To what extent is calling an award the "Xerox Creativity Award" ironic? A conversation entirely in IBan

I finished my last ever IB exam yesterday, so I'm feeling somewhat reminiscent. When I think about it, I believe Mr. IB and I would get along very well, as counterintuitive as that sounds. I'll gladly say that I love the IB program, and I think it has had a profound impact on my thinking. I could go on nostalgically for quite some time but I think I'll skip ahead to today's topic, as nostalgia really isn't what it used to be.

My friend Brian B. (2011) recently posted as his Facebook status, "To what extent is calling an award the 'Xerox Creativity Award' ironic?" Apparently the award is presented to competitors in robotics competitions for unusual strategies and such. As I said, I was in an IB mood, so I decided to respond in IBan:

To the greatest extent possible, created by the possible excessive use of capital letters, the use of a brand name, and the clear contrast between the initial and penultimate words.

I must warn you that I am fluent in IBan.

Brian responded simply, "IBan sounds a lot like BS. It's just BS with IB words." Not about to give up, I countered with

It appears, given the limited length of the retort authored by [Brian's last name], that he is unaware of the full nature of the IBan language. This dramatic irony- created by the fact that most readers of said retort will have seen http://www.onlyatia.com/2008/05/iationary-eyebeean.html - is essential to the development of his message. This message is, (not to beg the question,) that he disagrees with the principles of the language.

The reader is then inclined to wonder how he would feel about Orwell's classic 1984, in which the opposite approach to language is employed. This juxtaposition of the simplified and and the complicated is key to [Brian's last name]'s disapproval, and only by understand [sic] these devices and [sic] a reader fully appreciate his intent.

Still not quite showing his full potential for writing in IBan, Brian said, "LMFAO. That just made my day. So IB...," to which I responded with two consecutive comments:

The author of this comment finds it necessary to clarify that the aforementioned point, "So IB..." ([Brian's last name] 2), is in fact the entire purpose of the language in question. He also must cite from his original comment that "I am fluent in IBan," ([My last name] 1) emphasizing that this point may be more potent after the previous demonstration.

followed by

He also, embarrassingly, must clarify that the concluding sentence in the second of his comments, above, was incorrectly rendered, and was meant to read, "...and only by understanding these devices can a reader fully appreciate his intent," ([My last name] 2).

Finally getting into it, Brian said:

The author of this comment agrees with [My last name]'s point in the previous comment that his claim of fluency in IBan "may be more potent after the previous demonstration" ([My last name] 3). He moves to admit [My last name] as [sic] fluent in IBan.

Me:

Upon closer inspection, this comment's purpose can be seen as twofold. On the one hand, it aims to thank the other participant in the current conversation for his appreciation of its author's proficiency in IBan while congratulating him on his own successful attempt thereof. This effect is created by his appreciative diction: he employs words such as "thank" ([My last name] 5) and "appreciative diction" ([My last name] 5).

On the other hand, the purpose of the comment can also be seen by the reader as a request for permission to publish the conversation of which it is a part on Only At IA, albeit with last names removed. This is evident in the author's sudden transition to a more inquiring diction, with phrases such as "request for permission" ([My last name] 5) and "inquiring diction" ([My last name] 5). Either way the reader chooses to interpret the comment's intent, its author does a masterful job of crafting his work, effectively conveying a multitude of messages while leaving only a slight trace of arrogance.

And finally Brian:

This comment's purpose can - like the comment to which it is a direct response - be seen as twofold. One function is to grant the request in [My last name]'s previous comment (to which this comment is a direct response) regarding the publishing of the conversation of which this comment and [My last name]'s comment are a part ([My last name] 5).

Another, equally important, function of this comment is to commend the extent to which [My last name] has successfully developed himself as self-centered and lacking humility through his tendency to quote himself even within a single sentence ([My last name] 5) and his precise diction, with which he provides himself opportunities to quote himself and thus develop himself as self-centered and lacking humility. [My last name]'s character development is quite masterful.

However the intent of this comment is interpreted, its author effectively conveys multiple messages in the language of IBan, which is an impressive achievement, as the author (at the time of the comment) is still learning IBan in the course IB IBan (a group 2 subject).

I decided to leave it at that for several reasons. The most prominent of these were that I wanted to get this post written in time to go to sleep at a semi-reasonable hour and that I was laughing too hard to think straight. Besides, I would inevitably get the last word in, as I get to write the post. I must say that I am impressed with Brian's analysis of my self-citations; it took me a couple of drafts to get the same-sentence self-references to work out just right. After an experience like this one - seeing how far we've both come - I find it much more believable that one must spend only four adult years in China to learn all the Chinese characters.