--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As another exercise in "thinking out loud," here's another > installment in my musings on writing about spirituality. > > I'm a language freak. Not in the same sense as Card, but > I really get off on language, its nuances, and the ways in > which the *ways* in which people write often says more > about who they are and what they believe than *what* they > choose to say. > > In other words, it's often not the *content* of what a > person says that communicates, it's *how* they choose to > say it.
I've pointed out several times that your interest is solely in how your words look/sound, not in what you're actually saying. What you say is usually shallow, illogical, and inaccurate, but you've spent a lot of time and effort making the *words* look impressive. That's all that counts for you. Here you've confirmed exactly what I've been saying. > No judgments here, no "better" or "worse," just an attempt > to call people's attention to the difference in styles. You > can make your own determinations as to *which* style appeals > to you more. And this is crap. You pay lip service to not making a judgment, but judgment clearly runs through everything you say. For example: > Take another phrase that very *rarely* appears here, "I could > be wrong." Curtis uses this phrase a lot, and a few others do > as well. I always savor and appreciate it when I see it, and > find it refreshing, often *because of* its rarity. Other folks > don't tend to use this phrase very much, IMO :-) because it > often doesn't occur to them that they *could* be wrong, or > that there could be another equally valid way of seeing the > situation. They're "right," and they know it. If you don't want to be thought of as judging, you'll have to do a lot better at keeping the judgment out of your posts.
