<p>stupid *****es, lol i posted crazy fetish song, it got deleted, but whatever I somewhat get why they deleted it, hahaha</p>
<p>Regarding all the rather inevitable discussion on writing styles, most prose should prioritize clarity, but never at the expense of a subpar vocabulary. Appropriately utilizing a varied word choice lends a certain degree of panache and vitality and precludes certain words from falling into disfavor by virtue of their scarcity in modern prose or spoken language. But one must also be wary of the fact that many words may only be applied in specific or highly specialized contexts. Moreover, padding sentences with excessive verbiage is rarely an asset and often unnecessarily impedes the flow of one’s writing and compromises overall lucidity. Resorting to periphrastic complexity merely to dazzle others or give the illusion of profundity is never a sound compositional tactic. (An educated individual will see through the facade.) I wouldn’t necessarily criticize individuals for generating these constructions, but if it appears consciously forced, consumes an unnecessary amount of time to produce, or is often denotationally invalid, then such a style should ideally be discarded.</p>
<p>^Lol. I see the irony.</p>
<p>^^ This is exceptionally well put. I would also like to add that the same idea applies to sentences that feature an absurd number of sub-clauses.</p>
<p>^^ Lol classic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure that I agree with this (namely the bolded section). Words cannot be inherently ‘subpar.’ I wouldn’t say that ‘bad’ is a bad word— it simply isn’t always the most expressive. Properly used, a higher level vocabulary will result in more clear, precise sentences. It’s only when more advanced words aren’t properly used that they bog down clarity. The only time that I would say a word should be avoided at all costs (even when doing so sacrifices clarity) is when it is blatantly colloquial and thus inappropriate for the medium that you are in (and sometimes it’s worth throwing in the colloquialism for the shock value).</p>
<p>[Brown</a> University - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_University]Brown”>Brown University - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>“Never us a long word where a short one will do.”
-George Orwell</p>
<p>@Cela: haha that is so full of win.</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha</p>
<p>Why criticize someone’s style? Are you going to criticize Faulkner for his verbose style? No. Are you going to criticize Hemingway for his terse style? No. There is no right or wrong way to write. It is personal preference.</p>
<p>^ so right brah</p>
<p>Nicely said, anonymous :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you grasped my basic point. (And the first portion of your paragraph simply reiterates what I stated.) Clarity is beneficial in most contexts, but not necessarily when the diction is impoverished. Of course, you can comfort yourself by saying that diction cannot be intrinsically “impoverished” either, but I don’t see the point in arguing about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was my point. As to why I would argue it, I don’t want you to hurt the words’ feelings.</p>
<p>There are times when ‘bad’ is simply the right word to use. At times like these, the subpar word should be used, because it gives the greatest overall clarity to the sentence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with that.</p>
<p>“…be wary of the fact that many words may only be applied in specific or highly specialized contexts. Moreover, padding sentences with excessive verbiage is rarely an asset and often unnecessarily impedes the flow of one’s writing and compromises overall lucidity. Resorting to periphrastic complexity merely to dazzle others or give the illusion of profundity is never a sound compositional tactic. (An educated individual will see through the facade.)”</p>
<p>Although this could have been simply put- and thus, the lesson grasped by a wider audience- Mifune has it right.</p>
<p>I demand that lookingforward is out of discussion. I have been tagged as a ■■■■■ many times, and I am tired of her sophistry.</p>
<p>Padding with sentences with excessive verbiage?
Periphrastic complexity?
Merely to dazzle others?</p>
<p>Foolish assumptions.
An educated individual must be able to differentiate excessive verbiage from technically apt terms.
As I have reiterated in my aforementioned posts, z-scores and random discrete variables were the key terms in order to portray my issue.</p>
<p>My only sarcasm with excessive verbiage was my soliloquy.
Check the time of my posts, and calculate how long it took me to respond.</p>
<p>A ■■■■■ would have gone through an online thesaurus multiple times to write a highly polished text.</p>
<p>This is an online forum here.
I have the freedom to express my thoughts in my writing style.</p>
<p>So, I have to write in a ‘condescending’ manner, since MIThopeful16 writes garbage?
No.</p>
<p>In my AP English Literature class, I try to be as succinct as possible. I am lying to myself as I turn in my highly polished paper. I am hiding my true style, in order to achieve a high grade.</p>
<p>However, whenever I write in my free time, I incorporate my own style of writing. </p>
<p>Frankly, I find today’s emphasis on clarity to be extremely annoying.</p>
<p>They criticize British authors because of their verbosity.
Let us not forget that American ‘culture’ was often ignored in the Colonial Era.
The British system had its heyday 400 years ago.</p>
<p>If you are suppressing my earnest desire to write in a complex structure, in an online forum, you are committing a cultural genocide.</p>
<p>So, mind expanding in how I write garbage?
And American culture wasn’t really developed or mature during the colonial era. It was more like an extension of Britain. </p>
<p>Don’t give us the cultural genocide crap. Seriously, come up with something better.</p>
<p>Jozhekryx, I didn’t get a very high CR score. But after your posts, I might retake, having learnt ‘sophistry’, ‘epithet’ and it’s friends.</p>
<p>Where are you from again?</p>