10 Unpopular D&D classes
Knight37
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
--
Knight37
"Come get some."
-- Ash, "Army of Darkness"
Mark Blunden
Wow, at several points I almost smiled.
--
Mark.
Tanner Williams
"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenatn...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:2p83j4F...@uni-berlin.de...
Yeah that was just not really funny at all.....I figure their enough classes
and subclasses to make fun of....or maybe just making fun of the actual
playing of certain characters, ie a nice drow who is a pacificst. This was
jsut, well lame/
Anonymous Jack
Eh, personally, I couldn't get past the first page *yawn*
Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive (and The New
Gold Dream). If you thought the Gamespy was funny, you'll bust a gut
at Order of the Stick.
All Hail Banjo! <that was *so* five issues ago>
Firelock
> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive (and The New
> Gold Dream). If you thought the Gamespy was funny, you'll bust a gut
> at Order of the Stick.
Seconded regarding Order of the Stick. I'll have to look at
Generika and The New Gold Dream. PVP Online is pretty good too,
and I've long been a fan of 8-bit Theater on Nuklearpower.com.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Malachias Invictus
"Knight37" <knig...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9551CDBCF...@130.133.1.4...
The Pacifist Cleric dialog was, anyway.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
saint
>This was pretty funny!
>
>http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
Fighter: We are entering the Tombs of the Dead.
The Necrophiliac: Parrrrttaayyyy!
Peter Knutsen
Mark Blunden wrote:
> Knight37 wrote:
>>http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
>
> Wow, at several points I almost smiled.
I cringed, because of the criminally painful colour scheme.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Knight37
Ok I went back and reread it today. It isn't very funny. I think maybe it
was the Cockfighter that got me chuckling yesterday.
--
Knight37
My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium
with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a 15
year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would
womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented
the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the
sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring,
we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag
and beaten with reeds. Pretty standard, really.
-- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"
Christopher Adams
>
> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
the flying dutchman
waters of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, i happened upon the crew of
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com>:
>
>"Knight37" <knig...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9551CDBCF...@130.133.1.4...
>> This was pretty funny!
>>
>> http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
>
>The Pacifist Cleric dialog was, anyway.
Yes it was. I let out a solid "heh!" during that one.
--
best regards, mat
np: [winamp not running]
I WILL round this Cape even if I have to keep sailing until doomsday!
Mark Morrison
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Anonymous Jack wrote:
>>
>> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
>
>I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
I love it.
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Mr. Ash
$D7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Anonymous Jack wrote:
>>
>> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
>
> I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
>
Who knew cancer could be so goddamn funny?
Xocyll
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:
>Anonymous Jack wrote:
>>
>> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
>
>I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
In your opinion.
You seem to have forgotten that humor is highly subjective.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>This was pretty funny!
>
>http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
2. Apocalyptic Priest
My god, a character class Cleve was born to play.
Knight37
> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
> the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>This was pretty funny!
>>
>>http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
>
> 2. Apocalyptic Priest
>
> My god, a character class Cleve was born to play.
>
> Xocyll
He already has the bunker.
--
Knight37
I don't even know how long shes been gone. [...] So how can I heal- how am
I supposed to heal if I can't feel time?
-- Leonard Shelby, "Memento"
Christopher Adams
>
> In your opinion.
>
> You seem to have forgotten that humor is highly subjective.
You seem to have forgotten that not everyone on USENET wimps out by including
"IMO" and "IMHO" bullshit in their posts.
Bateau
>Knight37 <knig...@email.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>This was pretty funny!
>>
>>http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
>
>2. Apocalyptic Priest
>
>My god, a character class Cleve was born to play.
I thought the only funny one was the horse thief.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>This was pretty funny!
>http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
Troll O Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
^
|
No, it wasn't.
--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
Ubiquitous
alordo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Eh, personally, I couldn't get past the first page *yawn*
>
>Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive (and The New
>Gold Dream). If you thought the Gamespy was funny, you'll bust a gut
>at Order of the Stick.
Red Meat has 'em all beat.
http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Charles Whitney
"Tanner Williams" <trwi...@sbcglobel.net> wrote in message
news:UADXc.12259$8K1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenatn...@address.invalid> wrote in
> message
> news:2p83j4F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> Knight37 wrote:
>> > This was pretty funny!
>> >
>> > http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
>>
>> Wow, at several points I almost smiled.
>
> classes
> and subclasses to make fun of....or maybe just making fun of the actual
> playing of certain characters, ie a nice drow who is a pacificst. This was
> jsut, well lame/
It's because of the explanations. Some of the bogus classes mentioned were
absurd or amusing enough, but the paragraph explanations, well, it was
exactly was it was, an explanation of a joke, sucking any of the spontaneity
and humor out of it.
I mean, I can imagine something fairly amusing about a "chaotic evil
tailor", but whatever amusement I got out of imagining it was diminished by
their own explanation, which often (always in this case) wasn't as funny to
me as my imaginings. (And I think something like a necrophiliac is
completely unamusing when the explanation is expressed rather than implicit)
And some possibilities can be so absurd that the humor is trying to imagine
yourself how someone could possibly play that class. (The CE tailor again,
how does being CE manifest itself specifically in a tailor?) When they've
got that description right there, you can't do that.
Of course, if it had been something like a Letterman Top Ten list, it only
fits on 1 page, and then you don't have to go through 5 pages of popups and
border advertisements to read their humor column.
C
Ben Sisson
name "Charles Whitney" <cbill...@yahoo.com>:
>
>"Tanner Williams" <trwi...@sbcglobel.net> wrote in message
>news:UADXc.12259$8K1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenatn...@address.invalid> wrote in
>> message
>> news:2p83j4F...@uni-berlin.de...
>>> Knight37 wrote:
>>> > This was pretty funny!
>>> >
>>> > http://www.gamespy.com/articles/493/493488p1.html
>>>
>>> Wow, at several points I almost smiled.
>>
>> Yeah that was just not really funny at all.....I figure their enough
>> classes
>> and subclasses to make fun of....or maybe just making fun of the actual
>> playing of certain characters, ie a nice drow who is a pacificst. This was
>> jsut, well lame/
>
>It's because of the explanations. Some of the bogus classes mentioned were
>absurd or amusing enough, but the paragraph explanations, well, it was
>exactly was it was, an explanation of a joke, sucking any of the spontaneity
>and humor out of it.
Yeah. It was a good idea, but one that appears to have been beyond the
skill of the author to pull off.
Still, I'm glad Knight posted it even if I personally didn't find it
funny. Nothing wrong with passing around humor.
--
Evil Goblin Cleric: "But using the goblins as guinea pigs is wreaking
havoc with goblin morale!"
Lich Overlord: "Hmm, well, I've got two words for goblin morale...
goblin zombies."
Evil Goblin Cleric: "Good point."
- Order of the Stick #96
Lash Rambo
news:d98390c0.04082...@posting.google.com:
To save you guys the time, here's the script of every 8-bit Theater story
arc:
Fighter says something stupid.
Black Mage stabs Fighter.
Fighter says something stupid.
Black Mage stabs Fighter.
Fighter says something stupid.
Black Mage stabs Fighter.
Red Mage changes his own character sheet.
Black Mage stabs Red Mage.
Thief steals something.
Black Mage stabs Thief.
Black Belt questions his sexuality.
Black Mage stabs Black Belt.
Black Mage tries to seduce White Mage.
White Mage clubs Black Mage to death.
White Mage heals everyone.
Goto 10.
Firelock
> To save you guys the time, here's the script of every 8-bit Theater story
> arc:
>
> Fighter says something stupid.
> Black Mage stabs Fighter.
> Fighter says something stupid.
> Black Mage stabs Fighter.
> Fighter says something stupid.
> Black Mage stabs Fighter.
> Red Mage changes his own character sheet.
> Black Mage stabs Red Mage.
> Thief steals something.
> Black Mage stabs Thief.
> Black Belt questions his sexuality.
> Black Mage stabs Black Belt.
> Black Mage tries to seduce White Mage.
> White Mage clubs Black Mage to death.
> White Mage heals everyone.
> Goto 10.
Yup. Pure, unadulterated humor!! :-)
Arivne
>
<snip website with funny character types>
>
> (The CE tailor again, how does being CE manifest itself
> specifically in a tailor?)
You know how when a tailor is fitting clothing to you, they sometimes
accidentally stick you with a pin?
When a Chaotic Evil tailor does it, it isn't accidental. }-)
Arivne
Ubiquitous
>"Tanner Williams" <trwi...@sbcglobel.net> wrote:
>>> Wow, at several points I almost smiled.
>
>I mean, I can imagine something fairly amusing about a "chaotic evil
>tailor", but whatever amusement I got out of imagining it was diminished by
>their own explanation, which often (always in this case) wasn't as funny to
>me as my imaginings.
