Writing to be underdstood
-
Thank you!Originally posted by Prolix:Congrats! You've proved your point even though you excluded the para : 'Mr Wong disclaims......or Indian Asianness'.
Still, that's your style, not Lee's whose intent you agreed we can't fathom. I'm sure the Forum respects freedom of style/complexity by finding Lee's expression 'publishworthy'. If your version were an option, would they have published it instead? Why don't you write on such topics - if they interest you - and find out? Beyond Religion needs writers like you.
Should easy reading force Forum writers to pander to the lowest common denominator - whatever that is? The Forum may not be high-brow but neither is it 'low-brow' judging from publications. The final arbiters are its editors, not readers whose digestion won't stretch beyond plain dishes - stagnation doesn't bode well.
Personally, I felt that describing Wong's idea of Asianness as one that excludes non-Chinese Asian cultures would suffice, but that's a matter of opinion.
As for writing to the Forum, I'm simply much too lazy.
It's a bit of a conceptual leap to suggest that writing in the simplest terms is necessarily pandering to the lowest common denominator. In my view, the prime purpose of writing is to express a point of view for readers to appreciate. Failure to achieve the fundamental goal of gaining this appreciation is failure in writing, regardless of the writing style.
One very real risk of focussing on jargon or extended lexicon is that people can be easily lulled into believing that being able to use the language automatically means that they understand the subject matter. Time and time again, with absolutely no invitation whatsoever, I've had HR practicioners come up to me and try to show me how much they know, simply because I happen to be an organisational psychologist. I let them prattle on with their theories about the shape of the world, and once they're done I simply say, "That's nice - now tell me that in plain English". It never fails to stump them because they fail to realise that the acid test of understanding a topic is the ability to express it in simple terms. Put simply, convince, don't confuse. -
Haven't heard that one in a long time.Originally posted by DeadPoet:"What did the sign on Pavlov's lab door say?
Please knock. DON'T ring the bell."
-
You don't seem lazy in this debate. "The prime purpose of writing is to express a point of view for readers to appreciate" holds us hostage to marketing. If Lee were paid per letter, wouldn't he write simpler?Originally posted by Gedanken:Thank you! Personally, I felt that describing Wong's idea of Asianness as one that excludes non-Chinese Asian cultures would suffice, but that's a matter of opinion.
As for writing to the Forum, I'm simply much too lazy.
It's a bit of a conceptual leap to suggest that writing in the simplest terms is necessarily pandering to the lowest common denominator. In my view, the prime purpose of writing is to express a point of view for readers to appreciate. Failure to achieve the fundamental goal of gaining this appreciation is failure in writing, regardless of the writing style.
One very real risk of focussing on jargon or extended lexicon is that people can be easily lulled into believing that being able to use the language automatically means that they understand the subject matter. Time and time again, with absolutely no invitation whatsoever, I've had HR practicioners come up to me and try to show me how much they know, simply because I happen to be an organisational psychologist. I let them prattle on with their theories about the shape of the world, and once they're done I simply say, "That's nice - now tell me that in plain English". It never fails to stump them because they fail to realise that the acid test of understanding a topic is the ability to express it in simple terms. Put simply, convince, don't confuse.
That he doesn't implies he enjoys expressing thus and who's to say nobody out there understands him - if not prefer it that way? Even if just one, possibly more as the Online Forum has global reach. What if he just needs to catharsise or oppose Mr Wong Hoong Hooi who's capable of deciphering the language?
Why let a procrustean pragmatism disqualify spontaneity or doing something for the heck of it - never mind the productivity? Can't individuals climb a mountain because it's there?[/i] -
Of course it's marketing, in the sense that we're trying to sell our point of view to the reader. We need not be hostage to it - after all, one has the freedom of choice to write or not write, does one not? If there's no point of view to sell, what is the sense of writing something to the Online Forum instead of a writer's site or - dare I say it - a blog? I have demonstrated how it is possible to make Lee's points in plainer English and fewer words than he has used. Combined with the inaccessibility of Lee's writing to the wider audience, were I to be uncharitable I would describe his article as the written equivalent of loving the sound of one's own voice.Originally posted by Prolix:You don't seem lazy in this debate. "The prime purpose of writing is to express a point of view for readers to appreciate" holds us hostage to marketing. If Lee were paid per letter, wouldn't he write simpler?
That he doesn't implies he enjoys expressing thus and who's to say nobody out there understands him - if not prefer it that way? Even if just one, possibly more as the Online Forum has global reach. What if he just needs to catharsise or oppose Mr Wong Hoong Hooi who's capable of deciphering the language?
