Precambrian Rabbi wrote:Verbosity bad.

Four legs good?

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:Verbosity bad.

Reminds me of the old (undoubtedly spurious) anecdote about the English student at Oxford who was running out of time in an exam and encountered the question "describe yourself". In a flash of inspiration he wrote "concise" and moved on, eventually getting a first.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:It's fine to say whatever one feels. If one wants to criticize someone's style that's up to them. But if I criticize someone just because they happen to express themselves differently that I do, or they like to be verbose or concise, or speak with an accent, or very loudly and passionately: then I am being intolerant of their natural difference.

I think you're assuming a lot here. In what way is writing style "natural"? Writing is a behaviour that is entirely learned from others and highly malleable. Most competent authors can do a passing imitation of highly stylised writings such as PG Wodehouse, and most writings get edited, often including stylistic variations. It isn't coincidence that all Sun headline writers write like cockneys, make bad puns and have a curious passion for alliteration, nor is it because this is their "natural" writing style.

If I speak/write in German, or French, or Italian naturally (by that, I mean culturally), but I am also capable of speaking/writing in English, and my English associates do not like it when I speak/write in my own tongue with my compatriots, then they are being intolerant. It is only when a style is naturally ingrained into who someone is, that we should not criticize.

Destroyer wrote:If I speak/write in German, or French, or Italian naturally (by that, I mean culturally), but I am also capable of speaking/writing in English, and my English associates do not like it when I speak/write in my own tongue with my compatriots, then they are being intolerant. It is only when a style is naturally ingrained into who someone is, that we should not criticize.

This is literally an entirely different situation. Nobody has suggested that Germans shouldn't talk German amongst themselves. However if you're on this section of this forum where there is a common language of English and you start posting in German, thereby excluding a lot of people from your content, the person being intolerant is not the person who informs you of this exclusion, but you. I believe there is a German language subsection to accommodate the desire though, should anyone feel the urge.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:If I speak/write in German, or French, or Italian naturally (by that, I mean culturally), but I am also capable of speaking/writing in English, and my English associates do not like it when I speak/write in my own tongue with my compatriots, then they are being intolerant. It is only when a style is naturally ingrained into who someone is, that we should not criticize.

This is literally an entirely different situation. Nobody has suggested that Germans shouldn't talk German amongst themselves. However if you're on this section of this forum where there is a common language of English and you start posting in German, thereby excluding a lot of people from your content, the person being intolerant is not the person who informs you of this exclusion, but you. I believe there is a German language subsection to accommodate the desire though, should anyone feel the urge.

This is not just about communicating on a forum, nor am I only speaking about writing style, but about all personal style, simply because differences in tastes abounds, and the same principles when encountering these differences apply.

hackenslash wrote:
No opinion can provide that which is precisely why opinions are of zero value

Is not an informed opinion based on knowledge and understanding more valid than an uninformed one that is not

Destroyer wrote:This is not just about communicating on a forum, nor am I only speaking about writing style, but about all personal style, simply because differences in tastes abounds, and the same principles when encountering these differences apply.

I think your point is painting in strokes so broad as to become nonsensical. There are dozens of relevant factors you overlook in this analysis. Speaking at least for myself I make distinctions for whether someone is capable of speaking another language before I judge it appropriate to criticise their choice of language, I consider the languages their audience is capable of speaking, I consider the differences between style and language, I consider affectations, I consider what I was taught about makes good writing both in school and in informed opinions such as that of Orwell presented earlier, I consider whether the individual is making a conscious choice, whether it's a parody, whether the choice of style carries content (such as in Adams's humour), whether an individual has a disorder affecting their writing - e.g. OCD or dyslexia. I'm sure there are more, but that's good enough for starters.

Anyway, in this particular case, it really is just about communicating on a forum (this forum) in English. The points about language are basically made irrelevant by the forum rules.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:This is not just about communicating on a forum, nor am I only speaking about writing style, but about all personal style, simply because differences in tastes abounds, and the same principles when encountering these differences apply.

