[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Maggie - You seem to be incapable of differentiating between an internet forum and, let's say, a piece of classical literature.

Actually, I've been posting here and elsewhere online for many years. The reason this community is better than, say, Slashdot, is that we have traditionally had higher standards.

The former is generally posted after a moment of writing, free from the scrutiny of editors' eyes, written as I think.

My point exactly...and Jonson's as well. Your writing reflects your thinking. And the first critical review it will get is right here...that is unless you look at it yourself, first. Do you think *I* submit my posts here to any editorial review but my own and that of the other readers here? Do you think *Jonson* had his writing returned, marked up by some publisher's editor? Centuries later, people *still* judge the intellect and reasoning of others by their words.

Even on the Internet.

That being the case, where persons comparable in age at the time of writing would have an easier time comprehending said text, one could then assume that part of your problem with the digestion of my writing could be in the fact that you're less-than-young, whereas I'm still living at home. Rather, maybe your writing and reading styles are ancient, whereas mine are modern. You know. Kinda like Ben Jonson and all.

You and I *are* different in age...but we are *contemporaries*; alive at the same time. While I'll decline to hang an exact number on my age, I'm not *quite* too old to be your parent, but pretty darn close. I've read *plenty* of writing by people your age...I have one daughter a year or two older, and one somewhat younger than you. I hold *their* words to the very same standards. (The elder is on the dean's list this semster at a local college. *She* doesn't feel mistreated.) I know when they're on the track of an idea, and when they're blowing smoke.

You are, by my reckoning, 16 years old, about to turn 17 (Happy birthday, BTW) . This makes me something like three times your age. If Jonson was still alive today, he'd be something like 380. Almost *eight* times my age, and older than you by a factor greater than twenty.

It's not a generation gap that makes your prose different. It's not even that you're on the Internet. Jonson, from the reach of four centuries ago, holds together better. That's not because he's closer in age to me, but because his reasoning has a solid foundation. Perhaps he spent a bit longer polishing his prose. I doubt he tossed those words off into a dialog box and pressed "submit reply" without thinking about them.

It's just not a difference in style, or being "modern", or a matter of "art". (The Balanese, by the way, have a saying: "We have no art. We do everything as well as we can.") Jonson's words survive today because they convince, and his audience thought them worth preserving. Do they make sense to you? Or do you find them incomprehensible? Can you paraphrase them in a way that shows you understand them?

I am not trying to get published - merely, I am trying to get a point across. Sometimes this is like ramming my head into concrete, or trying to explain nuclear physics to a five year old who is running around, fingers firmly implanted in ears, screaming "YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYA". That five year old then, of course, turns around and attempts to decimate my arguments...

We call that "debate". Your prose will not convince in debate--will not "get your point across"--unless it is at least both logically connected and readable. Your words *will* be published (and others will form an opinion of your thoughts) the moment you press that "submit reply" button...so it falls to you to make them both coherent and convincing.

If anyone is paying attention, they will likely challenge you to support your propositions. If you think of your ideas as "nuclear physics" and your audience as "a five year old", you're probably going to have to work a bit harder. When folks challenge your propositions, it may not be that they're pearls cast before swine. It may be that they seem full of holes to your readers; holes that they then challenge you to fill in. If at that point you lead them around in circles, they will conclude that you've been blowing smoke all along.

And you return fire with a broad generalization, based on one solitary piece of evidence for the former and typos for the latter. How about you try basing your point in reality rather than exaggerated fiction?

OK. Show us a counterexample. Go back over all your postings here on the Cellar and point to your best work...an example of you being both well-reasoned and clear.