Not to mention tailors are NOT proficient with make-up.
Ubiquitous
ari...@cox.net wrote:
>"Charles Whitney" <cbill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> (The CE tailor again, how does being CE manifest itself
>> specifically in a tailor?)
>
>You know how when a tailor is fitting clothing to you, they sometimes
>accidentally stick you with a pin?
>
>When a Chaotic Evil tailor does it, it isn't accidental. }-)
Only after he discovers you're a hemophiliac. :-D
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>
Your imagination doesn't work when an example is given?
Personally I just took the concept and their example and ran with it,
coming up with my own examples.
>Of course, if it had been something like a Letterman Top Ten list, it only
>fits on 1 page, and then you don't have to go through 5 pages of popups and
>border advertisements to read their humor column.
Oh you mean all those pictures I have Mozilla blocking so they don't
ever appear? Popup just aren't allowed ever.
Xocyll
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>>
>> In your opinion.
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten that humor is highly subjective.
>
>You seem to have forgotten that not everyone on USENET wimps out by including
>"IMO" and "IMHO" bullshit in their posts.
Ahh, you're one of those are you.
Funny, most people don't have a problem with expressing their opinion AS
their opinion and not presenting it as some fact or universal truth.
It's amazing what prefacing your sentence with "I find" or "I think"
does for it's meaning, presenting it as your opinion without those
"wimpy" IMO or IMHO tags.
[IE I call bullshit. _I find_ S*P is about as funny as cancer.]
If you actually read the comic in question you'd find that cancer can be
funny, since they did a play with cancer as the "hero".
So sorry you find acting like a religious fundamentalist dispensing your
opinions as the one universal truth makes you a manly man (or since
you're Australian I guess the term is "bloke".)
Charles Whitney
"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:l3tbj09f5qp8o1595...@4ax.com...
Actually, no, if you had a better imagination, perhaps you'd realize that in
such a case, the article suffers in comparison by providing an example
that's not as funny as something I come up with myself.
So my response isn't that the article is funny, but rather it's decidedly
not so.
> Personally I just took the concept and their example and ran with it,
> coming up with my own examples.
So everything they wrote for their humor article was superfluous then?
>>Of course, if it had been something like a Letterman Top Ten list, it only
>>fits on 1 page, and then you don't have to go through 5 pages of popups
>>and
>>border advertisements to read their humor column.
>
> Oh you mean all those pictures I have Mozilla blocking so they don't
> ever appear? Popup just aren't allowed ever.
Wow, you're special.
Whether it works or not has no effect on what they intend for their page to
do, I suppose.
C
Xocyll
Yes, but i'm not losing out by them providing an example.
*MY* imagination works regardless.
>So my response isn't that the article is funny, but rather it's decidedly
>not so.
>
>> Personally I just took the concept and their example and ran with it,
>> coming up with my own examples.
>
>So everything they wrote for their humor article was superfluous then?
Hardly, since some people do have to have things spelled out for them.
I know several people who just don't really have a sense of humor and
_require_ that things are explained if they're going to have any idea
why _other_people_ find them funny.
Sometimes they still won't understand no matter how much it's explained.
If that site had just listed the 10 classes, some people just plain
would not get it at all.
>>>Of course, if it had been something like a Letterman Top Ten list, it only
>>>fits on 1 page, and then you don't have to go through 5 pages of popups
>>>and
>>>border advertisements to read their humor column.
>>
>> Oh you mean all those pictures I have Mozilla blocking so they don't
>> ever appear? Popup just aren't allowed ever.
>
>Wow, you're special.
No, i'm just an average Mozilla user.
>Whether it works or not has no effect on what they intend for their page to
>do, I suppose.
They can intend all they like, but it's not going to succeed for many.
Bradd W. Szonye
> "Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> looked up from reading
> the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
> signs say:
>
>>Xocyll wrote:
>>>
>>> In your opinion.
>>>
>>> You seem to have forgotten that humor is highly subjective.
>>
>>You seem to have forgotten that not everyone on USENET wimps out by including
>>"IMO" and "IMHO" bullshit in their posts.
>
> Ahh, you're one of those are you.
>
> Funny, most people don't have a problem with expressing their opinion AS
> their opinion and not presenting it as some fact or universal truth.
Funny, most people realize that remarks about humor are inherently
expressions of opinion. He shouldn't need to preface such a remark with
"IMO" or similar bullshit. That kind of apologetic writing style is only
rarely appropriate.
> It's amazing what prefacing your sentence with "I find" or "I think"
> does for it's meaning, presenting it as your opinion without those
> "wimpy" IMO or IMHO tags.
Yeah, it's amazing at weakening your point. Didn't you study rhetoric in
high school or the local equivalent?
> [IE I call bullshit. _I find_ S*P is about as funny as cancer.]
That weakens the sentence. Note that "I call bullshit" /already/
sufficiently introduces the opinion, and much more effectively than your
wimp words.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Ben Sisson
>"Charles Whitney" <cbill...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
>>> Personally I just took the concept and their example and ran with it,
>>> coming up with my own examples.
>>
>>So everything they wrote for their humor article was superfluous then?
>
>Hardly, since some people do have to have things spelled out for them.
Ah, like people who have trouble differentiating statements of opinion
from statements of fact?
First Prophet of Kaos
<ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
>name Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>:
>
>>"Charles Whitney" <cbill...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the
>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>>say:
>>
>>>> Personally I just took the concept and their example and ran with it,
>>>> coming up with my own examples.
>>>
>>>So everything they wrote for their humor article was superfluous then?
>>
>>Hardly, since some people do have to have things spelled out for them.
>
>Ah, like people who have trouble differentiating statements of opinion
>from statements of fact?
As listeners, speakers, or both?
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Ben Sisson
Listeners. Someone who doesn't know if their OWN statement is opinion
or fact is in a lot of trouble...
Anonymous Jack
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Anonymous Jack wrote:
>>
>> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
>
>I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
Fair enough. Not everyone finds cancer, death, suicide, abortion,
etc., funny.
Generika may not make sense to you if you don't play Neverwinter
Nights, and Order of the Stick makes no sense if you aren't familiar
with 3E rules.
Malachias Invictus
"Anonymous Jack" <alordo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf889346.04090...@posting.google.com...
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:09:44 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
> <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Anonymous Jack wrote:
> >>
> >> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
> >
> >I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
>
> Fair enough.
The Redneck Tree was funny.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Mark Blunden
> Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>> [IE I call bullshit. _I find_ S*P is about as funny as cancer.]
>
> That weakens the sentence. Note that "I call bullshit" /already/
> sufficiently introduces the opinion, and much more effectively than
> your
> wimp words.
Oh, come off it. Declaring somebody else's opinion as bullshit is a lot more
than just saying "my taste differs from yours". It's saying "your opinion is
wrong."
--
Mark.
Bradd W. Szonye
Not in my dialect.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>> "Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> looked up from reading
>> the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
>> signs say:
>>
>>>Xocyll wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have forgotten that humor is highly subjective.
>>>
>>>You seem to have forgotten that not everyone on USENET wimps out by including
>>>"IMO" and "IMHO" bullshit in their posts.
>>
>> Ahh, you're one of those are you.
>>
>> Funny, most people don't have a problem with expressing their opinion AS
>> their opinion and not presenting it as some fact or universal truth.
>
>Funny, most people realize that remarks about humor are inherently
>expressions of opinion. He shouldn't need to preface such a remark with
>"IMO" or similar bullshit. That kind of apologetic writing style is only
>rarely appropriate.
>
>> It's amazing what prefacing your sentence with "I find" or "I think"
>> does for it's meaning, presenting it as your opinion without those
>> "wimpy" IMO or IMHO tags.
>
>Yeah, it's amazing at weakening your point. Didn't you study rhetoric in
>high school or the local equivalent?
Funnily enough Brad I was under the impression this was a discussion
group not a High School Debate Club.
There's NEVER a need to present an opinion as a fact.
>> [IE I call bullshit. _I find_ S*P is about as funny as cancer.]
>
>That weakens the sentence. Note that "I call bullshit" /already/
>sufficiently introduces the opinion, and much more effectively than your
>wimp words.
Hardly, since my version states an opinion, his tries to make his
opinion a fact (which it isn't.)
Ben Sisson
name Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>:
>"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
>>Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>>> "Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> looked up from reading
>>> the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
>>> signs say:
>>>
>>>>You seem to have forgotten that not everyone on USENET wimps out by including
>>>>"IMO" and "IMHO" bullshit in their posts.
>>>
>>> Ahh, you're one of those are you.
>>>
>>> Funny, most people don't have a problem with expressing their opinion AS
>>> their opinion and not presenting it as some fact or universal truth.