I think your point is painting in strokes so broad as to become nonsensical. There are dozens of relevant factors you overlook in this analysis. Speaking at least for myself I make distinctions for whether someone is capable of speaking another language before I judge it appropriate to criticise their choice of language, I consider the languages their audience is capable of speaking, I consider the differences between style and language, I consider affectations, I consider what I was taught about makes good writing both in school and in informed opinions such as that of Orwell presented earlier, I consider whether the individual is making a conscious choice, whether it's a parody, whether the choice of style carries content (such as in Adams's humour), whether an individual has a disorder affecting their writing - e.g. OCD or dyslexia. I'm sure there are more, but that's good enough for starters.

Anyway, in this particular case, it really is just about communicating on a forum (this forum) in English. The points about language are basically made irrelevant by the forum rules.

If you do not wish to take on board this simple logic, the choice is yours: one’s personal style should not be criticized when one is simply being themselves. If you wish to comment on that simple logic, fine (it pretty much covers everything that I have being saying). If you wish to digress I have no interest.

Destroyer wrote:If you do not wish to take on board this simple logic, the choice is yours: one’s personal style should not be criticized when one is simply being themselves. If you wish to comment on that simple logic, fine (it pretty much covers everything that I have being saying). If you wish to digress I have no interest.

Ok, here's a comment: it's not logic, it's a dogma. A dogma I don't agree with.

If someone simply is a liar, I have no qualms about criticising them for being a liar. If someone simply is a creationist I have no qualms criticising them for being a creationist. If one has a tendency to talk to loudly (I actually do this) then I have no qualms criticising them for talking too loudly (I'm grateful when people point it out to me so I can tone it down).

To try and bring this as much back to the point as possible, I think it's perfectly acceptable to inform someone that you dislike their writing style for being too verbose, or to inform them that it interferes with them getting their point across (to you). I think criticism of all ideas is acceptable, though obviously there are boundaries of good taste - constantly hassling someone isn't the same as informing them, being a dickhead and abusing someone isn't the same as informing them. Criticism is always best when it's constructive.

Destroyer wrote:If you do not wish to take on board this simple logic, the choice is yours: one’s personal style should not be criticized when one is simply being themselves. If you wish to comment on that simple logic, fine (it pretty much covers everything that I have being saying). If you wish to digress I have no interest.

Where do you draw the line on what 'criticism' means (or 'personal style, for that matter)?

Personally, I write basically the way I speak, as I think close friends could confirm, and by many people's standards, I'm sure I write overly long sentences, I overuse commas and underuse semicolons, I digress away from the point even if I do return to it, and I make excessive use of parentheses (even sometimes nesting two (or even more) levels deep) when it seems necessary, while many people barely use them at all.
I also have a fairly 'post-qualified' style - I think I'm a fairly visual thinker to whom words are a somewhat coarse and synthetic instrument, and I often use a word or a phrase, find it isn't quite right and follow up with phrases trying to progressively nudge it into the shape I want before leaving the words to set (or possibly congeal, depending on one's opinion of how good they are).

I'm not entirely sure that language is my first language, which may leave me at an emotional (if not always a practical) disadvantage compared with people who are sure that for them, it is.

I'm aware of my style.
I could use much shorter sentences, but that feels rather unnatural.
I could say things *without* qualifying them, but that would feel inaccurate, if not positively reckless.
Maybe if I was a better writer, I could write more ballistically, and not feel the need to do quite so many mid-course corrections, but maybe then I would just think differently and be someone else.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:If you do not wish to take on board this simple logic, the choice is yours: one’s personal style should not be criticized when one is simply being themselves. If you wish to comment on that simple logic, fine (it pretty much covers everything that I have being saying). If you wish to digress I have no interest.

Ok, here's a comment: it's not logic, it's a dogma. A dogma I don't agree with.

