The individual or team who can craft a keen vision of the core ACAN problem is the only entity which stands even a remote chance of actually solving it
I read this this a.m., and am listening to a new school superintendent at a major urban district give her speech to all school district employees. She just said "equity is a verb."
If you meant "coarse" language (and it's in response to "WTSHTF") then I would respectfully note that your statement is incorrect. Some writing with coarse language is demonstrably better than that without - if you're writing a story about soldiers in war, or dockworkers, or mobsters, a story w/o vulgarity will ring so untrue as to be unreadable.
I'll concede that is generally the case for fiction narrative more often than it's non-fiction, but sometimes calling bullshit is the most effective way of communicating what's going on. Victorian sensibilities don't change that. Even the Supreme Court conceded that "Fuck the Draft" on a jacket was a viable form of protected 1A speech, as is burning a flag (though I believe the dissent's characterization of that as the "inarticulate grunt" of political speech is more true than not).
So, by your categories, "coarse" people using "coarse language" aren't learned people.
That's an interesting assertion and one that pretty quickly falls apart on close inspection.
This post isn't a "science" textbook, it's a weblog article. Certainly better than most, but it's not an academic curricula - which is a criticism of academe, by the way, not TES.
Your references betray an elitism around "learning" - specifically, "textbook" learning, the kind that contains no off-color phrases. Learned people aren't above swearing and "coarse" people can be exceptionally "learned." If Einstein's pamphlet on relativity contains a phrase with double-entendre in his native German, do you think that invalidates its claims?
You're imposing your own linguistic/literary preferences onto the rest of the world, and using them as a poor proxy for what counts as "learned." You've significantly narrowed what you believe you can learn by such a choice. I'm not saying I want TES dropping f-bombs unnecessarily because that certainly can and often does detract from substance, but you've turned that into a categorical assertion that doesn't hold up.
I did a ton of real applied science and learned a lot from helicopter mechanics dropping some expletive-filled sentences that often included a great deal of critical information regarding tricky and deeply technical problems - as just one example.
I don't want to overly pick nits because I'm sure we're fellow travelers, so I'll just tip my cap and agree to disagree.
Whoa! Don't compare me to TES. I have no experience in his fields of expertise - although I have a working knowledge on some of them. And I don't have his data analytic skills.
(Anyway, data analytic skills are "racist, sexist and bigoted!")
I read this this a.m., and am listening to a new school superintendent at a major urban district give her speech to all school district employees. She just said "equity is a verb."
ACAN problem.
@Barry -
If you meant "coarse" language (and it's in response to "WTSHTF") then I would respectfully note that your statement is incorrect. Some writing with coarse language is demonstrably better than that without - if you're writing a story about soldiers in war, or dockworkers, or mobsters, a story w/o vulgarity will ring so untrue as to be unreadable.
I'll concede that is generally the case for fiction narrative more often than it's non-fiction, but sometimes calling bullshit is the most effective way of communicating what's going on. Victorian sensibilities don't change that. Even the Supreme Court conceded that "Fuck the Draft" on a jacket was a viable form of protected 1A speech, as is burning a flag (though I believe the dissent's characterization of that as the "inarticulate grunt" of political speech is more true than not).
"coarse", of coarse.
NYET.
Coarse people use coarse language; learned people don't.
1. TES is not your average pundit.
2. It is like a science textbook containing crude words - they are incompatible.
Can anyone, anyone, define what "free speech" is, and its ambit???
But if you consider TES to be a learned person, it would seem that learned people do indeed use coarse language.
So, by your categories, "coarse" people using "coarse language" aren't learned people.
That's an interesting assertion and one that pretty quickly falls apart on close inspection.
This post isn't a "science" textbook, it's a weblog article. Certainly better than most, but it's not an academic curricula - which is a criticism of academe, by the way, not TES.
Your references betray an elitism around "learning" - specifically, "textbook" learning, the kind that contains no off-color phrases. Learned people aren't above swearing and "coarse" people can be exceptionally "learned." If Einstein's pamphlet on relativity contains a phrase with double-entendre in his native German, do you think that invalidates its claims?
You're imposing your own linguistic/literary preferences onto the rest of the world, and using them as a poor proxy for what counts as "learned." You've significantly narrowed what you believe you can learn by such a choice. I'm not saying I want TES dropping f-bombs unnecessarily because that certainly can and often does detract from substance, but you've turned that into a categorical assertion that doesn't hold up.
I did a ton of real applied science and learned a lot from helicopter mechanics dropping some expletive-filled sentences that often included a great deal of critical information regarding tricky and deeply technical problems - as just one example.
I don't want to overly pick nits because I'm sure we're fellow travelers, so I'll just tip my cap and agree to disagree.
I am so asleep this morning...Barry Okenyan are you being tongue in cheek to TES?
Course language (ha ha) reads as coarse language....
I can't understand the terminology either, would take a week of study to figure
out....
This is kinda like the BCG four squares thing with stars, cash cows, etc.
IN 3D...
I meant coarse, of coarse!
BCG = boston consulting group?
Yes. Barry you are too clever by half
Which half?
TES,
Please don't use coarse language. It adds to nothing in a written form of communication.
See my question to you above (I am still asleep)...
I am blown away by TES intelligence, and your remark confirms
yours as well. I cannot keep up with you guys....
(Making over the head motion with hand while issuing blowing wind sound effects).
Whoa! Don't compare me to TES. I have no experience in his fields of expertise - although I have a working knowledge on some of them. And I don't have his data analytic skills.
(Anyway, data analytic skills are "racist, sexist and bigoted!")