Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
as for my style of writing--well, ustwo, like you i am a product of my training and interests---and my training and interests happen to be in philosophy and history---part of that training is familiarity with a kind of abstract shorthand for staging arguments--which i alternate between using here and trying to stay away from because it doesnt fit well within these little limiting boxes --but i dont think it's up to you to determine what is or is not affected, what is or is not "erudite-sounding"--you might consider the possibility that this is simply how i write. the fact that you do not have a parallel familiarity with the shorthand means only that you do not have a parallel familitarity witht he shorthand--you should consider not projecting your lack of familiarity with it back onto some suspicion that this is all some pretense--any more than i treat your biology background as a pretense.
i dont write as i do with any particular idea in mind about putting you or anyone else in a position that requires them to defend themselves by way of projections.
it's how i write.
i hope that is clear enough.
|
Oh I know its your writing style, trust me. I have constantly tested in the 99+% for reading comprehension on several major standardized exams (ACT, GRE, MCat, DAT, Norton Anthology) starting when I was 12, and I normally need to reread your posts a few times to try to make heads or tails of it, unless you are mad in which case you tend to be very clear
I frequently need to change my language in biology postings in order to suite a more general audience and achieve clear communication. I think were you to do the same, you would still be able to convey your thoughts while at the same time reaching a larger audience.