First of all, typeing is speach. They are the same thing. Words are words, and i type down exacly what i would speak out loud. When ever there is a pause, i use a comma. If there is a longer one i use a period. Longer i use a series of dots, and then finaly i will make a new paragraph.
The way you say something is just as important as what is being said. If it dosnt sound right then you may aswell not say anything at all. I am a musician, and from my reading and thinking i have started to realise how close speach is to music. There is a line of insights i made wich related notes and interaction of notes and interaction of lyrics(if there are lyrics) and notes and dubble meanings of lyrics with differant notes and many sorts of things that help to paint the entire collor/sound/emotion landscape of any good piece of music. It is from this that i started realiseing how just talking could, if done properly, have the same effect as even the most captivateing music.
In other words, like a poem, its not whats being said that gives it meaning, it is the combined effect of whats being said, the immages that whats being said brings up, the way that the poem is constructed, and the way that all those elements interact with eachother wich bring the ending effect, and the meaning, of the poem.
Its like reading a good book, or even playing a good game. When you have finaly finished it, there is a single instant where you are filled with an emotion. THAT is the point of the book, when you look back in retrospect and suddenly realise the entire thing through the lense of that single feeling, wich is the sudden release of the combined effect of every single word event and immage in the entire book.
And yes. You could take random words and speak them in such a way that you can make a meaning for what your saying, however it would take far to long to construct properly.
In your post you quoted a sentence that you said was hard to understand. So let me take a moment to exacly discribe what it says.
"However becaus of this, in order to not understand me the reader would be required to know how to read english, but not be able to speak it."
This means that, in essence, you need to know how to both read and speak english to understand me. However sence i was talking about what sort of sercumstances would make someone NOT understand me, i said the above, allowing for the fact that it would be impossable to understand at all if you could ONLY speak english and not read (sence this is wrighten)
So basicly that sentance above says exacly these three following statements.
To understand me you need to know how to both read and speak english. If you can read english but not speak it, you will not understand me. (due to the way its wrighten) If you can speak english, but not read it, you will not understand me. (due to the fact you are not reading this in the first place)
You see its verry important to include these types of redundancies, becaus you should never ever assume that every single person who will ever read what you have wrighten, will have the common sence to know things such as 'not being able to read will hinder your efforts to... read this!'
Secondly, i am offended. I have seen many things in my years on the net. Such as people who dont know there are commas or periods at all, who dont know about hitting return, and who are clueless to the existance of the shift key. Those are the people you should be after. I have spent 5 years trying to develop a way to communicate speach through typeing. The fact that i dont talk like most people probibly dosnt help me. And that someone would just come with their little english books and say that im obvioulsy just an idiot who dosnt have the faintest idea at all what im doing... it upsets me. And the fact that you would waste your time doing something that has no real point also offends me. If you where attempting to join the discusion then you would have reason. But there really was no point in what you did. So i am offended twice.
Now i strive to be an objective person. I realise that someone who dosnt know what im up to will probibly be confused when confronted by my posts for the first time. But to compare to me an illiterat 10 year old whos post may contain a total of three words longer than 7 letters is just wrong.
Proper english is fine if your wrighting a history report, but it does no good when you attempt to talk. Real speach is probibly more like a series of two lined paragraphcs with no periods at all but lots and lots of commas.
But anyway, yes that one persons interpretation was correct. I did type a bit to much of my last post, but i was trying to clerify several things at once. And my long standing policy is no editing unless it dosnt sound good. So i will leave 3 pages of crap aslong as it flows.
But remember im saying its a line, that is divided in three catagories. A verry long line. Two things can be soemwhat differant and still be in the same catagory. What im saying is, there are more simularities between the 'essence' of diablo and divinity, than their are differances.
I shal conclude this with the information that i quite enjoy arguments and hostilities, but i hold no grudges, as even tho i beleave people are true to their selves in their online actions with out the mask that reality forces upon them, and hence cloaks their true selves, i find it hard to dislike anyone i could ever come in contact with, as i think that the only bad person, is the passive person, as i can find the virtue in all action.
