NationStates Jolt Archive

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.

I'm curious--based on what criteria do you regard one set of symbols used for communication as superior to another?

This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent

No comment.

Aside from that I'll rely on the old sword - actions speak louder than words. Telling someone you love them is much weaker than letting them work it out for themselves.

No comment.
But by not making a comment to one specific point, you imply that a comment could be made, which, in itself, is a sort of comment. So your absence of comment is a comment, which means that there is no absence and . . .

There are no words to express my feeling so confusion right now, so, I guess that means that I <I:=:I3[-=:> You.

I'm curious--based on what criteria do you regard one set of symbols used for communication as superior to another?
On the basis that complexity breeds complexity. The more detailed your communication, the more detailed your mind. Our ansestors likely used gesture and emoted grunting as communication. Once talking came arround, it was possible to trade much more complex ideas and more coordinated life styles were created. The goal of Newspeak was to reduce all communication to positive and negative (yes and no)<edit: only yes>. This would have made it possible to control the thoughts of the masses by making them as dumb as cows to be hearded to the slaughter.

No comment.

Aside from that I'll rely on the old sword - actions speak louder than words. Telling someone you love them is much weaker than letting them work it out for themselves.

Ah, but the act of speaking is an action. Also, studies have shown that marriages last longer if the couple tells each other they love each other once a day, at leased. Plus, would your significant other like it if you never told them that?

There are no words to express my feeling so confusion right now, so, I guess that means that I <I:=:I3[-=:> You.

There has been a breakdown of communication: I have NO IDEA what that means!
Another name for this thread could have been
'Meyes Doubelunyes Emotiyesunyes: Orwell and Emoticon Jargon'.

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.
Amen the way culture in the west is going right now the english language is going to be completely dead proper english is the hallmark of education
really everyone just needs to watch "My Fair Lady"

But by not making a comment to one specific point, you imply that a comment could be made, which, in itself, is a sort of comment. So your absence of comment is a comment, which means that there is no absence and . . .

You may very well think that, and those thoughts might accurately reflect the way you perceive the situation, but at this juncture I can neither confirm nor deny whether I believe you actually have valid grounds for such an outlook.

OAh, but the act of speaking is an action.

Yes, but not all of them are performative actions.

Also, studies have shown that marriages last longer if the couple tells each other they love each other once a day, at leased. Plus, would your significant other like it if you never told them that?

And the correlation between love and marriage is what, exactly? (Leaving aside all refernces to horses and carriages, if you please.)

There has been a breakdown of communication: I have NO IDEA what that means!
Well, isn't that just serendipitous, considering how the communication wasn't really meant for you, and all.
You might further consider that the use of that symbol grants me the ability to convey a sentiment more complex than I would achieve with your, rather limited, language.

Well, isn't that just serendipitous, considering how the communication wasn't really meant for you, and all.
You might further consider that the use of that symbol grants me the ability to convey a sentiment more complex than I would achieve with your, rather limited, language.

If it was meant to convey confusion, it has confused me, so it has achieved its purpose. You could have said that you were really confused and everyone who speeks english would have understood, as we have all felt that at one point or another. Emotion is universal. Further, if it was not meant for me, then who? Why post it?

ps: Language is only limited because of the separation of people's minds. If you wish to convey anything deeper than what words can say, if you wield the proper skill, then only telepathy can help (wich I dont believe in). Going deeper would probably result in invasion of privacy as well, but that is a different matter.

I would like to point out that this is actually the planet Earth, and not the planet Vulcan. Just so we're all clear on that.

If it was meant to convey confusion, it has confused me, so it has achieved its purpose. You could have said that you were really confused and everyone who speeks english would have understood, as we have all felt that at one point or another. Emotion is universal.
Yes, but confusion simplifies the matter into a yes/no state. "Are you confused?", "Yes", whereas my symbol specified a very specific kind of confusion: namely that point at which you have thought yourself into a circular argument and there is no logical escape.
Further, if it was not meant for me, then who? Why post it?
It was meant for the person I was responding too, and, in response to your second query: why post anything? Why have this arguemnt? Why do anything?
I posted it becuase doing so amused me, the same reason I do anything else in my life.

