On 12 Oct 2006 at 18:50, Geoff Burling llywrch@rdrop.com wrote:
I guess no one wants to raise this question because it might appear to be trolling. I hope not, because it raises some issues that I feel are just as important as many of the arguments in favor of this prohibition. But if someone figures out a really good answer for how a literal-minded person can tell when someone else is being sarcastic, could they email it to me? I'd like to participate more in this discussion, but I must get back to working on articles.
I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 at 18:50, Geoff Burling llywrch@rdrop.com wrote:
I guess no one wants to raise this question because it might appear to be trolling. I hope not, because it raises some issues that I feel are just as important as many of the arguments in favor of this prohibition. But if someone figures out a really good answer for how a literal-minded person can tell when someone else is being sarcastic, could they email it to me? I'd like to participate more in this discussion, but I must get back to working on articles.
I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
The only problem with that solution is the paradox that when you tag it it's no longer what it's tagged to be.
Ec