Why let a procrustean pragmatism disqualify spontaneity or doing something for the heck of it - never mind the productivity? Can't individuals climb a mountain because it's there?[/i]
I stand by my yardstick: pick any twenty Straits Times buyers, being the obviously intended audience for the Forum, at a news stand and ask them what "perfidy"", "atavistic" and "unapologetic" mean. I will wager that the results will lead to the conclusion that Lee's writing has made his points inaccessible to the majority of the readers.
If Lee does need to catharsise or be a thorn in only Wong's side, it's vanity press and the ST Online Forum is arguably an inappropriate place for such conduct. The parameters of the Forum are that a clear point has to be made to the audience within 400 words, and this demands conciseness and incisiveness. Simplicity, not complexity, underlies both conciseness and incisiveness.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for scything through the Gordian Knot of mundanity. However, one needs to be aware of the enviromnent in which one does it, and the fundamental point of performing such an act - it's a waste of effort otherwise. -
Lee's letters are almost always online including this one. Calls for a global sampling of STInteractive netizens. Hazard a guess on their lexical leverage? A 'waste of...' this or that is a calculative Singaporean paradigm that demeans us - 'wasting' doctors and lawyers on financial professions being current. Lee may prefer time debating this spent on letters - if published - with a wider audience potential.Originally posted by Gedanken:Of course it's marketing, in the sense that we're trying to sell our point of view to the reader. We need not be hostage to it - after all, one has the freedom of choice to write or not write, does one not? If there's no point of view to sell, what is the sense of writing something to the Online Forum instead of a writer's site or - dare I say it - a blog? I have demonstrated how it is possible to make Lee's points in plainer English and fewer words than he has used. Combined with the inaccessibility of Lee's writing to the wider audience, were I to be uncharitable I would describe his article as the written equivalent of loving the sound of one's own voice.
I stand by my yardstick: pick any twenty Straits Times buyers, being the obviously intended audience for the Forum, at a news stand and ask them what "perfidy"", "atavistic" and "unapologetic" mean. I will wager that the results will lead to the conclusion that Lee's writing has made his points inaccessible to the majority of the readers.
If Lee does need to catharsise or be a thorn in only Wong's side, it's vanity press and the ST Online Forum is arguably an inappropriate place for such conduct. The parameters of the Forum are that a clear point has to be made to the audience within 400 words, and this demands conciseness and incisiveness. Simplicity, not complexity, underlies both conciseness and incisiveness.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for scything through the Gordian Knot of mundanity. However, one needs to be aware of the enviromnent in which one does it, and the fundamental point of performing such an act - it's a waste of effort otherwise.
All I'm saying is that different folks have different - however unconventional - reasons to want their letters published. And that should be respected democratically and out of humility for our not fathoming. Vanity taints all that yearn being heard/read or proven right - even or especially on this platform. -
That goes the same with poetry writing.Originally posted by Prolix:All I'm saying is that different folks have different - however unconventional - reasons to want their letters published. And that should be respected democratically and out of humility for our not fathoming. -
Very well then - propose a method of sampling these netizens. Until then, I'll continue with my yardstick.Originally posted by Prolix:Lee's letters are almost always online including this one. Calls for a global sampling of STInteractive netizens. Hazard a guess on their lexical leverage?
Is a view about waste a Singaporean paradigm, and is it necessarily calculative? Surely Bertrand Russell ("It is a waste of energy to be angry with a man who behaves badly, just as it is to be angry with a car that won't go" ) and Raymond Chandler ("Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find outside an advertising agency" ) are two examples to the contrary that spring immediately to mind, and more non-Singaporean examples should quite easily be found.Originally posted by Prolix:A 'waste of...' this or that is a calculative Singaporean paradigm that demeans us - 'wasting' doctors and lawyers on financial professions being current.
Once again, I assert that if a wider audience was what he wanted, he has done himself a great disservice with his writing style.Originally posted by Prolix:Lee may prefer time debating this spent on letters - if published - with a wider audience potential.
So be it if Lee's intention is to seek vanity press, but then a more suitable platform would be one where style has equal standing to, if not takes precedence over, substance - the forum is not such a platform. If he intended to present his points to a wider audience and convince them of his case, his use of language was not suited to the goal. The two objectives are diametrically opposed in terms of the required approach.Originally posted by Prolix:All I'm saying is that different folks have different - however unconventional - reasons to want their letters published. And that should be respected democratically and out of humility for our not fathoming. Vanity taints all that yearn being heard/read or proven right - even or especially on this platform. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:Haven't heard that one in a long time.
-
You painted yourself into a corner - (smugly?) mis-sampling and underestimating Lee's global reach online. And you want me to bail you out with a global sample you daren't risk?Originally posted by Gedanken:So be it if Lee's intention is to seek vanity press, but then a more suitable platform would be one where style has equal standing to, if not takes precedence over, substance - the forum is not such a platform. If he intended to present his points to a wider audience and convince them of his case, his use of language was not suited to the goal. The two objectives are diametrically opposed in terms of the required approach.
