On 2 Jul 2003 at 12:50, Stanley Coen wrote: Stanley. Yes, you are right. My goal would be better served, if I was to be more attentive to what my communication, was attempting to serve. That is, to serve it, better. [snip] > By obscuring your > communication with spelling errors, shoddy grammar and made-up words, > most people dismiss you as not worth the effort. You may consider this > to be unjust in principle, indicative of small-mindedness, more > evidence that people are sheep, and so forth. Feel free. But it is > what it is, and you're only hurting yourse lf. I know that now. > There are many other contexts in which creativity with language is not > only accepted and tolerated, but also encouraged and celebrated. > Poetry is such a context, and according to your site, it is one in > which you're engaged. Isn't that a sufficient outlet? The fact that a > context exists in which a greater dose of "breaking the rules" is > considered valid doesn't mean that every other context should be > viewed the same way. Well, yes. I never did say I was actually good at it. Nor did I say I was a good communicator; I try to be good at everything, which it simply means, I am learning a new skill. There is no need to push me into learning it quicker, or poke me, or even prod me into seeing this vision, of enhanced communication. I am trying. And I will try harder. Language is a great tool, and even through my bad language skills, there is a lot of discussion, ultimately, communication being presented; Which is not about ego. It is, however, more about opinions, and open mindedness. In any event, it is that discuss which I learn from. Right now, I am learning from you communicating, towards me. > And here's another facet. At the risk of offending you, it is the mark > of immaturity to suggest that rules, in general, inhibit creativity. > In fact, the opposite is true. The trick to creativity is coming up > with the novel approach or idea within boundaries or constraints. Yes. I am not about breaking the rules, but bending them. No matter what the specifics are, language is very personal. Within the rules, also contain emotional constraints, which can be taken very personally. I supplied an argument. I thought about how to present that argument, within the boundries of professional communication, but also within personal opinion boundries. My grammar and spelling, undoubtly comes from my personal opinion, that of which, I do not want to sound to clear, or to intelligent. I do not, want people to think I cannot be tuaght more, becouse I can always be tuaght; There is however, a good way, and a bad way. A good way, is exactly what we are doing now. > The > most creative code was written a while ago when there were very, very > severe restrictions on speed and memory. The most boring music is that > which is totally free from the constraint of notes - it has its place, > but it's not particularly creative. It's notable only in that it broke > free of constraints and as a result, it is very shallow. The work of > physicists would be very uninteresting indeed if not for the laws of > nature. Even mathematicians, when working in very theoretical modes, > impose rules themselves where there were none before, because that is > the only way to do useful work. Free-form is kid stuff. You present one aspect that concerns the idea of what would things be like, if no limitations existed. I agree it would be boring, although free form is far from boring and has its place, even if only as one minor way to think out of the box; All it is doing is presenting a vision, of how it would be like if, this or that, those limitations, were not constrictive. It is immature, only to the extent the children utilise it daily. It is childs play, to the extend, that some people may simply wish, they could think like that, again. The limitations of which you speak, also can be placed, onto 'themselves', in a free form manner. From your view it may be simply kid stuff, from my view it is much deeper. Children do place constrictions on to themselves, it is how they relate their new found world, it is how they learn. It is how they develop into adults. As they grow into adulthood, the questions they had as a child, may very well develop into fulfledged research. Children, as simply smaller adults, and deserve the same respect. As well, a lot of childish minds, are simply Genius minds. Why? Not IQ, as IQ is meaningless, but simply becouse there mind is open, and continuelessly, taking small bits and pieces inwards, for there uses. It is thinking inside, outside, and around the box. It is only childs play, as children do it, in their greatest years of learning, growth, invention and development. It may be immature, though it is also less constirictive; And therefore more constructive. > Finally, and this is the practical point and perhaps the only one > you'll find convincing, most people will never consider hiring you if > you have poor language skills. It's as simple as that. They won't > appreciate how brilliant you are or how much vision you've got and cut > you slack for it. They'll assume that, at best, you're very sloppy, > and that you will be sloppy with the code, layout and design they > would be paying you for. Unless you have a long line of clients > waiting who not only want artsy sites that break the rules, but share > your approach to language, you are going to have a very tough time > unless you change your philosophy. And that is why I am here, I am more then willing to import more ideals into my philosophy. Well, that is exactly what is happening as we speak. It may not be as professional and clear as one might be used to, but the important factor is, hopefully, you as well as I, are thinking. > After all, everyone, including you, has to eat (unless you've found a > creative, visionary way around that rule too). You know, I don't even think I'm a visionary, well, a little bit, but it is only becouse people, that are not my friends, and people who are not my family, tell me that I am. They also say, I am highly intelligent, and highly creative, with that, they state more people like me are needed in the work place. My view is, no, more people that are willing to pay for people like me, are needed in the work place. Right here and now, I am not on the job, I am not concerned with selling my self, for the prime reason, that I will not be working alone, and in all realistic manners, it is very doubtful that I will be writing the content. Most important of all, I have time to improve on the aspects of which I am lacking. And that is the fundamental reason, that I am writing, exactly what I am writing. The ideal is, if you treat me good, I will treat you better. On job site, or off, I am not willing to do *anything* to simply work, or to simply keep a job; And this stems from me, not being an average employee. And yes, I need to eat, and I am very much a starving 'artist' type person. But as well, I things more difficult, and what ever choices I have made, were my own. Anyway, I'm slightly different on the job, though all I have to relate to is my previous career. Which is to, why I am investigating. Ryan.