Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 10:34:48 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <1026re8$it5u$3@dont-email.me>
References: <03gqqj562r4vi0kpi2vl8flsi59jsbot56@4ax.com>
 <l7ae3khglmqvpq8djk30q3pntsou3qfnho@4ax.com>
 <zfGZP.269026$%uk3.135472@fx10.iad> <101dplj$q5st$1@dont-email.me>
 <101f6jd$t5j$1@panix2.panix.com> <101m218$3qnfo$4@dont-email.me>
 <101nl6b$85lc$1@dont-email.me> <52q04kl4i6g1q47oqcctumbctvl49isa8c@4ax.com>
 <101pqim$sbva$2@dont-email.me> <101qumq$15ss1$1@dont-email.me>
 <10257kt$4jlr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:34:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ad1be93d3b989e745068fddd0add5f42";
	logging-data="619710"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UYfG5+pPlW0W3i3rBSNYS2sOxCsFIdow="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zTxXMkWTzEodFR6htnAt0fGz194=
In-Reply-To: <10257kt$4jlr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/8/2025 7:50 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On 05/06/2025 03:16, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2025-06-04 10:00, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/4/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> SNIP
>>>>>> Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
>>>>>> services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't do emojis in AuE
>>>
>>>      Well that is too bad! ;^)
>>
>> Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is joking?
>>
>>>> Or humor, apparently.
>>>
>>>      Really I thought it was sort of dry but no humor what so ever. :^(
>>>
>>>      That is very sad.  But not even puns?
>>>
>>> bliss who remembers when we had lots of emoji but in more subtle ways 
>>> than icons.
>>
>> There's plenty of humour in AuE, for those that have been around 
>> longer than this thread.
> 
> Those are emoticons.
> 
> An emoji is arbitrary, non-typographic artwork
> inserted inline in text.
> 
> To adapt from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>,
> "An emoticon is a pictorial representation of
> a facial expression using type characters -
> usually punctuation marks, numbers and letters."
> 
> There is overlap apparently in the field of
> "portrait emoticons", but Wikipedia explains
> these poorly, and Google's AI tries to tell me
> the difference between emoticons and emoticons,
> which weakens my confidence in the validity of
> the term I asked about and the validity of
> Google's AI.
> 
> Instead, the nearest I can make sense of it,
> is that non-typographic artwork that corresponds
> to a human facial expression typographic emoticon,
> is s portrait emoticon.  Let me put it this way:
> If you make your face into the expression of
> a facial emoticon, and you photograph your face
> doing that, then that is a portrait emoticon.
> If you draw :-) on your face, that's just
> an emoticon.
> 
> But as for exceptions, the link above,
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>
> describes hand gestures in the "portrait
> emoticon" section, and
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons>
> includes various other wildlife, and banknotes,
> which are typographic artwork but arguably not
> emoticons, not facial emoticons anyway.
> 
> "List of emoticons" also shows emoji which
> correspond to emoticons.  I think that an emoji
> which corresponds to a facial emoticon is within
> the definition of "portrait emoticon".
> 
> Also, as of the Unicode Standard 6.0, dated 2010,
> codings exist labelled as "Emoticons" (faces mostly,
> some gestures, some cat faces), and also "Supplemental
> Symbols and Pictographs" (emoji).
> 
> I argue that these are not "type", since they are
> not drawings of writing, they only exist as drawings
> of faces - and of very many other things.  And if not
> type, then not emoticons in the stricter sense.
> 
> Consider :-) and ☺ and 🙂 - the same emotion
> (on my screen if not on yours), so the second and
> third examples are graphical "portrait emoticons".
> 
> I'm tempted to exclude @ from "type" as well.
> There's a plausible argument that in describing
> quantities of traded goods, it's a stylised
> drawing of an ancient Roman amphora (very loosely,
> a jug, with a stopper).


Back in the day, there were plenty of emoticons
that did not represent faces. Here's one rude
example: B====o.

Emojis started on Japanese cellphones, but have
since become standardized in Unicode.

However, Unicode only standardized the name of
the emoticon - not its visual representation.
For example, 'gun' may be a representation of
an actual pistol on most phones, but the iphone
replaced it with a less-violent water pistol.
As  you can guess, this kind of substitution can
lead to serious misunderstandings.

The excellent "99% Invisible" podcast recently
did a show on the legal aspects of emojis, such
as 'Does a thumbs up emoji equal signing a contract?"

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/626-emoji-law/