I can't give you more. I've acknowledged that Lee's letter (only that unrepresentative one) can be written simpler if he so desires which he didn't then. I won't acquiesce that tougher writing/reading has no place in the ST Forum (local and global) - which isn't just for schoolkids or the averagely literate!
Tougher writing in the Forum needn't be as vain (reflects on the perceiver/labeller?) as the oneupmanship we indulge anywhere - including here, readership type/size notwithstanding. The Forum 'microcosmises' a world with pop to classical music/singing. And easy art to abstract. The respectively latter developments 'vain' too?
Why did Chinese Communism's eqalitarian 'paradise' capitulate to today's capitalism? Equal poverty impoverishes all? Those like Beyond Religion - if they can't/won't transcend - could take Dead Poet's advice that certain writing may 'not speak to you'. Ambitious readers could evolve into even writing 'uppity' if it's challenging. I take an educator's optimism of : 'try, try, try - what doesn't kill, advances you'. Saying, 'I can't' lies that you won't. The world shouldn't stop for you.
Publishability is the Forum editors' judgment call. Outsiders aren't qualified to impose a reduced plurality.
'I'm as good/right as others ignorance of my ignorance. And the size of my blind spot on me' -
eh.... so chiem.
-
That's called development over the years - if you see progress as up and not level. The world passes you by if you remain rooted in a comfort zone. I thought this was Singapore where competition, progress, upgrade, study, etc are taken seriously - where are you from?Originally posted by blue_blue_bedsheet:eh.... so chiem. -
She is from MPC.
To be fair, there is no right or wrong answer regarding this issue. The writer is free to choose his/her readers and vice versa; same goes with poetry writing. That is why we have two categories for our Poetry Writing Contests. -
What gives you the idea that I've painted myself into a corner? I've proposed a yardstick based upon a sample of ST readers, and you've proposed the beginnings of an alternative based on netizens but not yet taken it to the point where something can be done with it. Since it's your responsibility to take your idea to the point of execution, the ball's in your court and you are the one who's painted himself into a corner. Besides, if I asked you to sample the netizens and bail me out, logically that would mean that the result would work in favour of my argument, not yours - are you admitting that I am in fact correct?Originally posted by Prolix:You painted yourself into a corner - (smugly?) mis-sampling and underestimating Lee's global reach online. And you want me to bail you out with a global sample you daren't risk?
I can't give you more. I've acknowledged that Lee's letter (only that unrepresentative one) can be written simpler if he so desires which he didn't then. I won't acquiesce that tougher writing/reading has no place in the ST Forum (local and global) - which isn't just for schoolkids or the averagely literate!
Tougher writing in the Forum needn't be as vain (reflects on the perceiver/labeller?) as the oneupmanship we indulge anywhere - including here, readership type/size notwithstanding. The Forum 'microcosmises' a world with pop to classical music/singing. And easy art to abstract. The respectively latter developments 'vain' too?
Why did Chinese Communism's eqalitarian 'paradise' capitulate to today's capitalism? Equal poverty impoverishes all? Those like Beyond Religion - if they can't/won't transcend - could take Dead Poet's advice that certain writing may 'not speak to you'. Ambitious readers could evolve into even writing 'uppity' if it's challenging. I take an educator's optimism of : 'try, try, try - what doesn't kill, advances you'. Saying, 'I can't' lies that you won't. The world shouldn't stop for you.
Publishability is the Forum editors' judgment call. Outsiders aren't qualified to impose a reduced plurality.
'I'm as good/right as others ignorance of my ignorance. And the size of my blind spot on me'
If, as you say, you can't give me more, the decent and logical thing to do would be to concede. Like I said, I'm willing to wager that 95% of ST readers could not provide you with definitions of words that Lee has used, such as "perfidy", "atavistic" and "unapologetic". If you want to resist acquiesence, why not put your money where your mouth is? Can you not show me that at least 50% (yes, I'll even drop the standards just for you) can define those words without Googling them? Proofless protest is purely petulance (if I may engage in some loose alliteration here).
As I've said before, feel free to make the language as flowery and complex as you want, as long as it does not defeat the basic purpose of communication. I assert that Lee has committed this error in his writing. In its website, the Straits Times claims a circulation figure of 370,000, and counting the netizens would be very likely to increase that figure – how many of those people do you think would have the capacity to appreciate Lee’s writing? 10,000? 30,000? It’s still a tiny minority.
Okay, for argument’s sake let’s go with your condition of “readership type/size notwithstanding” (personally, I think that’s a cop-out of the meat of this debate). The substance of the debate between Lee and Wong is Singapore’s maintenance of an Asian identity. Has the government not already raised this point ad nauseum in National Day rallies and any other address to the Singaporean public as an issue that they insist Singaporeams need to take seriously? Given the subject matter and the medium, how could Lee’s article possibly only be justifiably limited to the few who can understand what he’s writing?
If anything, I'm arguing for an increased plurality while accusing the forum editors of imposing a plurality reduced through Lee's language - have you entirely misunderstood what I've been saying?
You can see that IÂ’m heading towards the point of saying that not only is Lee wrong, but the Forum editors as well. If you wish to speak of Singaporean paradigms that demean us, unthinking acceptance of titles and job descriptions fits the bill perfectly. It is a habit that I would just as soon avoid, and one that I reccomend you adopt. I don't particularly care who the person is - if the logic of the situation stands against them they're wrong and I'll say just as much.
Yes, taking deliberate efforts to expand oneÂ’s linguistic powers is an endeavour with merit, but that's a red herring as far as the present discussion is concerned. If you're talking about ambition, I would suggest you keep Sir Jack Brabham's quote in mind: "To finish first, first you have to finish". In any for of writing, style is subservient to the message that is meant to be conveyed and the problem here is the way in which the style constitutes an obstacle to conveyance of said message.
I hate repeating myself, but if the message doesnÂ’t get through, one does what one must: letÂ’s not lose the forest for the trees, because that's a clear example of the ignorance and blind spots about which you chuck in irrelevant and disjointed quotes.
In your last post you've shot yourself in the foot at least twice in your efforts to ram your points through, and to be honest that takes the fun of this debate away. Take a deep breath and some time, be logical rather than emotional about this debate and regain the quality of your previous posts. -
DP, that's well and good if you're talking about MPC or the Poetry Writing Contests. However, Beyond Religion's point refers to the ST Forum where the parameters are not the same as the MPC's, and where clear communication cannot be sacrificed in service of flowery language.Originally posted by DeadPoet:She is from MPC.
To be fair, there is no right or wrong answer regarding this issue. The writer is free to choose his/her readers and vice versa; same goes with poetry writing. That is why we have two categories for our Poetry Writing Contests. -
It's very clear to me : From the outset, you established your 'authority' critiquing Lee's mixed academic/informal style. Volunteering your eight years of study, professional status and wrongfooting colleagues was more of the same veiled candidly?Originally posted by Gedanken:What gives you the idea that I've painted myself into a corner? I've proposed a yardstick based upon a sample of ST readers, and you've proposed the beginnings of an alternative based on netizens but not yet taken it to the point where something can be done with it. Since it's your responsibility to take your idea to the point of execution, the ball's in your court and you are the one who's painted himself into a corner. Besides, if I asked you to sample the netizens and bail me out, logically that would mean that the result would work in favour of my argument, not yours - are you admitting that I am in fact correct?
If, as you say, you can't give me more, the decent and logical thing to do would be to concede. Like I said, I'm willing to wager that 95% of ST readers could not provide you with definitions of words that Lee has used, such as "perfidy", "atavistic" and "unapologetic". If you want to resist acquiesence, why not put your money where your mouth is? Can you not show me that at least 50% (yes, I'll even drop the standards just for you) can define those words without Googling them? Proofless protest is purely petulance (if I may engage in some loose alliteration here).
As I've said before, feel free to make the language as flowery and complex as you want, as long as it does not defeat the basic purpose of communication. I assert that Lee has committed this error in his writing. In its website, the Straits Times claims a circulation figure of 370,000, and counting the netizens would be very likely to increase that figure – how many of those people do you think would have the capacity to appreciate Lee’s writing? 10,000? 30,000? It’s still a tiny minority.
Okay, for argument’s sake let’s go with your condition of “readership type/size notwithstanding” (personally, I think that’s a cop-out of the meat of this debate). The substance of the debate between Lee and Wong is Singapore’s maintenance of an Asian identity. Has the government not already raised this point ad nauseum in National Day rallies and any other address to the Singaporean public as an issue that they insist Singaporeams need to take seriously? Given the subject matter and the medium, how could Lee’s article possibly only be justifiably limited to the few who can understand what he’s writing?
If anything, I'm arguing for an increased plurality while accusing the forum editors of imposing a plurality reduced through Lee's language - have you entirely misunderstood what I've been saying?
You can see that IÂ’m heading towards the point of saying that not only is Lee wrong, but the Forum editors as well. If you wish to speak of Singaporean paradigms that demean us, unthinking acceptance of titles and job descriptions fits the bill perfectly. It is a habit that I would just as soon avoid, and one that I reccomend you adopt. I don't particularly care who the person is - if the logic of the situation stands against them they're wrong and I'll say just as much.
Yes, taking deliberate efforts to expand oneÂ’s linguistic powers is an endeavour with merit, but that's a red herring as far as the present discussion is concerned. If you're talking about ambition, I would suggest you keep Sir Jack Brabham's quote in mind: "To finish first, first you have to finish". In any for of writing, style is subservient to the message that is meant to be conveyed and the problem here is the way in which the style constitutes an obstacle to conveyance of said message.
