board77

I just want to say that there is nothing "guiding" in the diddly diddly chocolate bean (I'm not calling it a mission statement since people just start making false assumptions).

It describes who we are and what we aspire to be. It is our mission for this site. Hal, I don't understand your argument because it is just confusing. Alatar pointed out something interesting, by the way.

Why is everyone talking about changing the wording when V already said that this thing sinks or swims as is?

TED, the only wording change that we are seriously considering is the small rearrangement that Frelga suggested.

It is like the difference between "little brown dog," and "brown little dog." Once you hear them both, you realize that one is a more idiomatic formulation than the other, even though both say the same thing.

Jn

TED,

We are considering a minor rearrangement of existing words to phrasing some of us think is clearer. Voronwe said we could do if no one objected.

Cerin has objected.

Hobby also said that she prefers it to remain the way it is, if I remember correctly.

And Faramond said it was more poetic the way it is now, even if it is more grammatically correct the other way.

Let me pose this question: is the anyone to whom this is a "make or break" issue regarding approving the Mission Statement?

Cerin wrote:

I don't believe it is more correct gramatically. I believe it is a stylistic choice. I believe the words mean the same thing when 'gather' comes before 'from around the world' as when it comes after.

Exactly my opinion!

Sorry to be a nuisance about this, but just grammatical standard isn't always the most important thing, IMO. If inversion makes something more poetical, then the standard doesn't count - you'd have to rewrite half of LOTR if you wanted to have it correspond to rules of good, standard English, I think.

I don't see how "where friends gather from around the world" implies more of a physical gathering than " where friends from around the world gather" - both are the same kind of gathering.

The difference it makes to me is in the different stress caused by the inversion, and I think if the first version makes you think of really gathering more than the second one, then that's mostly because in the first version the word "gathering" gets enough stress to be noticed, while in the second version it's tucked in so far at the end that it doesn't have the same impact on the imagination.
But that's just the point: the fact that we come together, even from all over the world, is the main point, IMO, so that's the part that should get stressed more. The second version would say that we are from all over the world, but we still come together - it's subtly different, I think.

Although, what's most important to me is rhythm. The second version just doesn't scan as well as the original one.

(Just seen that Faramond noticed the poetic value of the original version, too!

It's not like I would vote against it if it were changed, I just don't see the reason.
(Edit: and as it has to do with language, I of course like to try to make everybody appreciate little poetic subtleties, hence this long sermon )

In my opinion Frelga's version is also the more poetic. It displays a finer command of the language. But I'm not going to vote against the mission statement because of that.

Jn

I gather "gather" hasn't gathered a large enough gathering, then.

Am I correct in stating that the constitution can be amended?
Would it be a bad thing to turn a blind eye to this and revisit it when we revisit other issues?

truehobbit wrote:

but just grammatical standard isn't always the most important thing, IMO.

When you're writing an important document I'd say it's pretty darned important.

I did say when I mentioned the versions that I really don't care which one gets chosen. I truly don't care which one gets used ... don't take my comment as an objection.

I apologize for objecting in the primary thread asking for objections, and then attempting to clarify when people asked for it.

People keep saying my argument is confusing. I guess I can understand that. I myself am confused about the need for such a statement.

In my experience, Mission statements are written to provide motivation to people who aren't privy to all of the information about the company/organization, and thus need to be told succictly what the company/organization goal is.

We certainly don't have that problem here. We are what we are. We have rules in place to handle situations, but as long as those situations don't occur, we're simply a group of poeple that enjoys talking to each other frequently. That's it. We don't need a succinct statement to tell us that. The board changes every day, with every new thread, new post, and eventually new member. How can you define that?

Board 77 is its posters, not its bylaws. That's why I find all of this confusing.

I apologize if this post is seen as obstructive.

I'm not actually suggesting a change to the text ... I know that's off limits, and I agree with that decision to keep it off limits.

