Touché!Brad Hawkins wrote:Of course you can. The other person just can't see it.android lady wrote:And Another Thing:![]()
![]()
![]()
<---- Can't do that in a phone call!
Smiley!
WINK!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
Touché!Brad Hawkins wrote:Of course you can. The other person just can't see it.android lady wrote:And Another Thing:![]()
![]()
![]()
<---- Can't do that in a phone call!
Oh, I'm sure somebody out there b*tched because the telegraph came along. The Luddites and the myth of the noble savage live on. Nevertheless, the telegraph was a standing broad jump forward in communication technology. The next closest things to communication over distance at that time were smoke signals and semaphore, and both required line-of-sight.Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell wrote:as an honest query, do you think there were people who felt the same way about the telegraph? (i would imagine so...perhaps our obnoxiousness leaps and bounds with our communication technology. the easier we can reach each other, the bigger jerks we become.)
Nah, I don't really buy that. The easier we can reach each other the more likely we are to say something dumb, offensive or just plain f*cking irritating. Even Abraham Lincoln would have said a lot of dumb shit if he'd had a CNN camera in his face 24/7. Unedited, we're all jerks to certain extent. The more easily we can reach each other, the more likely that fact is to be be revealed. We don't become bigger jerks, we just expose more of our... uh... jerkiness.Reverend Jordan T. Maxwell wrote:...the easier we can reach each other, the bigger jerks we become.
Note that this happens regardless of technology. My mother was deaf, and in the 90s she used a TDD to communicate over the phone. It turned out deaf people using those devices fell right into that "c u there!" style of communication.mpbrockman wrote:SMC put her foot in it: it dispenses with pleasantries and etiquette, it limits emotional expression (really now - does "lol" replace hearing a friend's laugh, does really take the place of a nicely timed sarcastic/ironic tone?) and it's playing hell with spelling and grammar.
I won't argue with that because I think may be a personal neurological thing. My auditory memory is more reliable than my visual memory. I can replay a conversation with you in my head much more easily than recall what you were wearing or where we were standing. I suspect this is not true of all people.Jessica wrote: Also, I'd much rather get "c u @ 4:30 @amys" because then I can go back and look at it to remind myself. I find text to be much clearer for those little messages.
So noted - but that's a special case.hujhax wrote:Note that this happens regardless of technology. My mother was deaf, and in the 90s she used a TDD to communicate over the phone. It turned out deaf people using those devices fell right into that "c u there!" style of communication.mpbrockman wrote:SMC put her foot in it: it dispenses with pleasantries and etiquette, it limits emotional expression (really now - does "lol" replace hearing a friend's laugh, does really take the place of a nicely timed sarcastic/ironic tone?) and it's playing hell with spelling and grammar.
LOL.hujhax wrote:(It was really weird, once texting really took hold, how all these teenagers started talking like my mom.)
That's darn cool to know Brockman! I'll have to keep that in mind when I remind you of things. Heck, I might even sing reminders to you if you let me leave a VM...mpbrockman wrote:I won't argue with that because I think may be a personal neurological thing. My auditory memory is more reliable than my visual memory. I can replay a conversation with you in my head much more easily than recall what you were wearing or where we were standing. I suspect this is not true of all people.Jessica wrote: Also, I'd much rather get "c u @ 4:30 @amys" because then I can go back and look at it to remind myself. I find text to be much clearer for those little messages.
Maybe I should try a poll. Now I'm curious.
It's something I've always suspected but had confirmed in no uncertain terms when I had my concussion and subsequent neurological testing a few months ago.android lady wrote:That's darn cool to know Brockman! I'll have to keep that in mind when I remind you of things. Heck, I might even sing reminders to you if you let me leave a VM...
OMG! Send me to VM when I call so I can sing you messages!
And now I have some scientific backing for my neurological test results (although I'm not old enough to fall into their test group - I'm close enough for government work).mpbrockman wrote:It's something I've always suspected but had confirmed in no uncertain terms when I had my concussion and subsequent neurological testing a few months ago.android lady wrote:That's darn cool to know Brockman! I'll have to keep that in mind when I remind you of things. Heck, I might even sing reminders to you if you let me leave a VM...
OMG! Send me to VM when I call so I can sing you messages!
However, I hesitate to read too much into that. The results were undoubtedly skewed because, uh, I had a concussion. However, I have actually asked a few people since then to give me verbal instructions/confirmations etc. since I've had some difficulty remembering things I've written down.