If someone simply is a liar, I have no qualms about criticising them for being a liar. If someone simply is a creationist I have no qualms criticising them for being a creationist. If one has a tendency to talk to loudly (I actually do this) then I have no qualms criticising them for talking too loudly (I'm grateful when people point it out to me so I can tone it down).

To try and bring this as much back to the point as possible, I think it's perfectly acceptable to inform someone that you dislike their writing style for being too verbose, or to inform them that it interferes with them getting their point across (to you). I think criticism of all ideas is acceptable, though obviously there are boundaries of good taste - constantly hassling someone isn't the same as informing them, being a dickhead and abusing someone isn't the same as informing them. Criticism is always best when it's constructive.

There is a difference between letting someone know that you dislike their particular style, but still accepting them for who they are; and letting them know that you dislike their style because they should conform to x, y, z.

If someone happens to be a liar, yes, you let them know what you think and then the sensible thing is to disassociate yourself from them (all this I have already covered)

Destroyer wrote:There is a difference between letting someone know that you dislike their particular style, but still accepting them for who they are; and letting them know that you dislike their style because they should conform to x, y, z.

That's perfectly reasonable, it's not what your earlier posts appeared to me to mean, but ok, sure. We shouldn't reject people over stylistic issues in general. That said there are posters who I basically skip past because I don't enjoy their posts.

In this specific context, taking for example Loren Michael's comments, I think they are perfectly reasonable - crikey, they were solicited criticisms, the whole thread was about whether verbosity was relatable, he explained with reasons his dislike for that style, I don't think he dehumanised anybody. This is the kind of criticism that I find 100% acceptable, whether or not I agree with it.

Destroyer wrote:If someone happens to be a liar, yes, you let them know what you think and then the sensible thing is to disassociate yourself from them (all this I have already covered)

I think it's also sensible to make some efforts to inform that person you dislike their lying. Whilst people often don't change, I think it's often appropriate to give them the opportunity to, and that you can't do without criticism/informing people of your objections.

tolman wrote:
Where do you draw the line on what 'criticism' means (or 'personal style, for that matter)?

If I dislike something, that is not necessarily being critical of it; just accepting that it is not my particular taste. When we criticize, we are actually finding a fault with something. So we really shouldn't be finding fault with any personal style that differs from our own, only a dislike of it because it just does not happen to be our particular taste.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:There is a difference between letting someone know that you dislike their particular style, but still accepting them for who they are; and letting them know that you dislike their style because they should conform to x, y, z.

That's perfectly reasonable, it's not what your earlier posts appeared to me to mean, but ok, sure. We shouldn't reject people over stylistic issues in general. That said there are posters who I basically skip past because I don't enjoy their posts.

In this specific context, taking for example Loren Michael's comments, I think they are perfectly reasonable - crikey, they were solicited criticisms, the whole thread was about whether verbosity was relatable, he explained with reasons his dislike for that style, I don't think he dehumanised anybody. This is the kind of criticism that I find 100% acceptable, whether or not I agree with it.

Destroyer wrote:If someone happens to be a liar, yes, you let them know what you think and then the sensible thing is to disassociate yourself from them (all this I have already covered)

I have said over and over again: yes, if you consider yourself to be the target audience then you definitely should let someone know if you dislike their verbose communication. But you should also accept their love for verbosity, regardless of your own dislike.

Thommo wrote:
I think it's also sensible to make some efforts to inform that person you dislike their lying. Whilst people often don't change, I think it's often appropriate to give them the opportunity to, and that you can't do without criticism/informing people of your objections

Letting them know what you think will inform them of your dislike for their lying.

Destroyer wrote:I have said over and over again: yes, if you consider yourself to be the target audience then you definitely should let someone know if you dislike their verbose communication. But you should also accept their love for verbosity, regardless of your own dislike.