So what follows is just for the sake of fun ...

Here is what I think is most poetic:

Board77 is a democratically governed internet community where members from around the world gather in friendship and conversation. Our discussions ...


Yes, I know it's perhaps a bit spotty grammatically ... but I like dispensing with cultivate and engage, which feel like filler to me.

I like the overlapping word clusters of "gather in friendship" and "friendship and conversation".

Eruname wrote:

truehobbit wrote:

but just grammatical standard isn't always the most important thing, IMO.

When you're writing an important document I'd say it's pretty darned important.

But neither version is grammatically wrong - it just doesn't conform to some standard for formal writing style. Like the thing about not beginning a sentence with a conjunction, which when used in the Bible has a poetic effect, and editors probably wouldn't change it just to make it "correct".
I think our Mission Statement is something that should be written to have an effect on the reader, that's why scansion is important to me.

Of course that's a matter of individual perception, too, as Jny proves.
(For me, displaying a fine command of language isn't necessarily the same as sounding poetic. You can have that command and not aim at sounding poetic at all. So it becomes obvious how different perceptions are of what even is poetic.)

I don't know, if more people are unhappy with the original version than happy with it, maybe we should just change it nevertheless? It seems that Cerin, Faramond and me are the only ones who prefer the sound of the original version, so why should we overrule the majority?

(I'd still suggest to read both versions out loud to yourselves - feel the difference in structure: breathing, rhythm of the stresses! )

Quote:

In my experience, Mission statements are written to provide motivation to people who aren't privy to all of the information about the company/organization, and thus need to be told succictly what the company/organization goal is.

I just want to say that I've never come across this sentiment in all of the clubs I've joined that have mission statements. The diddly diddly chocolate bean is just statement of focus that the organization is going to take. I was on Men's Lacrosse in college, and our missions statement was something like: to play lacrosse and have fun. It was mostly stating the obvious. But, with Board77, a message board community with no obviously stated goal, some sort of focus is necessary.

I guess that's all I'll say for that.


I'm not really picky between the two gathering related choices. I don't like the list of possible discussion types, but since that is not up for changing, I'll just have to decide whether I that's important enough for me to vote it down or not.

Lo! Let it be known that board77 shall be a virtual haven for socially-challenged geeks from every corner of the universe who gather together like fish eggs in a jar of caviar seeking the illusion of human contact and cyber-discourse. ...

Or the Yoda version:

Democratically governed internet community, Board77 is. Gather from around the world to cultivate friendships and engage in discussion, our members do. ...



And no, I haven't seen Episode III yet.

Ow! My eyes!!!!!



Let me hit quote to see if I can read it....


*reads*

LOL Voronwe...especially the first one.

The only thing left to say is that anyone who thinks there could ever be a chance of a group of us coming to some agreement about a replacement, without a pending board opening hanging over their heads, is completely delusional.

Voronwe wrote:

Lo! Let it be known that board77 shall be a virtual haven for socially-challenged geeks from every corner of the universe who gather together like fish eggs in a jar of caviar seeking the illusion of human contact and cyber-discourse. ...

Hmmmmmmmm.........brutal, yet poetic.
However, I object to the word "jar" and submit that "tin" would more precisely fit here as a globally acceptable term for a container which........um.......contains caviar.

I would also like to see "cyber-discourse" changed to "cyber-intercourse" for no particular reason, except that it makes me giggle more.

That being said.............

My reader's ear is more comfortable with Frelga's suggestion, but the original version is just as understandable, IMO. I see no real tangible differences between the two, so either work for me.

Oh, for heaven's sake! I had no idea that this was such a big deal! If Cerin and TH are so attached to the original version, I'm not going to spend time arguing about it.

Although I like St. Ranger's version with geeks and caviar much better. Not only is it accurate and concise, it throws into sharp relief what I see as the biggest threat to the future well-being of this board. It just takes itself too damn seriously.