Why choose a paragraph element for a paragraph?

[dorayme]

It is. But do you know what the word "fact" means, for a fact? Consulting a
good dictionary, or especially a good manual of style might surprise you.
Specifically, paragraphs aren't facts.

Maybe your dictionary is more surprising than mine?

Webpage makers often face the *given fact* of a paragraph or set of
them. Every website maker who has received word docs or PDFs see them
all the time.

Website makers often type out material and divide their sentences into
paragraphs. Or they arrange material they get into same. This is often a
prior act before mark up. They then have the simple job of marking up
those paragraphs.

The expression you seemed to be having difficulty with, the idea of a
given fact, was no more than to take this sort of case and point out
that it happens quite a lot these days.

I do not know what the difficulty is that you are having understanding
my meaning?

Quite often, people who lack better arguments

Why do I feel you are about to add gratuitous insolence to the above
misunderstanding? There is no need, and I would much rather be getting
on well with folks here. There are quite some issues I am sure I do not
fully understand and I air my views here in some hope of correcting some
of them. Please try your best, I welcome your valuable knowledge.

call some opinion of theirs a
fact just because it's not a fact at all and is strongly under dispute (or
just plain wrong). If you know that something is really a fact, there is no
need to call it a fact; you just know it, and if you need to tell others
about it, you just tell it and, if relevant, present the evidence or refer
to it. "This is a fact" is quite comparable to "This is not spam."


That's not correct. Spacing is a recent invention.

1. Spacing is a recent invention

is not inconsistent with

2. People started spacing some of their texts into chunks for good
reasons.

But let me suppose you view the reasons they do this as not the best.
Fine, no problem. My point is simply that it is a fact that they do so
and if they did not do this or anything else to give humans a way to see
that paragraphs are paragraphs (like indentation or other things), we
would be back to Harlan's child's essay where the paragraphs are sort of
there but not there and I have said things about this at the time.

Well, a few centuries
old, but that's recent when compared to thousands of years of written
language and probably hundreds of thousands of years of human language.

All this is not anything I want to dispute.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:

That's not correct. Spacing is a recent invention. Well, a few centuries
old, but that's recent when compared to thousands of years of written
language and probably hundreds of thousands of years of human language.

Yes in fact when monks dutifully tried to preserve the ancient knowledge
and created some of the most elaborate calligraphy "filling the space
evenly" was the main goal. So much so, that if they ran out of space at
the end of a line they "hyphened" anywhere in the word and started the
next line!

Funny thing was many scribes were not literate and would make mistakes,
literate supervisors would make inventive corrections... decorations
would cover over odd bits of wrong text. Missing text would written
elsewhere where space would allow and either decoration or even little
figures would be drawn pushing or pulling the wayward text towards its
proper location.

 

[houghi]

If you're reading out some text you pause for paragraphs, but that's
different. Reading out something that's written is not like normal
speaking.

If I hold a monologue, I will use paragraphs in my speaking. However
that is very much like reading out loud.

When speaking with someone, I also will be speaking in paragraphs. Most
of the time the conversation can be devided by me a paragraph, then the
other person, then me again. Paragraphs in speaking tend to be much
shorter then in writing, but they do exist.

houghi

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Is this relevant to the webpage maker facing the *given fact* of a
paragraph right now in March 2009?

If you understand what's meant by words like "fundamental", "inherent",
and "intrinsic" versus "subjective", "incidental", and "extrinsic",
you'll see that it exactly clarifies the differences between the
fundamental structural nature of a paragraph versus the incidental
presentational practices that one culture or another attaches to it.

People started spacing some of their texts into chunks for good reasons.

Right, to delimit the conceptual, structural elements that we know today
in English as "paragraphs".

They did not *then* decide to use this chunking for any further nifty
thing.

That's what I just said. You don't seem to realize whose point your
supporting here.

The nifty invention was already invented when chunking was
invented. When the car was invented, driving it was not a further
invention.

Not comparable to the situation where the idea that text was composed of
paragraphs had to have been conceived first before it could possibly
occur to anyone--possibly many centuries later--to show visible
delineations between paragraphs.

Not sure of Thai but can't see *quite* in what respects you say this
about Japanese words (there are many compound *concepts* here). Kanji
uses Chinese iconic characters and these are separated, and there are
other additional things to make their writing useful. Anyway, this is
not a very transparent argument.

It would be for someone who knows about the Thai and Japanese writing
systems. (This isn't a criticism, just an acknowledgement.) Separating
words, separating paragraphs--in both cases, the concepts are
fundamentally structural ones; whether or not they are represented
visually is subjective, arbitrary.

Perhaps how an English essay is marked up simply has to be dealt with by
translation facilities as best as possible (and vice versa). It does not
follow that there is some abstract object between languages because one
piece of work in one language can be translated into another language.

The fact that speakers of both languages can look words up in a
dictionary shows that they share with us the concept of "words".

It may simply be that quick and efficient tools for some translational
tasks leave a lot to be desired. What is a chunk of writing in English
may even need special provisions (and I am talking more than pauses) in
talking.

If an audience is blind, the "whole thought" that is para in English
writing may really be better presented *not* as a chunk with pauses
either end. If you are really serious about making pages accessible to
blind people, you may need to reorganise quite differently. A paragraph
is a very visual concept and has some limitations translated into speech
or other languages.

That's interesting. Do you really think a blind person making a speech
doesn't organize his material in a manner comparable to that of a
sighted person.

Then it faces the difficulties implicit in my last paragraphs. Much much
more transparent is to simply take the paragraph as a given. It is a
pattern and it is known to huge numbers of humans, there are often
awkward ways to make other patterns do the same kind of communicative
job for other languages and modalities (sight/sound/braille).

It is patterns all the way up and all the way down.

This is all beside the point anyway--the question originally at hand was
whether there is an *inherent* presentation for paragraphs. There is
not, and if you thought there were, I think you would have answered my
question about which of the two traditional English methods of
delineating them was "the" inherent one.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

They're not separated. In Japanese you usually think of a word as
consisting of one or more Kanji plus sometimes a few of the phonetic
characters (e.g. to bolt on some grammatical endings). But there are no
spaces written between anything, except after full stops and commas.

Not completely sure of the history, but I get the impression that Kanji
were sort of retrofitted to Japanese much later than they had been
around in Chinese. It's generally fairly obvious where you would put the
spaces if you wanted to put them in, but I don't think that's true of
Chinese at all.

It's true that the question of "what is a word" in Chinese doesn't have
a simple answer, and their term "ci2" (è©ž) doesn't map exactly to
"word", but nevertheless it means they have an analogous concept, and
yet they don't use a visual cue to demarcate the "ci2"s in their writing.

[...]

If an audience is blind, the "whole thought" that is para in English
writing may really be better presented *not* as a chunk with pauses
either end. If you are really serious about making pages accessible to
blind people, you may need to reorganise quite differently. A
paragraph is a very visual concept and has some limitations translated
into speech or other languages.

I agree. I wouldn't say paragraphs existed in speech.

The fact that anyone, in any language, has thought to demarcate in
writing means they already existed conceptually. If people don't
demarcate them in speech, that doesn't change their already established
existence as concepts.

And often people do mark off paragraphs in speech, though not formally
or deliberately. "Oh, by the way ...." "Anyway, ...." "In conclusion, ...."

 

[David Segall]

Some side effect! It is a massive one imo and I did not mean it to sound
trivial.

When I mark up a paragraph in a paragraph element, I am thinking, this
is a paragraph, I will mark it up so because I trust that browsers of
every kind know what to do when they see the tags and they will make
sure that the audience will know it is a paragraph.

I am in this way relieved of a massive amount of work. Massive! I do not
need to study all the devices that are around, try to cater for devices
that will be invented etc. I trust that these tags are the signal for
*all* competent devices because their makers know what a paragraph is
and build in the necessary presentational mechanisms for it to be
received by an audience for what it is, a paragraph.

Exactly! You should mark up a paragraph as a paragraph because, deep
down, it _is_ a paragraph and not because the P element is associated
with some ready made styles as you said in your original post.

It seems I should be thinking fancier things according to what you and
Harlan are telling me. I am not in some stationary position and welcome
your thoughts a lot and continue to think about them.

I think that this page
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-ajaxintro4/> is a
lucid explanation of how a document is interpreted by a web browser.
However, my background is computer programming rather than web page
design so I would be interested in hearing if it is of any use to you.

 

[dorayme]

[...]
If an audience is blind, the "whole thought" that is para in English
writing may really be better presented *not* as a chunk with pauses
either end. If you are really serious about making pages accessible to
blind people, you may need to reorganise quite differently. A
paragraph is a very visual concept and has some limitations translated
into speech or other languages.

I agree. I wouldn't say paragraphs existed in speech.

If you're reading out some text you pause for paragraphs, but that's
different. Reading out something that's written is not like normal
speaking.

Because there are relatively few literate blind people compared to
literate sighted people, they have generally had to adapt to the sighted
world's ways. These ways are adaptive ways rather than really
specialised ways in their favour. It's a tough business for them.

If you were to really, and I mean, really do justice to them in your
mark up, you would not "just mark up". Let me be plain: you would drop
the fantasy world of those who seem to think content is some sort of
prior act of understanding independent of presentation. You would
refashion the content in the plain English meaning of these words. No
need to look up dictionaries.

If I knew that a huge chunk of my audience was blind, and I really
wanted to cater for them as a priority, I would have *refashioned*, for
example, my article on prohibition. No, not merely restyled it and no,
not marked it up different. I would have used different words and
different sentences and different chunks in different orders. Different
content! There is no *one thing* I *really meant* in some sort of
logical heaven waiting to be presented in myriad ways for the whole of
humanity on different devices. It's a fantasy to think otherwise.

I would have constantly summarised more bits of it along the way. I
would *not* have chunked the bits in quite the same way. There would be
different bits even! There is no abstract ghostly fantasy structural
content to the article that will do for everyone.

I would have had in mind, primarily, different patterns, different
presentational ideas at the heart of the message I was wanting to
communicate and not as easily separated from them as say the absolutely
loudness (cf. font-size: 100% which is a presentational aspect they
can control. I would put in absolutely crucial intrinsic styles like
pauses but quite the relative length of them is a choice of the user (if
they could have such fine control) or I might set it - in the knowledge
that CSS could be "off" - if I had reliable cross browser support for
CSS facilities for certain time periods.

 

[dorayme]

When speaking with someone, I also will be speaking in paragraphs. Most
of the time the conversation can be devided by me a paragraph, then the
other person, then me again. Paragraphs in speaking tend to be much
shorter then in writing, but they do exist.

Record some normal casual street conversations and good luck in typing
the transcript to reflect the *real paragraphs* in there that you are so
confident people speak in.

 

[asdf]

[...]
If an audience is blind, the "whole thought" that is para in English
writing may really be better presented *not* as a chunk with pauses
either end. If you are really serious about making pages accessible to
blind people, you may need to reorganise quite differently. A
paragraph is a very visual concept and has some limitations translated
into speech or other languages.

I agree. I wouldn't say paragraphs existed in speech.

If you're reading out some text you pause for paragraphs, but that's
different. Reading out something that's written is not like normal
speaking.

Because there are relatively few literate blind people compared to
literate sighted people, they have generally had to adapt to the sighted
world's ways. These ways are adaptive ways rather than really
specialised ways in their favour. It's a tough business for them.

If you were to really, and I mean, really do justice to them in your
mark up, you would not "just mark up". Let me be plain: you would drop
the fantasy world of those who seem to think content is some sort of
prior act of understanding independent of presentation. You would
refashion the content in the plain English meaning of these words. No
need to look up dictionaries.

If I knew that a huge chunk of my audience was blind, and I really
wanted to cater for them as a priority, I would have *refashioned*, for
example, my article on prohibition. No, not merely restyled it and no,
not marked it up different. I would have used different words and
different sentences and different chunks in different orders. Different
content! There is no *one thing* I *really meant* in some sort of
logical heaven waiting to be presented in myriad ways for the whole of
humanity on different devices. It's a fantasy to think otherwise.

Ah, but you don't know that a significant proportion of your audience is NOT
blind or sight impaired. To assume otherwise is discriminatory.

And actually, it's the LAW (No... YOU look it up). You MUST NOT discriminate
between sighted and non-sighted viewers, unless you can show that the
process of NOT providing accessible web content is not possible, or
represents an insurmountable technical challenge. The number of cases that
fall into the latter clause is negligible. Nearly all web content can be
arranged to be accessible, WITHOUT sacrificing visual presentation or
layout.

Different words and sentences? Pullleeeaase... Partial sightedness or
blindness is not a cognitive problem. Partially sighted or blind people have
no more difficulty that you or I in comprehending linear text. I have
studied, worked and socialised with some VERY sight impaired people in my
time, and some (if not most) of them are very, very good, if not better than
I, at comprehending and engaging with linear text.

Perpetuating this MYTH that blind people are somehow cognitively impaired,
so that content needs to be 'special' for them is not helpful.

This is why (to repeat for the umpteenth time), and it's only ONE reason,
that HTML can and SHOULD abstract the presentation or layout and be
controlled at the browser level. If you do this right, you can easily
restyle your content for any number of devices or disabilities at your whim,
*without* altering the content itself.

[snip repetition of arguments]

 

[asdf]

Record some normal casual street conversations and good luck in typing
the transcript to reflect the *real paragraphs* in there that you are so
confident people speak in.

Some years ago, I was involved in a project that involved transcribing the
'casual' spoken word. I do not recall any difficulty in presenting speech in
clear, legible paragraphs.

 

[dorayme]

If you understand what's meant by words like "fundamental", "inherent",
and "intrinsic" versus "subjective", "incidental", and "extrinsic",
you'll see that it exactly clarifies the differences between the
fundamental structural nature of a paragraph versus the incidental
presentational practices that one culture or another attaches to it.

I understand the English meaning of these words just fine (no need for
dictionaries now... <g>) but I do not agree that these words all on
their lonesome clarifies the relationship between the two things we are
discussing. Indeed I use these very words to give a theory of sorts to
help analyse further the differences.

Right, to delimit the conceptual, structural elements that we know today
in English as "paragraphs".

I think it is a peculiarly visual concept and is adaptable to aural but
not quite happily. I have expanded on this matter in a reply to Ben. I
think some laws stink. There is no one neutral unitary thing that does
not include multiple alternatives lying at the heart of what I think.
You are operating with an unexamined assumption.

....

Not comparable to the situation where the idea that text was composed of
paragraphs had to have been conceived first before it could possibly
occur to anyone--possibly many centuries later--to show visible
delineations between paragraphs.

To conceive of the paragraphs you are talking about, the ones that were
there before indentation and spacing, is to rely on different
presentational patterns. There never was a time when there were things
that we now call paragraphs which people at the time understood under
some other concept unless there was some way they could identify them as
a unit. And they could not do this without some pattern recognition
operating on some pattern of the time. The history of writing is not a
history of jumbled unstructured children's essays.

....

That's interesting. Do you really think a blind person making a speech
doesn't organize his material in a manner comparable to that of a
sighted person.

In a manner comparable, yes. In a manner identical, no. And in any case,
I am rather more interested, here, in the giving of speeches to blind
people rather them making them to sighted people. What generally is
relevant to website making. I have written a little more on this matter
in a recent reply to Ben

This is all beside the point anyway--the question originally at hand was
whether there is an *inherent* presentation for paragraphs. There is
not, and if you thought there were, I think you would have answered my
question about which of the two traditional English methods of
delineating them was "the" inherent one.

I could say that if you had taken more notice of my addressing this very
issue in a previous reply, you would not be now asking this question but
a different one. Like, "OK I read you but I am not quite/at all
following all/some of what you are saying. Etc. You just ignore it
completely."

I will not repeat it all here. Suffice to say that I think the intrinsic
patterns that are part and parcel of the meaning are confined to a
*relatively* small set of default presentations - notice the plural.

 

[dorayme]

Exactly! You should mark up a paragraph as a paragraph because, deep
down, it _is_ a paragraph and not because the P element is associated
with some ready made styles as you said in your original post.

"Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
paragraph? As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the
P element is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans
can recognise as indicating a paragraph."

Why should practical website makers have any other reason than the one I
gave? Is what I gave not sufficient reason? Is not what gave more
transparent, empirical, less spooky, less controversial? Like Poppy, I
take a sunnier view of things and do not see *all* patterning as
something superficial or stylistic but part and parcel in some respects
of the heart of human thought and meaning.

When you go beyond this, as you can see, into abstract and deeper areas,
there is controversy. I have a certain view of what it means to say
something deep down is a paragraph that differs from some other people
here.

I think that this page
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-ajaxintro4/> is a
lucid explanation of how a document is interpreted by a web browser.
However, my background is computer programming rather than web page
design so I would be interested in hearing if it is of any use to you.

Thank you. I have it up now and will read it soon.

(btw, David, The Reader is good!)

 

[dorayme]

Ah, but you don't know that a significant proportion of your audience is NOT
blind or sight impaired. To assume otherwise is discriminatory.

....

You misinterpret me completely.

I was outlining, essentially, the differences in the way one might
prepare a written submission to an audience from the way one would
prepare a radio program on same. In my opinion, which most people will
distrust and resolve to ignore, it is a complete fantasy to suppose that
there is one optimal doc that can do as well for lookers and listeners
and braillers...

I was hurt by your personal accusations. Email me to discuss it further
if you wish. Please leave public personal attacks to people who have
snideness imprinted in their genes, you are better than that asdf.

 

[asdf]

...

You misinterpret me completely.

I was outlining, essentially, the differences in the way one might
prepare a written submission to an audience from the way one would
prepare a radio program on same. In my opinion, which most people will
distrust and resolve to ignore, it is a complete fantasy to suppose that
there is one optimal doc that can do as well for lookers and listeners
and braillers...

I was hurt by your personal accusations. Email me to discuss it further
if you wish. Please leave public personal attacks to people who have
snideness imprinted in their genes, you are better than that asdf.

Umm... where were the personal accusations??? Methinks your paranoia is
showing.

 

[dorayme]

Umm... where were the personal accusations??? Methinks your paranoia is
showing.

I offered you the chance to air your personal grievances in email where
you would naturally be more restrained by simple personal contact (my
experience is this). You choose to carry on here and say I am paranoid.

Let's see now:

"And actually, it's the LAW (No... YOU look it up).

Why are you shouting? Looks like a snarly tinge to the bit in
parentheses. Trying to outdo other bitter and ill-informed sounding
posters who I have in no way addressed or provoked personally?

Can you say in good faith that the bit in parenthesis is not an
imagining to yourself that I would protest to you that you should better
look it up rather than me? You are not being paranoid? (btw, I have no
quarrel with the law here.)

"You MUST NOT discriminate between sighted and non-sighted viewers"

sounds to me, with its shouting words, in the context, some sort of
*unpleasant* accusation of me.

"Different words and sentences? Pullleeeaase... Partial sightedness or
blindness is not a cognitive problem." and ""Perpetuating this MYTH that
blind people are somehow cognitively impaired"

The "Pullleeeaase..." and the (as it happens) mistaken accusation that I
think blind people are somehow stupid is what to you? A nice thing to
say to me in public? Nothing I should be hurt by? And I thought I am
supposed to be the inhuman robot around here! You win by a mile.

(btw, I don't think this at all. I have had blind students at a
reasonably high level of education that I have marked way ahead of the
pack because of their sheer intellectual merit. Some of whom have gone
on to achieve rightfully respected and leading places in society -
meaning I know talent when I see it and do not judge in wishy washy
ways. I also have had many other contacts on less professional terms
with blind people. I only go out to steal their dogs, kick their sticks
away from their tapping hands when I am desperate for entertainment. So
do not assume that your recounting of your personal experiences somehow
shames me (as it was clearly intended to do).

You simply plump for the most one-eyed, most mistaken, blackest and
nastiest interpretation instead of actually *thinking and calmly
questioning.