It was meant for the person I was responding too, and, in response to your second query: why post anything? Why have this arguemnt? Why do anything?
I posted it becuase doing so amused me, the same reason I do anything else in my life.

Then you are a heartless sociopath. Im sorry I invaded your egotistic existence.

Yes, but confusion simplifies the matter into a yes/no state. "Are you confused?", "Yes", whereas my symbol specified a very specific kind of confusion: namely that point at which you have thought yourself into a circular argument and there is no logical escape.

There, see. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

<_<

On the basis that complexity breeds complexity.

As well as a lot of unnecessary clutter, pretention, and eletism. There is often elegance (not to mention greater understanding) to be found in simplicity. Chosing one at the expense of the other is a bit foolish.

It’s a new breed of language specific to the Internet that crosses language boundaries; I find that quite interesting, otherwise, I'm not a big fan.

Ah, but the act of speaking is an action. Also, studies have shown that marriages last longer if the couple tells each other they love each other once a day, at leased. Plus, would your significant other like it if you never told them that?

DOes the marriage last longer because the couple tells each other that they love each other daily? Or is their expression of love a side-effect of some third cause that also influences the length of a marriage?

On the basis that complexity breeds complexity. The more detailed your communication, the more detailed your mind. Our ansestors likely used gesture and emoted grunting as communication. Once talking came arround, it was possible to trade much more complex ideas and more coordinated life styles were created. The goal of Newspeak was to reduce all communication to positive and negative (yes and no)<edit: only yes>. This would have made it possible to control the thoughts of the masses by making them as dumb as cows to be hearded to the slaughter.

Exactly, Complexity of communication is related to complexity of thought (one may or may not cause the other, see my comment on 'love speak/marriage' above). Doesn't the addition of Smiley's enlarge the human vocabulary rather than restrict it? Adding :) and :eek: and other visual expressions to a primarily audible language adds an extra dimension to communication, increasing the complexity available for expression.
I.E. Saying "I love you" and "I love you :fluffle:" yields two different meanings, before smiley's, we could only express 'I love you', now we can express both "I love you" and "I love you :fluffle:"

A picture is worth A thousand words.;)

As well as a lot of unnecessary clutter, pretention, and eletism. There is often elegance (not to mention greater understanding) to be found in simplicity. Chosing one at the expense of the other is a bit foolish.

True, extreams are most often wrong. This is a good point, especially when regarding the 'development' of forests. Yet, we already have curse words to use for many emotions and people have made due with that until very recently. Thus, I feel that the need for emoticons and the like is unneeded in our society. If they were, something of the like would already have been put into use.

DOes the marriage last longer because the couple tells each other that they love each other daily? Or is their expression of love a side-effect of some third cause that also influences the length of a marriage?


Doesn't the addition of Smiley's enlarge the human vocabulary rather than restrict it? Adding :) and :eek: and other visual expressions to a primarily audible language adds an extra dimension to communication, increasing the complexity available for expression.
I.E. Saying "I love you" and "I love you :fluffle:" yields two different meanings, before smiley's, we could only express 'I love you', now we can express both "I love you" and "I love you :fluffle:"

A picture is worth A thousand words.;)

This may be true, however this is just a shortcut for "Kiss me, my love". The 'need' for an emoticon there is simply a sign that you need the help of a poet and or linguist to express your sentiments. Or it could just be that your linguistic ability has been stunted due to prolonged exposure to 'internet short-hand'.

A poem is worth a thousand pictures.

ps: New words only add another dimention if they specify further or create something new. What you are doing is creating something that generalizes what has already been said. This is the basis of Newspeak, as well as the reason why speach is superior to, say, a dog bark or a screaming baby: you can only make an educated (or uneducated) guess as to what is meant. If the baby or dog (hypothetically, of course) to say that they were hungry, there would be no confusion.

