Hi all.

Consider this exchange of messages between a client and
a servant (or boss/emplyee, seargant/private - whatever. Two
human beings):

- "Execute plan B."
- "Mission complete."

which is a succinct and to-the-point exchange of instructions
and status reports, assuming all parties involved know what
"plan B" is, and what it is supposed to achieve.

Could somebody please suggest more elaborate, convoluted,
baroque, wordy, pretentious, pompous etc phrasings of
the same two messages? That still remain on topic?
(On topic with respect to the message phrasings above they
are supposed to replace, not necessarily wrt comp.dsp...)

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> Consider this exchange of messages between a client and
> a servant (or boss/emplyee, seargant/private - whatever. Two
> human beings):
> 
> - "Execute plan B."

Perform the alternative actions that we outlined earlier.

> - "Mission complete."

We have now done that with apparent success.

> which is a succinct and to-the-point exchange of instructions
> and status reports, assuming all parties involved know what
> "plan B" is, and what it is supposed to achieve.
> 
> Could somebody please suggest more elaborate, convoluted,
> baroque, wordy, pretentious, pompous etc phrasings of
> the same two messages? That still remain on topic?
> (On topic with respect to the message phrasings above they
> are supposed to replace, not necessarily wrt comp.dsp...)

This is hard work!

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Rune Allnor wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> Consider this exchange of messages between a client and
> a servant (or boss/emplyee, seargant/private - whatever. Two
> human beings):
> 
> - "Execute plan B."
> - "Mission complete."
> 
> which is a succinct and to-the-point exchange of instructions
> and status reports, assuming all parties involved know what
> "plan B" is, and what it is supposed to achieve.
> 
> Could somebody please suggest more elaborate, convoluted,
> baroque, wordy, pretentious, pompous etc phrasings of
> the same two messages? That still remain on topic?
> (On topic with respect to the message phrasings above they
> are supposed to replace, not necessarily wrt comp.dsp...)
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been brought to the Management's attention that some individuals
have been using foul language in the course of normal conversation 
between employees. Due to complaints from some of the more easily 
offended workers, this conduct will no longer be tolerated.

The Management does, however, realize the importance of each person 
being able to express their feelings when communicating with their 
fellow employees.
Therefore, the Management has compiled the following coded list. It is
imperative that all employees understandand memorize these codes so that
proper exchange of ideas and information can continue.


Old phrase: No fucking way!
New phrase: I'm not certain that's feasible...

Old phrase: You've got to be shitting me!
New phrase: Really?

Old phrase: Tell someone who gives a fuck
New phrase: Perhaps you should check with...

Old phrase: Ask me if I give a fuck
New phrase: Of course I'm concerned

Old phrase: It's not my fucking problem
New phrase: I wasn't involved in that project

Old phrase: What the fuck ...?
New phrase: Interesting behavior

Old phrase: Fuck it, it won't work
New phrase: I'm not sure I can implement this

Old phrase: Why the fuck didn't they tell me sooner?
New phrase: I'll try to schedule that

Old phrase: When the fuck do they expect me to do this?
New phrase: Perhaps I can work late

Old phrase: Who the fuck cares
New phrase: Are you sure it's a problem?

Old phrase: He's got his head up his ass
New phrase: He's not familiar with the problem

Old phrase: Eat shit!
New phrase: You don't say

Old phrase: Eat shit and die!
New phrase: Excuse me

Old phrase: Eat shit and die motherfucker!
New phrase: Excuse me, sir...

Old phrase: What the fuck do they want from my life?
New phrase: They weren't happy with it?

Old phrase: Kiss my ass
New phrase: So you'd like my help with it?

Old phrase: Fuck it. I'm on salary.
New phrase: I'm a bit overloaded at the moment

Old phrase: Shove it up your ass
New phrase: I don't think you understand

Old phrase: This job sucks
New phrase: I love a challenge

Old phrase: Who the hell died and made you boss?
New phrase: You want me to take care of this?

Old phrase: Blow me
New phrase: I see

Old phrase: Blow yourself
New phrase: Don't you see?

Old phrase: Another fucking meeting
New phrase: Yes, we should discuss this

Old phrase: I don't really give a shit
New phrase: I don't think it will be a problem

Old phrase: He's fucking retarded
New phrase: He's confused

Old phrase: Who gives a fuck!
New phrase: That's nice

Old phrase: Dream On, dumb fuck!
New phrase: We'll get back to you on that
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


VLV

Rune Allnor wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> Consider this exchange of messages between a client and
> a servant (or boss/emplyee, seargant/private - whatever. Two
> human beings):
> 
> - "Execute plan B."
> - "Mission complete."
> 
> 

I'm still waiting for someone to point out the ambiguity of the 
above. Especially considering the specific field of expertise of 
this group. Or is my sense of humor ...?
[HINT: think dual of thread above.]

On 13 Feb, 18:43, Richard Owlett <rowl...@pcnetinc.com> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > Hi all.
>
> > Consider this exchange of messages between a client and
> > a servant (or boss/emplyee, seargant/private - whatever. Two
> > human beings):
>
> > - "Execute plan B."
> > - "Mission complete."
>
> I'm still waiting for someone to point out the ambiguity of the
> above. Especially considering the specific field of expertise of
> this group. Or is my sense of humor ...?
> [HINT: think dual of thread above.]

