Scotty,
Glad to see that you still have your sense of humor intact, and that you are actually
talking to me
like a gentleman even after many others would have went ape-shit. I respect that a
lot. Now back
to slapping, stomping, and grinding vitals.... :>)
I don't know what is possessing me to not let go of this "over-analyzing", but I can't
help myself.
I just feel it is an important subject, and it affects our Howard discussions
immensely. I feel
that for Howard's defenders to ever be taking seriously in writing or debating, and
for certain
myths and misconceptions about Howard to ever be effectively fought, the language used
has to be
iron-clad in terms of meaning and context. This is not a problem I see exclusively in
your posts
(everyone does it sometimes, myself included), but recent arguments in other forums
has created in
me a desire to analyze this phenomenon, and nip it in the bud if I can. And since you
have posted
the most lately, it's been your posts I find myself rereading with this in mind.
What I meant by "Doublespeak" is that you keep needlessly hedging your opinion,
constantly
cluttering it with "escape hatches" that serve not to clarify what you are saying, but
to provide an
"out" should you change your mind in the future. As you may have guessed by my
constant harping,
this is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, because I have seen it used so many times by
politicians and
government and others to obscure and mislead. I am not accusing you of maliciousness,
but I am
accusing you of hiding your own opinions under what might be called "wimpy-words".
Now you said: "That is certainly true to a good degree."
In this instance, I would say that if "that" is true only "to a good degree", then it
isn't
"certainly true" at all. And what exactly is a "degree" here, and how many degrees
qualify as
"good"? Until these questions are answered, or until the language is cleared up to
the point where
asking these questions isn't necessary, then the statement means NOTHING. Very
frustrating when you
are trying to figure out what someone is actually saying.
In my opinion, your statement needs to be "This is certainly true" or "This is
partially true" or
"This is not true". Those are the clear, honest choices which would convey exactly
what your
opinion is. Your opinion has to fall into one of these neat categories by default, so
why use
confusing ones? It is not "certainly partially true" or "not partially true" or
"certainly true, to
a partial degree" or anything else. The most caveat you need offer is "in my opinion"
(as I did at
the beginning of this paragraph), but even that grates when overused.
I firmly believe that to complain about all of these "needless words" isn't just being
needlessly
anal or over-analyzing the words. I think that statements constructed like this are
frustratingly
evasive at best and knowingly deceptive at worst. In your statement above, saying
"certainly"
implies a certain authoritativeness that isn't there, while "ONLY to a degree" implies
a certain
reversal of the statement that also isn't there. It's like saying "it's true, but not
true." It's
deceptive, it allows you to later say "Well, I said ONLY a degree" if you wish to back
away from
your statement, or to say "I said CERTAINLY true" if you wish to strengthen it. Until
you swing
either way with something more definitive or clear, it says nothing. Zilch.
"Certainly true...but
only to a degree...but it's a GOOD degree..." See what I mean?
Now, you seem to WANT to say that it DEFINITELY is true, but at the same time
something is stopping
you from committing in that way. You seem desperate to avoid finalizing your opinions
in any way
(even though I suspect in your head you have indeed finalized it). This kind of
wishy-washiness
drives me up a wall.
Why not just stand tall and say, "I know my stuff, and (after saying "in my opinion",
if you must)
this is definitely THIS way." Be loud and proud, say it direct and clear, so no one
can
misunderstand. Just because it is an opinion doesn't mean it has to be perennially
couched in
caveats and back-pedals and maybes and "degrees". If someone ever convinces you
otherwise, you can
just as strongly say "you've changed my mind" without shame (or without your previous
opinion being
"wrong").
I sympathize with you feeling "ground beneath my six-foot Hossness". I really do.
I'll pay the
medical bills, I swear. You wouldn't believe this...but every time you hit me with
another one of
these zingers, I feel like MY vitals have been stomped on. It's like a never-ending
battle...you
just said in your last post: "Now actually it ain't doublespeak, even if it sounds
like it". Well
then, if it's not Doublespeak, what is it? Clear and concise language? If it is
indeed clear and
concise, then wouldn't that preclude it from sounding like Doublespeak?
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhh!!!!!!!
Ahhhhh...I've figured it out...since I have finished with most of the really huge
Howard projects I
was working on, I now have this hyper-active, grossly over-developed muscle of
"Howard-energy" that
is demanding to be used, and with nowhere else to go it is forcing me to anally pick
apart your
posts line by line in great detail. I have got to wind this beast down and get it
back into low
gear, or else I truly WILL have to fear for my life in Cross Plains. Why don't I say
a mantra and
meditate? How about:
"The fact I am being too sensitive about your wordings is certainly true, to a good
degree...."
Leo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Scotty Henderson
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [rehfans] Well, it's the 21st century
>
>
> Leo Grin wrote:
> >
> > Scotty wrote:
> >
> > > That is certainly true to a good degree.
> >
> > This is another example of the "Double Speak" I despise so much, managing to sound
>vaguely
> > authoritative while saying nothing concrete. But:
> >
> > > They are so wrapped up in the
> > > character they are less fans of
> > > any genre than they are of role playing.
> >
> > ...is a wonderfully accurate way to characterize this phenomenon. Very perceptive.
>
>
> Hey, thanks Leo. After you slapped me down, stomped me into the ground, and ground my
> vitals beneath
> you're six foot plus Hossness, I'm crawling back up the cliff with bloody hands, the
>cliff you
> didn't mention you were going to fling me offa. What doesn't kill you makes you
>stronger.
> I'll meet
> you on the dirt road, Coffman Rd, beside the Howard house. Bring yur sabres and
>pistols,
> har-har-de-har-harr-rr-r!
>
> Now actually it ain't doublespeak, even if it sounds like it, if you have first hand
> experience and
> knowledge you can relate to. And I do have plenty of knowledge from speaking to non
>REH fans that
> there is a lot of misconceptions floating around because people who are not
>interested pick up
> little tid-bits here and there and misconstrue. And it definitely happens in a lot
>of other areas
> too and it's perfectly understandable. It is in fact a very vague area because there
>are no
> authoritative studies but I have spent time studying the phenomenon of fandom so I do
> have more than
> a passing acquaintance. The point is, my experience and James' experience is
>minuscule
> and we might
> both be wrong but within our knowledge frame we're not. We do know of what we speak
>through direct
> experience. As usual, one individual's truth is not necessarily the whole truth but
>it
> will have to
> do until something better comes along.
>
> Scotty
>
