Don't be a cosmic idiot

[Aquagraph]

This is something you should see:



Or in short:


Also:

E-Prime (short for English-Prime, sometimes denoted E′) is a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb to be. E-Prime does not allow the conjugations of to be—be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being— the archaic forms of to be (e.g. art, wast, wert), or the contractions of to be—'s, 'm, 're (e.g. I'm, he's, she's, they're).

Some scholars advocate using E-Prime as a device to clarify thinking and strengthen writing. For example, the sentence "the film was good" could translate into E-Prime as "I liked the film" or as "the film made me laugh". The E-Prime versions communicate the speaker's experience rather than judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion with fact.

Better use that next time you are about to type someone with absolute certainty.

[krieger]

E-Prime (short for English-Prime, sometimes denoted E′) is a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb to be. E-Prime does not allow the conjugations of to be—be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being— the archaic forms of to be (e.g. art, wast, wert), or the contractions of to be—'s, 'm, 're (e.g. I'm, he's, she's, they're).

Some scholars advocate using E-Prime as a device to clarify thinking and strengthen writing. For example, the sentence "the film was good" could translate into E-Prime as "I liked the film" or as "the film made me laugh". The E-Prime versions communicate the speaker's experience rather than judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion with fact.

dumb. as if you never want to leave things in the middle as to what you meant, or leave it to the imagination of the reader.

[Aquagraph]

dumb. as if you never want to leave things in the middle as to what you meant, or leave it to the imagination of the reader.

The idea is not to use it at all times. It's a tool that has purposes and just like other tools they have their place and use.

[krieger]

WRONG:

E-Prime (short for English-Prime, sometimes denoted E′) is a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb to be.

[Fermi]

how shortsighted was that labster? You can use E-prime on a segment of text. It doesn't mean you have to use it on everything you write in your entire life.

[Aquagraph]

how shortsighted was that labster? You can use E-prime on a segment of text. It doesn't mean you have to use it on everything you write in your entire life.

This is what I meant.

[Ryan]

still dumb

[Aquagraph]

still dumb

Explicate.

[krieger]

how shortsighted was that labster? You can use E-prime on a segment of text. It doesn't mean you have to use it on everything you write in your entire life.

look, if you start and stop using it at your leisure it's obviously the same thing as just using English. the only additional feature it confers upon your language use is a handicap. if you can lift that handicap whenever you want, there's nothing left of your cute little innovation.

let me know when you're all caught up with me. in fact, don't. i'm leaving this thread to it's misery.

ps. i was responding to the first part of aqua's post under it's only sensible interpretation, not the second sentence which he edited in later causing him to turn his own comment into a non-sequitur for the reason i express above.

[ashlesha]

its not incredibly interesting to me but i can see its usefulness. if anything as just a mind exercise.

[Gilly]

look, if you start and stop using it at your leisure it's obviously the same thing as just using English. the only additional feature it confers upon your language use is a handicap. if you can lift that handicap whenever you want, there's nothing left of your cute little innovation.

let me know when you're all caught up with me. in fact, don't. i'm leaving this thread to it's misery.

ps. i was responding to the first part of aqua's post under it's only sensible interpretation, not the second sentence which he edited in later causing him to turn his own comment into a non-sequitur for the reason i express above.

Jesus what crawled up your ass dude

He's just saying it can be used intermittently as a technique or language exercise rather than devoting oneself to never using "to be" for the rest of one's life.

[krieger]

yeah, like i said. dumb.

[Absurd]

Bump.

[Aquagraph]

Well, labster sure seemed negative about it. It's just a simple mind exercise if you eliminate that verb from some sentences. If you include the perceiver in the sentence it (which is what this is pretty much about) also makes one impossible to be called out since you can't tell someone that they perceived something otherwise, there will be no more stupid arguments like "Bach is better than Mozart" and in general it's more polite and constructive.

Think about the latter in this sense:
"Labster seemed to miss all of it's value and he didn't even seem willing to give it a thought." vs.
"Labster had missed all of it's value and wasn't even willing to give it a thought."