Have you never considered the reason people began to use emoticons in written communication? It's because there is a gap in our written language that cannot be filled by words. Gestures and tone are vital parts of communication, and are needed to convey to each other our emotions. Without such things as : :), sarcasm and any number of other such things could not be effectively communicated by written communication. Sarcasm etc is lost :eek: Thus, in this, the age of IM, emoticons play a vital role in our communication.

I could go on, but I'm sure you can see what I am saying ;)

Have you never considered the reason people began to use emoticons in written communication? It's because there is a gap in our written language that cannot be filled by words. Gestures and tone are vital parts of communication, and are needed to convey to each other our emotions. Without such things as : :), sarcasm and any number of other such things could not be effectively communicated by written communication. Sarcasm etc is lost :eek: Thus, in this, the age of IM, emoticons play a vital role in our communication.

I could go on, but I'm sure you can see what I am saying ;)

This sort of thinking will only get you back to the Orwellian principle. Eventually, and even now, I'm sure, there will be conversations almost entirely in emoticon, leading to possible miscommunication because of the lack of specifics. Also consider those who have Asberger's Syndrome and have emmense trouble with facial expression due to it's lack of specifics and opennes to interpretation.

Anyone still interested?

Miscommunication is a drawback of all complex communications. Any time you get more complicated than absolutes (yes/no) then the possibility exists for misscommunication. All relatives (I.E. non-absolutes) are inherently colored in the speekers view by personal circumstances and experiences. Likewise, these relatives are colored differently by the listener based on circumstances and experiences. The more ocmplex comunication becomes, the greater the chance for miscommunication due to the greater quantity and importance of relatives in communication. A visual addition to vocabulary can be explicit without the relativity of most non-absolute statements, and while increasing the complexity of language, these 'smileys' serve as a limiting factor on misunderstanding and miscommunication.

You can't say that smileys arebad because they over-simplify language and then turn around and say that they increase the likelyhood of miscommunication. The two are mutually exclusive, Simpler language conveys strict absolutes and cannot be misconstrued, complex language contains absolutes and relatives and can be miscontstrued.

Then you are a heartless sociopath. Im sorry I invaded your egotistic existence.

Knock it off.

You've almost got me! The thing is is that, the more specific you get, the more you understand the facts so that you can form an opinion. The over simplification results in less choice, less opinion. ( I revoke the earlier sentiments on this) THIS is what Orwell talked about: if you can't form opinions, you can't dissagree with authority.

I don't mind smileys.
What I find ironic is the number of spelling and grammatical errors present in a thread complaining of the loss of complex language.

Knock it off.
Sorry if I put it bluntly, but that is what the post implied. Perhaps if it had been more specific, I would have understood (I still don't). And, no, I'm not being smug or lecturing, I simply would like to have it clarified (I'm rather Asburger's and bluntness is a part of that: facts over hurting feelings.)

I don't mind smileys.
What I find ironic is the number of spelling and grammatical errors present in a thread complaining of the loss of complex language.

In mine or other's? Please correct me if I have (I mean this genuinly. Note: correct any errors I make. I correct others and I would like the same for me.).

I'm tired. I'm going to bed. Hopefully this thread will survive without me, since I posted at leased half of the time on here.

Language is a filter that obscures reality, as well as describing it. Zen monks spend years learning to break free of language and perceive the universe as it is. Too bad there's no *shrug* smiley to insert here.

On the basis that complexity breeds complexity. The more detailed your communication, the more detailed your mind. Our ansestors likely used gesture and emoted grunting as communication. Once talking came arround, it was possible to trade much more complex ideas and more coordinated life styles were created. The goal of Newspeak was to reduce all communication to positive and negative (yes and no)<edit: only yes>. This would have made it possible to control the thoughts of the masses by making them as dumb as cows to be hearded to the slaughter.

Hell, I used gestures and emotive grunting myself at times.

