I believe that if you can't explain something in simple terms, then you don't really understand it. This forum is populated by many brilliant minds. It would, in my opinion, save space if more posters quit trying to prove this obvious fact and spent more time communicating in ways that reflected a desire to teach and learn. Discussing ideas is a good thing and a sign of an advanced intellect. But being smart is not a social exercise, it is a condition to be used for ones advantage. But any advantages will remain ambigious as long as it is used only as a defense against being perceived as stupid. Of course there is every possibility that I am, in fact, stupid. If such is the case then please disregard the above statement.

I believe that if you can't explain something in simple terms, then you don't really understand it. This forum is populated by many brilliant minds. It would, in my opinion, save space if more posters quit trying to prove this obvious fact and spent more time communicating in ways that reflected a desire to teach and learn. Discussing ideas is a good thing and a sign of an advanced intellect. But being smart is not a social exercise, it is a condition to be used for ones advantage. But any advantages will remain ambigious as long as it is used only as a defense against being perceived as stupid. Of course there is every possibility that I am, in fact, stupid. If such is the case then please disregard the above statement.I agree, not that you are stupid.

We have easy words for everything, but there seems to be a "belonging to a group" desire that makes people explain things using "hard-to-understand-words" (see my point there too, there are two of them - one is ambigous and one is necessary (for me at least)).

Well I was reading all this and I realized something. We both misspelled ambiguous. I admit, words are much easier to understand when spelled correctly. I apologize for any inconvienance.

Machaon wrote:
"I believe that if you can't explain something in simple terms, then you don't really understand it. This forum is populated by many brilliant minds. It would, in my opinion, save space if more posters quit trying to prove this obvious fact and spent more time communicating in ways that reflected a desire to teach and learn. Discussing ideas is a good thing and a sign of an advanced intellect. But being smart is not a social exercise, it is a condition to be used for ones advantage. But any advantages will remain ambigious as long as it is used only as a defense against being perceived as stupid. Of course there is every possibility that I am, in fact, stupid. If such is the case then please disregard the above statement."

Nicely put, I thought. If it takes too many words to make a point, it is often pointless. What? Did I say that right! (Smile)
PMT

I believe that if you can't explain something in simple terms, then you don't really understand it. This forum is populated by many brilliant minds. It would, in my opinion, save space if more posters quit trying to prove this obvious fact and spent more time communicating in ways that reflected a desire to teach and learn. Discussing ideas is a good thing and a sign of an advanced intellect. But being smart is not a social exercise, it is a condition to be used for ones advantage. But any advantages will remain ambigious as long as it is used only as a defense against being perceived as stupid. Of course there is every possibility that I am, in fact, stupid. If such is the case then please disregard the above statement.


And then there are just those who do not wish to convey a diction that is pithy, and not dumb down their lexicon for all those "brilliant minds" who can't read :bugeye: But if you referring to rhetoric, then I can only agree. Some just go on and on about this and that, not saying anything other than the fact that they can mirror Shakespeare's bombastic, turgid style of writing (I think Shakespeare is overrated and receives far too much clout, by the way). I agree, the merits of one's argument should be made lucid, if not, don't post! I don't want to hear "thou" and "thy" and stupid shlt like that. And how about those inane quotes from such and such author or x leader of some group, people throw these in as if others care, if YOU can't say it, DON'T SAY IT!

I may use quotes one day and eat those very words (oh well, I don't plan on stickign around here that long anyway).

TO CHALACO: Yet, do you not think it depends upon the subject, the aim, and the "audience?" For example, if we are discussing a figure, maybe Bacon, then, of course, we will use quotes. On the other hand, for me anyway, if I am discussing what our individual opinions are about Bacon, then I do like to hear a direct opinion. Throwing in commentaries is fine, but I can read those; therefore, I agree: If I tell you an observation I made about Bacon, and you tell me I am wrong, backed by a quote from and "expert," that would be a bit of disappointment.

Over all, in spite of what I prefer, I try to focus on the substance of the other person's message, even if the message is, "I like to quote."

Once an English teacher told a student, "Concentrate on expressing, not on impressing.

It does seem that some message seem to be solicitating validation of the writer, but, by golly! if that writer needs validation, this might be either a good place to get it, or, a good place to get over it! PMT

Machaon

Would you say your first post was simple? I don't know. It was quite complex in a way.

I agree with it in spirit, but I think it horribly oversimplifies the issues. :D

:o Wow!

On your toes there, buddy! There is, as you say, some good stuff there too, however.

Yeah, it was right in many ways. But I'm one of the guilty ones I think, so I was being defensive. Part of the trouble is that very often if you say simple things nobody takes them seriously, and some discussions really are complicated.

Points put per pettily prodigal profuseness prove pitiably, prolixly pointless?


