A Conversation for Ask h2g2

Punctuation of thread titles

Post 21

Beatrice

Punishers and straighteners? Who they then?

So by ur recknin, txt spk is Ok, ri?


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 22

dragonqueen - eternally free and forever untamed - insomniac extraordinaire - proprietrix of a bullwhip, badger button and (partly) of a thoroughly used sub with a purple collar. Matron of Honour.

smiley - huh


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 23

anachromaticeye

It's not Ok or even ok or OK or Okay or okay. All these okays are also not okay expect okay which is okay both literally and figuratively.
smiley - cross
smiley - tongueincheek


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 24

fords - number 1 all over heaven

My brain hurts! smiley - headhurts


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 25

Researcher 1300304

beatrice. it is a phrase borrowed from the australian culture wars. first used by manning clark and then later given vigour by paul keating.

in a historical context it derives from the two patterns of settlement in australia; prisoners and wardens (and their respective 'supporters').

in a contemporary sense it refers to the inherent conflict between innovators/reformers and those resistant to heterodoxies.

although the nature of the discussion will differ from place to place, the same culture wars are occurring across the developed world.

it needs to be emphasised that the punishers and straighteners are not synonymous with rightists or conservatives. some of the worst examples of these people are found in the ranks of the pc crowd. and indeed the mindset such intolerance springs from is identical.

one of the more disappointing things i've found at h2g2 is that 'serious' threads become toxic with these people, mostly from the chardonnay socialists to whom any heterodoxy needs to be jumped on and crushed into silence. when orwell wrote about these people they were very much a minority in england. reading some threads hereabouts has me wondering where english tolerance went.

and it really doesn't matter whether the point of contention is grammar, sexual politics, race or religion. people ought to have a right to think differently on issues otherwise there isn't any point in talking in the first place.

and there is a particular irony in people saying that unless grammar is used in an orthodox way 'we will refuse to read, hear or understand you'. it mirrors in a structural sense the underlying position that only those arguments utilising the terms of reference or the internal rules 'we' have decided upon will be respected.

orwell's inclusion of newspeak in 1984 is a pertinent reference to the fact that those who seek to control the structures of language are also those who are seeking to control the way we think.

for my part, if i can manage to be understood while remaining free from these contrived rules other researchers want to invent and implement, and therefore am denying the punishers and straighteners their expectations of conformity: i'm happy.


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 26

Beatrice

Thank you for that explanation. Are punishers and straighteners both on the same side?

Sounds a bit like what Lynne Truss refers to in her excellent "Eats Shoots and Leaves" (interestingly enough sub-titled "The Zero Tolerance Approach to Grammar") as

Sticklers.


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 27

Researcher 1300304

you're welcome. i think we all have something of it in us. couldn't find entries on either the stanford or milgram experiments on h2h2 which surprised me. tho my lack of search skills probably isn't so surprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

i don't think this stuff has a side as such. in the genes possibly. all i know is today's politically correct plonker is yesterdays witch burner.

what makes me nervous is i really think the only difference between people who go nuts about grammar or who are otherwise intolerant of disagreement, and those who burn books or people...is opportunity.


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 28

Just Bob aka Robert Thompson, plugging my film blog cinemainferno-blog.blogspot.co.uk

The thing is, sometimes a post really is harder to understand because it has been phrased in non-standard language. When that happens, it takes longer to puzzle out, but arguably I can't complain because I can work it out eventually. At what point does their taking fractions of a second longer to get it 'right' become less important than me taking whole seconds longer to understand it?
There's a perfect example in Ask h2g2 (I think) at this exact moment. The thread is entitled "What would people's dream?". I haven't looked at it yet, but I can't work out without the context what this means. The apostrophe should expand out to either "What would people is dream?" or "What would the dream of people?", neither of which makes any sense. Are they asking "What would people dream?" or "What would be the dream of a whole people (meaning a whole race)?" or something completely different? Sometimes, grammar is important in understanding.


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 29

Secretly Not Here Any More

That thread's actually about dream jobs smiley - winkeye


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 30

laconian

>>for my part, if i can manage to be understood while remaining free from these contrived rules<<

I'd just like to point out, Antigravitas, that though I agree people like to make up rules for their own sake, they are in general quite useful. I myself find your posts a little tricky to read, and perhaps not 'natural'.

I guess as well as the more important point of understanding the message, there's also the ease with which it's understood?


Punctuation of thread titles

Post 31

Researcher 1300304

the matter of single case i have well covered. if you have trouble finding full stops, increase your font size. making your (solvable) visual problems my problem has been rejected so often i wonder why you still bother. actually i don't wonder. i covered it a few posts back.


Key: Complain about this post