The AFU and Urban Legend Archive AFU Smileys teasley on smilies Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

From: Harry MF Teasley <het3@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: "Emoticons" are bad?
Date: 19 Sep 1999 00:05:35 GMT

Hugely long post follows.

Alan Follett <AFollett@webtv.net> wrote:

> Agreed; but the bans on emoticons and on acronyms aren't exactly
> equivalent. The former is a local AFU custom, best observed, and best
> ignored in the breach, simply to avoid unproductive squabbles about
> those customs. The latter is a more nearly universal matter of good
> writing practice and courtesy to the reader, in any medium:
> abbreviations which can't be assumed to be generally familiar to the
> readership should be spelled out at their first appearance.

Right. I just wanted to point out that I didn't want to portray the emoticon/acronym thing as equivalent. The previous poster brought up the fact that the FAQ mentions acronyms as well, and I wanted to mention them both in how the "bans" are implemented and perceived. You are of course correct in that they are not of the same significance or pedigree.

OK. On to the real point of the post.

I've now done a little looking through Deja for Dr H's previously expounded reasons for hating AFU's dislike of emoticons. He's been posting about it since February, where it started with a response to Simon's "AFU Posting and Style Guide" which he called "pompous" and characterized it as written and supported by "arrogant snobs". This seems to be the genesis of the arguments on emoticons with him, but of course I am amenable to correction.

He has later objected to dislike of emoticons because it is discriminatory and irrational. He further has said that their acceptance is nigh-universal elsewhere on Usenet, and that emoticons are a legitimate mutation of this communication medium. He accuses AFU of judging people purely on style as opposed to content, and finds this also irrational and bigoted. If I have mischaracterized anything, or misplaced emphasis, Doc, please correct me. This was gleaned from an unusually large body of posts by you on the subject, so I can cite my sources if I have to, but I am more than willing to allow you to restate your position now in case you have any opinions you wish to recast. I hate arguing with someone based on something they said badly, as opposed to what they really mean to say, so feel free to disown any previous statements, or to modify them.

Assuming I have characterized H's position fairly (and I have every reason to believe I have), let me proceed to make it look stupid.

Accusation: AFU's attitude towards emoticons is "pompous" and "arrogant".

Answer: Great. We like it that way. Anyone who can't deal with demands upon posters that they conform to more than the lowest common denominator of posting styles can be assumed to be a member of that set of people who will likely not appreciate other aspects of AFU. Being "pompous" up front like that can be a valuable time-saver for people who won't like most of the regular posters. And looked at objectively, asking for "no emoticons" is not *that* onerous. We're not asking for ubiquitous sesquipedality on the part of every poster, or highly researched theses every time someone posts. Casting it as an insurmountable criteria for the majority of posters is just plain disingenuous.

And, like the Joint Chiefs, we acknowledge the notion of acceptable levels of collateral damage, in that some very intelligent, worthwhile posters of insightful information may be driven off (or worse, antagonized into being pests) by the attitude they initially find regarding their posting style. We say, "Too bad an otherwise good poster is way too sensitive to post here," and think happy thoughts about the legions of mouth-breathing lunkheads who don't post, or who quickly leave. This scenario is unprovable, but I for one have oodles of faith in it (and minor indications of proof, but nothing substantial enough to assume any seriously tangible validity).

Accusation: Being against emoticons is "discriminatory" and "irrational."

Answer: That's cool too. Nothing better than finding a way to be irrational that pleases onesself. "Discriminatory" is great as well, it keeps unwanted traffic down. It also increases meta-traffic, like this thread, but these threads are fun, too. Meta-discussions are valuable, and serve to demonstrate in another way the mores of the group. And I get to make disparaging remarks about Dr H and his reasoning skills.

AFU is not the only group on Usenet to have hot button topics or issues that the unwary poster will tread on. Unwary posters should be disabused of their naivete quickly, so that they do not spend their time developing bad reputations in groups they would otherwise enjoy.

Accusation: Emoticons are an accepted convention of Usenet, and so should be accepted in AFU.

Answer: Given that you've characterized AFU's attitude as "get into lockstep with the AFU regulars or leave", and you've indicated that you think this is a bad thing, I then have trouble reconciling that attitude with "AFU should get in lockstep with the rest of Usenet", and that you think this would be a good thing. You disdain the "conformity" of the regulars here, yet it is a conformity to your notion of universal Usenet rules that you're advocating for the group.

AFU has developed a reputation as a rude, insensitive group about Urban Folklore. You want sensitive and nice, go to alt.folklore.suburban, and enjoy the tens of posts it enjoys annually. AFU has a lot of traffic, and gee, a lot of that traffic comes from people who like the posting style of the group. They're here because of that style. They'll resist your attempts to change it. I'm one of those folks.

Accusation: AFU judges exclusively on style, not content.

Answer: Provably untrue. Some posters have declared they do this, but on the one hand I don't believe them, and on the other hand they are not the whole group. In any case, to attack AFU with that statement is to assume AFU is represented by any single person who attacks smilies in whatever way they see fit, and that is clearly simplistic and inaccurate.

AFU can be represented fairly accurately by the person who says, "AFU discourages emoticons", but not by the person who says, "I hate emoticons so much I spit and froth on my monitor, AFU hates you loser fuckwad". AFU is unmoderated (another facet that many here appreciate, on general principle), and therefore repsonses to various "transgressions" will vary. It can't be helped, nor would I want to help: that would be called "moderating". Again, this is free speech, by unmoderated posters, and you'll get a variety of responses to the same post. Attack a specific poster for their venom or stylistic judgments, but do not presume AFU is so monolithic that one flame represents even a majority of opinion.

And on a more personal note, I wholeheartedly agree with the further rationale that emoticons only serve to confuse the meaning of a post, or to attempt to weasel out of saying what you really mean if you think it will offend someone. In any case, they remind me of watching Conan O'Brien, a person capable of occasionally making a good joke but who is then utterly incapable of letting it sit without underlining it again and again so that all wit is drained out of it. Emoticons do this to otherwise funny posts. This is obviously a position that Dr H has disavowed making, so it is not directed to him. It's just a "me too" to that argument as put forth elsewhere.

A challenge to Dr H: find a post using a smiley, and parse it for me so as to prove that the post is better[1] with the smiley than without.

Harry "can you feel the love in this post?" Teasley

[1] "Better" is obviously subjective: I mean it to say "if the post is meant to be funny, then show me how the smiley makes the post funnier" or the like. Show me how the intent of the post is enhanced by use of the smiley. I want to see a post that, under any random reading circumstance, is improved by the addition of an emoticon. I get to rebut your example if I choose (like you could stop me in any case).