Simplifying Communication

August 6, 2007 in Personal, Tech with 0 Comments

I’ve been considering applying a new rule to every lesson or message I give in the future: the text message rule. My theory is that anything that is worth saying should be able to be summarized short enough to fit in a single text message (144 characters, including spaces). One reason I’ve come up with this theory is that I think text messaging has become so popular partly because it has to be short and to the point, which people like and makes things easier to remember. I’m not saying that we should only communicate in text messages, since my blog posts would have to be much shorter in general, but we should be able to know our material well enough that we could send the main concept in a text message.

Here’s an attempt at summarizing the above applying the txt msg rule:
Everything a person wants to communicate should be able to be summarized in 144 characters or less.
(99 characters)

Google Send to Phone will let you test your summaries.

Word snobs are out of touch with reality.

July 11, 2007 in Current Events, Personal with 1 Comment

I don’t like to use big words that sound intelligent. I understand a lot of them, but they are out of place with my everyday life. Most people today don’t walk around using a graduate-level vocabulary. Just look at your most recent text message. You’re more likely to see things like “cya,” “whatsup,” and “how r u?”. We’re a generation that likes to get to the point.

A news story about new words added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary reminded me of my dislike for fancy words and my appreciation for new combinations of words. MW will be adding “ginormous” to its newest dictionary this year (and I have to add it to my Firefox dictionary, too). If you’ve been hiding inside a cave for the past few years, you might not have noticed, but ginormous has become ginormous. I’ve heard it used in everyday conversations, tv shows, movies and more. It makes sense to add it to the dictionary.

Word snobs, like Allan Metcalf, a professor of English at MacMurray College in Jacksonville, Ill., and the executive secretary of the American Dialect Society, don’t get it. Here is what Mr. Metcalf had to say about ginormous being added: “A new word that stands out and is ostentatious is going to sink like a lead balloon. It might enjoy a fringe existence.” There are two things about his statement that irritate me. First off, he’s implying that a word like ginormous won’t last because of its novelty. That might be true, but it might not. All of our language is basically an evolution from previously existing words, so why wouldn’t a new word stick.

The other thing that bugs me is the fact that he used the word “ostentatious” to talk about a word that would fade away. When was the last time you heard anyone use that word? I had no idea what it meant, so I had to look it up at webster.com. Its definition is “marked by or fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display.” Mr. Metcalf is being pretentious with his vocabulary to degrade a word that he considers to be pretentious.

The fact of the matter is that in order to communicate effectively you have to use language and terminology that your audience is familiar with and is relevant to them. I applaud Merriam-Webster for not living up in ivory towers, but trying to stay in touch with the average English speaking person. This should pay off for them in the long run.

Girl’s Feet Cut Off At Six Flags

June 21, 2007 in Tech with 0 Comments

Another reason to not go to Six Flags.

read more | digg story

NBA Season Review and Post-Season Predictions

April 21, 2007 in Sports with 0 Comments

The time has finally come for the playoffs. It was a spectacular regular season for Dallas and Phoenix fans, but very little drama elsewhere in the league. On this first day of the playoffs, I’d like to take a look back at my pre-season predictions to see how I did.

In the West, I was right about Dallas and Utah winning their divisions, but my seedings were way off. The Nuggets surprised me, which probably had a lot to do with picking up Iverson in the middle of the season. Houston did MUCH better than I expected, as did the Lakers. I got six out of the eight teams in the playoffs right, so at least I was close. In the East, I correctly picked seven of the playoff teams, with Toronto being the surprise team this year. All in all, it wasn’t very hard to pick who would make it.

As for the playoffs, here are my predictions by round:

West, Round 1

1. Dallas vs. 8. Golden State
Dallas wins in 5 games. The regular season will have no bearing on this series whatsoever. Devean George missed the first two games against them and JJ Barea started in the third game. Dallas will be fully prepared to stop whatever Nellie throws at them. They did it against a much better Suns team last year in the playoffs and Dallas has improved a lot since then.

2. Phoenix vs. 7. LA Lakers
Phoenix wins in 5 games. The Suns are better prepared for Kobe and the Lakers limped into the playoffs. No repeat of the drama from last year’s series.

3. San Antonio vs. 6. Denver
San Antonio in 5 games (Notice a trend?). While the Nuggets have two legitimate superstars, they have very little else. The Spurs are playing unbelievable basketball and will only struggle in one game.

4. Utah vs. 5. Houston
Houston in 7 games. This will finally be the year the Tracy McGrady actually gets to feel what it’s like to make it to the second round of the playoffs. Utah is a solid team with a great coach, but they will come up just short in the end.

East, Round 1

1. Detroit vs. 8. Orlando
Detroit wins in 4 games. Orlando doesn’t have enough to compete with the depth of the Pistons.

2. Cleveland vs. 7. Washington
Cleveland wins in 5 games. Washington will find a way to avoid a sweep, but nothing more.

3. Toronto vs. 6. New Jersey
New Jersey wins in 6 games. Toronto is a young team facing an experience New Jersey. The games will be close, but this will be the biggest upset of the first round according to seedings.

4. Miami vs. 5. Chicago
Chicago wins in 7 games. As great as the Heat were at closing out games last playoffs, they won’t do it again this year. With Dwyane Wade hurt and Shaq another year older, Chicago will end up taking the series on their home court in the 7th game.

West Champ: Dallas
East Champ: Detroit
NBA Champ: Dallas

Church, Inc.

February 28, 2007 in Religion with 1 Comment

I just started a new class in my quest to get a masters degree from Liberty Theological Seminary on Church Administration. One of this week’s assignments was to take and defend a position on whether or not a church should become incorporated. I figured I’d post my response on my blog as well. Here it is:

I believe that it is in the best interest of every church in the United States, other than those in Virginia and West Virginia since they cannot, to become incorporated as a non-profit organization. The reasons that Schmitt discusses (holding real estate, contracts, bonds, protection of church members against debt, etc.) are ample reason enough, but I can think of two additional reasons.

First, there is a biblical mandate for all Christians to follow the laws and procedures set up by the government. Paul wrote in Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (ESV). While there is no legal requirement for a church to become incorporated per se, there are certain things that only a non-profit organization can legally do. Thus, in order to remain true to the biblical precept of following the laws of the land, a church should become incorporated.

The other reason that I suggest is a less spiritual one. As Ed Young, Jr. wrote in The Creative Leader, it takes some mad cash to run a church effectively. That being said, most people (Christian or non-Christian) are much more likely to give to non-profit organizations than an unincorporated ministry because of the tax benefits. In particular, members of a church are likely to give more to a church if it will mean they have to give less to Uncle Sam. This sounds very carnal and worldly, but it’s true.

As Christian leaders, we need to constantly be teaching people of the marks of a growing Christian. One of those marks is tithing. Jesus said that we should not do our acts of righteousness to be seen by others. In order to help immature Christians grow in the discipline of tithing, any sort of motivation will help. Also, we should not use the tax benefits as the only or primary motivation to give. However, since the laws of the land allow for tithes and offerings to be tax-deductible, why not take full advantage of this benefit for the members of our churches? Wouldn’t that be considered good stewardship?

Page 39 of 67« First...102030«3738394041»5060...Last »