Platt Holden wrote:
> thanks for explaining why you don’t use capitalization in your posts.
> i won’t argue about whether punctuation and spelling are part of
> grammar or not, but suggest that punctuation and spelling would
> come under the general category of rhetoric that my dictionary
> defines as “1. the study of the effective use of language.”
Though I find this an inadequate and limited definition of rhetoric,
again over-emphasiszing the objectification of language in the name of
being "proper," I respect your reliance on this Aristotelian definition.
> imho,
> effective use of language means (among other things) not drawing
> attention to the style of the communication but rather concentrating
> on making one’s meaning as clear as possible. personally i find
> your no-capitals style unusual to the point of being disconcerting.
I apologize. I hoped that my use of punctuation, transitions, grammar,
and rhetorical devices would have been substantial enough for the
message to be communicated. Besides explaining that email is typically
regarded as an informal forum and that I believed that our communication
was open to like-minded people, I didn't think "style" was a major
concern. Apparently I was wrong. I meant no offense, honestly.
> it will be interesting to see if anyone else finds your practice
> questionable,
As stated previously, no one else has ever complained. I'm curious (on
this list at least) who agrees with you about my "email practice" of
capitalization. Chances are, though, that not many will, for whatever
reason.
> not because it comes across as rude, but because it
> may inadvertently create a tiny but palpable irritant like static to
> some readers who, like me, have been schooled in dotting i’s an
> crossing t’s.
As I mentioned before, I thought the message, in both content and form,
was clear. I'll make sure to "dot my i's and cross my t's" when I
participate on this list, starting with this post. You use an
interesting analogy, too-- an effective use of pathos, despite the
multiple meanings of the word "static."
> not capitalizing has a similar effect to not paragraphing:
> the reader can still get the meaning, but he has to work a little harder
> at it
Do not read anything by the Austrian novelist Thomas Bernard. He wrote
complete books using one paragraph.
> i’m all for freedom and being yourself.
That is good to know.
> i’m also in favor of upholding
> stylistic standards. in this case, i lean to the side of the latter over
> the former for the sake of improved readability.
So be it.
> but, i could be wrong.
About your own opinion? I will not argue with you and say that it is
right or wrong. For this forum, I disagree with you, but at this point
it is almost a matter of taste-- a topic that cannot be argued.
> thanks again for thoroughly explaining your
> views on the subject.
If you mean this sincerely, then you are welcome. But considering the
format in which you wrote this response, I presume that you really are
not thankful. I find your use of omitting capitalization as a joke,
making fun of me and my responses. Though I did not find it funny, it
does convey your opinion on "style." That's fine. What I question,
however, is the statement you are making by captializing your name,
though, especially when mine is not.
Let me know if you find any more "static" in my future posts.
Jamie
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:08 BST