1984 and net abbreviations.

Well I was reading through CNN.com came across an article that I couldn't help but think of this thread. It deals with the White House's new E-mail program which makes it rather difficult to get to the point where you can actually send an e-mail to the president (or the people played to read through mail addressed to him, at least). It consists of filling out a bunch of forms, and apparently one must pick the topic from a list. So, does that mean you're only allowed to try to e-mail the President about those things which are on the list?

Mr. Matzzie said he was also upset that none of the many categories listed included either "unemployment" or "jobs."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/18/nyt.markoff/

I found this little tidbit to be interesting. So you can't ask the White House about jobs anymore? Of course this isn't an official policy; no one has come forward and said that you simply can't ask about the economy. do you think that by eliminating this conversation topic from the list (much like intentionally eliminating words from a cultures' vocabulary) that the government is simply trying to shut people up about our recent economic downturn?
 
Originally posted by gendanken
I've read your posts, and they're all gymnastics in grammar. "Big" words and florid verbosity have their places, and 'everywhere' is not one of them.

Ok, I'm sorry. Pollux has mentioned this to me before, but I'm pig-headed. Employing byzantine . . . I mean clever words, instead of normal ones makes writing pleasurable. I try not to be convoluted and flamboyant, but it's so very tempting. My inclinations toward it long ago became subconscious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top