>>
>>Funny, most people realize that remarks about humor are inherently
>>expressions of opinion. He shouldn't need to preface such a remark with
>>"IMO" or similar bullshit. That kind of apologetic writing style is only
>>rarely appropriate.
>>
>>> It's amazing what prefacing your sentence with "I find" or "I think"
>>> does for it's meaning, presenting it as your opinion without those
>>> "wimpy" IMO or IMHO tags.
>>
>>Yeah, it's amazing at weakening your point. Didn't you study rhetoric in
>>high school or the local equivalent?
>
>Funnily enough Brad I was under the impression this was a discussion
>group not a High School Debate Club.
>
>There's NEVER a need to present an opinion as a fact.
>
>>> [IE I call bullshit. _I find_ S*P is about as funny as cancer.]
>>
>>That weakens the sentence. Note that "I call bullshit" /already/
>>sufficiently introduces the opinion, and much more effectively than your
>>wimp words.
>
>Hardly, since my version states an opinion, his tries to make his
>opinion a fact (which it isn't.)
Xocyll, please, before you hurt yourself, learn what formal writing
style is, which is what Christopher was using and is the default for
many of us. Among educated people, the ability to differentiate
opinion from fact is expected from the *reader*, not just the author.
You are simply wrong, and now you're embarrassing yourself. If you saw
his statement as a declaration of fact instead of opinion, that is
*your* fault, not his.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> It's amazing what prefacing your sentence with "I find" or "I think"
>>> does for it's meaning, presenting it as your opinion without those
>>> "wimpy" IMO or IMHO tags.
Bradd wrote:
>> Yeah, it's amazing at weakening your point. Didn't you study rhetoric
>> in high school or the local equivalent?
> Funnily enough Brad I was under the impression this was a discussion
> group not a High School Debate Club.
Irrelevant. Good rhetoric is important regardless of the forum. Or are
you one of those sad fools who believes that rhetoric and proper diction
are only appropriate in formal argument?
> There's NEVER a need to present an opinion as a fact.
Omitting weasel words like "I believe" and "in my opinion" does not
present opinion as fact. Competent readers should recognize fact and
opinion from context. Therefore, weasel words accomplish nothing, and
the extra verbiage only serves to distract the reader. That's why
they're called weasel words and why most style guides advise against
using them.
Now, if you're talking to a moron who cannot infer fact/opinion status
from context, then it might be appropriate to use weasel words, although
it's probably even more appropriate to ignore the moron.
Xocyll
I'm having a little difficulty in regarding "I call Bullshit" as part of
a formal anything.
>You are simply wrong, and now you're embarrassing yourself. If you saw
>his statement as a declaration of fact instead of opinion, that is
>*your* fault, not his.
That's how he presented it and he carefully removed almost all the
context the previous poster had made.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>>>> It's amazing what prefacing your sentence with "I find" or "I think"
>>>> does for it's meaning, presenting it as your opinion without those
>>>> "wimpy" IMO or IMHO tags.
>
>Bradd wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's amazing at weakening your point. Didn't you study rhetoric
>>> in high school or the local equivalent?
>
>> Funnily enough Brad I was under the impression this was a discussion
>> group not a High School Debate Club.
>
>Irrelevant. Good rhetoric is important regardless of the forum. Or are
>you one of those sad fools who believes that rhetoric and proper diction
>are only appropriate in formal argument?
Rhetoric is never important unless you want to argue or try to convince
others that you are right and they are wrong.
It's certainly not needed in any kind of informal _discussion_ where
there is no "right" or "wrong" just opinions.
Usenet is nothing if not informal.
"I call Bullshit" doesn't imply he doesn't think it's funny. He's
outright telling everyone that it isn't funny, even if they think it is.
>> There's NEVER a need to present an opinion as a fact.
>
>Omitting weasel words like "I believe" and "in my opinion" does not
>present opinion as fact. Competent readers should recognize fact and
>opinion from context. Therefore, weasel words accomplish nothing, and
>the extra verbiage only serves to distract the reader. That's why
>they're called weasel words and why most style guides advise against
>using them.
>
>Now, if you're talking to a moron who cannot infer fact/opinion status
>from context, then it might be appropriate to use weasel words, although
>it's probably even more appropriate to ignore the moron.
The problem is he removed almost all of the context in his original post
by over snipping.
The person he replied to presented an opinion. He snipped the context
of that opinion leaving a portion of it as a statement, which he then
replied to with another statement, not an opinion.
You can call it formal, I call it the same kind of crap politicians and
religious zealots spew. Presenting a subjective opinion as an objective
fact.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Xocyll, please, before you hurt yourself, learn what formal writing
>> style is, which is what Christopher was using and is the default for
>> many of us. Among educated people, the ability to differentiate
>> opinion from fact is expected from the *reader*, not just the author.
Thanks, Ben. You said it much more eloquently than I did.
Xocyll wrote:
> I'm having a little difficulty in regarding "I call Bullshit" as part
> of a formal anything.
Well, it's pretty clear who in this discussion who belongs to the
"flunked high school English and proud of it" crowd. Stephenls, this is
what I was talking about earlier with the "innocent ignorance" versus
"arrogant ignorance" thing.
>> You are simply wrong, and now you're embarrassing yourself. If you saw
>> his statement as a declaration of fact instead of opinion, that is
>> *your* fault, not his.
> That's how he presented it ....
No, he did not. Repeat it all you want; it does not change the fact that
you are too stupid or too ignorant to tell the difference between
professed opinion and fact in written English.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>>>> It's amazing what prefacing your sentence with "I find" or "I think"
>>>> does for it's meaning, presenting it as your opinion without those
>>>> "wimpy" IMO or IMHO tags.
>
>Bradd wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's amazing at weakening your point. Didn't you study rhetoric
>>> in high school or the local equivalent?
>
>> Funnily enough Brad I was under the impression this was a discussion
>> group not a High School Debate Club.
>
>Irrelevant. Good rhetoric is important regardless of the forum. Or are
>you one of those sad fools who believes that rhetoric and proper diction
>are only appropriate in formal argument?
>
>> There's NEVER a need to present an opinion as a fact.
>
>Omitting weasel words like "I believe" and "in my opinion" does not
>present opinion as fact. Competent readers should recognize fact and
>opinion from context. Therefore, weasel words accomplish nothing, and
>the extra verbiage only serves to distract the reader. That's why
>they're called weasel words and why most style guides advise against
>using them.
Your problem is you are considering those as weasel words regardless of
context.
When a politician says something like "In my opinion the honorable
member from Burlington is a Redneck, cross burning, Nazi with delusions
of Godhood", then "In my opinion" is being used to weasel out of being
sued for Libel and/or Slander.
In _that_context_ they are weasel words because they are being used to
weasel out of the consequences of the statement.
"In my opinion that Article wasn't funny at all."
There's no weasel words in that statement, because there are no
consequences being weaseled out of.
If anything a person stating their personal opinion as though it was a
universal truth and not just their opinion is weaseling, since they
aren't willing to actually acknowledge that the opinion IS THEIRS with
whatever consequences might come with holding that opinion.
See racist publications for that kind of weaseling.
Context is everything.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> Funny, most people don't have a problem with expressing their opinion AS
> their opinion and not presenting it as some fact or universal truth.
> [IE I call bullshit. _I find_ S*P is about as funny as cancer.]
I can't see how a statement that opens with "I call bullshit" can be
taken as anything but opinion. Certainly I'd never consider any such
argument to be one of fact, rather than opinion.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> "I call Bullshit" doesn't imply he doesn't think it's funny. He's
> outright telling everyone that it isn't funny, even if they think it is.
The odd thing here is that you've shown you know the poster is an
Aussie. You've even suggested that would make him a "bloke" as opposed
to a "man". Despite that you refuse to consider that his use of
"bullshit" may not have quite the same meaning as you consider it to
have. Certainly I, a New Zealander, don't consider "that's bullshit"
or "what a load of bull" to be more than the expression of a differing
opinion unless it's then backed up with factual evidence. As this is
one area I've never had comprehension issues with Aussies (their
accent, OTOH...) I think it's reasonable to assume that they use the
expression in a similar way.
Mark Blunden
Really? You honestly equate "that's bullshit" with "well, this is just my
opinion"?
Strange dialect you've got there.
--
Mark.
JB
"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:9c4ej0917jr2litt0...@4ax.com...
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca>:
>
> >On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:54:35 GMT, Ben Sisson
> ><ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> >>name Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>:
> >>
> >>>"Charles Whitney" <cbill...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the
> >>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
> >>>say:
> >>>
> >>>>> Personally I just took the concept and their example and ran with
it,
> >>>>> coming up with my own examples.
> >>>>
> >>>>So everything they wrote for their humor article was superfluous
then?
> >>>
> >>>Hardly, since some people do have to have things spelled out for
them.
