01-28-2011, 03:31 PM
[
]
I have talked to both Dave and John about Konaforum. You guys are getting worked up about nothing. John is a self-confessed forum junkie, and it was natural that when he got booted from Konaweb that he adopted Konaforum. John also has an interest in Discovery Harbor, so he is interested in the Ka'u web Dave runs as well.
I was briefly a member of the John's Lanai forumat Konaforum; there was nothing I found bizarre or offensive. I got deactivated because I failed to make any posts. (I was too busy to start interacting in another forum, and I'm not too in touch with Kona issues.)
Why is is difficult to see that Konadave is being responsible and making adult language and themes inaccessible to underage browsers?
I don't believe that John and Dave do business together, but John is a businessman with a variety of business interests and of course he has a real estate brokerage on the island. Quite a few people here may have had some business with John, but how that matters I cannot imagine.
Back to the topic, I totally see what freestate meant about Poe's Law. There are Laws that tell people how to act and not act, but there are also Laws that describe observations. You know, like Murphy's Law, Newton's Laws of Physics. Poe's Law is of that variety. It's not a mandate.
If you read the link, it says that if a person makes a statement that embodies a certain creed, and it reads straight, dead serious, even though it's meant to be ironic or in jest -- that some people will read it as dead serious if there is no emoticon signifier. They won't necessarily "assume the emoticon" if it's not there.
example:
I say:
Now I post:
[:p] may not tell the truth about my feelings, but it does tell you how I would like you to react to my post, for example, please don't call the DA and report a case of terroristic threatening. [
]
What I said in my first post on this topic wasn't about anyone here. I was saying that sometimes a writer wants to be ambiguous and make the reader wonder if the words are serious. I said that if you tag on an emoticon that you lose the ambiguity, so sometimes there is a reason to say something with a straight face even though it's not serious.
I know I do that when I'm talking to people face to face, and I'm not alone there. Unfortunately, sometimes on the internet the readers don't let you go, OK, kidding, and they just view you with suspicion afterwards. They don't see you crack up after they take your deadpan seriously, after which they laugh, and we all laugh.
]I have talked to both Dave and John about Konaforum. You guys are getting worked up about nothing. John is a self-confessed forum junkie, and it was natural that when he got booted from Konaweb that he adopted Konaforum. John also has an interest in Discovery Harbor, so he is interested in the Ka'u web Dave runs as well.
I was briefly a member of the John's Lanai forumat Konaforum; there was nothing I found bizarre or offensive. I got deactivated because I failed to make any posts. (I was too busy to start interacting in another forum, and I'm not too in touch with Kona issues.)
Why is is difficult to see that Konadave is being responsible and making adult language and themes inaccessible to underage browsers?
I don't believe that John and Dave do business together, but John is a businessman with a variety of business interests and of course he has a real estate brokerage on the island. Quite a few people here may have had some business with John, but how that matters I cannot imagine.
Back to the topic, I totally see what freestate meant about Poe's Law. There are Laws that tell people how to act and not act, but there are also Laws that describe observations. You know, like Murphy's Law, Newton's Laws of Physics. Poe's Law is of that variety. It's not a mandate.
If you read the link, it says that if a person makes a statement that embodies a certain creed, and it reads straight, dead serious, even though it's meant to be ironic or in jest -- that some people will read it as dead serious if there is no emoticon signifier. They won't necessarily "assume the emoticon" if it's not there.
example:
I say:
quote:How do you know if I'm serious or not? A person will look at it and it might be serious.
I think we should march on the County Council and shoot them.
Now I post:
quote:Sure, I might be a revolutionary anarchist with an agenda, hiding dead seriousness behind an emoticon, but the [:p] tells you one thing -- my INTENT on how I want you to read it.
I think we should march on the County Council and shoot them. [:p]
[:p] may not tell the truth about my feelings, but it does tell you how I would like you to react to my post, for example, please don't call the DA and report a case of terroristic threatening. [
]What I said in my first post on this topic wasn't about anyone here. I was saying that sometimes a writer wants to be ambiguous and make the reader wonder if the words are serious. I said that if you tag on an emoticon that you lose the ambiguity, so sometimes there is a reason to say something with a straight face even though it's not serious.
I know I do that when I'm talking to people face to face, and I'm not alone there. Unfortunately, sometimes on the internet the readers don't let you go, OK, kidding, and they just view you with suspicion afterwards. They don't see you crack up after they take your deadpan seriously, after which they laugh, and we all laugh.