I hate repeating myself, but if the message doesnÂ’t get through, one does what one must: letÂ’s not lose the forest for the trees, because that's a clear example of the ignorance and blind spots about which you chuck in irrelevant and disjointed quotes.
In your last post you've shot yourself in the foot at least twice in your efforts to ram your points through, and to be honest that takes the fun of this debate away. Take a deep breath and some time, be logical rather than emotional about this debate and regain the quality of your previous posts.
I barged in as an 'upstart' not knowing the 'protocol' that posters giving you wide berth should have implied - my mistake. Acknowledging you were right only worsened the mania.
If you're really sincere and empathetic to Beyond Religion, et al's plight, write in the Forum investing identity and effort like all other valiant Forum writers. Already, they are called 'armchair commentators'. What's the label for commentators of armchair commentators? 'Too lazy' is disingenuous as this debate betrays. Why the cop-out.
You obviously love the sound of your 'infallible' arguments more than want to help 'illuminate' a lucid style in the Forum which you seem to envy with Freudian slips like 'vain press'.
I started this, so I'll graciously let you have the last word, as usual. You're as right as others' ignorance of your ignorance. And the size of your blind spot on you. Obviously, 'live and let live', 'agree to disagree' and humility aren't in your lexicon.
Narcissism doesn't begin to describe you. -
I barged in as an 'upstart' not knowing the 'protocol' that posters giving you wide berth should have implied - my mistake
No, I think the members here are keeping a wide berth because they are not used to such debates, after all our forum is mostly used for creative endeavors and not serious discussions.
Or perhaps it is the weekend and they are logged off.
But this has been most interesting and insightful to watch.
Rebuttal on the points, gentlemen. Let's not degenerate into personal insults, Mr LProlix. -
Tut tut, no need to get upset.Originally posted by Prolix:It's very clear to me : From the outset, you established your 'authority' critiquing Lee's mixed academic/informal style. Volunteering your eight years of study, professional status and wrongfooting colleagues was more of the same veiled candidly?
I barged in as an 'upstart' not knowing the 'protocol' that posters giving you wide berth should have implied - my mistake. Acknowledging you were right only worsened the mania.
If you're really sincere and empathetic to Beyond Religion, et al's plight, write in the Forum investing identity and effort like all other valiant Forum writers. Already, they are called 'armchair commentators'. What's the label for commentators of armchair commentators? 'Too lazy' is disingenuous as this debate betrays. Why the cop-out.
You obviously love the sound of your 'infallible' arguments more than want to help 'illuminate' a lucid style in the Forum which you seem to envy with Freudian slips like 'vain press'.
I started this, so I'll graciously let you have the last word, as usual. You're as right as others' ignorance of your ignorance. And the size of your blind spot on you. Obviously, 'live and let live', 'agree to disagree' and humility aren't in your lexicon.
Narcissism doesn't begin to describe you.
From the outset, I established the parameter upon which I am focussing, namely that the Forum is part of a publication aimed at a wide readership, for which the writing style needs to be made accessible.
If you haven't noticed, I have not disagreed with you about the actual quality of the writing style. In another setting I would certainly appreciate it even more. What I have been saying is that for a publication meant for 370,000 people at least, such an inaccessible writing style is ill-advised, and thus far you have failed to address that point to a degree where I am inclined to change my stance. If I need to be blunt, I shall be: I am willing to change my stance as long as I am convinced there is a need to do so.
Vis-a-vis your platitudes about improving one's written abilities, I have already said that I have no argument with that, but that is beside the point here. Coming back to my main point, beautifully-written language that fails to impart the point is style without substance in any format or setting. In sidestepping that point and going into the subject of self-improvement strategies for one's vocabulary, it is in fact you who have failed to demonstrate empathy for Beyond Religion's concerns, and your pronouncements of how people should improve themselves raises questions about your sincerity.
Your slips are starting to show on a number of fronts:
- First, you obviously don't know the meaning of mania. If I had said that it was possible to present Lee's points in plain English and then failed to follow through on presenting an example, then yes, I would have been a maniac because my beliefs in my abilities would have outstripped reality. However, since I have backed up what I have said, by definition I am not a maniac. The same goes for narcissism - by definition, I would have had to have made a series of claims about my qualities that I then proceed to fail to demonstrate, and then insisted upon those claims in full knowledge that they have not been demonstrated. Again, you don't have evidence of that on hand, so it's misuse of the term. If you wish to accuse me of being egotistical, arrogant and a plain smartarse, I'll accept that, but the other two descriptions simply do not fit their defintions and using terms with which you are not familiar makes you look, well, silly.
