From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Oct 15 2005 - 09:34:43 PDT
I am not having a hard time understanding anything Cari has to say. If
you read it aloud you will find complete sentences, and find that
anything that's spelled weirdly can be phonetically pronounced, and it
is written as a stream of consciousness which has no punctuation in it.
I mean, the thoughts themselves are not punctuated, they come out like
that naturally. But here is once more an attempt to silence someone
through talking about their style, or about what they are allowed or
not allowed to present. It is not her job to produce meaning that
everyone understands. Talking about style and form is just a way of
criticizing someone, of bringing them down. That's all I get from it.
And that's what makes it so people don't want to post. They are afraid
that someone will say they are stupid or don't know how to write or
form an argument. It's so easy to do that. Someone can say, "I want to
talk about yellow here." And someone else will say, "But how can you
talk about yellow when you haven't discussed blue? How can your idea be
worth anything out of context of the whole color wheel? And you haven't
told us whether you're talking about naples yellow or cadmium yellow
light, not to mention mars yellow, which I'm sure you've never even
heard of. You are not qualified to talk about yellow unless you can be
clear about what you mean." And then the person says, "Forget it, I
don't want to talk about yellow anymore, it's not worth it." And then,
we go back to talking about emulsions for the next 6 months, because no
one dares speak about yellow anymore. No one is a sufficient authority
on the matter.
On Oct 15, 2005, at 8:11 AM, James Kreul wrote:
> Thank you Genevieve. Obviously from my previous posts I completely
> agree with you. I think this sentiment has been lurking in the
> background in several posts. As more people express frustration with
> the style, hopefully it will become clear that ideas and arguments are
> actually being obscured or misunderstood because of the style. After
> my apology I realized that it was just adding to the confusion by even
> attempting to crack the code. At this point the thread is winding
> down anyway, but I would suggest that we take a step back and realize
> that half of this has been miscommunication or misinterpretation of
> tone.
>
>
> James Kreul
> UNC-Wilmington
> email suppressed
>
>
> On 10/15/05 6:09 AM, "Genevieve Yue" <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> I want to weigh in on the issue of clarity, because I think it is a
>> relevant one. I am genuinely having a hard time understanding exactly
>> what Cari means to say. I greatly respect an individual's cultivation
>> of a distinctive voice and style, but not at the sacrifice of
>> meaning. And in Cari's recent posts, there have been many
>> alternative/misspellings and punctuation omissions that invite a
>> great deal of ambiguity, confusion and hence, misinterpretation. This
>> is beyond the logic of style; when language is impenetrable it is
>> useless, at least in the context of an informed discussion. We should
>> mean what we say, of course, and in a virtual forum such as
>> Frameworks, it is all the more critical that we say what we mean.
>>
>> Genevieve Yue
> __________________________________________________________________ For
> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
http://www.lifeofastar.com/
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.