#SymLoops - New/Old Structure

I find communicating in #SymLoops easier

then I don't have to read thru so much bullshit to get the points
especially nested bullshit as we have on #FastBlogIt
bullets don't suffer from the cardinals' implied order
could be the beginning of Semantic Web app like twitter or ?
stream of consciousness
sticky molecules
interesting verbs for processing topify? fork?
this is the idea that woke me up to get out of bed this AM
may be a lot easier than parsing English

Comments

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-01-29 07:54:45 17049

... maybe.

i miss complete sentences. without them the reader is left to guess what one thing means in the particular context of the other bullets in the symloop. me thinks that meaning should be fixed by the author, not guessed by the reader.

The longer & more convoluted the sentences are the more one has to read & re-read to get the points. With some it turns out to be a sleeve job. I sometimes object to part of your sentences but not the whole thing . I am simplifying my approach. One SVO, possibly two is all that is needed. Hemingway was lauded for that. Maybe occasionally add a modifier. It also helps un-munge your ideas.

Mark de LA says

BTW, nobody said anything about not using complete sentences.
I like SVO.
It can be similar to PowerPoint with short complete sentences

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-01-29 10:35:30 17049

M1g0r 2014-01-29 10:21:11 17049

BTW, nobody said anything about not using complete sentences.
I like SVO.
It can be similar to PowerPoint with short complete sentences

Well then the sym loop is just a paragraph

.

I guess what you are objecting to is my long sentences, right? I do, however, try to put just one single thought in each sentence. Some of the things i say are fairly subtle and need more words to grock than a simple SVO will surfice. And yes to get them you actually would need to read them carefully ... as frequently they took quite a bit of time and effort to write. in fact i have noted myself many times that you have totally missed my real subtle meaning that i struggel so hard to incorporate in my words. So, no, short terse sentences, leaving it up to a reader to guess what they mean, will not always work for me. if you don't want to spend the time and effort to grock some subtle point, i would suggest that you just ignore it, so as not to distract me with irrelevant or twisted simplifications of it.

Munge on Dude, BØZØ ≈ BØ≠Ø
If you don't like my comments then make item private!
You are hiding underneath a bunch of pedantry which is m^^4
... i.e. unclarity at best
.. & lack of a clear argument hasn't struck your mind yet

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-01-29 14:08:12 17049

M1g0r 2014-01-29 13:38:33 17049

seth 2014-01-29 13:04:23 17049

i liked this item better when it was private.

Well that's a nice clear sentence.
I started out with it private & then made it public because I thought Seth would get a kick out of the similarities to CyberMind.
Guess NOT!
(sigh)
went straight to rwg on Seth's ability to write
(sigh)

yeah i was in fact tripping on this regarding the cybermind symloop ... and yes that is what your bullets are doing. but then you heard in my comments rwg ... yet my comments on it were not meant in that way at all ... notwithstanding that you heard it that way. look, try an excercise with me ... kind of a way to get into your silence, which is a great thing in and of itself: go back and reread my last lengthy paragraph in detail actually understanding everything i am saying trying to hear me as me saying it ... and most importantly suppress anything you hear there that suggests to you that i am just saying it to be right at your expense of being wrong. let me know if you still think the rwg was in there ... could you do that for me? and if so, specifically how.

Actually you should do your exercise on what I have written as well.

I respect, appreciate & acknowledge your having put effort into what you form into language
as do I
being right & defending it is also part of the rwg
it is a bit of a sticky catch-22
nevertheless I am intelligent enough to get your points without all the window dressing
maybe it would be even easier without them
since many times I agree with some of a sentence but not the rest -or-
implications lurking in the background
sometimes you ignore most of my points & munge instead
I prefer one separate idea per bullet for easy reading
I prefer nesting maybe only on single bullets
this will, imho, improve our communication
or not

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-01-29 13:04:23 17049

i liked this item better when it was private.

Well that's a nice clear sentence.
I started out with it private & then made it public because I thought Seth would get a kick out of the similarities to CyberMind.
Guess NOT!
(sigh)
went straight to rwg on Seth's ability to write
(sigh)

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-01-29 15:23:07 17049

well the change from a paragraph seems to be just that each bullet had one and only one idea
that is great, i can try it too
might even add numbers, then that idea can be referred to by number
that way (3) there is no need to requote
everything i put in my paragraphs i believe is essential to the context of the thought
if (5) is not true then i left something in that i would have preferred to take out
if you perceive window dressing in my writings, you are probably missing something that i think was important enough to say and interpreting it as unimportant to have been said in that context.
either 6 or 7 is true, but not both (lol)
it is actually the part of sentences that you don't agree with, and/or the assumptions in the background, that dialogue needs to tease out, for us to see the single thing with binocular comprehension ... ie, have a meeting of minds.
many times i put more words in my sentence to reduce the guess work necessary to get across my real point ... i try not to be ambiguous.
many times i really do have a hard time figuring out what you are saying just because your references can be guessed to be so many things.
this may well improve our communications
i am giving it a try
13 is substantually a duplicate of 2 (lol)

I don't like #3 - I could have said I don't like the 3rd bullet if they were not numbered.
Bullets allow for insertion & rearrangement while numbers force renumbering.
unless, of course, numbers don't have to be in sequence
the RTE sometimes fucks up if you start & restart on numbering

Seth says

actually click the numbering gadget and inserting and deleting does not require any manual renumbering
--testing
inserting
-- was 5 -- now is 4
but of course the references would need to be reevaluated
but it doesn't matter really i can read either
i think i will use the numbering for the value of the referencing which i suspect will be useful

Mark de LA says

M1g0r 2014-01-29 09:02:01 17049

seth 2014-01-29 07:54:45 17049

Strange this showed up today on G+

#SymLoops - New/Old Structure

Tags

Comments

See Also