I'm a lover of complexity myself. Like you, I think the use of complex symbol sets promotes the improvement of our minds, which I consider to be a positive thing.

But I'm also a lover of efficiency, and emoticons provide that efficiency when used properly, and as others have mentioned can actually enhance the accuracy of communicative representations.

@Brains in Tanks

Live long and prosper. :p

You've almost got me! The thing is is that, the more specific you get, the more you understand the facts so that you can form an opinion. The over simplification results in less choice, less opinion. ( I revoke the earlier sentiments on this) THIS is what Orwell talked about: if you can't form opinions, you can't dissagree with authority.

That's a good point, but what is an uninformed opinion? True, if you overly specify then you run the risk of limiting opinions, which are important. But Smileys provide a sort of escape from that, they specify, but they do so ambiguously, as you have mentioned, they complicate the presentation of ideas and thoughts and allow the listener to draw more conclusions rather than less. I know this sounds like it goes against my earlier statement, but a lack of miscommunication and specificity (sp?) are not the same thing. Smileys allow a speaker to relate informational context (As has been previously mentioned, such as sarcasm) that can inform an opinion without limiting the possibilities except to remove those that would be rendered irrelevant without the context that smileys present in written communication, and tone/facial expression present in spoken communication. Smileys provide a much needed analogue from verbal communication to written communication.

Then you are a heartless sociopath. Im sorry I invaded your egotistic existence.
So what higher purpose do you serve by arguing on the 'net? In which Holy Book does it say: "And thou shalt go forth upon thy l33t b0xx0rz; and when thou comest upon pr0n, thou shalt whacketh it; and when thou comest upon message boards, thou shalt argue about language, so sayeth the Lord"?

This sort of thinking will only get you back to the Orwellian principle. Eventually, and even now, I'm sure, there will be conversations almost entirely in emoticon, leading to possible miscommunication because of the lack of specifics. Also consider those who have Asberger's Syndrome and have emmense trouble with facial expression due to it's lack of specifics and opennes to interpretation.

I doubt very much that there will ever be "conversations almost entirely in emoticon" (btw, for someone harping on about the language, you have made a few spelling/ grammatical errors), simply because it's not feasible. Nothing could really be conveyed other than emotions, not actual information, and, in any case, emoticons are primarily to add to the conversation, not be the conversation.

I have very little knowledge of Aspergers, but I fail to see its relevence to my point. :)

This may be a different angle to approach this from, but I use emoticons while in internet conversation as a substitute for body language. Since we cannot see each other through this medium, we must find another way to express what we would naturally see in a face to face conversation. It is my way of making myself clear when I am using sarcasm, being very happy or sad or angry, or other types of things. True, I could type (/sarcasm) at the end of my sentance, but :P is so much efficient, and in person, I would actually stick out my tongue, I wouldn't say "end sarcasm."

In short, I think that emoticons have a time and a place, and a proper usage.

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.
ah yes, but using words as well as smilies/emoticons can portray a more complete picture of the issue being discussed, especially when it is an emotional matter, or is being discussed between two (or more) emotionally aware people. some people use facial gestures and empathy in their RL dealings with others in a large way to gague how, and often what, to communicate - for these people (myself included), using emoticons in conjunction with a text-based communication method, completes the 'picture' and makes them no more or less 'deficient' than others.


i think it would be interesting for you, and those who share your views, to take the Emotional Quotient (http://web.tickle.com/tests/eiq/?test=eiqogt) test... i don't expect a clear correlation between EQ and use of smilies, but it would be interesting to test :)
127 here, for the record *nods*

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.
what?[confused] are you serious? [incredulous] I believe emoticons actually enhance understading of what's being typed. [happy and supportive] you see. alot of things can be misconstrued without emoticons because words are sterile. sure you can choose to use words wisely but not everyone has that skill. a well placed smilie [laughing] for instance can change a biting remark to a source of humor. or an off chanse remark into a challange of one's personal worth.[F*#K OFF @$$HOLE] However, [serious] I am against the overuse of smilies or that an emoticon automatically removes the responsibility of choosing one's words. [wisely nodding]

