Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6075832" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?6668292-JamesonCourage" target="_blank">JamesonCourage</a> On the whole, I agree.&nbsp; But my agreement is due to the lack of brevity and the ridiculous number of caveats and my internal thought process/clarifiers embedded in my prose (I think I learned it from Nichomachean Ethics - and there is probably not a more obnoxious piece of reading material than that...its also a product of people parsing essays, briefs and posts for the .0000001 % of it that may have some incoherency, contorting that to their ends and only engaging with that.) On that particular post though?&nbsp; Not so much.&nbsp; Parsing that post is pretty straight forward and its not particularly long.&nbsp; Further, the party was complaining about the usage of &quot;50 cent words&quot;.&nbsp; I couldn't really find much in there to complain about there and on that particular issue, I don't typically agree.&nbsp; Unbelievably obscure words?&nbsp; Perhaps if the usage is not justified and could be more easily conveyed with a phrase.&nbsp; But if you have to exchange one word (with a lot of explanatory power) for a sentence or more, then I disagree as I'd rather burden the text with a moderately difficult word and expect the reader to step it up (and just use their deductive reasoning and context to decipher the word if unwilling to look it up) rather than overburden the text with yet another sentence or two! (as I've always had trouble reaching the ceiling of word count rather than the floor!)See all of those embedded clarifiers!!!!&nbsp; That is what I mean!&nbsp; What a mess <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; I would flag with a superscripted number or sign (and do sometimes) and then explain by way of note at the bottom of the post but I think that might be even more obnoxious.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6075832, member: 6696971"] @[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?6668292-JamesonCourage"][B]JamesonCourage[/B][/URL] On the whole, I agree. But my agreement is due to the lack of brevity and the ridiculous number of caveats and my internal thought process/clarifiers embedded in my prose (I think I learned it from Nichomachean Ethics - and there is probably not a more obnoxious piece of reading material than that...its also a product of people parsing essays, briefs and posts for the .0000001 % of it that may have some incoherency, contorting that to their ends and only engaging with that.) On that particular post though? Not so much. Parsing that post is pretty straight forward and its not particularly long. Further, the party was complaining about the usage of "50 cent words". I couldn't really find much in there to complain about there and on that particular issue, I don't typically agree. Unbelievably obscure words? Perhaps if the usage is not justified and could be more easily conveyed with a phrase. But if you have to exchange one word (with a lot of explanatory power) for a sentence or more, then I disagree as I'd rather burden the text with a moderately difficult word and expect the reader to step it up (and just use their deductive reasoning and context to decipher the word if unwilling to look it up) rather than overburden the text with yet another sentence or two! (as I've always had trouble reaching the ceiling of word count rather than the floor!) See all of those embedded clarifiers!!!! That is what I mean! What a mess ;) I would flag with a superscripted number or sign (and do sometimes) and then explain by way of note at the bottom of the post but I think that might be even more obnoxious. [/QUOTE]

Verification