How can it be!?!? :)

I believe that if you can't explain something in simple terms, then you don't really understand it. This forum is populated by many brilliant minds. It would, in my opinion, save space if more posters quit trying to prove this obvious fact and spent more time communicating in ways that reflected a desire to teach and learn. Discussing ideas is a good thing and a sign of an advanced intellect. But being smart is not a social exercise, it is a condition to be used for ones advantage. But any advantages will remain ambigious as long as it is used only as a defense against being perceived as stupid. Of course there is every possibility that I am, in fact, stupid. If such is the case then please disregard the above statement.


Sometimes one must use many words to explain something so that it can be fully understood. That is not to say using fewer words isn't good, on the contrary, less is more in many instances. Only know when to use each is the wise thing to understand and that depends on who your talking to and about what.

TO CHALACO: Yet, do you not think it depends upon the subject, the aim, and the "audience?" For example, if we are discussing a figure, maybe Bacon, then, of course, we will use quotes. On the other hand, for me anyway, if I am discussing what our individual opinions are about Bacon, then I do like to hear a direct opinion. Throwing in commentaries is fine, but I can read those; therefore, I agree: If I tell you an observation I made about Bacon, and you tell me I am wrong, backed by a quote from and "expert," that would be a bit of disappointment.


Concordantly. Notice I typed in, INANE quotes, not quotes that are pertinent to the topic at hand. I just figured that went without saying. Come on now, you didn't actually think I was against pertinent quotes, did you. I just mean the "inane quotes" as I made it very lucid in my first post.

And how about those inane quotes

Don't jump the gun next time - walk over it.

CHACALO: And, just who are you to tell me what to do with my gun? :mad:

Listen sweetheart, my only point was to be sure that I was understanding you correctly. As I read my posting again, it seemed friendly enough, and you do not sound too mean either.

Being a lover of old literature, I am not an advocate of short sentences and short paragraphs, except in written direction on how to put a tricycle together, or something like that. When I am reading something with meaning, I like to have the sentences envelope me, so that I can feel the words. This does not happen with most modern writing. Therefore, even though I do not like a buch of wordy nonsense, I wanted to separate that from a well put thought, which just may take more words.

As for quotes, thank you. Well put. And no, I formed no opinion of you. I am simply responding to statements. I agree with you. I thought I made it clear, (hmm, just as you thought you were so clear), that we ought to give what we think, and use when there is a good reason to use quotes.

Now, see what you did. See all those words up there. Whee! Too many words!

PMT :p

Yeah, that was a bit verbose, but cordial. Glad to see the amicable accord we've come to on inane quotes. And I agree on pithy writing not being very efficacious. But some, like me at times, go off and get into being logorrheic (spelling). Writing is therapuetic and it's good excercise to pick your brain, keeps you cerebral. But it's not for everybody.

I almost forgot...

Listen sweetheart

You are to never refer to me as "sweetheart". I see that you understand that and that's good.

No hard feelings, otherwise.

Part of the trouble is that very often if you say simple things nobody takes them seriously, and some discussions really are complicated.


This is VERY true!

Being a lover of old literature, I am not an advocate of short sentences and short paragraphs, except in written direction on how to put a tricycle together, or something like that. When I am reading something with meaning, I like to have the sentences envelope me, so that I can feel the words. This does not happen with most modern writing. Therefore, even though I do not like a bunch of wordy nonsense, I wanted to separate that from a well put thought, which just may take more words.I enjoy long-winded prose too. You don't have to like older works to get it. I love Michener, Jean Auel, Richard Adams, Dune, Lord of the Rings, etc.

As for the posts on SciForums, this is a virtual social club in addition to its other worthy functions. Some people enjoy their camaraderie punctuated by short sentence fragments, as in a barber shop. Others prefer it beauty shop style, marinated in page-long paragraphs.

Besides, some ideas are just complicated. I've worked through the theory of relativity about a dozen times, but I still don't think anyone can explain it to me so it makes sense in less than ten minutes.

I'm not as lucid as the people who would be providing that explanation. So my own theories, such as why civilization could never have been developed if we hadn't first learned to build a multi-species community with dogs, or how Woodrow Wilson is responsible for 9/11, take me a few paragraphs to set forth at my most concise.

I'd be interested to read your theory on woodrow wilson being responsible for nine eleven

also, I think you used stupid examples back there. Barbor shops are full of boorish plebeians with pithy dictions, huh? But beauty shops now, oh they're different, right? Beauty shops are so "prim and proper", right :bugeye:

You've made it seem liek those who go to barbor shops are this way and those who go to beauty shops are that way. Stupid, very stupid.


Something's wrong with your thought process, it's very linear. You came across as snobbish back there.

Chalaco complains: "You are to never refer to me as "sweetheart". I see that you understand that and that's good."

Ha, Ha! That was a bit nervy! I sorry.....

In another thread I've been trying to explain to someone why his statistical analysis of a paper was bad. I didn't make much effort to be concise, but if I had it would probably have been wasted, since the post would still have been many many lines.