Hope this made sense. [hopefull]

i dont think you realise but reading and writing are not actually high intelligence subjects, it's not complex for the brain to recognise and repeat symbols.

but yes i have the chav "fuckwit" as it has so been named, by using punctuation and abbreviations to spell whole words.

why can't we all speak newspeak. it would be doubleplusgood

The non-use of smilies is all well and good if everybodys primary language was the same, which as we all know in this day and age is simply not the case. You may not be able to speak Ukantbeserinese but I'm sure you would understand a smilie. Any language is too intricate to purely rely on words if neither party are fluent in the subtle nuances of the other persons language.
Smilies in my opinion, are universal, regardless of your primary or whatever language and level of competence in communicating to others. I've seen many an internet argument that could have been avoided if a simple little brightly coloured set of pixels had been added after a statement to clarify the intent or lack of.

ah yes, but using words as well as smilies/emoticons can portray a more complete picture of the issue being discussed, especially when it is an emotional matter, or is being discussed between two (or more) emotionally aware people. some people use facial gestures and empathy in their RL dealings with others in a large way to gague how, and often what, to communicate - for these people (myself included), using emoticons in conjunction with a text-based communication method, completes the 'picture' and makes them no more or less 'deficient' than others.

This may be a different angle to approach this from, but I use emoticons while in internet conversation as a substitute for body language. Since we cannot see each other through this medium, we must find another way to express what we would naturally see in a face to face conversation. It is my way of making myself clear when I am using sarcasm, being very happy or sad or angry, or other types of things. True, I could type (/sarcasm) at the end of my sentance, but :P is so much efficient, and in person, I would actually stick out my tongue, I wouldn't say "end sarcasm."

In short, I think that emoticons have a time and a place, and a proper usage.

what?[confused] are you serious? [incredulous] I believe emoticons actually enhance understading of what's being typed. [happy and supportive] you see. alot of things can be misconstrued without emoticons because words are sterile. sure you can choose to use words wisely but not everyone has that skill. a well placed smilie [laughing] for instance can change a biting remark to a source of humor. or an off chanse remark into a challange of one's personal worth.[F*#K OFF @$$HOLE] However, [serious] I am against the overuse of smilies or that an emoticon automatically removes the responsibility of choosing one's words. [wisely nodding]

Hope this made sense. [hopefull]

I agree with all these people. Emoticons add to a conversation what you would usually have with face-to-face communication ; they substitute in for body language, facial expressions etc.

I don't see anything wrong with this. You probably can portray the exact tone you want in words alone, but that takes an awful lot of effort if you're just treating the internet as somewhere social or informal, just wanting to converse for fun. In real life you would use facial expressions and body language, and I treat this place like real life in trying to get across these things in a smilie equivilant.

In real life, if you said "I hate you" as a joke, some people would use dry wit and say it dead seriously. But I think most people would be very obvious that they're joking in their tone of voice and facial expression so, on the net, saying "I hate you! :p " is more appropriate. Adding more words totally defeats the point of that phrase used as a joke - it's supposed to be extreme and very blunt and "shocking" - so you need the smilie to add context.

When actually in debate, or if writing an essay or doing something else more intellectually focused, I can easily drop the smilies and use words alone to express the points and the opinion that I want to get across. It in no way diminishes my ability to do that so I don't accept that argument. It makes it possible to be "lazier" with communication, but it in no way demands that from everyone, all the time.

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.

Big up the elitist massive!

I don't really like using emoticons or whatever either, but it's a bit small-minded to critisise those who do. They're one way of communication, you might like another form.

Let people choose, rather than forcing your beliefs on everyone, please.

Not allowing smileys is like not allowing body language. A lot of our communication is through body language. You wouldn't take the time to explain at length that what someone said about your mom pissed you off greatly because you happen to love your mom very much and you know several examples of how she is not what that someone said she was. You'd just show them by giving them a dirty look and punching them in the nose.

