I like coffee too, but...............

[Dan Lindfors]

Ted wrote:

>Dan,
>Don't you think there's a temptation to rely upon computerspeak to
>replace verbal/written creativity?

I could agree with that in some cases, yes. I don't like computerspeak in
general, of course not. Some (not all) of those abbreviations for instance
you could easily skip. If it feels uncomfortable typing the full expression
you could probably do without it.

>Writers got along for centuries without computer hieroglyphs.

Yes, and that's _exactly_ why their readers often have different views of
the meaning of their work.
(If your'e thinking of writers of the letters in the old days, I believe
they used a very polite language when they wrote to strangers they wanted to
be friendly with.)

>If I read Dr. Bob right (or leftist!)
>he's saying we're all intelligent enough to get the irony in each
>others posts.
 Yes, but do you read him right? When I hear an aggressive voice, I don't
always assume that he is using irony. If the voice did not mean to be
aggressive, and the readers don't get the irony, the fault is not in the
readers. If you want to communicate something you have to adjust to the
level of the audience, even if it would mean bending uncomfortably low.

>This is a pretty intelligent bunch.
Yes, like the Band(s) we like.

>Even a non-doctoral subhuman like me can figure that out.
Don't underestimate yourself.

>And what's wrong withm a little ambiguity anyway?
Nothing but!

>It certainly makes for a more interesting discourse when things aren't
spelled out.
>theo
>
Well this have been quite interesting, and now I won't spell out more on
this subject 'cause I'm beginning to hear a tone in my own voice that I
don't like. More music maestro!

Thanks

Dan