Fraggle Rocker writes:

"I enjoy long-winded prose too. You don't have to like older works to get it. I love Michener, Jean Auel, Richard Adams, Dune, Lord of the Rings, etc.

As for the posts on SciForums, this is a virtual social club in addition to its other worthy functions. Some people enjoy their camaraderie punctuated by short sentence fragments, as in a barber shop. Others prefer it beauty shop style, marinated in page-long paragraphs."
.........

I was surprised with enjoying Lord of the Rings so much. I am rather dedicated to non-fiction, (which usually has enough fiction connected with it to do me... :cool: )

So, I might assume from what you wrote that you do like older works. ("You don't have to like older works to get it.") Have you read The Story of Civilization, by Will Durant? There are ten volumes, if I remember correctly and I truly would like a whack at least some of it. He writes do well and I love history. I hestitate to take it from the library, because I like to take my time, so that I may do some side stuff related to whatever I am reading. I know no one who has read it, (?) and find this rather strange. Another thing I would like to read, quite out of my price range is Frederick Pollock's, "Spinoza, His Life and Philosophy." Have you read any of that? Elwes' translation is great, but Pollock is highly recommended by Durant and others.

If none of this pertains, and I am boring you, forgive me; but there is just so much out there that is waiting for me to catch up, and I feel rather overwhelmed and behind with what I want to know.

In any event, it is always nice to know that someone else enjoys books and such that last a lifetime. PMT

I believe that if you can't explain something in simple terms, then you don't really understand it. This forum is populated by many brilliant minds. It would, in my opinion, save space if more posters quit trying to prove this obvious fact and spent more time communicating in ways that reflected a desire to teach and learn. Discussing ideas is a good thing and a sign of an advanced intellect. But being smart is not a social exercise, it is a condition to be used for ones advantage. But any advantages will remain ambigious as long as it is used only as a defense against being perceived as stupid. Of course there is every possibility that I am, in fact, stupid. If such is the case then please disregard the above statement.

Some very good points there.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Einstein.


Jan Ardena.

I'd still like to know why Fraggle Rocker chose to paint people with such broad strokes

Although I'm a big fan of alliteration - and I give you an 'A' for effort - I must say, that sentence makes no sense.

"Points put per pettily prodigal profuseness prove pitiably, prolixly pointless?"

This is why this shit makes no sense, Rappaccini Alfredo: there’s no particular focus; no center point that is being discussed. It’s just a string of non-specific nouns, which deems them nonsensical because in order for a noun to work, it has to be the object of action expressed by a verb or object of a proposition. There are subjunctive verbs back to back, which really serve no purpose in a sentence formation but for the fact that they can work, which means that they give a subjective meaning to each noun to which they can relate, and thus the sentence is vague at most and stupid on a whole. Here’s my example of such foolishness:

"As always, all alien alternates allow atomic altitude."


Don't feel bad, though. I used to commit such follies on a constant basis when it came to writing alliteration, but I now know better.



What... dude?

I like the Alfredo bit but you were wrong about the sentence.

I don't mean to brag, but I'm purty sharp when it comes to grammar.

It's a question.


Points = plural subject noun

put = past participle modifying "points"

per = preposition

pettily = adverb modifying "prodigal"

prodigal = adjective modifying "profuseness"

profuseness = singular prepositional object (of "per")

prove = plural 3rd person verb (corresponding with the plural subject, "points")

pitiably = adverb modifying "pointless"

prolixly = adverb modifying "pointless"

pointless = adjective relating back to the subject noun "points"




The sentence was highly redundant... as you can tell if you're familiar with all the words... but I never promised perfection...

... only an awesome alliteration.


Now... if you aren't criticizing my grammar, which I earnestly discourage, you might be criticizing the style.



Lemme think...


Done.
The sentence is totally logical, ABSOLUTELY clear if you take some time to sort it out.
It's just a wee bit tautological.

And that's a peccadillo we should NOT bicker over.






EDIT:

By the by, buddyroo, you might've noticed that I wrote "prolixly," not "prolixity".

You must've mistaken the adverb form for the noun form.
That's probably what threw you initially.

I corrected it in my quotation of you. :)

In converying a message, one should write like a lawyer- Strict, concise, and straight to the point.
Just like this message.

One should always write like a bureaucrat, using words like prioritize and finalize.

:rolleyes:

Ha, ha. As I was notified of this posting, I read it, of course. I love it when you people make me laugh. There absolutely nothing like humor, so long as it it in good taste. Cheerio Chalaco!

Err... righto.

I corrected you because I felt it was the nice thing to do, Chalaco. I don't like it when people use the Latin sic; it's flagrantly condescending and plainly mean-spirited.

I'm sorry if you would've had me do that rather than what I did.

What I did was just as easy... seems like... it's not like I didn't tell you about it.