Subject:
|
Re: Trademarks and misspellings.... oh my! (WAS:Re: Where did the lego's go?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:12:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1572 times
|
| |
|
|
WARNING: Overly analytical and highly anal retentive reply follows. :)
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Gregory writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Allan Bedford writes:
> >
> > Guess I must have. Since there wern't any smilies in the two messages by
> > the two Daves (to which I was replying) I took it to mean that the
> > conversation was meant to be taken at face value. My reply, on the other
> > hand, contained 4 smilies... to indicates it was not meant to be taken too
> > seriously. :)
> >
> > As well, I directed follow-ups to my reply to off-topic.fun. To further
> > drive home the point that I wasn't trying to be heavy-handed or "serious" in
> > my reply. So maybe some of my humorous undertones were overlooked as well. :)
> Man, I had no idea anyone EVER took what I said seriously. : )
I guess my honest and sincere response to that statement would be:
Why wouldn't you expect to be taken seriously?
If you reread your posting:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=41519
For much of the message you are very matter-of-fact about your place of work
and quote a variety of figures related to the thread.
Then near the end you seem to switch to a kind of semi-rant mode; without
any discernible change in the tone. As I mentioned, there aren't any
smilies, no "wink wink, nudge nudge" indicators, nothing that tells us that
you're just joking. Remember, I warned you this was overly anal retentive. ;)
The message is posted to an on-topic group, not an off-topic or fun group.
You seem to be commenting on the lack of ability of companies to even name
themselves correctly and how this might reflect upon their products. This
actually is a serious topic, so I took it seriously. I just wanted to
inject the idea that naming a company really has little to do with the
quality of their output and much more to do with trademark laws.
Keep in mind that for most purposes, email and internet posting read
literally. In other words, the statements you make appear at face value
unless otherwise indicated.
Example:
An older co-worker sends me an email detailing his idea for a solution to a
programming problem we've been working on. In his pseudo-code he uses
references to Mickey Mouse and Goofy, rather than using real data. My
response to him might be this:
You silly old fool.
or this:
You silly old fool. ;)
The first statement reads literally and may be taken as a knock of his work
and of his own status. It reads as though I have found his sample code and
his approach to be less than professional.
The second statement clearly indicates that I got his joke or references.
It's jovial in tone and creates a better sense of comradery.
Two keystrokes.... one huge difference in the way a message is interpreted.
So why am I going on at length about this? Because of your next statement(s):
> Just so
> everyone knows, whenever I post ANYTHING on the internet (here, there,
> anywhere), it's not meant to be taken too seriously.
Until you have said this... how is anyone to know whether you're a
happy-go-lucky kind of bloke or whether you're a suit and tie kind of fellow
who really doesn't "joke around"? We cannot know. So we rely on your
statements and their tone to tell us what you mean. Statements without any
caveats or clarifying marks are meant to be taken seriously. At least that
is the way I've always understood the netiquette of such postings.
Otherwise, if we assume you are always joking, then how are we to know when
you are being serious? :)
This is also the reason that posting to the net, or emailing someone, a
message written in ALL CAPITOL LETTERS is usually frowned upon. It suggests
the person is yelling or is in some way upset. This might seem like
nit-picking but in the environment where I work it is a critical part of our
business communications via email.
Another example:
My boss responds by email to a comment I have made in a conference call.
She might write:
WHAT were you thinking?!?
but my boss would usually write:
What were you thinking? :)
Since what I said in the meeting was likely to have been a humorous comment
intended to break up some tension that was building. But had she sent the
first comment to me, I would have to assume that if she's not REALLY angry,
she's at least not happy with the comment I made. I guess I treat my
postings to LUGNET in the same manner I email from work or home. I try very
carefully to interpret what has been said and reply to it in an appropriate
manner. Smilies beget smilies in my world. ;)
> It's just the internet,
> and I've never met anyone I'm replying to, so how serious could I really be
> anyway.
Good question. And I've never met you. So I wonder why would you assume
that I would know to read all of your comments as being superfluous? Again,
the onus is really on you to be clear about your position within a thread or
conversation.
> I am glad you directed these things to the off topic catagory, 'cause
> they're WAY off from where this string started.
Way off, but sometimes necessary to discuss.
> : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : )
See... now we know where you're coming from. :)
Allan B.
(Who's often serious... but not always!)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
