Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: James Kass (
Date: Wed Dec 24 2008 - 13:53:09 CST

Clark S. Cox III wrote,

>Which is exactly the same function served by emoticons. Some things
>can take on a very different meaning without them:
>"You can go to hell"
>"You can go to hell :)"
>One of them is a playful, sarcastic jab, while the other is quite
>insulting. The emoticon distinguishes and tells us how to read them.

They are both insulting.


'You are a <bad word>'
'You are a <bad word>' plus a "smiley"

With the smile we are supposed to infer that the author is
saying, 'You are a <bad word>, hah hah hah I didn't really
mean to say that.' Poppycock! Don't say it at all, then.

Best regards,

James Kass

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST