Kolya on 1/12/2009 at 15:34
Not in the exact words, no.
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
In RL, the complexity of information may hide certain of these patterns that are blindingly obvious when reduced to a turn-based, text environment.
Rug Burn Junky on 1/12/2009 at 15:52
If nothing else, you've proven quite nicely that YOU can't interpret basic text all that well. The rest of us don't seem to have much opf a problem with it.
Why are you continuing to be such a total fucking jackass?
SD on 1/12/2009 at 16:04
Holy hell, almost 6 and a half thousand posts on here... what have I been doing with my life
Kolya on 1/12/2009 at 17:29
RBJ, are you trying to speak for everyone else again to lend your words some air of importance?
While in between I was fairly impressed seeing you manage some restraint for one or two posts, that was only because you thought it would make you look wordly-wise and mature, wasn't it?
Now you're back to your very basic text indeed.
But since you're denying your own words now, this is going nowhere fast. I just wish you would bring something substantial to the table for once. But it always starts with groundless claims and ends with your shizoid gutter-talk persona taking over. Well, see ya I guess.
hopper on 1/12/2009 at 17:41
So, lemme see if I get this: What RBJ says is that written information lacks the secondary non-verbal information cues that face-to-face communication provides, and which helps us determine whether someone is being sarcastic or not - but that the very lack of such non-verbal cues in written information (emoticons etc. aside) lets us see behavioural patterns in the verbal communication itself, which in turn helps us in detecting sarcasm, provided we know the author well enough, thus making up for at least some of the loss due to the missing non-verbal cues?
If that's about right, then I don't see what belonging to the cool in-group kru has to do with it, or indeed what all the fuss is about.
Kolya on 1/12/2009 at 17:47
Minus the "provided we know the author well enough" because that could be true in RL just as well.
Which comes down then to: The lack of cues gives us cues, somehow.
I know that sounds like I'm ridiculing the argument but he just hasn't brought forth any further explanation for the idea.
Rug Burn Junky on 1/12/2009 at 17:56
What do I have to explain further? EVERYBODY ELSE seems to be getting it just fine. At this point it's pretty obvious that the problem is you.
Yes, I'm calling you a twat and a jackass - you're behaving like one. That speaks more about you and your quixotic crusade against my "internet persona."
You're so hell bent on proving me wrong that you can't fathom just what a fool of yourself you're making. You're grasping at straws here to try to disprove something so mild and noncontroversial that I quite frankly can't figure out why you feel so adamantly about it.
Kolya on 1/12/2009 at 18:32
Yeah ok, the problem is either just me, or just
the retards, in case someone else asked the same question, blah bla. It just goes on like that without you showing any signs of making a decent argument.
Anyway, we have two situations, one with more channels of communication and one with less. Here comes RBJ, saying the latter is just as well as the first, heck he can distinguish patterns even better when there are less channels. Awesome. Because channels from the same sender work against each other?
If anythin this sounds like the perceived infinity of expressions in text vs. it's practical limitations, that (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1937143#post1937143) I talked about before.
If text holds infinite ways to express yourself then
theoretically you could just replenish any shortcomings on other channels by text... But as I said, this is attached to typing effort, time expense and other unpleasantries. Hence text stays a deficient medium compared to face-2-face.
And that's what I would call a mild and non-controversial statement. Just not on the internet, eh?
EDIT: Bah, here I go explaining your crap for you. As a discussion partner you're quite useless.
Rug Burn Junky on 1/12/2009 at 18:40
Quote Posted by Kolya
Yeah ok, the problem is either just me, or just
the retards, in case someone else asked the same question, blah bla. It just goes on like that without you showing any signs of making a decent argument.
You know, everyone else here has digested what I wrote, said "hrm, fair enough. Makes sense. No big deal."
You keep misinterpreting it and trying to come up with some GOTCHA moment, and it just ain't there. I don't need to make any further argument - it's all self-contained and pretty straightforward. You're just so determined not to concede that I made sense that you're twisting everything I wrote into something it isn't. That's why you're being a jackass.
Quote:
Here comes RBJ, saying the latter is just as well as the first, heck he can distinguish patterns even better when there are less channels. Awesome.
That ain't what I said. Until you figure that out, you're just continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Kolya on 1/12/2009 at 18:44
Alright I won't throw your words back at you again, princess. Quite tired of that.