"This is why (to repeat for the umpteenth time),.."

Just look at the contempt in the parenthesis. It is as if you have no
clue at all how to be simply pleasant or neutral when replying to a post
that was part of thinking through an issue and not addressed to you or
in any way personal. If you had taken on board information and arguments
put, perhaps I would be less inclined to repeat things to you.

Notice too that you in no way address the clarification I made for you
that I was talking about the ideal need to fit material to suit the
media in the context of there not being some one perfect content with
one perfect mark up that is suitable for people who read material or
need to or prefer to listen to it.

This last point for discussion is obviously not anything you care to
think about calmly. To sort out misunderstandings in a civilised manner
is not your preferred cup of tea. You appear to me to be stalking me in
public to do what so many folk do in usenet, to beat up others to
compensate for some inner frustration. Or some God knows what! Please
stop. I am not a machine and it upsets me greatly.

Do not follow the snide ways of others. I still hope that you are a cut
above some other folk who have snideness as part of their unfortunate
make-up.

if you address the actual issues and leave the personal stuff out, I am
happy, as always to carry on discussing things with you. Up to you. I
know I am trying my best to just think though an issue here and to leave
all this idiotic personal crap out. But there are some mean spirited
people around me and sometimes I find it impossible not to respond to
their snide public comments. Some of them, I know, are totally, without
hope of reform. I have this possibly mistaken idea that you might be
different.

 

[asdf]

I offered you the chance to air your personal grievances in email where
you would naturally be more restrained by simple personal contact (my
experience is this). You choose to carry on here and say I am paranoid.

Let's see now:

"And actually, it's the LAW (No... YOU look it up).

Why are you shouting? Looks like a snarly tinge to the bit in
parentheses. Trying to outdo other bitter and ill-informed sounding
posters who I have in no way addressed or provoked personally?

Can you say in good faith that the bit in parenthesis is not an
imagining to yourself that I would protest to you that you should better
look it up rather than me? You are not being paranoid? (btw, I have no
quarrel with the law here.)

"You MUST NOT discriminate between sighted and non-sighted viewers"

sounds to me, with its shouting words, in the context, some sort of
*unpleasant* accusation of me.

"Different words and sentences? Pullleeeaase... Partial sightedness or
blindness is not a cognitive problem." and ""Perpetuating this MYTH that
blind people are somehow cognitively impaired"

The "Pullleeeaase..." and the (as it happens) mistaken accusation that I
think blind people are somehow stupid is what to you? A nice thing to
say to me in public? Nothing I should be hurt by? And I thought I am
supposed to be the inhuman robot around here! You win by a mile.

(btw, I don't think this at all. I have had blind students at a
reasonably high level of education that I have marked way ahead of the
pack because of their sheer intellectual merit. Some of whom have gone
on to achieve rightfully respected and leading places in society -
meaning I know talent when I see it and do not judge in wishy washy
ways. I also have had many other contacts on less professional terms
with blind people. I only go out to steal their dogs, kick their sticks
away from their tapping hands when I am desperate for entertainment. So
do not assume that your recounting of your personal experiences somehow
shames me (as it was clearly intended to do).

You simply plump for the most one-eyed, most mistaken, blackest and
nastiest interpretation instead of actually *thinking and calmly
questioning.

"This is why (to repeat for the umpteenth time),.."

Just look at the contempt in the parenthesis. It is as if you have no
clue at all how to be simply pleasant or neutral when replying to a post
that was part of thinking through an issue and not addressed to you or
in any way personal. If you had taken on board information and arguments
put, perhaps I would be less inclined to repeat things to you.

Notice too that you in no way address the clarification I made for you
that I was talking about the ideal need to fit material to suit the
media in the context of there not being some one perfect content with
one perfect mark up that is suitable for people who read material or
need to or prefer to listen to it.

This last point for discussion is obviously not anything you care to
think about calmly. To sort out misunderstandings in a civilised manner
is not your preferred cup of tea. You appear to me to be stalking me in
public to do what so many folk do in usenet, to beat up others to
compensate for some inner frustration. Or some God knows what! Please
stop. I am not a machine and it upsets me greatly.

