Re: Big Indy race coming up


Mark B wrote:
Sid Watkins wrote:
Mark B wrote:
Sid Watkins wrote:
Mark B wrote:
Sid Watkins wrote:
Mark B wrote:

Bob though many do speak with a Southern drawl, just as I do, it is
perfectly understandable. Its also far less pronounced than it was 15
years ago. The marketing types are sending them to school basically to
train that out of them these days. Many speak with an accent, but as
long as its understood you are marketable. Ever hear an interview with
the "King" and I don't mean Richard Petty. I used to get a great laugh
hearing G Gerald try to interview him and end up with him not
understanding his famous "What are your emotions?" interviews. The last
one I remember he seemed actually speechless which was indeed priceless.
See Larry Mac for required lessons? Cain't dat boy get hisself some
fancy speakin' schooolin'? I personally don't think it's about drawls,
burrs, twangs, or brogues. But to hear some folks around these
environs, it may well be for them.

I wouldn't want Larry Mac teaching my kid English, but I would want him
teaching him how to build a car. The point of the spoken word is to get
the point across, and everyone seems to understand him just fine.
The focus of the spoken word should be realized in an unambiguous
manner, especially on a televised broadcast. Butchery of the language
is indefinite, imprecise and flawed without question.

Well I would argue less if Larry Mac was doing a news broadcast. His
job primary job is to inform and entertain. He isn't doing the evening
news. Many has been the broadcaster that has FAR worse grammar than
Larry Mac. Ever hear Dizzy Dean call a baseball game? From a small town
in Mississippi, even New Yorkers understood what he was saying. He was
largely uneducated in the ways of language, but his insights into
baseball are still legendary.

Dizzy Dean's legendary insights into baseball? Please, it's really
not that complex. 'Slud' and its nuances aren't a requirement to
anyone with the ability to observe, think and analyze. Actually, you
seem to be an advocate of some weird notion that networks and
affiliates aren't able to employ someone with insight and the ability
to speak with a modicum of correctness. That's a ridiculous
argument, and completely unsupported by actual fact. They aren't hired
for their insights, it's based on some inane notion of 'entertainment.'

Non standard use of the language does not always mean imprecise, nor is it always indefinite.

Yes, the results of one's inability to speak correctly are most
certainly imprecise, and absolutely indefinite. Without rules being
upheld, the meaning and import are lost in the midst of the nattering.


The point is often made quite clearly and to the
point, sometimes even more so.

'Sometimes even more so,' you have now traversed into meaningless
hogwash.

It only becomes a problem when the
message isn't received clearly. That can happen even with standard
grammar IS used. I can not remember an example when someone used me
instead of I or I instead of me and it confused the message.

Is that even in the realm of the discussion? That is, your comment is
fatuous, hollow, immaterial and completely absurd. Please, try to use
a more coherent approach, in the future.

What bothers me more than poor grammar is someone that speaks with
perfect grammar and diction, but has nothing worthwhile to say.

That would be you, with this inane position that correct language isn't
a requirement for people involved in the transference of knowledge. In
fact you allege that those that don't speak well are superior. There
are many rational and reasonable speakers who are also schooled in the
art and science of racing. Moreover, no one requires Dizzy Dean, O.J.
Simpson, Joe Montana, Mike Ditka, or Larry Mac as broadcasters, as they
clearly lack (or lacked in the case of Dean) one of the primary
requisite skills. As a matter of fact, I watch most sporting events
minus the sound as a result. These people not only speak inexactly and
speciously, but also incessantly.

Quite frankly, I wish the broadcast of races were accompanied with only
the ambient sounds of the track. Black flags, and other pertinent
information could be provided as text when and where appropriate.

Sorry, I'm not buying the bunkum your selling, not now, not ever.
Boogity, boogity, boogity...


First of all I did not insult you in any way, and personal attacks do
not make your point.

Disagreeing with your points isn't insult or personal attack. It's
discourse. Your arguments are weakly formed and fly in the face of
conventional wisdom. Some are just argument made for argument's
sake. Specifically, the one I called hogwash. It is, and will always
be that.

The size of one's vocabulary does not relate to
the quality of ones thoughts. The networks have tried the no announcer
method of broadcasting and it failed miserably.