> >>
> >>Ah, like people who have trouble differentiating statements of opinion
> >>from statements of fact?
> >
> >As listeners, speakers, or both?
>
> Listeners. Someone who doesn't know if their OWN statement is opinion
> or fact is in a lot of trouble...
That is Gollum's (aka Brandon Cope) major problem.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:j37gj0hpekevfj60o...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:19:14 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
> > Funny, most people don't have a problem with expressing their opinion AS
> > their opinion and not presenting it as some fact or universal truth.
>
>
> > [IE I call bullshit. _I find_ S*P is about as funny as cancer.]
>
> I can't see how a statement that opens with "I call bullshit" can be
> taken as anything but opinion. Certainly I'd never consider any such
> argument to be one of fact, rather than opinion.
But this is likely NOT because the phrase "I call bullshit" indicates that
the speaker is expressing their opinion, but that you have such a low
opinion of anyone who would start a phrase with that statement that you'd
think that their argument can be no better than opinion.
Example: Someone says "You like Tony better than Alex". The reply: "I call
bullshit. I don't like either of them." The statement is a statement of
fact in the reply (even though it's about opinion, but put that aside for a
moment.
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>> Anonymous Jack wrote:
>
>>> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
>>
>> I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
>
> Fair enough. Not everyone finds cancer, death, suicide, abortion,
> etc., funny.
>
> Generika may not make sense to you if you don't play Neverwinter
> Nights, and Order of the Stick makes no sense if you aren't familiar
> with 3E rules.
Man, I really like Order of the Stick, and I agree that it would be inexplicable
to those who don't play Third Edition D&D.
However, S*P is just a fucking soap with Gen Xers in it. *That* is why people
read it.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
Christopher Adams
(Re: my amazingly controversial statement)
> "I call Bullshit" doesn't imply he doesn't think it's funny. He's
> outright telling everyone that it isn't funny, even if they think it is.
Have you considered the possibility that I intended to say exactly that?
Here is a hint for you: The fact that someone might find S*P funny doesn't mean
that it is. Hell, the fact that I think it's dreadfully *unfunny* doesn't mean
it isn't amusing. However, I don't think it's funny, and so I chose to say so.
> The problem is he removed almost all of the context in his original post
> by over snipping.
>
> The person he replied to presented an opinion. He snipped the context
> of that opinion leaving a portion of it as a statement, which he then
> replied to with another statement, not an opinion.
Ahh, you make the mistake of believing that a *statement of opinion* is, when
stripped of context that clearly and in a
for-the-benefit-of-the-remedial-English-class fashion calls it out as an
opinion, somehow ceases to be an opinion.
Fascinating.
Here is a second hint for you: It might just be that a discerning reader would
consider *any* discussion of what is "funny" to be an exchange of opinions
between the participants, considering that humour is one of the most famously
subjective elements of creative expression known to humanity.
Christopher Adams
>
> Certainly I, a New Zealander, don't consider "that's bullshit"
> or "what a load of bull" to be more than the expression of a differing
> opinion unless it's then backed up with factual evidence. As this is
> one area I've never had comprehension issues with Aussies (their
> accent, OTOH...)
*Our* accent?
Christopher Adams
>
> Example: Someone says "You like Tony better than Alex". The reply: "I
> call bullshit. I don't like either of them." The statement is a
> statement of fact in the reply (even though it's about opinion, but put
> that aside for a moment.
Actually . . . no. The statement "I don't like either of them" is a statement
because relating the fact that you dislike someone is not an opinion. It's a
fact - the fact is, you don't like Tony *or* Alex.
Now, if the statement had been "They're both arseholes", that would indeed be
opinion, and though it *sounds* like a statement, it's not. If someone called
your best friend an arsehole, would you take issue with it because they're *not*
an arsehole or because you *think* they're not an arsehole?
I surely hope you'd say it's because you *think* they're not an arsehole, or
else you're the fellow with the problem of confusing statements of fact and
expressions of opinion.
I reiterate from an earlier post: If you think any sane person would make
statements of bald fact about what is funny and what is not funny, the problem
isn't me or what I said.
Keith Davies
> Anonymous Jack wrote:
>> Christopher Adams wrote:
>>> Anonymous Jack wrote:
>>
>>>> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
>>>
>>> I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
>>
>> Fair enough. Not everyone finds cancer, death, suicide, abortion,
>> etc., funny.
>>
>> Generika may not make sense to you if you don't play Neverwinter
>> Nights, and Order of the Stick makes no sense if you aren't familiar
>> with 3E rules.
>
> Man, I really like Order of the Stick, and I agree that it would be
> inexplicable to those who don't play Third Edition D&D.
>
> However, S*P is just a fucking soap with Gen Xers in it. *That* is why
> people read it.
Nah, I read it because it's just so delightfully wrong. You want soap,
read MegaTokyo. You want some seriously broken people, read S*P.
Keith
--
Keith Davies
keith....@kjdavies.org
"Some do and some don't. I *hate* that kind of problem."
"Understandable. Consistency is important with fuck ups."
Rupert Boleyn
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> *Our* accent?
Yeah. *Your* accent.
Rupert Boleyn
<allan.c....@yahoo.ca> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> But this is likely NOT because the phrase "I call bullshit" indicates that
> the speaker is expressing their opinion, but that you have such a low
> opinion of anyone who would start a phrase with that statement that you'd
> think that their argument can be no better than opinion.
Nope. I know a number of people who would say that, and (aside from
him being an Aussie and all) I don;t have a low opinion of Mr. Adams,
either.
Christopher Adams
>
> Nah, I read it because it's just so delightfully wrong. You want soap,
> read MegaTokyo. You want some seriously broken people, read S*P.
Meh . . . crappy art aside, Randy Milholland is fucking Enid Blyton compared to
James Ellroy.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Omitting weasel words like "I believe" and "in my opinion" does not
>> present opinion as fact. Competent readers should recognize fact and
>> opinion from context. Therefore, weasel words accomplish nothing, and
>> the extra verbiage only serves to distract the reader. That's why
>> they're called weasel words and why most style guides advise against
>> using them.
Xocyll wrote:
> Your problem is you are considering those as weasel words regardless of
> context.
They /are/ weasel words, regardless of context. They always weaken the
statement they're attached to.
> If anything a person stating their personal opinion as though it was a
> universal truth and not just their opinion is weaseling ....
You did flunk high school English, didn't you?
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Oh, come off it. Declaring somebody else's opinion as bullshit is a
>>> lot more than just saying "my taste differs from yours". It's saying
>>> "your opinion is wrong."
Bradd wrote:
>> Not in my dialect.
> Really? You honestly equate "that's bullshit" with "well, this is just
> my opinion"?
Depends on the context, but ordinarily yes.
Mouse
<kjda...@kjdavies.kjdavies.org> raised a finger to the sky and
proclaimed:
>On 2004-09-03, Christopher Adams <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>> Anonymous Jack wrote:
>>> Christopher Adams wrote:
>>>> Anonymous Jack wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Funny = Order of the Stick, Generika, Something Positive
>>>>
>>>> I call bullshit. S*P is about as funny as cancer.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. Not everyone finds cancer, death, suicide, abortion,
>>> etc., funny.
>>>
>>> Generika may not make sense to you if you don't play Neverwinter
>>> Nights, and Order of the Stick makes no sense if you aren't familiar
>>> with 3E rules.
>>
>> Man, I really like Order of the Stick, and I agree that it would be
>> inexplicable to those who don't play Third Edition D&D.
>>
>> However, S*P is just a fucking soap with Gen Xers in it. *That* is why
>> people read it.
>
>Nah, I read it because it's just so delightfully wrong. You want soap,
>read MegaTokyo. You want some seriously broken people, read S*P.
>
>
>Keith
Then, when you realize it's time to grow up, leave S*P behind and read
Ghastly's Ghastly Comic, and Sexy Losers.
--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
Allan C Cybulskie
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 06:51:53 -0400, "Allan C Cybulskie"
> <allan.c....@yahoo.ca> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > But this is likely NOT because the phrase "I call bullshit" indicates
that
> > the speaker is expressing their opinion, but that you have such a low
> > opinion of anyone who would start a phrase with that statement that
you'd
> > think that their argument can be no better than opinion.
>
> Nope. I know a number of people who would say that, and (aside from
> him being an Aussie and all) I don;t have a low opinion of Mr. Adams,
> either.
Well, then I don't understand how you can claim that the phrase "I call
bullshit" indicates that someone is expressing their opinion, since my
example is something that someone could and would say in a similar
circumstance yet is clearly a statement of fact ...
Allan C Cybulskie
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
news:iYYZc.18028$D7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> > Example: Someone says "You like Tony better than Alex". The reply: "I
> > call bullshit. I don't like either of them." The statement is a
> > statement of fact in the reply (even though it's about opinion, but put
> > that aside for a moment.