I don't really know what you mean by "accept" here. I'm certainly not about to spend the rest of my life trying to convince someone they must not be verbose, on the other hand if that verbosity makes it unpleasant to converse with that person, I'm just going to avoid conversation with them and would expect the same in return.

As far as "target audience" goes, I'm not much concerned with it. This is a public forum, so I tend to regard the target audience as "the public" or "the membership". After all there is a private messaging function, or the ability to specify a target audience in writing.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I think it's also sensible to make some efforts to inform that person you dislike their lying. Whilst people often don't change, I think it's often appropriate to give them the opportunity to, and that you can't do without criticism/informing people of your objections

Letting know what you think will inform them of your dislike for their lying.

Most certainly, and that would be criticism. Disassociation however does not necessarily inform them of your dislike for lying, hence my pointing it out as an alternative.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:There is a difference between letting someone know that you dislike their particular style, but still accepting them for who they are; and letting them know that you dislike their style because they should conform to x, y, z.

That's perfectly reasonable, it's not what your earlier posts appeared to me to mean, but ok, sure. We shouldn't reject people over stylistic issues in general. That said there are posters who I basically skip past because I don't enjoy their posts.

In this specific context, taking for example Loren Michael's comments, I think they are perfectly reasonable - crikey, they were solicited criticisms, the whole thread was about whether verbosity was relatable, he explained with reasons his dislike for that style, I don't think he dehumanised anybody. This is the kind of criticism that I find 100% acceptable, whether or not I agree with it.

Destroyer wrote:If someone happens to be a liar, yes, you let them know what you think and then the sensible thing is to disassociate yourself from them (all this I have already covered)

I think it's also sensible to make some efforts to inform that person you dislike their lying. Whilst people often don't change, I think it's often appropriate to give them the opportunity to, and that you can't do without criticism/informing people of your objections.

I don't see a solicitation for critique in the OP.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:I have said over and over again: yes, if you consider yourself to be the target audience then you definitely should let someone know if you dislike their verbose communication. But you should also accept their love for verbosity, regardless of your own dislike.

I don't really know what you mean by "accept" here. I'm certainly not about to spend the rest of my life trying to convince someone they must not be verbose, on the other hand if that verbosity makes it unpleasant to converse with that person, I'm just going to avoid conversation with them and would expect the same in return.

As far as "target audience" goes, I'm not much concerned with it. This is a public forum, so I tend to regard the target audience as "the public" or "the membership". After all there is a private messaging function, or the ability to specify a target audience in writing.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I think it's also sensible to make some efforts to inform that person you dislike their lying. Whilst people often don't change, I think it's often appropriate to give them the opportunity to, and that you can't do without criticism/informing people of your objections

Letting know what you think will inform them of your dislike for their lying.

Most certainly, and that would be criticism. Disassociation however does not necessarily inform them of your dislike for lying, hence my pointing it out as an alternative.

Loren Michael did specifically see himself as the target audience.

Letting someone know that you dislike their lying because you deem it wrong, is indeed criticism. And; if lying is who someone actually is, then criticisms when they are found to be lying is warranted (since this is a fault that can be demonstrated, when
someone has been caught). Any sensible human would disassociate themselves after letting them know what they think.

amok wrote:I don't see a solicitation for critique in the OP.

I do:-

Verbose in Defense of Reality
Can You Relate?

I'm assuming that the multiple people who gave positive responses also felt it was a solicitation for critique, otherwise why offer it?

Destroyer wrote:Loren Michael did specifically see himself as the target audience.

Himself amongst others, yes. I also see him as being a member of the target audience - he's both a member of these boards and a member of the public as well as being an individual capable of expressing whether or not and how he relates to the OP.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:Loren Michael did specifically see himself as the target audience.

Himself amongst others, yes. I also see him as being a member of the target audience - he's both a member of these boards and a member of the public as well as being an individual capable of expressing whether or not and how he relates to the OP.

No argument here. If you think that I have been saying otherwise you are much mistaken.