And, that makes it wrong, or diminishes my desires? You observably
missed my point. However, to think that one's thoughts aren't best
expressed with precise language would be a falsehood. Otherwise,
grunting and pointing would be the only requirements for vocalizing
ideas, both small and great.

Yes they do add a great
deal to the enjoyment of a race. I learned a great deal from drivers
that became broadcaster that were hardly had college educations. Their
college educations usually came at the race track or in Dean's case the
baseball field.

Networks and affiliates are unable to find others more suited to the
medium, specifically speaking effectively? Hardly.

I feel sorry for you. The inability to accept people for who they are
and how they speak leaves you missing out on a great deal of knowledge,
regardless of your level of education. Someone that has been there,
understands the game, or in the case of auto racing the mechanics of the
car and the ends and outs of why things are happening takes one from
being a passive viewer to an actively involved in the event.

For you perhaps; and, don't condescend with this feeling sorry for me
in your supremacy bullshit. Please! I value the spoken word; you
hold no value in my belief. That's a disagreement.

Even ole
DW has something to add though I have to admit his stick of boogity
boogity boogity got old real fast. There is also no attempt to
communicate a message at that time. Now its more to sell tee shirts.

It was always about entertainment. Always. Even in the case of Dean.

I've met many that thought a large vocabulary and skills with language
made them superior. In their attempt to elevate their sense of self
worth, what they were trying to communicate was lost because their
listener didn't understand. Their egos were helped, but the message
didn't get through so no effective communication took place. They also
never figured out that one ever made themselves bigger by making someone
else feel small.

Never my intention; I disagree with your ideas concerning language, in
no uncertain terms. If that offends you, mea culpa, I still find your
contentions undefendable. However, you're the one vocalizing your
superiority, better manner, sense of understanding, education and
knowledge in all things. Otherwise, you wouldn't be playing the 'I feel
sorry for you' card, would you? Or you wouldn't be expressing some
misguided notion along the lines of people with big vocabularies are
just victims of inferior self-worth and make themselves feel better at
the expense of the masses.And, of course, your thoughts posted in this
manner were in no manner meant as an insult directed towards me?

Bad use of the language does not make one superior, but many great
authors over the years have used it intentionally to make points. Many
are classics. Its all in context. It no more indicates the quality of
ones thoughts and heart than the use of good grammar and the dictionary
sized vocabulary.

I disagree with your contention that language is something that should
be taken lightly, or bushed aside as a nice-to-have, and essentially
unnecessary in communication. Or, even that it isn't a requirement
that rules should be adhered to, in order to be precise and
unambiguous. Or, even the preposterous notion that those that don't
speak well are somehow enhanced communicators. We weren't discussing
Mark Twain's, James Joyce's, Charles Bukowski's or Richard
Brautigan's deliberate misuse of language. Were we?
Unquestionably, dialogue concerning Dizzy Dean and Larry Mac is very
far a field from those authors' intentions. Try and stick to the
subject at hand. I'm not buying your bunkum, and perhaps this
deliberate distortion of yours, is acknowledgement of your earlier
inaccuracy.

Enjoy the self-serving condescension. I suppose you've earned it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Big Indy race coming up
    ... Bob though many do speak with a Southern drawl, just as I do, it is ... See Larry Mac for required lessons? ... Well I would argue less if Larry Mac was doing a news broadcast. ... Boogity, boogity, boogity... ...
    (rec.autos.sport.indy)
  • Re: Big Indy race coming up
    ... slaughter the language on a weekly basis on TV is beyond me. ... Bob though many do speak with a Southern drawl, just as I do, it is ... See Larry Mac for required lessons? ... Many has been the broadcaster that has FAR worse grammar than Larry Mac. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.indy)
  • Re: Big Indy race coming up
    ... Bob though many do speak with a Southern drawl, just as I do, it is ... See Larry Mac for required lessons? ... Well I would argue less if Larry Mac was doing a news broadcast. ... Dizzy Dean's legendary insights into baseball? ...
    (rec.autos.sport.indy)
  • Re: Who the hell cares about Superbowl Sunday
    ... have no interest in, broadcast in a language they don't speak, at a time ... Outside of North America and parts of Europe, ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Quote-Unquote
    ...   What I'm concerned about is -- what language will ... we all speak in heaven? ... I don't like to broadcast it, but from time to time, I do receive ...
    (soc.retirement)