- 2,736
- 11,957
The forum discussion centers on the interpretation of a post that some participants believe is intentionally written to appear uneducated, while others suggest it may be satire. Key references include Poe's Law, which highlights the difficulty in distinguishing between sincere and exaggerated expressions of extreme views. Participants express frustration over the use of double negatives, indicating a broader concern about clarity in communication. The conversation reflects a mix of humor and serious contemplation regarding the nature of online discourse.
PREREQUISITESThis discussion is beneficial for linguists, communication specialists, and anyone interested in the dynamics of online discourse and the interpretation of satire in digital communication.
. ...u have to be kidding me ! HOW COULD IT TAKE SO LONG FOR PEOPLE TO REALISE THIS !BillTre said:
I think its satireDrakkith said:Hmmm. I'm not convinced it's not purposely written to appear completely uneducated.
If that's the case, it should have gone into a joke thread.Drakkith said:Hmmm. I'm not convinced it's not purposely written to appear completely uneducated.
Agreed...but maybe this is not just a joke maybe the uploader is assembleing a group of wise intelectuals like us to find out something...to uncovrr a secret so grave no one knows...i guessBillTre said:If that's the case, it should have gone into a joke thread.
Navin said:. ...u have to be kidding me ! HOW COULD IT TAKE SO LONG FOR PEOPLE TO REALISE THIS !
Pffff...Einstein knew this !

There should be a law, here, and I'm sure I've said it before, that there should not be allowed, more than a "double-negative", in a post, as they get my head spinning, wildly.Drakkith said:Hmmm. I'm not convinced it's not purposely written to appear completely uneducated.
Drak-2_nots said:Hmmm. I'm convinced it's purposely written to appear completely uneducated.

OmCheeto said:There should be a law, here, and I'm sure I've said it before, that there should not be allowed, more than a "double-negative", in a post, as they get my head spinning, wildly.
Wait! Negating the "nots", was not that difficult.
No!Drakkith said:I ain't never not paid attention to no 'double-negative' nonsense before! And I ain't startin' now!
On the other hand, I have met some people who had some incredibly weird (including stupid) ideas.Drakkith said:Hmmm. I'm not convinced it's not purposely written to appear completely uneducated.
BillTre said:I guess there is no way to distinguish between the two without more data.
Satire or Real?
Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views.
OmCheeto said:There should be a law, here, and I'm sure I've said it before, that there should not be allowed, more than a "double-negative", in a post, as they get my head spinning, wildly.
compuserve Instructions said:If you don't want to not uninstall the current instance of cserv.exe, type "Yes" or "Y".
No need to, it just converted the present one!BillTre said:If that's the case, it should have gone into a joke thread.
Also confused by double by double negatives, (Alan Greenspan did a funny extension “ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”)POEs law talks about creationism as a good example and below is an illustration of that.Difficult to tell first viewing if they are serious or not.Same with the OP, I think it’s a joke (95% certain) perhaps the editor wasn’t sure?Drakkith said:You better believe it. It's a bit like Poe's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law