If you don't like someones statements just ignore them.

[Neil]

But this is the problem: smileys are used instead of putting thought into a post and creating a well structured comment, they are used as a 'get out of jail card' ( I called you a c*nt, but I put a wink at the end!), they are used when people have no convictions in their argument and want to avoid upsetting people so they try and appease both sides.

That assumes everything is debate or argument.

Sometimes it's more chatty and informal.

I understand that yes they add and emotional element to an impersonal online forum, but I don't like conveying my emotions in a smile, a wink or a lol, to me that is symptomatic of the childish, vanilla flavoured nature of the web, and is all that I hate about facebook, myspace and the like (well that and the fact that Social Networking requires you to a) have friends and b) want to talk to them..).

Accepted, and personally, I share some of your feelings about social networking sites - but all the same - all your saying is, effectively, the world according to you. That's your prerogative - as for everybody else - but... things don't always fit that.

Use words, not generic, broad brushstroke icons to display your feelings. Stand behind your arguments and to hell with everyone else, if someone has the passion and the time to construct a reasoned argument then have the courtesy to hear them out and amend your views if theirs are valid, but don't pander to their emotional insecurities by using a smiley to avoid upset.

I have no real problem with that. The only point I would make is that internet forums don't only have threads or posts that are well thought out, reasoned debate. Some threads are more light-hearted, some are tantamount to chat.

The greatest thing that the Internet has to offer is that it brings together millions of people in discussion and argument, not in some coca-cola scented hippy world of love and harmony.

Maybe - but hey - let them eat cake.

if we constantly hark on about 'why can't we all get along' then we are missing the point of millions of years of human development-we are here because we challenge, fight and argue. Just look at the dodo, died out because it never knew when to fight or when to run away.

And we also have to accept that it's not just all about contention - some of it is just "all getting along" - so what if it's not for me - or perhaps you - personally.

Now how's that: from smileys to dodos via human evolution in just a few short lines, and I've probably only managed to upset 90% of the people on here. Some say sociopath, others say honest with no inner dialogue to tell me when to shut up. Either way I just take my Citalopram and get on with things.

If I had any true contention to that, I'd say "Now who's using broad brushstrokes".

Sometimes inductive reasoning is the sign of true genius. Other times a mark of the lazy. Now put that in context of your criticisms. Food for thought, if nothing else.

Just don't get me started on the overuse of exclamation marks or the self-indulgence, and over exaggeration of self-importance of excessive signatures in peoples posts......

Why stop now?

Finally golderneramtb, I accept your one exception!

Aw, come on - I thought I had a reasonable one with the discussions involving people not using their native language...

 

[rosstheboss]

I think quotes should be banned

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[al]

I think quotes should be banned

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Me too!


al.

 

[sgw]

But this is the problem: smileys are used instead of putting thought into a post and creating a well structured comment, etc...

Well put Pete.

That assumes everything is debate or argument.
etc...

Well constructed reply Neil.

I think I fall in the middle. In appropriate situations they can be useful. Overused or used as a shield the are very irritating.

Trouble is they do stand out so much making them not easy to ignore. Especially animated ones.

 

[Neil]

I think I fall in the middle.

Me too - I'm not arguing the complete opposite of Pete.

There's a lot of what he wrote about them that I agree with - the insincerity (hell I often use 'em when I'm being deliberately insincere), the saccharin aspect of them, the whole... picture without having to consider the words thing.

I just don't buy the absoluteness of it, that's all.

I can remember a time when certain usenet groups railed against them - in some cases, made it a charter thing. In the end, though, it was just another bandwagon - another regime or alignment to form, that in itself became, what was supposed the big evil of emoticons - it became an unthinking, dogmatic perspective - exactly the same rationale for which emoticons got slated for.

The problem was, once so aligned, most simply couldn't take a step back, consider perspective, and realise that like in many instances like this, the real flaw isn't the chosen scapegoat, really it's that logical fallacy - that of the excluded middle.

 

[pete_mcc]

That assumes everything is debate or argument.
Sometimes it's more chatty and informal.

But every conversation is a debate or argument, even informal chats are one persons interpretation of something conveyed to another person, human nature means that that interpretation is a personal one not a generic one and so may not be universally agreed. The Internet exacerbates that as is indicated by rule 3 of the Internet:

'No matter what you say in a forum, no matter how pointless, banal or uninteresting, someone will eventually call you a racist'

Just pop over to STW for 5 minutes and see how long it is before that fact is proven true!

I'm just an antagonist, i love reasoned arguments, I love intelligence, I love Neil. What i hate is the fact that you can't argue against a f*cking smiley, it's like debating with a child!

 

[silverclaws]

Agree with the sentiments regarding emoticons, they irritate me something rotten, (but having admitted this I know certain people will see this as a 'go' signal to do it more often).

The trouble is with me, is I can read what a person says, but insert an emoticon which to me means something else, so I believe the person replying to be dishonest in their reply, they are in effect speaking with a forked tongue.

This I guess in a poster's failure to have the courage of their convictions, or just plain inability to explain their position, which might just be laziness, something to say for the sake of saying or as I said, they lack the skills to articulate themselves to others.

Online forums, the meeting of people and communication of ideas is a wonderful thing, a huge step forward in human development, but we are in danger, for if we believe everything a person says online to be absolute shit, we become negative to any new idea or way of thinking that is presented to us. We have in effect de educated ourselves which is not a good thing.