Re: Turing Test Meaningless?

[nathan@cco.caltech.edu (Nathan Mates)]

In article <4me70l$9r@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
John Lesher <lesherjt@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>Nathan Mates (nathan@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4m55d8$d8n@news.ysu.edu>,
>: Adalbert Goertz <be404@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>: >>2) e.e. cummings you're not. Learn to capitalize, write full sentences
>: >>that are complete thoughts, and don't indent lines
>: >>randomly. Left-justified lines of 70 columns (except for indenting the
>: >>first line of a _paragraph_ 3-5 spaces) are the norm.

>: >>   Authority: Strunk & White, an excellent grammatical book available
>: >>at finer bookstores everywhere.

>: >This tone is disgusting, but nothing new from Mr.Mates.

>:    Once again, you prove that all you seem to care about is the tone,
>: not the facts presented in the posting. Fact is, English has rules,
>: and if you continuously and egregiously break them without being a
>: famous poet, you look stupid.

>	Would you be so kind as to tell me how certain poets GOT TO BE
>FAMOUS without breaking those rules?

   Shakespeare, Milton, Donne, Tennyson, and a whole lot more did just
fine (i.e. they excelled) in the rigid forms of poetry. They broke no
rules, and did an awesome job in terms of clarity, and presentation of
content. [You try writing several thousand lines of iambic pentameter,
let alone something that also does a superb commentary on the human
spirit.]

   Problem is, in the 20th century, a bunch of wannabes knew that they
could not do as well within the same technical or content ballpark, so
they tried to throw out the rules. The results included
'e.e. cummings' and many other poets who put the presentation of the
word on the paper (through 'creative' formatting in various shapes)
above the content. Who's still read a lot more? The classicists,
because the modernists may have their fads, but when you get behind
the gloss, there's nothing there.


>  Yes, there are rules for English.
>And if you're going to be writing a thesis or a paper, you should
>follow those rules.  But this is the INTERNET.  The Internet is known
>for its anarchic style, its 'Je nais se quois.' <-- (Apologies to any
>Frenchmen who might be reading this.)  THERE ARE NO GRAMMATICAL RULES
>ON THE INTERNET.  

   Correct, the internet does not have any RFC stating that you will
be readable, understandable, or relevant. You could write your posts
in the form of an acrostic requiring many hours to decode, force
people to read things in spirals, or use ur wn fonetik splng. Do that,
and watch nobody read you.

   In asking people to use complete sentences, well-formatted
paragraphs, and generally be readable, it is not because we are trying
to enforce some mythical rule. It's because we'd all like to be able
to communicate with some ease and speed. Comp.sys.apple2 is a place for
technical discussions and the like; poetry (as in the original dork I
flamed above, for a darn good reason) is not an effective means of
technical communication here. Elsewhere might be fine.



>	When you're trying to put across an idea -- ANY IDEA -- you
>use any method to your disposal.  You DO try to make your point as 
>clear as possible.

   Which the original poster wasn't. Thought fragments scattered over
a few lines are not "as clear as possible." 

>  This is why there are rules in English -- to make
>transmitted ideas as clear as possible.  But it is NOT THE END OF THE
>WORLD if you BREAK THE RULES.  As long as the idea you are trying to
>transmit is sent, WHO CARES about grammar.  Or speling :-).

   Go back to the very first quoted section above for my reasons. It
was not just grammar, it was unreadable blech. Grammar was not the
main problem with the person; effective English communication is.

Nathan Mates
-- 
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~nathan/      <*>
# And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the
# Kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in 
# parables" Mark 4:11, NRSV