Do not follow the snide ways of others. I still hope that you are a cut
above some other folk who have snideness as part of their unfortunate
make-up.

if you address the actual issues and leave the personal stuff out, I am
happy, as always to carry on discussing things with you. Up to you. I
know I am trying my best to just think though an issue here and to leave
all this idiotic personal crap out. But there are some mean spirited
people around me and sometimes I find it impossible not to respond to
their snide public comments. Some of them, I know, are totally, without
hope of reform. I have this possibly mistaken idea that you might be
different.

I refuse to enter into a pissing contest with you.

 

[asdf]

I offered you the chance to air your personal grievances in email where
you would naturally be more restrained by simple personal contact (my
experience is this). You choose to carry on here and say I am paranoid.

I can't be held responsible for your lack of a sense of humour. It's only a
little good natured ribbing, FFS.

Methinks you need to toughen up a bit.

Let's see now:

"And actually, it's the LAW (No... YOU look it up).

Why are you shouting? Looks like a snarly tinge to the bit in
parentheses. Trying to outdo other bitter and ill-informed sounding
posters who I have in no way addressed or provoked personally?

Again... your paranoia is showing )

Can you say in good faith that the bit in parenthesis is not an
imagining to yourself that I would protest to you that you should better
look it up rather than me? You are not being paranoid? (btw, I have no
quarrel with the law here.)

"You MUST NOT discriminate between sighted and non-sighted viewers"

sounds to me, with its shouting words, in the context, some sort of
*unpleasant* accusation of me.

No, it was intended as emphasis... Sometimes one shouts for emphasis.

"Different words and sentences? Pullleeeaase... Partial sightedness or
blindness is not a cognitive problem." and ""Perpetuating this MYTH that
blind people are somehow cognitively impaired"

The "Pullleeeaase..." and the (as it happens) mistaken accusation that I
think blind people are somehow stupid is what to you? A nice thing to
say to me in public? Nothing I should be hurt by? And I thought I am
supposed to be the inhuman robot around here! You win by a mile.

I think upon reading your original post on the matter, you said that blind
people need to be presented with different text. That strongly implies that
they are not (in your view) sufficiently cognitively endowed to cope with a
linear presentation of concepts through text.

I have never sought to cause you discomfort. It's *your* reading and
interpretation that's causing you troubles.

If your ego can't stand a small brush with some good natured banter, then
perhaps you should consider not engaging in public debate.

(btw, I don't think this at all. I have had blind students at a
reasonably high level of education that I have marked way ahead of the
pack because of their sheer intellectual merit. Some of whom have gone
on to achieve rightfully respected and leading places in society -
meaning I know talent when I see it and do not judge in wishy washy
ways. I also have had many other contacts on less professional terms
with blind people. I only go out to steal their dogs, kick their sticks
away from their tapping hands when I am desperate for entertainment. So
do not assume that your recounting of your personal experiences somehow
shames me (as it was clearly intended to do).

You simply plump for the most one-eyed, most mistaken, blackest and
nastiest interpretation instead of actually *thinking and calmly
questioning.

"This is why (to repeat for the umpteenth time),.."

Just look at the contempt in the parenthesis. It is as if you have no
clue at all how to be simply pleasant or neutral when replying to a post
that was part of thinking through an issue and not addressed to you or
in any way personal. If you had taken on board information and arguments
put, perhaps I would be less inclined to repeat things to you.

Not contempt... boredom. The area of argument has been covered many, many
times in this thread, and has become circular and boring.

Notice too that you in no way address the clarification I made for you
that I was talking about the ideal need to fit material to suit the
media in the context of there not being some one perfect content with
one perfect mark up that is suitable for people who read material or
need to or prefer to listen to it.

You flabbergast me with your obfuscation. Please clarify again in clear
concise language.

This last point for discussion is obviously not anything you care to
think about calmly. To sort out misunderstandings in a civilised manner
is not your preferred cup of tea. You appear to me to be stalking me in
public to do what so many folk do in usenet, to beat up others to
compensate for some inner frustration. Or some God knows what! Please
stop. I am not a machine and it upsets me greatly.