Eh... well, the example is meant in earnest. If it can become
learer and more unambiguous, or it already contains blunders
and flaws, please help me out.

The point of all this is to demonstrate the 'diplomatic
overhead' in reporting etc in high-volume high-pressure
situations. My goal is to show that what is actually needed
is nothing more than a table of completed tasks, rather
than exquisitly phrased, readable prose. People are spending
ridiculous amounts of time writing in prose what should
be communicated by tables and graphs.

The example above is intended as a first part of an attention-
grabber, where one sets the short and sharp to-the-point bare
necessities up against the corteous, diplomatic, baroque,
equilibristic stream of words, phrases and clichees that carry
no information,  but which require skill, interest and time both
to come up with and decode.

I can get that kind of example up and working in Norwegian,
but I don't master English well enough to attempt the same
without risking blunders that overshadow - to a native English
speaker - the main purpose. Which, as your comment seems to
indicate, I even managed with the short and sharp exchange
already sketched.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 18:43, Richard Owlett <rowl...@pcnetinc.com> wrote:
>> Rune Allnor wrote:
>>> Hi all.
>>> Consider this exchange of messages between a client and
>>> a servant (or boss/emplyee, seargant/private - whatever. Two
>>> human beings):
>>> - "Execute plan B."
>>> - "Mission complete."
>> I'm still waiting for someone to point out the ambiguity of the
>> above. Especially considering the specific field of expertise of
>> this group. Or is my sense of humor ...?
>> [HINT: think dual of thread above.]
> 
> Eh... well, the example is meant in earnest. If it can become
> learer and more unambiguous, or it already contains blunders
> and flaws, please help me out.
> 
> The point of all this is to demonstrate the 'diplomatic
> overhead' in reporting etc in high-volume high-pressure
> situations. My goal is to show that what is actually needed
> is nothing more than a table of completed tasks, rather
> than exquisitly phrased, readable prose. People are spending
> ridiculous amounts of time writing in prose what should
> be communicated by tables and graphs.
> 
> The example above is intended as a first part of an attention-
> grabber, where one sets the short and sharp to-the-point bare
> necessities up against the corteous, diplomatic, baroque,
> equilibristic stream of words, phrases and clichees that carry
> no information,  but which require skill, interest and time both
> to come up with and decode.
> 
> I can get that kind of example up and working in Norwegian,
> but I don't master English well enough to attempt the same
> without risking blunders that overshadow - to a native English
> speaker - the main purpose. Which, as your comment seems to
> indicate, I even managed with the short and sharp exchange
> already sketched.
> 
> Rune

You just didn't account for my weird sense of humor.

I had assumed your post intended to be humorous.
So I "went with the flow".

But I suspect there *MAY be* a _potential_ ambiguity independent 
of language.[enough caveats in that phrasing?]

Boss     says "Execute plan B."
Employee says "Mission complete."

My perverse sense of humor distinguished between:
   1. Employee says      ...
   2. Employee responded ...

In other words, was there TIME aliasing?

My email is valid if you wish to follow up off line
[I've changed ISP since our exchange re gavia artica (sp?)]

Rune Allnor wrote:
> Could somebody please suggest more elaborate, convoluted,
> baroque, wordy, pretentious, pompous etc phrasings of
> the same two messages? That still remain on topic?

	Elvis has left the building.

To be sent to your client the minute after you have handed over the
master-disc to the courier..

Nils

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 18:43, Richard Owlett <rowl...@pcnetinc.com> wrote:
>> Rune Allnor wrote:
>>> Hi all.
>>> Consider this exchange of messages between a client and
>>> a servant (or boss/emplyee, seargant/private - whatever. Two
>>> human beings):
>>> - "Execute plan B."
>>> - "Mission complete."
>> I'm still waiting for someone to point out the ambiguity of the
>> above. Especially considering the specific field of expertise of
>> this group. Or is my sense of humor ...?
>> [HINT: think dual of thread above.]
> 
> Eh... well, the example is meant in earnest. If it can become
> clearer and more unambiguous, or it already contains blunders
> and flaws, please help me out.
> 
> The point of all this is to demonstrate the 'diplomatic
> overhead' in reporting etc in high-volume high-pressure
> situations. My goal is to show that what is actually needed
> is nothing more than a table of completed tasks, rather
> than exquisitly phrased, readable prose. People are spending
> ridiculous amounts of time writing in prose what should
> be communicated by tables and graphs.
> 
> The example above is intended as a first part of an attention-
> grabber, where one sets the short and sharp to-the-point bare
> necessities up against the corteous, diplomatic, baroque,
> equilibristic stream of words, phrases and clichees that carry
> no information,  but which require skill, interest and time both
> to come up with and decode.
> 
> I can get that kind of example up and working in Norwegian,
> but I don't master English well enough to attempt the same
> without risking blunders that overshadow - to a native English
> speaker - the main purpose. Which, as your comment seems to
> indicate, I even managed with the short and sharp exchange
> already sketched.

What is executed at a hanging, the prisoner, or the judge's decree? 
Colloquially, I would say, "Go to plan B."

"Mission" seems grandiose for most non-military circumstances. How 
about, "Plan B in place (or Plan B succeeded)"?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������