Debates similar to this occur in reference to how changes come about in the words of our languages - I recall some heated debates about what should be included in the new version of the Oxford English Dictionary where some of the older school wanted very little of the newer usages which were mainly bastardizations in their eyes, while some of the younger contingent wanted inclusion of all sorts of things such as "Yatta, yatta, yatta" (a phrase uttered by the female character on Seinfeld and subsequently a part of the vocabulary of certain younger folks in the USA - I'm not sure whether I'm spelling it right). My belief is somewhere in between - we can't expect language never to change, nor expect that every utterance is immediately sanctified into a standard of our language. As with most things, one can deconstruct or construct it either way but at it's core is an idea, the idea of language, which exists independent of our analysis or deconstructions of it. One can deconstruct the idea of colors and the notion of "red" by showing that it becomes difficult to identify as it borders other colors, that other people have different intrepretations of exactly where are the bounds of what constitutes red; nonetheless "red" exists independently as an idea, regardless of how we can show it to be deconstructed and "meaningless."
But my point is simpler than all that: if we try, we can all communicate pretty well without smiley faces as we always have in letters to each other, letters to the editor, etc. (Part of the reason some of us might want to do this is because of a belief in the idea of language.) In this way, we can reduce the superfluous, which to me is per se a good thing - an opinion or bias, admittedly. In addition, we can give attention to the beauty of abstract language without feeling a need to include aspects of body language or whatever else someone feels language suddenly requires. Again, this is all just opinion and someone might feel great about the idea of deconstructing language just for the fun of it. That's what makes the world go 'round. However, it is odd for those who advocate smiley faces to require their use by others. (I don't use smiley faces but don't require others not to use them, though admittedly I do sometimes poke fun.) I would say: expect that some won't use them and try hard to understand what you are reading, rather than focusing on what visual cues you are missing.
--- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Soames Wetmore wrote:
> > That it is easier is sometimes a recommendation
against it.
Sometiimes it is. Agreed.
We tend to gloss over meaning and nuances if we're
rapidly typing an
email to someone. Emails don't require as much
attention to the
details of 'conversation,' do they? So, yes, your
point is well taken.
> I love how all
> of a sudden in the last ten years people suddenly
find it so difficult to
> live without smiley faces in their writing and
find all sorts of
> justification for how necessary they.
...are.
> > easier to simply append a textual <smile!> isn't
it?
> >
> > > Dr E D F Williams
> >
> > Keith Whaley
Good points, all. However, language develops with use. Fact. Can't
stop it. Changing all the time. Of course, we can't put smileys in out face-to-face
conversations,
becasue we do that automatically.
On the other hand, we, as a society, have never done
so much written
(typed) conversation.
We would ordinarily have saved it for a phone call
(where you can
heaar voice inflections...) or a personal letter.
Evolution is not always good, is it?
keith whaley
_________________________________________________________________
Broadband?�Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