Utter nonsense. We *have* been having a civilised conversation. If you
willfully misinterpret what I write, then I have no control over that.

Do not follow the snide ways of others. I still hope that you are a cut
above some other folk who have snideness as part of their unfortunate
make-up.

Ain't never bin snide here afore.

if you address the actual issues and leave the personal stuff out, I am

....have been. I've stuck to the argument, no you are accusing me of personal
attacks. It is *I* who is hurt. The difference is, I don't actually care
about your accusations. LMGDAO

happy, as always to carry on discussing things with you. Up to you. I

Glad to here it.

Now, can we get back to cogent argument rather than ego-massage? Thank you.

know I am trying my best to just think though an issue here and to leave
all this idiotic personal crap out. But there are some mean spirited
people around me and sometimes I find it impossible not to respond to
their snide public comments. Some of them, I know, are totally, without
hope of reform. I have this possibly mistaken idea that you might be
different.

Not mistaken at all. I'm sorry if you misinterpret what I say.

 

[dorayme]

I refuse to enter into a pissing contest with you.

Good, then don't start one in the first place.

 

[asdf]

Good, then don't start one in the first place.

Excuse me?

 

[dorayme]

I can't be held responsible for your lack of a sense of humour. It's only a
little good natured ribbing, FFS.

C'mon asdf! Me, a lack of humour. I am a one-being-riot-of-laughs, an ET
clown come to earth. You know what clowns are like underneath or have
you just been hiding under a rock all your life. If the latter, btw, get
Fellini's La Strada out on DVD and watch it. No more yawning now!

Methinks you need to toughen up a bit.

Well, I am not tough. I am a throbbing live ball of sensitivity and
vulnerability. But do test my willingness to settle for simple plain
humourless manners.

Again... your paranoia is showing )

I know! However, mine is buried too deep to be cured. You are more
innocent, and there is hope for you.

btw, is that a double smile? I like smiles and happy things more than I
like smiting folk that insult me. I was experimenting with a half smile

No, it was intended as emphasis... Sometimes one shouts for emphasis.

Really? Well it looked very bad to me considering you were missing the
entire point anyway.

I think upon reading your original post on the matter, you said that blind
people need to be presented with different text.

I said nothing as bald and unqualified as that at all.

That strongly implies that
they are not (in your view) sufficiently cognitively endowed to cope with a
linear presentation of concepts through text.
I have never sought to cause you discomfort. It's *your* reading and
interpretation that's causing you troubles.

OK, let me put it this way. Don't you *just know* that I don't have such
insane social views by now? You can see the racists and the misanthropes
and the sexist pigs all over usenet and even right here in this group by
folk beneath contempt. So, you *not doubting* your interpretation is
upsetting. I am after all, dorayme. The decent thing to do is at least
to pretend a doubt and wait to see if it is confirmed by a little polite
probing. Something like:

"Just clear up something for me here, are you assuming that blind people
are less intelligent ..."

And I would reply with

"Sorry if there was any misunderstanding, no not at all.. I am
discussing the ideal structures that suit listening rather than seeing
etc"

(and, naturally, I would go on at length... is that what *really*

If your ego can't stand a small brush with some good natured banter, then
perhaps you should consider not engaging in public debate.

It was not banter. I don't like being accused of being an asshole
towards blind people. You took your eye off the ball and grabbed
something out of context and ran with it.

....

Not contempt... boredom. The area of argument has been covered many, many
times in this thread, and has become circular and boring.

This I accept. Under mild protest, mind you! It has not been *covered*
except for a value of *covered* befitting modern attention spans. Sorry
if I seem a bit old fashioned. I am getting on rather, 293 tomorrow.

You flabbergast me with your obfuscation. Please clarify again in clear
concise language.

asdf, I am going out to buy a lottery ticket, a miracle has happened.
alt.html as Lourdes! You have asked for clarification in terms you can
understand. I see this as a worthy challenge to me and it will help me
clarify things for myself.

But, when I come back, I will address this in (a) separate reply(ies)
that lose(s) all the needless issues in this post.