[Ryan]

Explicate.

give me a fact regarding someone's typing, since you proposed it

[Aquagraph]

give me a fact regarding someone's typing, since you proposed it

First you just simply stated it was dumb and now you seem to request me to help you out on explicating it. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere and further debate would probably be just a useless bummer to this thread since I feel that you are not going to change your mind no matter what would I say.

I'm fine with being with the policy of "You either get it or you don't."

[krieger]

"Labster had missed all of it's value and wasn't even willing to give it a thought."

your mistaking unwillingness to give a thought for a well considered awareness of millions of nuances as to how a proposition is flawed.

[Aquagraph]

@anyone
Could you imagine that increasing the use of sentences which contain the information about the observer being aware that they are merely perceiving could lead to a consciousness that is more aware of being an observer of the subjective nature of reality that is modified by the outlook of the observer?

These include segments of sentence like "I think", "it seems", "in my opinion/experience"?

[Aquagraph]

your mistaking unwillingness to give a thought for a well considered awareness of millions of nuances as to how a proposition is flawed.

And observe how labster quoted the more offensive version of my example!

[Absurd]

Doesn't reality exist independently of your perception?

[Aquagraph]

Doesn't reality exist independently of your perception?

It does seem so to me but I haven't been outside of my perception to perceive.

[Absurd]

It does seem so to me but I haven't been outside of my perception to perceive.

Don't think any one has been.

[Ryan]

First you just simply stated it was dumb and now you seem to request me to help you out on explicating it. It doesn't seem to be going anywhereand further debate would probably be just a useless bummer to this thread since I feel that you are not going to change your mind no matter what would I say.

I'm fine with being with the policy of "You either get it or you don't."

you're full of shit

facts and opinions are the same thing, and they're just as useless, the only difference between them is the likelihood of being true - and that's usually determined individually by each person. so you're asking people to rate every fucking statement on a useless and vauge scale that was invented by I don't know who. something could be fact to you but isn't to me, dispite it being highly probable, and what I consider as a fact on a given topic could very well be useless in another. i could go on, but something tells me you don't know what you're talking about. so show me a fact of yours on a relevant topic, like someone's type, or whatever the fuck you were talking about in the op, because obviously I don't understand shit.

also, i swear i had this discussion before, maybe with someone else, but i remember gilly posting in that thread as well

[ashlesha]

i think ryan doesn't get it, lol.

[Ryan]

i think lungs is baiting me, lol

[ashlesha]

does this have to be another thread about whether objective reality exists because i think there's like 17 of those already.

or maybe aqua doesn't care, i dunno.

[Aquagraph]

So you have chosen to start this with me. Sure, doll. It will at least bump the thread.

you're full of shit

I SEEM to be full of shit.

so you're asking people to rate every fucking statement on a useless and vauge scale that was invented by I don't know who.

I didn't ask them to do that to every statement.

something could be fact to you but isn't to me, dispite it being highly probable, and what I consider as a fact on a given topic could very well be useless in another.

Agreed.

so show me a fact of yours on a relevant topic, like someone's type, or whatever the fuck you were talking about in the op, because obviously I don't understand shit.

I don't mix facts with pseudo-sciences.

[Absurd]

[...]people who rely heavily on ‘to be’ (‘I am’, ‘you are’, and ‘we are’) tend to be more dogmatic in their thinking than people who don’t.

What follows is, those dogmatic people after eliminating those forms from their vocabulary won't be dogmatic anymore. Cool, heh.

Ryan, time to stop being dogmatic.

[Ryan]

I don't mix facts with pseudo-sciences.

bingo

should have said that from the very beginning instead of dancing around the subject

well, guess what? i do

[Ryan]

What follows is, those dogmatic people after eliminating those forms from their vocabulary won't be dogmatic anymore. Cool, heh.

Ryan, time to stop being dogmatic.

lol, political correctness ftw

[Aquagraph]

does this have to be another thread about whether objective reality exists because i think there's like 17 of those already.

