Utah Attendance

Rockwell wrote:

I thought it was great. We had people at our semi all day long.

Rockwell wrote:

I thought it was great. We had people at our semi all day long.

Flip109 wrote:

I think the track looked cool on TV. Its nice to have a race like that somewhere different instead of the typical outdoor track.

Flip109 wrote:

I think the track looked cool on TV. Its nice to have a race like that somewhere different instead of the typical outdoor track.

Spartacus wrote:

Yeah, why have another outdoor type track during the outdoor national motocross championships?

Flip109 wrote:

I think the track looked cool on TV. Its nice to have a race like that somewhere different instead of the typical outdoor track.

Spartacus wrote:

Yeah, why have another outdoor type track during the outdoor national motocross championships?

Flip109 wrote:

It was outdoor smart ass. I just liked it because it was different is all. I thought the setting was cool.

Spartacus wrote:

Yeah, why have another outdoor type track during the outdoor national motocross championships?

Flip109 wrote:

It was outdoor smart ass. I just liked it because it was different is all. I thought the setting was cool.

Spartacus wrote:

[b]Understanding[/b] the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's or writer's intentions; different parts of the brain must work together to understand sarcasm...

Understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's or writer's intentions; different parts of the brain must work together to understand sarcasm. This sophisticated understanding can be lacking in some people with certain forms of brain damage, dementia and autism (although not always),[11] and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.[12][13] Research has shown that people with damage in the prefrontal cortex have difficulty understanding non-verbal aspects of language like tone, Richard Delmonico, a neuropsychologist at the University of California, Davis, told an interviewer.[14] Such research could help doctors distinguish between different types of neurodegenerative diseases, such as frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease, according to David Salmon, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Diego.[14]

In William Brant's Critique of Sarcastic Reason,[15] sarcasm is hypothesized to develop as a cognitive and emotional tool that adolescents use in order to test the borders of politeness and truth in conversation. Sarcasm recognition and expression both require the development of understanding forms of language, especially if sarcasm occurs without a cue or signal (e.g., a sarcastic tone or rolling the eyes). Sarcasm is argued to be more sophisticated than lying because lying is expressed as early as the age of three, but sarcastic expressions take place much later during development (Brant, 2012). According to Brant (2012, 145-6), sarcasm is

(a) form of expression of language often including the assertion of a statement that is disbelieved by the expresser (e.g., where the sentential meaning is disbelieved by the expresser), although the intended meaning is different from the sentence meaning. The recognition of sarcasm without the accompaniment of a cue develops around the beginning of adolescence or later. Sarcasm involves the expression of an insulting remark that requires the interpreter to understand the negative emotional connotation of the expresser within the context of the situation at hand. Irony, contrarily, does not include derision, unless it is sarcastic irony. The problems with these definitions and the reason why this dissertation does not thoroughly investigate the distinction between irony and sarcasm involves the ideas that: (1) people can pretend to be insulted when they are not or pretend not to be insulted when they are seriously offended; (2) an individual may feel ridiculed directly after the comment and then find it humorous or neutral thereafter; and (3) the individual may not feel insulted until years after the comment was expressed and considered.

Cultural perspectives on sarcasm vary widely with more than a few cultures and linguistic groups finding it offensive to varying degrees. Thomas Carlyle despised it: "Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it".[16] Fyodor Dostoyevsky, on the other hand, recognized in it a cry of pain: Sarcasm, he said, was "usually the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded."[17] RFC 1855, a collection of guidelines for Internet communications, includes a warning to be especially careful with it as it "may not travel well." A professional translator has advised that international business executives "should generally avoid sarcasm in intercultural business conversations and written communications" because of the difficulties in translating sarcasm.[18]