A speech idiosyncrasy, in the same way as an air quote, is really justifiable only if it's employed very sparingly and if the user consciously intends to be using it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I've always been able to hear and read what I say before I say it. That's why I'm a good quote. Or a good interview. If I say something that's uncomfortable for someone's ears, it's going to be the truth; I just happen to voice it. But it's the truth. It's not my opinion.
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
I think quotes are very dangerous things.
Voice over can be tricky. It can be dangerous because it's over-used or inappropriately used.
I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation.
I've been really upset sometimes when I've been misquoted. And it's the one thing they use in big print. Or it's taken out of context. Thoughts are fluid and words are sticky. That's the thing.
A voice can also repel, infuriate or actually make a listener ill.
There's been very little writing about speech impediments, even though it's this huge psychological barrier.
In real life, people fumble their words. They repeat themselves and stare blankly off into space and don't listen properly to what other people are saying. I find that kind of speech fascinating but screenwriters never write dialogue like that because it doesn't look good on the page.
It's a problem sometimes when you speak to journalists. They quote you, and then they read what they wrote, and then they even explain it. It's dangerous.
No opposing quotes found.