>
> Actually . . . no. The statement "I don't like either of them" is a
statement
> because relating the fact that you dislike someone is not an opinion. It's
a
> fact - the fact is, you don't like Tony *or* Alex.
Yes, and that's precisely what my example said: that the reply is a
statement of fact, not opinion, yet was prefaced by "I call bullshit", which
Rupert had claimed indicated opinion. So you agree with me, then.
>
> Now, if the statement had been "They're both arseholes", that would indeed
be
> opinion, and though it *sounds* like a statement, it's not. If someone
called
> your best friend an arsehole, would you take issue with it because they're
*not*
> an arsehole or because you *think* they're not an arsehole?
>
> I surely hope you'd say it's because you *think* they're not an arsehole,
or
> else you're the fellow with the problem of confusing statements of fact
and
> expressions of opinion.
Well, it would seem to be a reasonable response to this situation to reply
"No, my best friend only acts that way to you because he doesn't like you."
Hence implying that the actions he takes would -- in some objective sense --
allow someone to call him an arsehole, but that he isn't doing it because of
his nature, but deliberately to annoy the person in question. Thus implying
or countering the idea that the person, by nature, acts like an arsehole.
It IS possible to be sane and yet posit that statement as a statement of
fact -- as long as there is an agreed upon definition of what it means to be
an arsehole.
>
> I reiterate from an earlier post: If you think any sane person would make
> statements of bald fact about what is funny and what is not funny, the
problem
> isn't me or what I said.
Well, to put it this way, there are a lot of people in life and on Usenet
who do indeed make such statements of fact about humour, most unfortunately.
This is why "weasel-words" are so helpful in clarifying statements --
especially when all body language and past history of the person are not
available, like it often is on Usenet.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Well, then I don't understand how you can claim that the phrase "I call
> bullshit" indicates that someone is expressing their opinion, since my
> example is something that someone could and would say in a similar
> circumstance yet is clearly a statement of fact ...
Look, it's very simple. When discussing subjective topics, "I call
bullshit" means "I find your opinion distasteful." Depending on context,
it can be teasing, condescending, angry, or vicious.
This just isn't that hard. You geeks need to take a refresher course in
English composition or something.
Keith Davies
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:11:51 GMT, Keith Davies
><kjda...@kjdavies.kjdavies.org> raised a finger to the sky and
> proclaimed:
>
>>On 2004-09-03, Christopher Adams <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> However, S*P is just a fucking soap with Gen Xers in it. *That* is why
>>> people read it.
>>
>>Nah, I read it because it's just so delightfully wrong. You want soap,
>>read MegaTokyo. You want some seriously broken people, read S*P.
>
> Ghastly's Ghastly Comic, and Sexy Losers.
I was reading Sexy Losers when it was still Thin H Line. I was very sad
when THL went away, and very happy when it was reborn as Sexy Losers
(dammit Clay, *update*!)
Add TA Vision and Tang Weekly (Tang and Clay^WHard did a collaboration
for a bit). Add Jack -- not smutty (despite sexy coming up); it's about
the incarnation of Death. Dark; some of it's pretty powerful. Really
well done.
Thing is, Tang's stuff is just weird people, THL is broken people (but
mostly sexual stuff), Jack has normal people and -- in Hell -- severely
fucked up people. While you can identify with the characters in Jack,
S*P has characters that I've actually *met*. Not by those names, of
course, but I know a Davan, and a PeeJee, and an Aubrey, and a Jason.
Choo-choo's pretty hard to match; a friend of mine has a cat that's as
fucked up, but doesn't have as much character.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrncji099.p...@szonye.com...
Bradd, what you need to understand is that we have no idea who the hell you
are, and when someone starts a phrase with such a strong denunciation and
doesn't qualify it as an opinion, we have no idea if the person really
understands that they are expressing an opinion or are just jerks who are
expressing an opinion as if it was fact, who are most unfortunately quite
common on Usenet. Help us out here. Give us the "weasel-words" since we
have no context and no general knowledge of whether you are a jerk or
someone with strong -- but well-understood as -- opinions.
Allan C Cybulskie
> Bradd wrote:
> >> Omitting weasel words like "I believe" and "in my opinion" does not
> >> present opinion as fact. Competent readers should recognize fact and
> >> opinion from context. Therefore, weasel words accomplish nothing, and
> >> the extra verbiage only serves to distract the reader. That's why
> >> they're called weasel words and why most style guides advise against
> >> using them.
>
> Xocyll wrote:
> > Your problem is you are considering those as weasel words regardless of
> > context.
>
> They /are/ weasel words, regardless of context. They always weaken the
> statement they're attached to.
But if all you are doing is expressing an opinion, isn't that what you WANT
to do?
You don't use weasel words if you are trying to convince someone of
something, true. But truly subjective opinions -- such as you claim should
be obviously able to recognize -- aren't really open to "convincing" in any
direct manner. And so the LACK of "weasel words" really makes you come
across as a complete jerk: someone who is trying to strongly impose their
OPINION on everyone else.
This is, of course, likely to lead to a negative reaction [grin].
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>>
>>> Example: Someone says "You like Tony better than Alex". The reply: "I
>>> call bullshit. I don't like either of them." The statement is a
>>> statement of fact in the reply (even though it's about opinion, but put
>>> that aside for a moment.
>>
>> Actually . . . no. The statement "I don't like either of them" is a
>> statement because relating the fact that you dislike someone is not an
>> opinion. It's a fact - the fact is, you don't like Tony *or* Alex.
>
> Yes, and that's precisely what my example said: that the reply is a
> statement of fact, not opinion, yet was prefaced by "I call bullshit",
> which Rupert had claimed indicated opinion. So you agree with me, then.
In that case, "I call bullshit" doesn't indicate opinion, though. What you
attempted to imply is that IF "I call bullshit" is always a statement indicating
opinion, then it's inconsistent to make a statement of fact following it, and
therefore that Rupert was wrong to state that it indicates opinion. However,
leaving aside the fact that people are perfectly capable of being inconsistent
from one sentence to the very next, you are wrong to believe that anyone is
suggesting the isolated phrase "I call bullshit" always indicates the presence
of opinion.
In other words, what people have been saying is that my use of the phrase in the
situation under discussion was an indication of my opinion to follow; *not*, as
you seem to believe they have been saying, that the phrase itself is some kind
of universal, magical flag of "It's just my opinion", which *no-one* is saying.
The most I would suggest is that they have been telling you that it's an
indication of opinion being given *more often than not*, which is not the same
thing.
> Well, to put it this way, there are a lot of people in life and on Usenet
> who do indeed make such statements of fact about humour, most
> unfortunately. This is why "weasel-words" are so helpful in clarifying
> statements -- especially when all body language and past history of the
> person are not available, like it often is on Usenet.
It's very sad that you think weak and watered-down expression is an adequate
solution to the problem of ignorance.
Christopher Adams
>
> You don't use weasel words if you are trying to convince someone of
> something, true. But truly subjective opinions -- such as you claim
> should be obviously able to recognize -- aren't really open to
> "convincing" in any direct manner. And so the LACK of "weasel words"
> really makes you come across as a complete jerk: someone who is trying
> to strongly impose their OPINION on everyone else.
>
> This is, of course, likely to lead to a negative reaction [grin].
To this, the only response is "Poor baby".
Seriously, if you cannot handle the formal expression of opinion, you don't
belong on USENET.
Maybe it's a North American thing. It irritates me greatly the way the Americans
I know (and perhaps this applies to Canadians as well) qualify everything they
say with weasel words. You don't need to say anything other than "That was
amusing"; saying "That was amusing to me" sounds defensive and, frankly, like
you don't have the courage to just give your opinion and let it stand on its
own.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>The Redneck Tree was funny.
You know you're a redneck tree when...
--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> > You don't use weasel words if you are trying to convince someone of
> > something, true. But truly subjective opinions -- such as you claim
> > should be obviously able to recognize -- aren't really open to
> > "convincing" in any direct manner. And so the LACK of "weasel words"
> > really makes you come across as a complete jerk: someone who is trying
> > to strongly impose their OPINION on everyone else.
> >
> > This is, of course, likely to lead to a negative reaction [grin].
>
> To this, the only response is "Poor baby".
>
> Seriously, if you cannot handle the formal expression of opinion, you
don't
> belong on USENET.
Seriously, if you can't follow threads, you don't belong on USENET.
1) People on USENET use those exact "formal expression of opinion" words you
talk about to incorrectly express opinion as if it was fact.
2) If you are trying to convince people to share your opinion, that is not
justified in obvious cases of subjective opinion.
3) Finally, I don't believe there IS such a thing as a formal expression of
opinion, and I'm well-versed in English AND debating.
