One must be philisophical...

Here is the place for your suggestions, comments, or questions regarding the Philosophy Forums.

One must be philisophical...

Post Number:#1  Postby Ramagee » October 9th, 2016, 9:04 am

'' - Clarity, Concision, Simplicity!", the moderator rebukingly reminded me, his ardour in invoking this admirable motto seeming to convey - as he informed me of his latest scrupulous rejection of my attempts at posting to this site on the grounds of a deficiency in all three of these respects - seeming to convey, I felt, an almost boy-scout degree of principled dedication! Ah well - it seems I must yet further strive if ever I'm to boast of equalling the communication standards so regularly exhibited on this site by many of the paragons already deemed worthy to contribute!
Though seriously, regarding all this emphasis placed on, 'Clarity and Concision', I in practice found the moderator's criticisms of my attempt at posting to this site to be more a case of, 'Do as I say, rather than as I do.' - For example, the way the sentences in my post were faulted for being, 'Run-on.' Apart from this phrase sounding, to me at any rate, as if it had been cobbled together from the vocabulary range of a second year student of English as a foreign language - what exactly does it mean? You could say that obviously what the moderator intended to say was that my sentences typically contained too many clauses and that there content would have been rendered more intelligible if, instead of using additional clauses, I had used separate sentences. But then alternatively, he could by this phrase have meant to say that my sentences in fact contained too few clauses and that in his view the addition of more of the same would have had the effect of breaking up the otherwise ongoing train of my words into nuggets of sense more easily digestible in size? - Or might it be that both meanings were equally intended (together with anything else I might interpret the phrase to mean?) That's the trouble with English meant by virtue of being basic to also be both simple and direct - apart from the use of a limited generic vocabulary inevitably tending towards ambiguity of expression, it also frequently achieves merely simplicitude rather than simplicity. - Like the rather vague additional reason given for rejecting my post - that it, 'Could do with lot's of summary.' - Presumably meaning that the same points were stated so repetitively in the post that it could have been significantly abbreviated without any dilution of whatever sense it might contain - This presumably rather than meaning that my post was thought so significant that its' essential message deserved to be widely disseminated!
User avatar
Ramagee
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 0 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: October 3rd, 2016, 11:59 am

One must be philisophical...



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: One must be philisophical...

Post Number:#2  Postby ThamiorTheThinker » October 12th, 2016, 6:16 pm

Which moderator has disapproved your posts on these grounds, and do you have copies of the posts you attempted to submit? I can inform Scott and the other moderators of your complaints, if you wish.
User avatar
ThamiorTheThinker
Moderator
 
Posts: 281 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: October 21st, 2015, 9:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Yoda

Re: One must be philisophical...

Post Number:#3  Postby Burning ghost » October 13th, 2016, 1:58 am

Ramagee -

This is a very peculiar site ... you have to understand that there have been mods here (in the past at least) who've never read any modern philosophy. Cannot blame them because a lot of philosophy whilst striving for clarity ends up to take on an obtuse facade.

You could try writinf both a simplistic summation and the full post to cater to all readers? I have tried this before with little success. I am sure there is a way though.
AKA badgerjelly
Burning ghost
 
Posts: 1328 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: One must be philisophical...

Post Number:#4  Postby Scott » October 13th, 2016, 12:01 pm

Hi @Ramagee

Please proofread your posts better. I imagine that is the main concern.

Long post are totally fine. The lack of proofreading that leads to excessive misspellings and grammar errors also leads to poorly structured posts that are hard for the reader to understand.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic


Return to Feedback, Support & Forum Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST