Austin Improv

Brad Hawkins wrote:

android lady wrote:And Another Thing: <---- Can't do that in a phone call!

Of course you can. The other person just can't see it.

Touché!

Smiley!

WINK!

android lady wrote:

Brad Hawkins wrote:

android lady wrote:And Another Thing: <---- Can't do that in a phone call!

Of course you can. The other person just can't see it.

Touché!

Smiley!

WINK!

Sarah Marie! put that away! have some dignity, for goodness' sake!

I like texting for short convos but anything of substance needs to happen by voice. I hate when someone tries to talk about something serious that needs vocal inflection to be understood by tiny little words. HATE IT.

Upside of texting is you can chat up the ladies without your voice quavering. PLUS EDITING FOR BEST SENTENCE.

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. )

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.

I feel the opposite about texting. It's a step back. It may be a tiny bit quicker (for some anyway - I personally can talk faster than I can type), but it removes nuance. 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. By extrapolation, one has to wonder if the prevalence of things like texting and social networking (which I've b*tched about elsewhere) have contributed to the rise in reported cases of social anxiety disorder.

Sorry Sarah Marie, but I'd much prefer to hear your bright little voice telling me rehearsal is at four-thirty than get this - "c u 430 @ amys".

This is an odd argument for me to be making because I'm not a terribly social guy - but that's just my nature, not the product of anxiety.

Also, and admittedly this just may be me, but I'm an auditory guy (goes with the business I'm in - or maybe I've got the causality reversed). Could be due to the fact that I've had lousy eyes and extraordinary hearing since I was a kid. I'd rather be blind than deaf if forced to choose.

Then I could still operate a telegraph.

Oh, I didn't address one other thing you said

Reverend Jordan T. Maxwell wrote:...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.

I agree that you lose the precious human touch when you touch type keys instead of ear drums.

But an android lady would like that wouldn't she?

I have to admit that I really like texting. I can text between classes, or when I'm in a place that calling would be inappropriate. I like texting a friend across the room at a party, or flirty texts with my husband. I don't really think of it as replacing phone calls, but as adding another type of communication.
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.

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.

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.

(It was really weird, once texting really took hold, how all these teenagers started talking like my mom.)



--
peter rogers @ work | http://hujhax.livejournal.com

I ran a theatre company -- I can fix anything, but it only lasts for 4 weeks.
      -- James Marsters

(^^^ not the James Marsters who invented the TDD.)

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.

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.

Maybe I should try a poll. Now I'm curious.

hujhax wrote:

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.

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.

So noted - but that's a special case.

hujhax wrote:(It was really weird, once texting really took hold, how all these teenagers started talking like my mom.)

LOL.

See... NOT AS SATISFYING!!! Still damn funny tho'.

mpbrockman wrote:

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.

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.

Maybe I should try a poll. Now I'm curious.

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!

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!

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.

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.

mpbrockman wrote:

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!

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.

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.

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).

This should be interesting news for you too, Sarah.

WOW!!!

That's good to hear. (ba dum dum)

I like texting for loud places where you can't hear the phone. Or quiet places where people get annoyed by phone talkers (rush hour trains).

I think the fact that it's less personal IS the reason people do it. You don't need to risk any vulnerability with a text. The only time i've ever had a conversation as short as - "where's the bar?" "sheffield and belmont" "ok see you in 6 minutes" - is with really close friends. Otherwise you are worried about what people think and the conversation means something so it takes longer. A text is less personal and there for feels less like you'll be judged on it.

My texting rules:
Only if it's too loud
or inappropriate to talk but is acceptable to text
or if it's no more than ONE question with a simple answer
or if it's really funny or really drunky.