>
> Maybe it's a North American thing. It irritates me greatly the way the
Americans
> I know (and perhaps this applies to Canadians as well) qualify everything
they
> say with weasel words. You don't need to say anything other than "That was
> amusing"; saying "That was amusing to me" sounds defensive and, frankly,
like
> you don't have the courage to just give your opinion and let it stand on
its
> own.
But there's a difference here (and I don't do that in that case, BTW, and
agree with you). It's one thing to say "That was amusing" and expect people
to take it as simply an expression of opinion, but quite another to
basically use a phrase that means "You're totally wrong!" followed by an
expression of opinion and expect people to take it as such. Simple
statements of opinion can never be wrong.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > Christopher Adams wrote:
> >> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Example: Someone says "You like Tony better than Alex". The reply: "I
> >>> call bullshit. I don't like either of them." The statement is a
> >>> statement of fact in the reply (even though it's about opinion, but
put
> >>> that aside for a moment.
> >>
> >> Actually . . . no. The statement "I don't like either of them" is a
> >> statement because relating the fact that you dislike someone is not an
> >> opinion. It's a fact - the fact is, you don't like Tony *or* Alex.
> >
> > Yes, and that's precisely what my example said: that the reply is a
> > statement of fact, not opinion, yet was prefaced by "I call bullshit",
> > which Rupert had claimed indicated opinion. So you agree with me, then.
>
> In that case, "I call bullshit" doesn't indicate opinion, though. What you
> attempted to imply is that IF "I call bullshit" is always a statement
indicating
> opinion,
All I attempted to imply was that that was what Rupert was trying to say,
and since he pretty much out-and-out said it I think it's a justified
implication. So you can take the point up with him.
> In other words, what people have been saying is that my use of the phrase
in the
> situation under discussion was an indication of my opinion to follow;
*not*, as
> you seem to believe they have been saying, that the phrase itself is some
kind
> of universal, magical flag of "It's just my opinion", which *no-one* is
saying.
If the phrase is not in itself indicative that what follows will be
opinion -- which is what you are claiming here -- then your use of it to
indicate that it's opinion depends entirely on the whole context of the
phrase, correct? Then the fact that you used that phrase is itself
meaningless; only the context matters. Therefore, it is totally irrelevant
to mention the phrase to defend the claim that people should have understood
that you were merely expressing opinion.
> The most I would suggest is that they have been telling you that it's an
> indication of opinion being given *more often than not*, which is not the
same
> thing.
Let me point out that this does not seem to be the case, at least for all
areas. Where I come from "bullshit" == "wrong to the point of deliberately
lying".
>
> > Well, to put it this way, there are a lot of people in life and on
Usenet
> > who do indeed make such statements of fact about humour, most
> > unfortunately. This is why "weasel-words" are so helpful in clarifying
> > statements -- especially when all body language and past history of the
> > person are not available, like it often is on Usenet.
>
> It's very sad that you think weak and watered-down expression is an
adequate
> solution to the problem of ignorance.
It's very sad that you cannot understand that we have no idea if you are
someone who understands the difference between fact and opinion and since we
know that people can and do confuse them, it is helpful for others to
actually understand what you are saying for you to use those "weasel words"
that do nothing more than flag that this is an opinion statement.
If you DON'T want to be understood, then don't get upset when people treat
you as someone who doesn't know the difference when you give no indication
that you do.
First Prophet of Kaos
<ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
>name First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca>:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:54:35 GMT, Ben Sisson
>><ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
>>>name Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>:
>>>
>>>>"Charles Whitney" <cbill...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the
>>>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>>>>say:
>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I just took the concept and their example and ran with it,
>>>>>> coming up with my own examples.
>>>>>
>>>>>So everything they wrote for their humor article was superfluous then?
>>>>
>>>>Hardly, since some people do have to have things spelled out for them.
>>>
>>>Ah, like people who have trouble differentiating statements of opinion
>>>from statements of fact?
>>
>>As listeners, speakers, or both?
>
>Listeners. Someone who doesn't know if their OWN statement is opinion
>or fact is in a lot of trouble...
Which such are annoying, it's those who speak opinion in ways which
lead even the best listeners to think the opinion is being presented
as fact that I was thinking of.
Arguably not the case here, just a general point I wanted to make:
it's not always the listener's fault.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
First Prophet of Kaos
<m.blundenatn...@address.invalid> wrote:
>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>
>>> [IE I call bullshit. _I find_ S*P is about as funny as cancer.]
>>
>> That weakens the sentence. Note that "I call bullshit" /already/
>> sufficiently introduces the opinion, and much more effectively than
>> your
>> wimp words.
>
>Oh, come off it. Declaring somebody else's opinion as bullshit is a lot more
>than just saying "my taste differs from yours". It's saying "your opinion is
>wrong."
It depends on the context. "Bullshit" could be referencing the
original opinion being presented as fact.
First Prophet of Kaos
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Bradd wrote:
>>> Omitting weasel words like "I believe" and "in my opinion" does not
>>> present opinion as fact. Competent readers should recognize fact and
>>> opinion from context. Therefore, weasel words accomplish nothing, and
>>> the extra verbiage only serves to distract the reader. That's why
>>> they're called weasel words and why most style guides advise against
>>> using them.
>
>Xocyll wrote:
>> Your problem is you are considering those as weasel words regardless of
>> context.
>
>They /are/ weasel words, regardless of context. They always weaken the
>statement they're attached to.
Some statements should be weakened. Others should not, and still
others work fine either way.
First Prophet of Kaos
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
<Snip>
>> This is, of course, likely to lead to a negative reaction [grin].
>
>To this, the only response is "Poor baby".
>
>Seriously, if you cannot handle the formal expression of opinion, you don't
>belong on USENET.
>
>Maybe it's a North American thing. It irritates me greatly the way the Americans
>I know (and perhaps this applies to Canadians as well) qualify everything they
>say with weasel words.
Canadians, in general, are well known for their distaste of strong
opinions.
But tell me, did I weasel on that by choosing "distaste" instead of
"hatred"? It does weaken the statement...
Stephen Mackey
>While you can identify with the characters in Jack,
>S*P has characters that I've actually *met*. Not by those names, of
>course, but I know a Davan, and a PeeJee, and an Aubrey, and a Jason.
You know women as violent as PeeJee and Aubrey? Damn, man. Run awayaway.
Never did care for how the comic treated severe physical abuse as humor.
Swapping the gender roles don't make it any more right.
>Choo-choo's pretty hard to match; a friend of mine has a cat that's as
>fucked up, but doesn't have as much character.
I've always wanted an Egyptian Hairless.
::sniff::
--
Stephen Mackey
"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
Ben Sisson
name First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca>:
>On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 01:56:58 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
><mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
><Snip>
>>> This is, of course, likely to lead to a negative reaction [grin].
>>
>>To this, the only response is "Poor baby".
>>
>>Seriously, if you cannot handle the formal expression of opinion, you don't
>>belong on USENET.
>>
>>Maybe it's a North American thing. It irritates me greatly the way the Americans
>>I know (and perhaps this applies to Canadians as well) qualify everything they
>>say with weasel words.
>
>Canadians, in general, are well known for their distaste of strong
>opinions.
>
>But tell me, did I weasel on that by choosing "distaste" instead of
>"hatred"? It does weaken the statement...
Its almost always a better idea to weaken a statement when making a
broad generalization to mitigate the inevitable challenge.
--
Evil Goblin Cleric: "But using the goblins as guinea pigs is wreaking
havoc with goblin morale!"
Lich Overlord: "Hmm, well, I've got two words for goblin morale...
goblin zombies."
Evil Goblin Cleric: "Good point."
- Order of the Stick #96
Bradd W. Szonye
>> They /are/ weasel words, regardless of context. They always weaken the
>> statement they're attached to.
First Prophet of Kaos wrote:
> Some statements should be weakened.
Occasionally, yes. However, the usual rule about "learn the rules before
you break them" applies, and Xocyll is obviously not at that level of
mastery yet, so I chose not to confuse him.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Bradd, what you need to understand is that we have no idea who the
Why does that matter? It's not relevant unless you think I'm the one who
originally made the "I call bullshit" remark. I'm not.
> and when someone starts a phrase with such a strong denunciation and
> doesn't qualify it as an opinion, we have no idea if the person really
> understands that they are expressing an opinion or are just jerks who
> are expressing an opinion as if it was fact ....
Now I call bullshit. It's the reader's job to infer whether it's a
statement of fact or opinion. On the off-chance that the speaker didn't
know the difference, so what? If he's that clueless, there's little
point in trying to correct him.
> Help us out here. Give us the "weasel-words" since we have no context
> and no general knowledge of whether you are a jerk or someone with
> strong -- but well-understood as -- opinions.