- Second, I have not at any point made mention of any such thing as "vain press". I have, however, talked about vanity press, which has entirely different connotations - if you knew the actual meaning of the phrase I doubt you would have taken umbrage at my use of it in this context, and you would not have made the additional mistake of assigning a Freudian slip where there is none.
For all of your pontification about "try, try, try" and achieving evolution, you've just demonstrated your lack of intellectual integrity through your misuse of terms that have specific defintions. I could justifiably label that hypocrisy, but I won't. Perhaps I'll settle for "do as I say, not as I do". Here's a handy tip: if you're speaking to a psychologist, make sure you know what mania, narcissicm and Freudian slips actually mean before choosing to use those terms.
- Third, Beyond Religion's gripe about Lee's letter is that the writing style is inappropriate for the audience - if you haven't noticed, the key point here is about suiting the writing to the audience. The ST Forum itself and the subject matter are simply the context in which the debate takes place. As DP knows, I no longer live in Singapore, so the actual content of Lee's letter doesn't matter a jot to me. As far as I'm concerned, whether Singapore resembles Shanghai, Surrey or San Francisco has no effect of the price of tea in China, if you'll pardon the pun. Getting caught in the quagmire of discussing Singaporean politics would be a distraction from the topic which I am here to discuss, namely the challenge of suiting the writing to the audience. Did you not realise this, or was this an attempt to buy some breathing space?
Speaking of distractions, you have gone from discussing the matter at hand to discussing interpersonal relations between us, which, to be frank, really isn't my concern. What has that got to do with this thread? As for "live and let live" and "agree to disagree", I am well aware of both principles, to the extent that I use them only when an impasse has been reached. Such an impasse does not apply here since instead of presenting an equally strong counterpoint you have been busy sidestepping.
Overall, instead of attending to the matter at hand, you have chosen to launch an ad hominem attack, which really is just poor form. Why not address the substance of the post instead of allowing your posts to degenerate into personal attacks and forays into fields of which you demonstrate no knowledge whatsoever?
Now that you've had your fun and vented your spleen, please return to addressing the key issues. -
I'll humour you with this last post despite my disgust.Originally posted by Gedanken:Tut tut, no need to get upset.
From the outset, I established the parameter upon which I am focussing, namely that the Forum is part of a publication aimed at a wide readership, for which the writing style needs to be made accessible.
If you haven't noticed, I have not disagreed with you about the actual quality of the writing style. In another setting I would certainly appreciate it even more. What I have been saying is that for a publication meant for 370,000 people at least, such an inaccessible writing style is ill-advised, and thus far you have failed to address that point to a degree where I am inclined to change my stance. If I need to be blunt, I shall be: I am willing to change my stance as long as I am convinced there is a need to do so.
Vis-a-vis your platitudes about improving one's written abilities, I have already said that I have no argument with that, but that is beside the point here. Coming back to my main point, beautifully-written language that fails to impart the point is style without substance in any format or setting. In sidestepping that point and going into the subject of self-improvement strategies for one's vocabulary, it is in fact you who have failed to demonstrate empathy for Beyond Religion's concerns, and your pronouncements of how people should improve themselves raises questions about your sincerity.
Your slips are starting to show on a number of fronts:
- First, you obviously don't know the meaning of mania. If I had said that it was possible to present Lee's points in plain English and then failed to follow through on presenting an example, then yes, I would have been a maniac because my beliefs in my abilities would have outstripped reality. However, since I have backed up what I have said, by definition I am not a maniac. The same goes for narcissism - by definition, I would have had to have made a series of claims about my qualities that I then proceed to fail to demonstrate, and then insisted upon those claims in full knowledge that they have not been demonstrated. Again, you don't have evidence of that on hand, so it's misuse of the term. If you wish to accuse me of being egotistical, arrogant and a plain smartarse, I'll accept that, but the other two descriptions simply do not fit their defintions and using terms with which you are not familiar makes you look, well, silly.
- Second, I have not at any point made mention of any such thing as "vain press". I have, however, talked about vanity press, which has entirely different connotations - if you knew the actual meaning of the phrase I doubt you would have taken umbrage at my use of it in this context, and you would not have made the additional mistake of assigning a Freudian slip where there is none.
For all of your pontification about "try, try, try" and achieving evolution, you've just demonstrated your lack of intellectual integrity through your misuse of terms that have specific defintions. I could justifiably label that hypocrisy, but I won't. Perhaps I'll settle for "do as I say, not as I do". Here's a handy tip: if you're speaking to a psychologist, make sure you know what mania, narcissicm and Freudian slips actually mean before choosing to use those terms.
