'll give you an answer.
A. was thinking Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, but Mein Kampf probably is pretty extreme. Did not get through this whole string so sorry if anyone pitched either already.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
Nobody but The Great Anu. The Anu who is the keeper of the keys. The Great Anu who at will descends from the hieghts of Mount Aloofity to walk again among the minions (not millions) who dwell in a hopeless everday squable of pomp and routine.
