Forum Posts Feed
"The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition"
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Cassius
Sep 7, 2012 at 01:56 AM
My post was meant in all seriousness.
Lately there have been too many posts that go on and on and become burdensome to read. Indeed, I have finally chosen not to read such. I am not referring just to Proust, et. al.
When the ratio of black space (= text) to white space on a page is too great, one’s eyes and brain become fatigued.
As Polonius said in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” “...brevity is the soul of wit….” (In Shakespeare’s time, “wit” usually meant “intelligence.”)
Or if you prefer, consider a mathematical proof. (My Ph.D. is in mathematics.)
First you state the proposition you wish to prove.
Then you try to develop a proof of the proposition.
Now, you could write the steps of the proof all squished together,
OR
you could write the steps spread out, with lots of white space between them.
At first, I tried the “squish” approach, but I quickly learned that I made far fewer errors using the .
“space” approach.
Academic journals almost always “squish” because they can cram more articles (which may be valuable or otherwise) into an issue AND because of page charges.
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Sep 8, 2012 at 02:14 AM
Cassius, I know you were serious. My comment about satire was directed to the Reverend.
Cheers,
Daly
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Sep 8, 2012 at 07:55 AM
Cassius wrote:
>As Polonius
>said in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” “...brevity is the soul of wit….” (In
>Shakespeare’s time, “wit” usually meant “intelligence.”)
Or as the Lakonians (Spartans) who were known for expressing themselves in few words said, “laconicism is philosophy”
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Sep 9, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Personally, I prefer to eschew obfuscation.
Steve Z.
Posted by Fredy
Sep 9, 2012 at 12:35 PM
If you can hold your sentences, and your paragraphs short, it’s always better, and even in longer sentences and longer paragraphs, good style is to have them clearly constructed, and we all know this implies more work on them, than just write things down: It implies editing efforts (or to be really gifted from start, which makes great writers) - but please note, we’re a forum here, not the nrf, so please allow for some sloppiness.
People - be they married for 44 or 45 years, which is both very heartwarming for us guys of lesser constance and who might be not even heterosexual, all us us, thus not being allowed to marry (except for cover) to begin with - that don’t like complicated matter are kindly invited to simply not read them, and especially, since my posts are under my name (well, not really, my name would be Fred, not Fredy, but Fred was taken by somebody not currently publishing anything or anymore), skipping them is very easy.
I’ve got better things to do than agressing people, but since I’m clearly targetted here, please let me remember that some content triggers hits from the outside, via Google, whilst others, most of the o.p.‘s “contributions” here in the last year e.g., weren’t outright high-brow to say the least, and this isn’t diffamation, just search by name and compare the level.
As for Proust, I wouldn’t have extended my original post mentioning him if sombody else hadn’t said I was mistaken about him, so I had I right to develop why I was not; my original mentioning of Proust was RIGHT ON TARGET since in this forum, we discuss not only “this outliner has got this feature, that one hasn’t got that”, as the o.p. - judging by his usual “contributions” here (in which on top of it he seems to be mistaken rather often) seems to believe -, but also, to some degree, theoretical foundations of outliners, and it seems evident that a certain group within the people posting here are out to SILENCE the pov’s of one of the world-leading experts in this field here, by jealousy or whatever.
Normally, it would appear to be incredibly preposterous to publish such a self-appreciation, but just compare what others said, to great acclaim, on IM by text files / file M within the Scrivener forum, and what I said, to almost no “reception”, on that very same subject, within the UR forum: The comparison of these shows the infinite superiority of my thinking upon these matters, and, of course, the unsuitability of the UF forum (= people having made their decision for a “one file contains it all” tool for such developments - but that latter aspect, I knew it from start on, and I had chosen the UR forum whilst I would have had preferred to publish here but didn’t do so because the majority, it seemed, of contributors here, had clearly stated they didn’t want my contributions here, in late 2011.
I came back here some weeks ago having judged first that I clearly wanted a publication platform really suited to my findings, IM in general, why force UR into that generality whilst their forum is about a specific tiny fraction of MI only, AND having judged that whilst I’m one of the world-leading experts in these matters (cf. my postings in AS, MI, UR fori and here, let alone my own offering in the late Nineties), I was NOT imbued by “final truth value” upon these matters I’m an expert in, and I judged that animosity vàv my person within this forum, in 2011, might have occured because at that time, I hadn’t clearly seen yet that some of my judgments re these matters might be mistaken; since I proved here, these last days, that I’m willing to questioning my “findings” and convictions whenever I see counterclaim, AND that I’m willing to give in, I consider some assertions of this thread an INSULT:
Since when some people here want me to be silenced, they obviously do NOT ask for a person to be silenced that doesn’t allow for real discussion anyway, but for the silencing of a person that is able to see, and to surrender to, assertions that have NOT been his to begin with, AND of a person whose contributions here are PROVABLE of a totally different intellectual level than those of those people who dare ask for him to be silenced - again, postings in this forum are searchable by posters’ name.
I’m certainly not begging clemency here: Chris has just to make the decision to blick my access data, and I will certainly not post here ever again under any other identity, but it seems - this also is provable - that with my contributions here, even the non-“silence him” posts here ROAR, in comparison with those months I’ve not been here anymore for some months - just compare end of 2011 with forther months, and the immediate antecedents with my again having taken part here: it’s overwhelming.
AND I’m totally FED UP with these posts, of “contributors” doing evidently INFERIOR “contributions”, treating my contributions here like CRAP or something, when in fact, www-WIDE, you won’t find anything similar within our scope - or then, Chris, as our host, making the decising to go back to the non-Fred-contributing state of his forum, and then so be it.
It’s up to him, but while he does NOT throw me out, minor contributors here please accept that this forum has got contributions by people KNOWING their “outliner” theory, and this INCLUDES people other than myself, and let me add, for people who do NOT see it by their own means, we’ve got some contributors here that EXCEL from triggers I “throw” to them, just like I do much better thinking from THEIR contributions vàv mine, than I would do think “all alone”, so this forum PROFITS CLEARLY from what I have to say, be it for advancing outliner theory, be it from ad revenus.
As for Proust, I said to have been right on the spot, and I HAD the right to mention since it’s EVIDENT Proust’s “national French treasure writings” are at the opposite of good IM structure we’re discussing here, hence the interest of discussing what his errors were.
The Kant professor left this forum because, as he said, “I don’t need this”; well then, he’s got his own (brilliant) blog - but where there is NO such discussion enhancing things. I don’t have such a blog, so I’m in need of a publication platform - AND, as said, I’m very much stimulated by opponent opinions I get here, AND it’s evident I stimulate my co-contributors here, so my contributions here seem to be beneficial AND for the “cause”, AND for this forum.
As said, it’s up to Chris to throw me out or not, but as long as he doesn’t, little rabble-rousers without (many) valid contributions of their own shut up, for the sake of my not leaving, telling myself, “I don’t need this either”.