Note to self...

Aug. 9th, 2006 at 8:58 PM

Dear Self,

You have a peculiar loathing for those who message you with the simple, abbreviated ":P". It causes an irrational urge to roll your eyes and smash the head of the one who sent you such an inane emoticon as a greeting. Of course, this isn't particularly fair or all that nice of you, but that doesn't stop you from loathing it all the same.

Love,
jalenstrix

P.S. Grar.

Current Mood:irrationally irritated

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )

ravenblack

Aug. 10th, 2006 02:07 am (UTC)

It's not that bad as emoticons go, but it makes no sense whatsoever as a greeting. No emoticon is a greeting, and until someone invents a 'greeting' emoticon (WHICH THEY SHOULD NOT DO) the usage of an emoticon as a greeting will be punishable by death. Once there *is* a greeting emoticon, the usage of it as a greeting will instead be punishable by death.

Link | Reply | Thread

ameer_tavakoli

Aug. 10th, 2006 02:09 am (UTC)

Hmm?

You don't greet people by smiling and sticking your tongue out at them?

I do it all the time!

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

ravenblack

Aug. 10th, 2006 02:11 am (UTC)

Re: Hmm?

I don't greet someone by implying that I just said something a bit cheeky, which is what that emoticon is generally used for.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

jalenstrix

Aug. 10th, 2006 06:32 am (UTC)

Re: Hmm?

Yes, precisely - it makes sense as a reply, but not as a greeting.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

ravenblack

Aug. 10th, 2006 10:11 am (UTC)

Re: Hmm?

Emoticons are approximately equal to very blurry words, and using one as a greeting where the meaning is so unlike that of a greeting is like saying "Yes" or "Thank you" in place of hello. It leaves the recipient in the awkward position of being expected to respond to something that has no appropriate response.

I say still death to people even if there were an appropriate emoticon for it because really, what would the greeting-response be then? Another emoticon. What a valuable exchange that would be.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

jalenstrix

Aug. 10th, 2006 11:05 am (UTC)

Re: Hmm?

Well, about as valuable as "Hi, how are you?" "Fine - how are you?".

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

ravenblack

Aug. 10th, 2006 11:28 am (UTC)

Re: Hmm?

I hate that too, but the emoticons would be even less valuable, in that there wouldn't be scope for the conversation to go elsewhere.

Andy: Hi, how are you?
Bert: Terrible, my head got run over. You?

Andy: :P
Bert: Terrible, my head got run over. You?

I suppose there could be

Andy: :P
Bert: >:(

But really, that's still not going to go anywhere, is it.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

ameer_tavakoli

Aug. 11th, 2006 10:11 am (UTC)

Re: Hmm?

I dunno, I could see the conversation going like this:

Andy: :P
Bert: >:(
Andy: ?
Bert: !
Andy: :-&
Bert: :-|
Andy: :'-(
Bert: :-c
Andy: ((((Bert))))
Bert: ((((Andy))))

Andy and Bert then logoff

---

In all seriousness though, going back to the "How are you, fine, how are you example" For the most part that greeting is ritualized. Very rarely does the interrogater (is that the correct word?) really want to know how the interrogatee is doing. Especially if they are asking that question of people they are passing in the hallway or on the way to the elevator.

If the person they are asking is a close friend or someone they care somewhat about, then there might be genuine concern, but I would say that for the most part, one is expecting the ritualized response in many cases as well. I'm sure everyone has a similar story, but I once asked a friend of a friend (more an acquaintance really) the "How are you question" and half an hour later was still finding out about the drama in her life that had occurred over the weekend. At the very beginning I was really annoyed with her response because I was trying to get 8 different things done for work, but eventually got over it (and myself) and genuinely began to listen and be there for her.

Anyway, these are just some idle thoughts of mine while I wait for the caffeine to trickle in.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

ravenblack

Aug. 11th, 2006 10:39 am (UTC)

Re: Hmm?

Yes, as I said, I dislike the normal conversation-opening too because it is ritualised and as such mostly doesn't serve a purpose, but it remains that it *does* serve a purpose in that there is scope for deviation from the ritual if statuses warrant it. In programmerese, it's like a "LoadLibrary" call at the beginning of your program - you expect it to always return "fine, how are you?" but there is the possibility of it returning "oh god the library file is missing and I lost my job", which, if you've coded properly, sends the program down a different execution path.

Whereas ":)" is more like "Sleep(30);" at the beginning of your program. It returns void and wastes everyone's time.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
May 2011
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Log in

Note to self...

Tags:

Comments

Profile

Latest Month

Tags

Page Summary