Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by unixfish, Jan 28, 2014.
I feel better knowing it's not just me.
There there now....
Prolixity gets on my nerves. There is absolutely no reason to use excessive verbiage in a message, especially a message that employs grandiloquent language. The seeming need to go on and on at length, often without even reaching a conclusion is very annoying. Why only the other day I was speaking to a friend about this very subject, and he agreed with me that it was indeed very annoying, even more so when it became repetitious. I myself always attempt to avoid being prolix, as I am very well aware of how annoying it can be, especially when combined with seemingly endless repetition. It is often intended to impress, but rarely achieves its objective as most people grow bored and stop reading before reaching the end of the missive.
And, it is Contagious!
double parenthesis are the best (like when you use parenthesis inside parenthesis (these are kind of tricky but I still enjoy them when they happen ))
and are my favorite kind of punctuation.
its all about set-up and pay off. I hate when writers forget to close them, and leave me hanging.
I feel you pain, OP -
in a similar vein if I read a news article where it refers to someone by their last name and it strikes me that I have not yet seen that name referred to - I must scan back to a) find the full name or b) prove the editing as sloppy as I suspected.
I use paranthesis all the time (well, quite often)...
I've also been programming computers since 1977 (I've done Lisp too back in the day), so I'm very careful to always match them up and close them out. I've never noticed lazy authors forgetting the right ones tho.
So no, this does not drive me crazy (but it probably will from now on....
Thanks a lot!
New rule--no one should use a frowny faced emoticon without closing it with a smiley faced emoticon within a sentence or two.
For punctuation reasons (as well as general happiness!
Ok they're all here now. See how important the parenthesis is?
Be honest, the Tilde is the real problem.
ampersand ( & )
asterisk ( * )
at sign ( @ )
backslash ( \ )
bullet ( • )
caret ( ^ )
dagger ( †, ‡ )
degree ( ° )
ditto mark ( ″ )
inverted exclamation mark ( ¡ )
inverted question mark ( ¿ )
number sign / pound / hash / octothorpe ( # )
numero sign ( № )
obelus ( ÷ )
ordinal indicator ( º, ª )
percent, per mil ( %, ‰ )
plus and minus ( + − )
basis point ( ‱ )
pilcrow ( ¶ )
prime ( ′, ″, ‴ )
section sign ( § )
tilde ( ~ )
underscore / understrike ( _ )
vertical bar / broken bar / pipe ( ¦, | )
One should not overuse them but the do have their purpose. (parenthetically speaking)
You mean this? —
Ditto, same here.
My personal quirk is the use of last names in an article. I often skim articles until I see something interesting. I like to just dive right in there, or a couple of sentences before. Unfortunately, I will sometimes lack specific information, such as a person's name. In news articles or non-fiction writing, I find that most writers introduce a person by their first and last names. In all that follows, though, only the last name is used. When I dive in the middle of a story and see "Smith was arrested by the officers at the scene," I'm like, whoa who is this Smith guy. If I feel that I really need to know how this new person fits into the story, I start reading backwards until I finally see "the mayor, John Smith, has had other recent legal problems." OK, fine. Just last night, I was reading an article in the New Yorker (who are real sticklers on usage and fact-checking) came across the name, Jones (or whatever). Reading backwards, I don't think his full name, including first name, was ever stated. I attribute this error, if it was one, to an editor.
On hiring editors, it is fairly common for grad students whose primary language is not English to hire someone to edit their thesis. I recommend if the student keeps making the same types of mistakes throughout the work.
In terms of actually writing, I have stumbled onto a system that works for me. With this system, I will get up in the morning and write while my head is clear. After 20 minutes or so, I will pick up my guitar and do some practicing. During this time, my little brain seems to have been reviewing what I had just written and is now telling me whether I should change it, or just pick up where I left off. I always regard the writing of new material to be the most important thing I should be doing. I will continue writing this new stuff until I start questioning different things. If I am confident that I am a good path, I keep writing until my brain hurts, or I get confused. Rather than wallow around in my confusion and misery, out comes the guitar and more practicing, playing along with records, videos, or backing tracks. When that becomes old, I go back to writing. When that hurts my head, I go back to the guitar, and so on in a loop.
That's method 1. With method 2, I substitute small scale editing, such as spelling, grammar, and whatever. I have little ego invested in this, so it can be a kind of relaxing break from the forward motion writing that is my main activity. In both methods, I am always making something new, which is stimulating and exciting, or I am running away from any kinds of problems that I will need to address at some point later on.
my parentheses often had a few bad words between them
You guys are totally missing it! In the right hands, parentheses are art.
“but why should”
by e. e. cummings
you and I
people be quite
(always are beautiful)
Threads about how something drives someone crazy, drive me crazy ...
Don't you mean e e cummings?