Let us compare mythologies and movies

[Thenamir]

In my humble opinion, '?' is to be preferred, leaving as it does a sense of the mystery, of searching out the unknown, of the pursuit of further knowledge. By contrast '.' is almost an obscenity, declaring as it does that there is no more to be said, a prejudicial epithet to the yearning of the human psyche to discover, to explore.

While '.' carries the ultimate simplicity of a full-stop, the elegance of a single point in space, it is nevertheless the cold finality of the finishing of a thought expressed, allowing no extension and brooking no opposition. '?' leaves open the possibility of a '.' to be had in the future, perhaps at the end of all things, but to assert '.' from our limited perspective at present is mere presumption.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

In my humble opinion, '?' is to be preferred, leaving as it does a sense of the mystery, of searching out the unknown, of the pursuit of further knowledge. By contrast '.' is almost an obscenity, declaring as it does that there is no more to be said, a prejudicial epithet to the yearning of the human psyche to discover, to explore.

While '.' carries the ultimate simplicity of a full-stop, the elegance of a single point in space, it is nevertheless the cold finality of the finishing of a thought expressed, allowing no extension and brooking no opposition. '?' leaves open the possibility of a '.' to be had in the future, perhaps at the end of all things, but to assert '.' from our limited perspective at present is mere presumption.

Was that addressed to me? Or Bethberry?

Oh, and back up there, I meant question not comment. So sorry...

[Thenamir]

<sigh> The fine art of sarcasm is lost.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

<sigh> The fine art of sarcasm is lost.

Only over the internet. But really, when you are sarcastic, your sarcasm is usually pointed towards someone, and was yours directed towards me, Bethberry, or Folwren?

[The Saucepan Man]

In my humble opinion, '?' is to be preferred, leaving as it does a sense of the mystery, of searching out the unknown, of the pursuit of further knowledge. By contrast '.' is almost an obscenity, declaring as it does that there is no more to be said, a prejudicial epithet to the yearning of the human psyche to discover, to explore.

I quite agree with you, but you should follow your own counsel. While Eomer's contribution conveys a piquant sense of loss, while at the same time expressing a sense of hope that answers may yet be found, your addition of the "!" exagerrates the essential tone of the original statement by introducing a sense of bravado, outrage even, which punctuates the fragile mystery and thus brings the poignancy of the moment crashing brutally down in an exclamatory cacophony of despair.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

I had no idea this thread would turn out to be so interesting.















~Beleg

[Bêthberry]

. . .

I've often thought that Downers would be quite capable of carrying on extensive, convoluted conversations about nothing, and be quite entertaining in the process. And now my little "dot" proves it.

"." is, of course, not only grammatically a period or full stop for a sentence, but is also an enabling mark--"dot"--in extending names, titles and URLs on computers and the Internet. Thus, it is not a dead end or cold finality. It's probably closer to a hand shake in this use, linking people through introductions, greetings, beginnings, endings, middles. I am very pleased it has produced such a pleasant, interesting little thread.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

While '.' carries the ultimate simplicity of a full-stop, the elegance of a single point in space, it is nevertheless the cold finality of the finishing of a thought expressed, allowing no extension and brooking no opposition. '?' leaves open the possibility of a '.' to be had in the future, perhaps at the end of all things, but to assert '.' from our limited perspective at present is mere presumption.

Is that your final statement?

[Bêthberry]

This being post # 72 on this thread, such evidence would, I think, put to rest Thenamir's objections to my original . .

Originally Posted by Thenamir

In my humble opinion, '?' is to be preferred, leaving as it does a sense of the mystery, of searching out the unknown, of the pursuit of further knowledge. By contrast '.' is almost an obscenity, declaring as it does that there is no more to be said, a prejudicial epithet to the yearning of the human psyche to discover, to explore.

While '.' carries the ultimate simplicity of a full-stop, the elegance of a single point in space, it is nevertheless the cold finality of the finishing of a thought expressed, allowing no extension and brooking no opposition. '?' leaves open the possibility of a '.' to be had in the future, perhaps at the end of all things, but to assert '.' from our limited perspective at present is mere presumption.

Just look at the plethora of positions, points of view, and punctuation pecadillos which that . prompted to explanation and elaboration and extenuation. Proof positive that there is no finality, no limit upon the ingenuity of Downers who never leave a thought finished.

Truly we Dead do belong to the endlessness of Infinity.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Truly we Dead do belong to the endlessness of Infinity.

All that flowery language aside, you forgot to factor in the facility for a few of we Dead to flog hoary failed fallen fathers of foals.

And !? looks too much like a futuristic 'R' for my endorsement.

[Firefoot]

You surprise me, Firefoot. Being such a great writer as you are, surely you know that "?!" is not legal, so far as grammar and its laws are concerned?

Of course. But grammar has also always been frightfully dull to me... sometimes informal illegalities are needed to spice it up. See, look at this post - "of course" is a fragment, and the next sentence starts with a conjunction. "!?" fits nicely into that little club.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

All that flowery language aside, you forgot to factor in the facility for a few of we Dead to flog hoary failed fallen fathers of foals.

And !? looks too much like a futuristic 'R' for my endorsement.

There is, of course, always a caveat to such flogging. When it is done creatively and imaginatively it will fulfil the prime edict of comedy, which is to provide the unexpected, the unanticipated, the unforeseen, a shock which wakes up the old failed fallen fathers of foals and gets them moving again. A veritable ؛ ؛


However, when it tends to ride that fallen father of foals as an aged hobby horse, ad finitum, well, then of course it does create the yawning gap of tedium whereby the one trick pony doubtless would be better off in a glue factory. Such a symbol would indeed be a black hole, aka, a bullet in the brain of delight •