- Third, Beyond Religion's gripe about Lee's letter is that the writing style is inappropriate for the audience - if you haven't noticed, the key point here is about suiting the writing to the audience. The ST Forum itself and the subject matter are simply the context in which the debate takes place. As DP knows, I no longer live in Singapore, so the actual content of Lee's letter doesn't matter a jot to me. As far as I'm concerned, whether Singapore resembles Shanghai, Surrey or San Francisco has no effect of the price of tea in China, if you'll pardon the pun. Getting caught in the quagmire of discussing Singaporean politics would be a distraction from the topic which I am here to discuss, namely the challenge of suiting the writing to the audience. Did you not realise this, or was this an attempt to buy some breathing space?
Speaking of distractions, you have gone from discussing the matter at hand to discussing interpersonal relations between us, which, to be frank, really isn't my concern. What has that got to do with this thread? As for "live and let live" and "agree to disagree", I am well aware of both principles, to the extent that I use them only when an impasse has been reached. Such an impasse does not apply here since instead of presenting an equally strong counterpoint you have been busy sidestepping.
Overall, instead of attending to the matter at hand, you have chosen to launch an ad hominem attack, which really is just poor form. Why not address the substance of the post instead of allowing your posts to degenerate into personal attacks and forays into fields of which you demonstrate no knowledge whatsoever?
Now that you've had your fun and vented your spleen, please return to addressing the key issues.
Brandishing your professional training - in your fiefdom - to browbeat is called hitting below the belt/bullying, not debate - your true colours showing? It's safer being a tiger in an anthill - like in this thread and away from other tigers. You're too literal-minded (and vicious) to understand everyday applications of technical terms - even by psychologists.
If the tables were turned, I'm not the type to twist the knife on a professional unequal. If you're not concerned Singaporeanly, your unvested interests aren't welcome. Butt out! Don't you have others to browbeat elsewhere with self-deluding casuistry? -
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did I force you to use psychological terms in your post? You're the one who chose to do so, and in trying to be as smart as you think you are, you've made a dog's breakfast of things. Now if you wish to speak of matters Freudian, your accusing me of hitting below the belt as you yourself resort to personal attacks is a classic case of projection.
You're the one who decided to step into a foreign patch only to find yourself in the middle of a minefield. Deal with it - I'm not here to bail you out.
This is hilarious. Weren't you the one honking about being a - what was that term? - "precisionist", and now you want to hide your sloppiness behind the aegis of "everyday applications of technical terms"? I've shown on no uncertain terms that you're wrong. Play amateur psychoanalyst all you want - that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and that I've shown it.
Mind you, if another psychologist has said what you had, I would certainly not have been as restrained in my response, and had I committed the same error, I would have accepted the rebuke with good grace. Then again, psychologists are professionally obliged to avoid being that sloppy.
How many times do I have to tell you that it is not, and never was, my intention to discuss Singaporean politics in this thread. Let me spell it out for you once again:
I assert that Lee's writing is inappropriate for the ST Forum.
That's it. Singaporean politics is per se beyond the scope of this thread so stop distracting yourself.
Stop, take a deep breath, count to ten and think about it - what's the title of this thread? Is it "Writing to be understood" or is it "Singapore's cultural orientation"?
Get a grip, have a Ritalin, wipe that froth from your mouth and either get back on track or pack up your toys and go home. Sheesh. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
You don't sound very rational, professional or 'psychologistic'. Your epitaph : 'You're wrong and I've shown it' - in an asylum cemetery - should appear in a Non Sequitur cartoon. Pursuing desperate debate with an 'unequal' sounds at best self-insulting if not masochistic. Like in psychosis, the self-deluding can't/won't admit it.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did I force you to use psychological terms in your post? You're the one who chose to do so, and in trying to be as smart as you think you are, you've made a dog's breakfast of things. Now if you wish to speak of matters Freudian, your accusing me of hitting below the belt as you yourself resort to personal attacks is a classic case of projection.
You're the one who decided to step into a foreign patch only to find yourself in the middle of a minefield. Deal with it - I'm not here to bail you out.
This is hilarious. Weren't you the one honking about being a - what was that term? - "precisionist", and now you want to hide your sloppiness behind the aegis of "everyday applications of technical terms"? I've shown on no uncertain terms that you're wrong. Play amateur psychoanalyst all you want - that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and that I've shown it.
Mind you, if another psychologist has said what you had, I would certainly not have been as restrained in my response, and had I committed the same error, I would have accepted the rebuke with good grace. Then again, psychologists are professionally obliged to avoid being that sloppy.
How many times do I have to tell you that it is not, and never was, my intention to discuss Singaporean politics in this thread. Let me spell it out for you once again:
[b]I assert that Lee's writing is inappropriate for the ST Forum.
That's it. Singaporean politics is per se beyond the scope of this thread so stop distracting yourself.
Stop, take a deep breath, count to ten and think about it - what's the title of this thread? Is it "Writing to be understood" or is it "Singapore's cultural orientation"?