Good point. I hope these discussions will go along the premise that the reality is subjective. I have no interest in debating with those in favor of Naïve Realism.

[Aquagraph]

well, guess what? i do

Okay. Cute. What was your point again?

[Absurd]

Good point. I hope these discussions will go along the premise that the reality is subjective. I have no interest in debating with those in favor of Naïve Realism.

I wasn't debating anything, just asked, and better cease posting those funny links, if you do not want a debate you're so against, apparently.

[Aquagraph]

Apparently this is a sensitive subject.

[Minde]

Doesn't reality exist independently of your perception?

I had a friendly argument with someone about that, on the top of a shipwreck in the middle of the desert. They said there were multiple realities because there are multiple perceptions; I said reality exists independent of perception, perception is based on reality even if it doesn't fully encompass it (reality -> perception), and while I agree each person's perception is their reality, all the perception-realities are in turn part of the greater reality even if they conflict. I think I lost him on the last one.

Anyway.



E-prime! I learned about this my first semester of English in college. So few people know about it! In my opinion, its judicious use strengthens communication, particularly written. It turns sentences from passive to active and, yes, encourages specifics and clarity.

I have made it a habit when writing. Sometimes if I feel something I wrote is too weak or not impactful enough I'll reread and edit out the "to be" verbs as much as I can. Invariably my writing benefits.

So props and thumbs-up and kudos to Aquagraph for knowing about it! Double points since you don't have English as your first language.

[Ryan]

Good point. I hope these discussions will go along the premise that the reality is subjective. I have no interest in debating with those in favor of Naïve Realism.

"reality" is just as stupid subject as the one you linked, let me know when you leave reality or whatever shit you're on, i'll be sure to cheer you on

you may want to read this page before you start speaking nonsense

Okay. Cute. What was your point again?

god, you're hopeless

[Absurd]

Apparently this is a sensitive subject.

And I used 'you're' in sentence. 'I am' dogmatic.

I had a friendly argument with someone about that, on the top of a shipwreck in the middle of the desert. They said there were multiple realities because there are multiple perceptions; I said reality exists independent of perception, perception is based on reality even if it doesn't fully encompass it (reality -> perception), and while I agree each person's perception is their reality, all the perception-realities are in turn part of the greater reality even if they conflict. I think I lost him on the last one.

Well yes, wonder how would that person reply after passing away. Nice, though.

Atlas farted.

[Aquagraph]

I have made it a habit when writing. Sometimes if I feel something I wrote is too weak or not impactful enough I'll reread and edit out the "to be" verbs as much as I can. Invariably my writing benefits.

I never thought of it as a method to spice up communication but it does make sense.

Thank you for cheering up the thread before it turned sour. I fail to understand what pisses people off about E-prime.

Let it be known that
I'M NOT ADVOCATING CENSORSHIP NOR SAYING THAT JESUS HATES YOU IF YOU DON'T USE ENOUGH E-PRIME!

You can relax now!

Also:
Can someone please tell their best theory of what Ryan is critizing about E-Prime since I don't know and he obviously doesn't want to share.

[Minde]

Well yes, wonder how would that person reply after passing away. Nice, though.

Atlas farted.

Um, yes, I would wonder what they'd say after passing away, too. I haven't heard much from beyond the grave, so I would find it interesting in any case.


One of the funny things about that conversation is that he claimed the logical side. I think logic must be subjective...

[Absurd]

I fail to understand what pisses people off about E-prime.

I doesn't piss me off. It takes a lot to piss me off.

Can someone please tell their best theory of what Ryan is critizing about E-Prime since I don't know and he obviously doesn't want to share.

I have no idea. I'm sure labcoat knows.

Um, yes, I would wonder what they'd say after passing away, too. I haven't heard much from beyond the grave, so I would find it interesting in any case.

One of the funny things about that conversation is that he claimed the logical side. I think logic must be subjective...

Well, one can even deduce logic doesn't exist for it is nothing tangible so it was funny.