Re: OT: The basis of faith (Was: Re: Children should wear bicycle helmets)

[Chris Malcolm]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

>Smileys also allow the removal of doubt where there may otherwise be
>ambiguity as to intent, particulary where one is trying to be concise.

Provided that one can distinguish such transparent use of the smiley
from those which are ironic, ambiguous, incompetent, or otherwise
misleading

The whole idea of the smiley has always seemed to me to be like fixing
a roof leak by replacing the missing slate with one prised up from
another part of the roof.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Mark Thompson]

> You make the presumption that unlike the rest of the text, a smiley
> will not be used ironically.

Yes.

Dammit, usenet seems to have as many flaws in a face-to-face communication!

 

[JLB]

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>>Or maybe your written English is as inadequate as mine?
>
>
>>I would not know. What do you think?
>
>
> As there was unplanned ambiguity and doubt as to your meaning, I recommend
> you use smileys until you are a competent writer.

For the avoidance of misunderstanding, be a good chap and point out
exactly where you found this unplanned ambiguity and doubt as to my meaning.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap