🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <AhCk3qy00WBOQ8vg45@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Andrew W. Beckwith <ab7b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>Secondly, Id like
>to know what is meant by the term "moron" being bandied about so readily.
>    If this is done, then the commentary will march forward from what is now
>a semantically null set of code words, which can as presently put, mean almost 
>anything the reader interprets them to mean.
>    Semantic clarity takes guts. So, who is up to doing it?
>
>                                  Andrew Beckwith

[flame mode off]
[yes, off]
[yes, I know it's "that guy," but turn it off for a minute]
[ok, 30 seconds]

It has nothing to do with semantics.  It has everything to do with semiotics.

Terms like "moron," "ass," "douchebag," whatever, are simply texts, or
signs, to be interpreted by the reader.  You inadvertently hit it on the
money when you said that they "mean almost anything the reader interprets
them to mean."  This is precisely the case; assigning a meaning to (or, if
you like jargon, informing) a text is a readerly activity.  The idea that
texts or words mean *anything* outside of cultural context was thrown out
the window half a century ago.

Now, and Andrew, pay very close attention here, cultural context is what
you are lacking.  The cultural defining of a newsgroup and its posts, as
in any society, are partially set out by its interpretive community (the
people that do the majority of the reading and posting, in this case, and
the ones that have done so for years).  In other words, terms like "twit"
and "fuckwad" have entered into the collective unconscious of the
readership, and any attempt to define them, even just re: you, would be
fatuous at best.

In other words, next time, read before you post.

End of Semiotics/Comparative Studies 101

[flame mode back on]
[we now return you to your normal programming]

--Gaucho