Smileys act as a sort of substitute for the body language you'd 'speak' in real life when a lengthy text explaination of what you're feeling is impractical.

It looks like this person is in agreement:

This may be a different angle to approach this from, but I use emoticons while in internet conversation as a substitute for body language. Since we cannot see each other through this medium, we must find another way to express what we would naturally see in a face to face conversation. It is my way of making myself clear when I am using sarcasm, being very happy or sad or angry, or other types of things. True, I could type (/sarcasm) at the end of my sentance, but :P is so much efficient, and in person, I would actually stick out my tongue, I wouldn't say "end sarcasm."

In short, I think that emoticons have a time and a place, and a proper usage.

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.
you're pained and shamed because you used emoticons?
(I bet you cry when it rains too right?)
You need to see a shrink and soon.

Ah, but the act of speaking is an action. Also, studies have shown that marriages last longer if the couple tells each other they love each other once a day, at leased*. Plus, would your significant other like it if you never told them that?

*Least.

In mine or other's*? Please correct me if I have (I mean this genuinly. Note: correct any errors I make. I correct others and I would like the same for me.).
*others

*Least.
*others


Post Whore!

Yes.

I'm definately a post whore.

I'm definately a post whore.

To err is human, to point it out in others is just petty.

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.

;) :eek: :headbang: :)

why can't we all speak newspeak. it would be doubleplusgood

Actually, it would be doubleplusUNgood. The whole point of Newspeak was to reduce language to a minimum so that complex and abstract notions such as "freedom", "love", "privacy", "loyalty", "friendship", et cetera (i.e., thoughtcrime) could not be discussed and would therefore disappear as concepts after a generation or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Emoticons are the only substitute in written-word-only chat/language for not only body language and facial expressions, but tone of voice as well. If someone says "I think all stupid people should be killed." on the forum, you don't know if they're being sarcastic, being trolls, or being serious. In person, it would be very easy to tell. Even on the phone or in a voice chat, it would be easier. The words on the screen have no tone, no expression, nothing to determine how they were intended. Verbal communication, even, has the advantage of tone of voice, but written word does not. That's why we need emoticons online. They shouldn't be used as the only form of communication, just as a supplement so that people understand the tone of your words. Otherwise, we don't know what you meant by the words, therefore we don't know how to react, and we often react in an unintended way.

And for the record, you have no grounds to be correcting others' spelling or grammar, as yours is on rocky ground at the moment. You've made at least a double handful of mistakes in this thread alone, and I shudder to think of what your corrections of others are.

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.
I can't STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you can't express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intelligence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The action of taking the shortcut to express myself will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.
:rolleyes:

Emoticons are the only substitute in written-word-only chat/language for not only body language and facial expressions, but tone of voice as well. If someone says "I think all stupid people should be killed." on the forum, you don't know if they're being sarcastic, being trolls, or being serious.

"We could just all talk in the third person, and include dialogue tags," Heron-Marked Warriors said with a wry smile. Surely nobody would take this idea seriously?

"We could just all talk in the third person, and include dialogue tags," Heron-Marked Warriors said with a wry smile. Surely nobody would take this idea seriously?

Kat said, with a sigh, "That would take a good deal more time, take up far more server space, and generally seem just as annoying as when a certain American politician spoke of himself often in the third person." ;) at Heron-Marked Warriors. Surely they would!

Let's all refer to ourselves in the fourth person then. That's right, fourth.

Semir chuckled quietly, waving the Hand of Ridiculous Proportions[tm] expressively. "Yes, Kat is right. That would be long and drawn out. And that's what swifter communicative mediums like IRC are for."

