Percentage of hippies that come here

I really like the lingo. I think it's... unnecessary that it needs to die if people like it, or portions of it.

 

A lingo never NEEDS to die.. It just dies when not enough people like it or have use for it (anymore). The latin language didn't need to die, it just evolved in other languages. And hey, for a dead language it is still learned and practiced by a lot of people!

 

Style points don't have a lot to do with substantial meaning. A person is more likely to get his message across if he is consistent with what he says in premise and action regardless speaking vietnamese or french. Certainly we can say that picking a vocabulary from the past in your example tells us something of our choices or levels of exposure to past influences and this is so of both the speaker and the listener. We are teaching each other about ourselves constantly.

 

I dig your vibe man. Which in non sixties speak means I get what you mean

 

Yeah, considering that it's kind of weird to even call it a dead language isn't it xD

It's surely not really dead!

But yeah erm, I can dig it, man

 

Funny thing regardless our period or location our essential meanings remain the same. Our seeming vast differences being superficial after all.

 

If you really dig it, then right on, man.

 

If a language is really dead you have to dig it (up).

 

Would that be outta sight man or not?

 

It tells us something about our conversation partner indeed and depending on the subject or the frequency of certain words (cat, groovy, etc.) it might get old fast and not constructive in any way. This is were the user of such a vocabulary should accept that other people have other associations and ideas about using the lingo of a subculture that had it's heyday decennia ago.

 

I guess my thing, which should be old news to any of you that know me, is I'm a bit of a stickler when it come to using the proper terminology in order to better convey my thoughts and intentions. When people resort to expressing themselves primarily with cliches', the listener never really gets the opportunity to hear what the other person is truly thinking because we have to decipher the speakers meaning when they use vague cliches' rather than more precise and descriptive language.
Also it shows a lack of education or concern for it, IMHO.

thedope actually tends to use language very precisely which is often one reason he gets misunderstood, it sounds odd at times, but upon more careful reading, his posts tend to be very on target and the precise wording lends a lot to that.

I also am always surprised at the number of people who will read, watch or listen to someone who uses a lot of complex and fanciful language, yet never actually conveys anything of true substance, and think they have exposed the secrets of the universe.

I guess I wish more people applied critical reasoning when they read, watch or listen to something and increase their overall vocabulary.

 

So basically your words are. "If I don't like the way this person talks, they should respect my squareness and not talk that way." Is that right?

 

very well stated :2thumbsup:

 

Yes make sure you speak rationally so we can all sound like

Live long and prosper!

 

For somebody that has typed tomes on here, most of which are a nothing but a simple blathering of tired cliches', you would do well to heed my advice, that is if you ever want your ideas to be conveyed in a manner in which they would actually be taken seriously.

You can whine and cling to a tired stereotype and lifestyle if you want, but don't complain when/if people look at you like this :dizzy2: and walk away when you talk.

 

Obviously a tenor shouldn't sound like a bass. If we put ourselves into each others words we can not sound like but understand one another better.
Using words of disproportionate meaning can upset our measure of proportions. One of the most frequent mistakes in proportional assessments is the use of always and never.

 

That's a bit harsh...

We can all talk however makes us feel happy

As long as people actually understand what you're saying then... what's the problem?

 

No, that's too narrowed down. But it is included in my words in the way that wether the square (dated stereotype!) or whoever likes it or dislikes it, the person who conforms to the stereotype should accept that the other person perceives him at least partly stereotypical: as you both acknowledge the stereotypical features (such as lingo) are consciously carried out by that person.
So if the other person experiences such lingo as counterproductive to the conversation because it might not serve the topic or the understanding of the person who you're conversating with you should at least acknowledge that consequence.

 

I acknowledge we are each frequently misunderstood for a variety of transient reasons but consistently because we imagine that we do not in fact share our thoughts. The prevailing conception is you have your thoughts and I mine and that they are not the same but all of our thoughts are in fact shared. When we get into get into a fight we get the idea that the other person is doing something wrong or different but the essential phenomena that we are both combatants and both equally engaged is overlooked, a fundamental misunderstanding.