Subject: Flame regarding level of conversation :)

Subject:      Flame regarding level of conversation :)

[note: I meant ‘exclusive’ rather than ‘inclusive’ below :P  -Ken 2016

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 10:48:00 EDT  Reply-To: "Y-Rights: Kid/Teen Rights Discussion Group" <Y-RIGHTS@SJUVM.BITNET>  Sender: "Y-Rights: Kid/Teen Rights Discussion Group" <Y-RIGHTS@SJUVM.BITNET>  From: Kenneth Udut <KUDUT@HAMP.HAMPSHIRE.EDU>  Subject: Flame regarding level of conversation :) 

\\//** Flame On **\\//

I had been reading the messages of the past few days with interest, when something suddenly struck me. When talking about something as plain and simple as the rights of other human beings, is it necessary to speak on a college-level vocabulary?

I mean, you’re welcome to speak at whatever level you wish, bringing in “inclusives” like references to such-and-such `a philosopher’, or so-and-so `a visionary’… and I’m sure that many of the members of the list will understand exactly what you’re saying. I’m also sure that there are those on the list that will -not- understand you… that will see what you are sending to the list as being bloated, elitist vocabulary. Unfortunately, while I enjoy what you are saying, I sometimes find myself feeling like you are saying “Hey! Look at me! I can speak bigger words than you! What? You can’t understand what I’m saying all too well? Awwwwww…. GOOD!”

Each of your arguments can easily be said in fewer words, and more understandable words (I.E. – the comfortable “8th grade level” that newspapers and television work with). In that way, most people on the list will be able to understand you completely without having to think about what the reference you made to so-and-so means, and how it ties in to your whole arguement. Frankly, I haven’t seen how such talk enhances your points. All it serves is to show people that you are capable of using a vocabulary that is inclusive, shutting out much of your possible audience to some wonderful and enlightening ideas.

\\//** Flame Off ** \\//



p.s. – if I hear ONE spelling flame: “arguement. Frankly, I haven’t seen …” ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ How can you argue when you CAN’T even spell ARGUMENT!?!?!?

and the like, then *I’m* going on vacation! ;) <*smirk*>

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

− 7 = two

Leave a Reply