I don't mind smileys.
What I find ironic is the number of spelling and grammatical errors present in a thread complaining of the loss of complex language.
The English Teacher has spoken! Sieg Heil! ;)

"We could just all talk in the third person, and include dialogue tags," Heron-Marked Warriors said with a wry smile. Surely nobody would take this idea seriously?
"Sure, great idea. Then instead of doing anything, we'll simply talk about our actions, as in 'I walked into the room' rather than actually walking into the room. Think of all the homework you could avoid that way!" Czardas said, surreptitiously running his hand across his "Oh lord, what fools these mortals be!" T-shirt and rolling his eyes skyward as he continued to type at his computer screen.

"Sure, great idea. Then instead of doing anything, we'll simply talk about our actions, as in 'I walked into the room' rather than actually walking into the room. Think of all the homework you could avoid that way!" Czardas said, surreptitiously running his hand across his "Oh lord, what fools these mortals be!" T-shirt and rolling his eyes skyward as he continued to type at his computer screen.
You must do this kind of thing a lot, talk in the third person.

You must do this kind of thing a lot, talk in the third person.
"Or even fourth person!" an Unknown Person said from a hexadimensional sphere suspended in a sea of nothingness from a string fashioned of oblivion.

The English Teacher has spoken! Sieg Heil! ;)
Ah, the thread's over now. ;)

Ah, the thread's over now. ;)
The NSUGP forever!!!

Ah, the thread's over now. ;)

Yup, that was a Nazi-forfeit alright.

"Or even fourth person!" an Unknown Person said from a hexadimensional sphere suspended in a sea of nothingness from a string fashioned of oblivion.

I should've thought fourth person would be getting someone else to speak in third person for you.

Or is that too simple, and too likely to turn us all in to neanderthals? With the puffs of coloured smoke and swirling clouds and when it clears there we all are, scratching various areas and grooming each other.

And for the record, you have no grounds to be correcting others' spelling or grammar, as yours is on rocky ground at the moment. You've made at least a double handful of mistakes in this thread alone, and I shudder to think of what your corrections of others are.
I only didn't correct people because most people find it enoying an I didn't want to interupt the thread. Also, Whithy Windle's a crappy speller, the librarian read aloud (actual fourth person).

*others
No, actually it should have been others', as I was trying (and failing) to indicate possessive.

I Cant STAND this reversion to using emotion and gesture as a form of communication! If you cant express what you feel using words, as a human, you are truly deficient. This can only lead to a reversion in intellegence that is already becoming apparent. I admit that I have used emoticons before, but it pains and shames me. The the action of taking the shortcut to express my self will not occur again. I find this to be on par with Orwellian Newspeak.
\/\/3|| 7h3n h0w d0 y0u f33| 480u7 1337? 1 f1nd 17 4n0y1n6 8u7 17 15 n07 3x4(7|y 7h3 54m3 45 3m071(0n5.

4nyw4y5 45 |0n6 45 0n3 (4n und3r574nd wh47 4n07h3r 15 5p33k1n6 1 6u355 17 15 f1n3 w17h m3 7h0u6h 1 d0 637 4n0y3d 50m371m35

\/\/3|| 7h3n h0w d0 y0u f33| 480u7 1337? 1 f1nd 17 4n0y1n6 8u7 17 15 n07 3x4(7|y 7h3 54m3 45 3m071(0n5.

4nyw4y5 45 |0n6 45 0n3 (4n und3r574nd wh47 4n07h3r 15 5p33k1n6 1 6u355 17 15 f1n3 w17h m3 7h0u6h 1 d0 637 4n0y3d 50m371m35
I started to read this, but then said the hell with it and gave up.

I started to read this, but then said the hell with it and gave up.
7h475 0k 1 d1d n07 h4v3 70 7h1nk 480u7 17 wh1|3 7yp1n6 ... 1 u53d 4 (0nv3r73r

.. -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. .... .- ...- . ..- ... . -.. - .... .. ... .. -. ... - . .- -.. --- ..-. .---- ..--- ..--- --...

Rough translation (thats ok I did not have to think about it while typing I used a converter (in firefox)

It could have been worse I could have used this instead)