Nonversations: A Brief Explanation
People are often uncertain as to exactly what a nonversation is and how you are to know when you are in one.
The first important question is: Are you talking to Bobby Knight? If not then you are not in a nonversation. At best you're in a pointless conversation, but a nonversation is more than just pointless. Nonversations long to be pointless. If you are talking to Bobby Knight then continue on.
Did this discussion start over a minor and seemingly innocuous comment by yourself, which Bobby Knight contradicted for seemingly no reason? Excellent, you're on the right path.
Are you not sure what you're talking about or why?
Are you arguing a point you don't even believe in because you're sure that to not argue this position would concede to Bobby Knight?
Must a dictionary be employed to end the conversation?
Do you leave frustrated and annoyed regardless of the outcome?
Well, buddy, you've just had a nonversation.
A nonversation starts like a white squall. You say something completely innocent like: "Nice weather today." Bobby Knight will then contradict this point. "What are you talking about, it’s about to rain." You're only option at this point is to nod and walk off. If you say anything in return, anything at all, you will cross from pointless exchange of non-ideas to nonversation.
Within as few as four exchanges you can be knee deep in nonversation. In the heart of the nonversation is simply the batting back and forth of totally unverifiable, completely unrelated statements. A conversation about weather moves quickly to the inaccuracies of barometers, then straight to the religious practices of the Plain Indians and then to Maritime law. At each stage the nonversationalists contradicting each other for little or no reason using information that only appear to be facts. A no point does a 'fact' enter into the nonversation.
Since the nonversation is about nothing there is no way to win a nonversation. They can only end. Typically a nonversation will end with the presentation of the verifiable fact. Sooner or later, most often later, someone will say something that is verifiable. Since no single person or group of people are acceptable in verifying such facts the dictionary is often employed in ending the nonversation.
Let me restate this piece of madness. A team of astrophysicist are totally unreliable and unacceptable experts for determining the circumference of the Earth, only a thirty-five year old dictionary has that distinction. Other infallible nonversation enders include The New York Times Science section, a collection of cinema encyclopedias that my dad owns, and Thesaurus.com. The point isn’t that these are particularly accurate sources, only that they are agreed by all parties to be the impartial arbiters of all these nonversational.
Hope you enjoy these, we found him infuriating.
Written Monday, April 10, 2006 by J.R.Knight. The first important question is: Are you talking to Bobby Knight? If not then you are not in a nonversation. At best you're in a pointless conversation, but a nonversation is more than just pointless. Nonversations long to be pointless. If you are talking to Bobby Knight then continue on.
Did this discussion start over a minor and seemingly innocuous comment by yourself, which Bobby Knight contradicted for seemingly no reason? Excellent, you're on the right path.
Are you not sure what you're talking about or why?
Are you arguing a point you don't even believe in because you're sure that to not argue this position would concede to Bobby Knight?
Must a dictionary be employed to end the conversation?
Do you leave frustrated and annoyed regardless of the outcome?
Well, buddy, you've just had a nonversation.
A nonversation starts like a white squall. You say something completely innocent like: "Nice weather today." Bobby Knight will then contradict this point. "What are you talking about, it’s about to rain." You're only option at this point is to nod and walk off. If you say anything in return, anything at all, you will cross from pointless exchange of non-ideas to nonversation.
Within as few as four exchanges you can be knee deep in nonversation. In the heart of the nonversation is simply the batting back and forth of totally unverifiable, completely unrelated statements. A conversation about weather moves quickly to the inaccuracies of barometers, then straight to the religious practices of the Plain Indians and then to Maritime law. At each stage the nonversationalists contradicting each other for little or no reason using information that only appear to be facts. A no point does a 'fact' enter into the nonversation.
Since the nonversation is about nothing there is no way to win a nonversation. They can only end. Typically a nonversation will end with the presentation of the verifiable fact. Sooner or later, most often later, someone will say something that is verifiable. Since no single person or group of people are acceptable in verifying such facts the dictionary is often employed in ending the nonversation.
Let me restate this piece of madness. A team of astrophysicist are totally unreliable and unacceptable experts for determining the circumference of the Earth, only a thirty-five year old dictionary has that distinction. Other infallible nonversation enders include The New York Times Science section, a collection of cinema encyclopedias that my dad owns, and Thesaurus.com. The point isn’t that these are particularly accurate sources, only that they are agreed by all parties to be the impartial arbiters of all these nonversational.
Hope you enjoy these, we found him infuriating.