Sounds like you /do/ have me mixed up with the original poster. Read the
thread. And then take that refresher course in English composition,
because I shouldn't /need/ to teach you what weasel words are.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Maybe it's a North American thing. It irritates me greatly the way the
> Americans I know (and perhaps this applies to Canadians as well)
> qualify everything they say with weasel words.
I'm guilty as charged. Occasionally, I use weasel words deliberately to
soften a controversial opinion, but more often I use them without
thinking. I'm also guilty of rambling in general when I write; I don't
edit myself well.
> You don't need to say anything other than "That was amusing"; saying
> "That was amusing to me" sounds defensive and, frankly, like you don't
> have the courage to just give your opinion and let it stand on its
> own.
Agreed -- just wish I had the discipline to do it more.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Seriously, if you cannot handle the formal expression of opinion, you
>> don't belong on USENET.
Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> Seriously, if you can't follow threads, you don't belong on USENET.
That's ironic, coming from the guy who seems to have me and Christopher
mixed up.
> 1) People on USENET use those exact "formal expression of opinion"
> words you talk about to incorrectly express opinion as if it was fact.
Poor baby.
> 2) If you are trying to convince people to share your opinion, that is
> not justified in obvious cases of subjective opinion.
WTF?
> 3) Finally, I don't believe there IS such a thing as a formal
> expression of opinion, and I'm well-versed in English AND debating.
I don't believe you.
Bradd W. Szonye
It's very sad that you think it matters.
Jasin Zujovic
> >> They /are/ weasel words, regardless of context. They always weaken the
> >> statement they're attached to.
> >
> > Some statements should be weakened.
>
> Occasionally, yes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
You weasel-word-using weasel!
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>In article <2poub3F...@uni-berlin.de>, capt_ma...@hotmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>The Redneck Tree was funny.
>
>You know you're a redneck tree when...
For those people who don't get the whole redneck tree thing, it starts
here.
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp04292002.shtml
goes on for the next two comics.
The D&D monster stats sheet is a bit later at
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05042002.shtml
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>On 2004-09-03, Mouse <mail1...@pop.net.invalid> wrote:
And of course, it's likely that most role players have run into a Mike
at some point.
Christopher Adams
>
> Seriously, if you can't follow threads, you don't belong on USENET.
>
> 1) People on USENET use those exact "formal expression of opinion" words
> you talk about to incorrectly express opinion as if it was fact.
I'm not responsible for their failings, Allan. It's wrong to do so, and I don't
behave that way myself.
I'm also not responsible for how gun-shy you are on the subject.
> 2) If you are trying to convince people to share your opinion, that is
> not justified in obvious cases of subjective opinion.
Making a flat statement of opinion is not the same thing as attempting to
persuade someone to share that opinion by stating it as fact.
Though I grant (how could I not, after seeing this thread?) that more people
than I thought make that mistake.
> 3) Finally, I don't believe there IS such a thing as a formal expression
> of opinion, and I'm well-versed in English AND debating.
"The Devil's Advocate" is a really good film.
There you go, formal expression of my opinion. It *has* to be my opinion,
because it's necessarily a subjective discussion.
Before you bring up the not-everyone-admits-their-opinions-are-subjective thing
again, I refer you to my answer to your first point above.
> But there's a difference here (and I don't do that in that case, BTW, and
> agree with you). It's one thing to say "That was amusing" and expect
> people to take it as simply an expression of opinion, but quite another
> to basically use a phrase that means "You're totally wrong!" followed by
> an expression of opinion and expect people to take it as such. Simple
> statements of opinion can never be wrong.
Well, opinion can be and often is wrong when it's an opinion given about an
established fact. Opining that the world is flat is opining in error.
However, statements of *subjective* opinion can never be wrong, I agree.
Ill-educated and misconceived, but not wrong.
Regardless (and doesn't "irregardless" annoy you, too?), in my idiom, "I call
bullshit" is a mock-aggressive way of saying "I disagree", and despite the
prevalence of Normericans on USENET I don't intend to change my habits to suit
your preconceptions any more than I intend to spell "colour" lazily.
Christopher Adams
>
> Let me point out that this does not seem to be the case, at least for all
> areas. Where I come from "bullshit" == "wrong to the point of
> deliberately lying".
A shame that your particular regional usage isn't universal, then.
Nor is mine, but that's the fun of online discussion.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> > Let me point out that this does not seem to be the case, at least for
all
> > areas. Where I come from "bullshit" == "wrong to the point of
> > deliberately lying".
>
> A shame that your particular regional usage isn't universal, then.
>
> Nor is mine, but that's the fun of online discussion.
If you accept this, then you cannot rely on "this is what 'bullshit' means"
in order to defend people taking your statement in the way you didn't intend
it.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> > Seriously, if you can't follow threads, you don't belong on USENET.
> >
> > 1) People on USENET use those exact "formal expression of opinion" words
> > you talk about to incorrectly express opinion as if it was fact.
>
> I'm not responsible for their failings, Allan. It's wrong to do so, and I
don't
> behave that way myself.
And you keep missing the point that we don't have the personal history with
you to determine if you are one of those people who has those failings or
those who do not.
> > 2) If you are trying to convince people to share your opinion, that is
> > not justified in obvious cases of subjective opinion.
>
> Making a flat statement of opinion is not the same thing as attempting to
> persuade someone to share that opinion by stating it as fact.
Um, as I had said before, you argue that "weasel words" weaken statements,
but the only reason to be concerned about weakening statements is if you are
trying to convince others to share your opinion. Other than that, weakening
means nothing.
If you had said "I think that S*P is as funny as cancer", how would that in
any meaningful way weaken the interpretation that people take from your
statement? Do you think that people will somehow conclude that you don't
really think that or something?
> > 3) Finally, I don't believe there IS such a thing as a formal expression
> > of opinion, and I'm well-versed in English AND debating.
>
> "The Devil's Advocate" is a really good film.
>
> There you go, formal expression of my opinion. It *has* to be my opinion,
> because it's necessarily a subjective discussion.
Um, Film Studies majors would disagree with this statement. And I will say
that this isn't "formal expression", but merely expression. Formal implies
a formalized formula, which this is not.
> > But there's a difference here (and I don't do that in that case, BTW,
and
> > agree with you). It's one thing to say "That was amusing" and expect
> > people to take it as simply an expression of opinion, but quite another
> > to basically use a phrase that means "You're totally wrong!" followed by
> > an expression of opinion and expect people to take it as such. Simple
> > statements of opinion can never be wrong.
>
> Well, opinion can be and often is wrong when it's an opinion given about
an
> established fact. Opining that the world is flat is opining in error.
Then it isn't opinion, is it?
>
> However, statements of *subjective* opinion can never be wrong, I agree.
> Ill-educated and misconceived, but not wrong.
>
> Regardless (and doesn't "irregardless" annoy you, too?), in my idiom, "I
call
> bullshit" is a mock-aggressive way of saying "I disagree", and despite the
> prevalence of Normericans on USENET I don't intend to change my habits to
suit
> your preconceptions any more than I intend to spell "colour" lazily.
I think you are overstating the disagreements with you. I don't care if you
do it or not, but just want you to recognize that your idiom is not
universal and that people WILL take it stronger than you intended while
being perfectly sane and intelligent individuals.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrncjjvur.v...@szonye.com...
> Allan C Cybulskie <allan.c....@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > It's very sad that you cannot understand that we have no idea if you
> > are someone who understands the difference between fact and opinion ....
>
> It's very sad that you think it matters.
So, in responding to someone, you don't think it matters if I think they are
expressing opinion as fact or as if it was opinion? What are you smoking?
Allan C Cybulskie
> "Christopher Adams" wrote:
> >> Seriously, if you cannot handle the formal expression of opinion, you
> >> don't belong on USENET.
>
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > Seriously, if you can't follow threads, you don't belong on USENET.
>
> That's ironic, coming from the guy who seems to have me and Christopher
> mixed up.
Um, I'm responding to BOTH of you. HE is the first responder, at least by
his own claims. You are someone who is defending him. Where did I mix the
two of you up?
>
> > 1) People on USENET use those exact "formal expression of opinion"
> > words you talk about to incorrectly express opinion as if it was fact.
>
> Poor baby.
Um, so I will not assume that he is, in fact, NOT expressing opinion as if
it was fact, and therefore the reactions of others are not merely to
something that they should have known was merely an opinion.
>
> > 2) If you are trying to convince people to share your opinion, that is
> > not justified in obvious cases of subjective opinion.
>
> WTF?
It is not justified because subjective opinion is just that -- subjective
opinion. So weakening statements is not a concern in such cases as you
should not care if they agree or not.
>
> > 3) Finally, I don't believe there IS such a thing as a formal
> > expression of opinion, and I'm well-versed in English AND debating.
>
> I don't believe you.
Fine.
Allan C Cybulskie
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > Bradd, what you need to understand is that we have no idea who the
> > hell you are ....
>
> Why does that matter? It's not relevant unless you think I'm the one who
> originally made the "I call bullshit" remark. I'm not.
Sorry ... general you.
>
> > and when someone starts a phrase with such a strong denunciation and
> > doesn't qualify it as an opinion, we have no idea if the person really
> > understands that they are expressing an opinion or are just jerks who
> > are expressing an opinion as if it was fact ....
>
> Now I call bullshit. It's the reader's job to infer whether it's a
> statement of fact or opinion. On the off-chance that the speaker didn't
> know the difference, so what? If he's that clueless, there's little
> point in trying to correct him.
If the speaker is trying to communicate with others, it is THEIR job to be
as clear as reasonably possible.
All that putting the onus on the reader does is make them not read your
opinions.
>
> > Help us out here. Give us the "weasel-words" since we have no context
> > and no general knowledge of whether you are a jerk or someone with
> > strong -- but well-understood as -- opinions.
>
> Sounds like you /do/ have me mixed up with the original poster. Read the
> thread. And then take that refresher course in English composition,
> because I shouldn't /need/ to teach you what weasel words are.
Again, general you.
And I feel I understand "weasel-words" perfectly well, and you have given no
evidence to show that I have not.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> It's very sad that you cannot understand that we have no idea if you
>>> are someone who understands the difference between fact and opinion ....
Bradd wrote:
>> It's very sad that you think it matters.
> So, in responding to someone, you don't think it matters if I think
> they are expressing opinion as fact or as if it was opinion? What are
> you smoking?
If you're unsure, you can assume that they have 4th-grade critical
thinking skills until proven otherwise. If you're sure, you can write
them off as hopeless and ignore them.
By insisting that it matters, you're showing that you lack both the
charity to give people the benefit of the doubt and the self control to
ignore hopeless idiots. Which is sad. Terry Austin would love you.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Now I call bullshit. It's the reader's job to infer whether it's a
>> statement of fact or opinion. On the off-chance that the speaker didn't
>> know the difference, so what? If he's that clueless, there's little
>> point in trying to correct him.
Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> If the speaker is trying to communicate with others, it is THEIR job
> to be as clear as reasonably possible.
All communication requires a common foundation. Where I live, the
schools teach this "fact vs opinion" thing in 4th grade. Even newspapers
demand more advanced reading skills than that. If you can't trust people
to keep the two straight, and you lack the self-control to ignore the
few who can't, then it's you with the communication problem.
Ben Sisson
Especially when the context of the original quote by Christopher was
*blindingly* obviously an opinion.
It's not up to Christopher to dumb his statement down to the level of
retards. If members of the audience isn't intelligent enough to
correctly grasp that "I call bullshit, yadda yadda isn't funny" is a
statement of opinion, then they probably aren't people Chris wants to
give himself a headache talking down to anyways.
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me point out that this does not seem to be the case, at least for
>>> all areas. Where I come from "bullshit" == "wrong to the point of
>>> deliberately lying".
>>
>> A shame that your particular regional usage isn't universal, then.
>>
>> Nor is mine, but that's the fun of online discussion.
>
> If you accept this, then you cannot rely on "this is what 'bullshit'
> means" in order to defend people taking your statement in the way you
> didn't intend it.
I don't rely on anything of the sort. Frankly, the kind of person who
automatically assumes the worst of a poster they don't know, even on USENET, and
who makes the grievous error of going on to attack such a poster on the basis of
one comment, is exactly the kind of person whose understanding of my posts is
irrelevant.
In other words, if you misunderstand me and jerk your knee in response, I have
no time for you. Except for this kind of discussion, which is just entertaining.
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>>> Seriously, if you can't follow threads, you don't belong on USENET.
>>>
>>> 1) People on USENET use those exact "formal expression of opinion"
>>> words you talk about to incorrectly express opinion as if it was fact.
>>
>> I'm not responsible for their failings, Allan. It's wrong to do so, and
>> I don't behave that way myself.
>
> And you keep missing the point that we don't have the personal history
> with you to determine if you are one of those people who has those
> failings or those who do not.
Utterly irrelevant, Allan. The "proper" response, after inferring my statement
to have been an expression of opinion-as-fact, would have been to roll your eyes
and think of me as a jerk.
You, and others, instead chose to give in to a knee-jerk reaction of "OMG how
dare he???", which is just silly.
I repeat: I'm not going to alter my behaviour because there are asses in the
world who don't know how to participate in or interpret discourse.
>>> 2) If you are trying to convince people to share your opinion, that is
>>> not justified in obvious cases of subjective opinion.
>>
>> Making a flat statement of opinion is not the same thing as attempting
>> to persuade someone to share that opinion by stating it as fact.
>
> Um, as I had said before, you argue that "weasel words" weaken
> statements, but the only reason to be concerned about weakening
> statements is if you are trying to convince others to share your
> opinion. Other than that, weakening means nothing.
>
> If you had said "I think that S*P is as funny as cancer", how would that
> in any meaningful way weaken the interpretation that people take from
> your statement? Do you think that people will somehow conclude that you
> don't really think that or something?
No, it's relatively harmless, as you suggest. However, the statement is more
forceful without "weasel words", and I happen to feel strongly about the
subject. Something Positive is a crap goth-gamer-geek soap opera, and the praise
it receives is misguided.
I don't object to people liking S*P as a drama. But it's *not funny*, and I
choose to give my opinion on the subject in as strong a set of terms as
possible.
>>> 3) Finally, I don't believe there IS such a thing as a formal
>>> expression of opinion, and I'm well-versed in English AND debating.
>>
>> "The Devil's Advocate" is a really good film.
>>
>> There you go, formal expression of my opinion. It *has* to be my
>> opinion, because it's necessarily a subjective discussion.
>
> Um, Film Studies majors would disagree with this statement. And I will
> say that this isn't "formal expression", but merely expression. Formal
> implies a formalized formula, which this is not.
I'm pretty sure that reasonably aware film studies majors wouldn't disagree.
There is such a thing as *consensus* but consensus does not create objective
reality.
On the other hand, that's a detail which is often elided in the teaching of a
subject, so you are probably statistically correct.
To address your other point . . . I can say nothing other than that you are
mistaken. In formal contexts, such as academic articles, reviews, and the like,
statements are stripped of the trappings of personal opinion - "I think Citizen
Kane is an excellent character study" becomes "Citizen Kane presents an
excellent character study".
That's because people engaging in formal discussions are aware that such things
are matters of opinion. That's not to say that the point cannot be well-argued
and well-supported, which may give the appearance of fact-reporting, but it's
not, and forgetting that is the first step on a slippery slope.
>>> But there's a difference here (and I don't do that in that case, BTW,
> and
>>> agree with you). It's one thing to say "That was amusing" and expect
>>> people to take it as simply an expression of opinion, but quite another
>>> to basically use a phrase that means "You're totally wrong!" followed
>>> by an expression of opinion and expect people to take it as such.
>>> Simple statements of opinion can never be wrong.
>>
>> Well, opinion can be and often is wrong when it's an opinion given about
> an
>> established fact. Opining that the world is flat is opining in error.
>
> Then it isn't opinion, is it?
Of course it is. What else can it be, Allan? If your opinion is that the world
is a flat plane, you are *wrong*, but it is no less your *opinion* for being
disconnected from reality.
>> However, statements of *subjective* opinion can never be wrong, I agree.
>> Ill-educated and misconceived, but not wrong.
>>
>> Regardless (and doesn't "irregardless" annoy you, too?), in my idiom,
>> "I call bullshit" is a mock-aggressive way of saying "I disagree", and
>> despite the prevalence of Normericans on USENET I don't intend to
>> change my habits to suit your preconceptions any more than I intend to
>> spell "colour" lazily.
>
> I think you are overstating the disagreements with you. I don't care if
> you do it or not, but just want you to recognize that your idiom is not
> universal and that people WILL take it stronger than you intended while
> being perfectly sane and intelligent individuals.
I'm sure they will. However, *I* contend that they won't start an outraged
weeklong flamewar as a result, and thus I suggest that we haven't heard from
them in this thread.
First Prophet of Kaos
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>> Bradd, what you need to understand is that we have no idea who the
>> hell you are ....
>
>Why does that matter? It's not relevant unless you think I'm the one who
>originally made the "I call bullshit" remark. I'm not.
>
>> and when someone starts a phrase with such a strong denunciation and
>> doesn't qualify it as an opinion, we have no idea if the person really
>> understands that they are expressing an opinion or are just jerks who
>> are expressing an opinion as if it was fact ....
>
>Now I call bullshit. It's the reader's job to infer whether it's a
>statement of fact or opinion.
Does the writer have no obligation towards clarity?