"Currants Bw..."

[Letters]

Obviously enough skin off your nose for you to bring it up in the first place

It's something I've noticed about you that I find a bit irritating at times.
It doesn't totally enrage me or keep me up at nights, it's merely an observation.
I don't know why you would write in a way which is harder for people to understand and makes your posts less clear.

It was fairly obvious what "efficacious" means, but if there is a difference between it and "effective" then it's a pretty technical one which most people wouldn't know - as I said, Lily the Pink is the only other use of it I've encountered, and I suspect The Scaffold mostly used it to be silly and because it scanned. Where's the "cost" in using the word "effective"? It's a clearer word, it makes your post easier to understand and it's even 2 letters shorter - a whole 18% saving! Most people modify the way they talk for different audiences in the interests of being understood.

Language is about communication. When people say "6 items or less" I do enjoy muttering "fewer!" under my breath. I had the pleasure of correcting an English teacher about that at the weekend. But, actually, I don't really care about that one. I do it because it amuses me. While I'm a bit of a Grammar Nazi I mostly care about clarity. If someone says "6 items or less" the meaning is perfectly clear.

Your incentive is clarity and being understood.

[HCZ_Reborn]

You seem to not appreciate that conversely that if people don’t understand what I’m saying they won’t engage and therefore it acts as a filter for imbeciles.

And on here the incentive is simply insufficient, you talk about how people moderate their speech for a targeted audience. Granted. And I absolutely would do that for clients, for work colleagues etc but on here where I have nothing economically or professionally to gain from doing so. I ask again….where’s the incentive?

Also the reason this discussion/bickering has even started is because you take exception to a word being used, you fully state that the issue isn’t comprehension it’s that you consider it’s use insufficiently succinct. Which is another matter altogether, between vocabulary and just being garrulous (sometimes the two things overlap but they are still separate things)

Overall the takeaway is that this is your problem, you find it irritating…what I tend to resent is when people try to make their problems my problem…it’s your cross to bear…either carry it or drop it but I’m not here to lighten your load

[HCZ_Reborn]

Also you neglected to comment upon the fact that I brought up you don’t mind wasting time engaging with that sociopath NQ even though you are doomed to perennial stalemate with him because there’s more hope that if you squeeze a stone hard enough it will produce type O then he will ever budge even slightly.

Yet this is your bugbear even though you’ve demonstrated you understand nearly every word I use anyhow


You can appreciate why I’m utterly unsympathetic to your point of view I hope?

[Mac76]

Leaving aside the specific argument here, I must admit i'm uncomfortable in general with the condemning of someone with a wide vocabulary, it's a kind of Sun-reader inverted snobbery which is dangerous, that said there.are some people who think they're the next Oscar Wilde and trying to show off

[HCZ_Reborn]

Leaving aside the specific argument here, I must admit i'm uncomfortable in general with the condemning of someone with a wide vocabulary, it's a kind of Sun-reader inverted snobbery which is dangerous, that said there.are some people who think they're the next Oscar Wilde and trying to show off

True, but also a difference between “uhhhh you talk posh” and to question whether it’s necessary to employ certain words.

Did you know that Oscar Wilde was largely responsible for his own downfall because he actually sued the Marquis of Queensbury (with whose son he was having an affair) for publicly denouncing him as a sodomite. Back then homosexuality wasn’t really a recognised thing…the idea that one could be exclusively attracted or be in love someone of the same sex, so technically being gay wasn’t against the law just the act of buggery was.
He of course lost his law suit, and then had to face a trial as the defendant for the charge of buggery….as a result of the revelations that emerged from a law suit he pursued

[HCZ_Reborn]

I also have little sympathy with those who are targeted by inverted snobbery. I do think there’s a lot of ostensibly “educated” but middle class croissant munchers as I call them who do look down on ideas such as being proud of one’s country (I find patriotism arbitrary but I wouldn’t knock it as it’s a global thing). It’s mainly the reason I consider the Remainer demographic (not those who voted Remain, I’m amongst those but those people who have FBPE in their social media username) as utterly ghastly.
It’s the hypocrisy and projection, they will tell you gleefully that leave voters didn’t know what they were voting for….but you interrogate them on the EU as an institution, how it functions, what the various organisations are within it and they absolutely haven’t got a clue. It’s not that If they knew more they would necessarily have changed their vote….but they went with vibes. They voted Remain because they wanted to broadcast their views of openness and tolerance yet they are neither open or tolerant of divergent values or opinions.

Are a lot of people who vote for right wing parties low information voters who react to red meat being tossed by populist politicians …tend to be credulous and operate out of confirmation bias? Yes absolutely. But so are the liberals and the left, yet they make a claim to both intellectual and moral superiority…and I’m sorry sticking feathers up your bum doesn’t make you a chicken.

[Letters]

I ask again….where’s the incentive?

Being understood clearly.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Being understood clearly.

And on here specifically why is that an incentive? Explain to me exactly why it is I should care if people can’t understand ??

Christopher Hitchens often told an anecdote about Samuel Johnson in which after having completed the Dictionary, some austere ladies congratulated him for his decision to not include any “indecent” words in his book, in return he congratulated them for their persistence in looking them up.

[Letters]

Also you neglected to comment upon the fact that I brought up you don’t mind wasting time engaging with that sociopath NQ even though you are doomed to perennial stalemate with him because there’s more hope that if you squeeze a stone hard enough it will produce type O then he will ever budge even slightly.

I'm not sure how that's related to this.
I waste time with NQ partly out of boredom and partly because I don't think bullshit like his should be left unchallenged.
Obviously the hope is he will see some sense although by now that is an increasingly vain hope. But I like to think if nothing else challenging his nonsense may stop other people falling down the conspiracy theory rabbit holes he is trapped in. Not much danger of that on here to be fair, but challenging nonsense like this is something I think is important - because I think the truth is important. Especially these days when depressingly few people seem to know or care what the truth actually is.

[Letters]

And on here specifically why is that an incentive? Explain to me exactly why it is I should care if people can’t understand ??

Because you're trying to communicate with people. Aren't you? I mean, who are you writing posts for if it's not for the other people on here.
Why would you ever write in a way which people can't understand?

Obviously it's not the case I can't understand a word you say, I just raise an eyebrow at some of your word choices when you're talking to a lay audience.