Get a grip, have a Ritalin, wipe that froth from your mouth and either get back on track or pack up your toys and go home. Sheesh.[/b]
Have the last word - as usual, crazos can't resist temptation. -
My oh my, you never learn, do you?Originally posted by Prolix:You don't sound very rational, professional or 'psychologistic'. Your epitaph : 'You're wrong and I've shown it' - in an asylum cemetery - should appear in a Non Sequitur cartoon. Pursuing desperate debate with an 'unequal' sounds at best self-insulting if not masochistic. Like in psychosis, the self-deluding can't/won't admit it.
Have the last word - as usual, crazos can't resist temptation.
You are wrong and I have shown it - tough luck if that liquefies your fragile little ego. You misused terms and unlike you, I don’t just make vague pronouncements about whether or not you sound a particular part, I showed you exactly where you were wrong. Your refusal to acknowledge the facts here simply raises another one of your Freudian foibles – denial.
Facts are facts are facts, and theyÂ’re all here on this thread to see. Even my telling you that IÂ’ve shown how you are wrong is a fact as the evidence here shows. If you cannot cope with my simple statement of a fact, yet another fact is simple: youÂ’re the one with the problem.
Not only are you wrong, you obviously don’t practice what you preach. For all of your platitudes about being a precisionist, I have shown that you are in fact sloppy and slipshod in use of your terms. I make absolutely no apologies about bringing your airy aspirations down in flames – the facts bear out that they’re all hokum anyway.
How many posts has it been since you announced that you would ever-so-graciously let me have the last word? Three? If you want come back for more every time I flick you aside, whoÂ’s the masochist who canÂ’t resist temptation?
You bleat about my taking advantage of your not being professionally trained, but at the same time you want to decree that I don’t sound 'psychologistic' – a neologism if there ever was one – as if pretending to be a member of the profession. A case of narcissism, or wanting to keep your cake and eat it?
It’s very simple. I ask no quarter and give none. If you wish to impersonate a psychologist by talking about issues you cannot grasp, don’t expect me to let it slide because I really don’t care if you can’t deal with being told you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter if you are a psychologist or not – you assumed that you knew about terms such as mania and narcissism and ended up misusing them, and who you and where you came from does not change the fact that you are wrong. That it’s me instead of anyone else, psychologist or otherwise, telling you that you are wrong is of no consequence, except that perhaps you might have to put in a bit more work looking for excuses were I not a psychologist.
What hallucinogenic substance drives you to believe that I am debating you about psychological terms? Why would I waste my time debating psychology with someone who knows nothing about the subject matter? Don’t take it as a debate – take it as badly-needed education for you.
Now youÂ’ve now even shown that you fail to understand the meaning of the word debate. WhatÂ’s your excuse this time? Is it some professional term? -
Gentlemen, this is your final warning. Either go back to debating on the subject in the topic title or I will lock this thread.
This continued argument over psychological terms and who is qualified to use them, personal insult and counter-insult are all pointless.
Prolix, if you cannot rebuttal points brought up by Gedanken, then kindly concede or drop the discussion. The world will not think less of you.
Gedanken, I think you've presented your points quite clearly. If your opponent cannot answer, then he cannot answer. -
Thank you, Bluesky, and I'm more than happy to accept that conclusion, discontinue responding to flamebaiting and return to discussing the topic of writing to be understood.Originally posted by Bluesky_Liz:Gedanken, I think you've presented your points quite clearly. If your opponent cannot answer, then he cannot answer. -
Okay end of debate, back to poetry.
-
Originally posted by Bluesky_Liz:
Thanks for intervening to save a life Bluesky!
[b]Gentlemen, this is your final warning. Either go back to debating on the subject in the topic title or I will lock this thread.
This continued argument over psychological terms and who is qualified to use them, personal insult and counter-insult are all pointless.
Prolix, if you cannot rebuttal points brought up by Gedanken, then kindly concede or drop the discussion. The world will not think less of you.
Gedanken, I think you've presented your points quite clearly. If your opponent cannot answer, then he cannot answer.
[/b]
I was trying to get your resident megalomaniac to burst a vein - He was soooo monomaniacal. I could have ploughed through His drivel to laboriously counter Him but, isn't self-destruct easier and sweeter?
Egotists flatter themselves that their flaunting would be lapped up. We were averting our eyes while He intellectually mast*******(self-pleasured) with minimal stimuli. Self-lusting little devil!
To spare others, pander to Him a personal thread called...'MegaMe', 'UberMouth', 'Einstein's Nemesis' or 'Self-lust' - a self-dedicated shrine He - and only He - salivates to visit umpteen times a day.
He still doesn't get it that Lee's online letter reaches a better-read and reading demographic comprising local students abroad and Singapore/Asia watchers. Hence, an abstruse style - which doesn't typify him - was totally relevant!