Oh Lord, please don't let Marius Hancu read 'Ulysses'

[Jenny Telia]

... we'll never hear the end of it

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:55:52 +0200, Jenny Telia <jnyt...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>... we'll never hear the end of it

Fortunately Marius always puts the name of the author at the beginning
of the thread title when he is asking for an explanation of a quotation.
This makes it easy to avoid such queries.

So - if you see a thread titled "Joyce:..." put your hands over your
eyes, stick your feet in your ears and run away fast.

Metaphorically. If anyone can do that literally they should, please,
video and Youtube it.



--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[James Hogg]

Lewis wrote:
> In message <k5ue0s$lsf$1...@dont-email.me>

> Jenny Telia <jnyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... we'll never hear the end of it
>

> I'll see you and raise Finnegan's Wake.

That idea came up here three years ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/2ae1c8baab655685?hl=en


--
James

[fabzorba]

On 10월21일, 오전12시55분, Jenny Telia <jnyte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... we'll never hear the end of it

Oh no, no, no, NO NO NO FREAKING NO Jenny. I made some such comment a
while back, and even suggested that we could have a new group to cater
to Marius and other like him. Even set up a couple
"nobody.gives.rats.arse.com and "alt.usage.whirlyturds" were two. but
of course I was just about run out of THIS group after the resident
old hats got on the back of the truck and informed me to the tune of
"Land of Hope and Glory" wafting in the background, that we were here
to cater to such queries now and forevermore, as the Empah had been
built on this, and that I was a cad, and was not top draw, nor top
drawer, and so on and on an on....

Myles [so now I think Marius is just a GOD, really, a complete God,
and he's the way of the future, and also if I say anything about him,
he waits until I've started a new topic and puts in 2000 posts as to
"Why sun shine on or upon summink" thus sending MY post into
archiveburg] paulsen

[Guy Barry]

"fabzorba" wrote in message
news:4315ef4d-0c10-443b...@v11g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

> On 10월21일, 오전12시55분, Jenny Telia <jnyte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... we'll never hear the end of it

> Oh no, no, no, NO NO NO FREAKING NO Jenny. I made some such comment a
> while back, and even suggested that we could have a new group to cater
> to Marius and other like him. Even set up a couple

> "nobody.gives.rats.arse.com and "alt.usage.whirlyturds" were two. [...]

What's the matter? If you don't find Marius's posts interesting, skip them.
They're clearly indicated. I don't often comment but will do so if I find
the topic of particular interest.

I could say the same about many of your posts. No doubt there are many
people here who'd say the same about mine.

The great thing about Usenet is that you don't have to read any of it.

--
Guy Barry

[LFS]

On 20/10/2012 18:39, Lewis wrote:
> In message <k5ulk4$62j$3...@dont-email.me>

> I am afraid. Very afraid.
>

Of trolls and sock puppets?

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

[Jenny Telia]

On 20/10/2012 19:21, fabzorba wrote:
> On 10월21일, 오전12시55분, Jenny Telia <jnyte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... we'll never hear the end of it
>
> Oh no, no, no, NO NO NO FREAKING NO Jenny. I made some such comment a
> while back, and even suggested that we could have a new group to cater
> to Marius and other like him. Even set up a couple
> "nobody.gives.rats.arse.com and "alt.usage.whirlyturds" were two.

Hmm, I see Marius keeps his posts to alt.usage.english and does not
spill over to alt.english.usage. Interesting. I'm off to do a 7 year
long comparative analysis of the two newsgroups. I'll report back.

[fabzorba]

Well, Guy, it's a bit like sayiing you can eat AROUND the dobs of shit
in your porridge, innit? Marius' stuff weighs down the whole group,
and makes it less interesting. I also pointed out that his material
effectively eclipses the posts before it, meaning they are less likely
to receive responses.

I HAD suggested that he might put ALL his endless and endlessly
asinine queries in ONE post, but no, we have to have dozens and dozens
of them on the same book, one after the other, and at the same time.
That someone likes / does not like my / your / his / everyone's elses'
stuff, and that such stuff is good / bad / indiffferent according to
your own views, is a form of cultural relativism which leads nowhere,
and to which I do not subscribe.

myles [subscribes to alt.usage.whirlyturds] paulsen

[fabzorba]

On 21 Oct, 06:53, LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/10/2012 18:39, Lewis wrote:
>

> > In message <k5ulk4$62...@dont-email.me>

> >    James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
> >> Lewis wrote:

> >>> In message <k5ue0s$ls...@dont-email.me>

> >>>    Jenny Telia <jnyte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> ... we'll never hear the end of it
>
> >>> I'll see you and raise Finnegan's Wake.
>
> >> That idea came up here three years ago:

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/2ae1c8baab655685...

>
> > I am afraid. Very afraid.
>
> Of trolls and sock puppets?
>
> --
> Laura
> (emulate St. George for email)

A sock puppet's first line of defence is to shout ''Sock Puppet" at
every opportunity. I would not be the first person to note the
similarities between Marius' and Laura's writing styles, and their
tendency towards a sterility generally associated with autism.

myles [<GRIN> and then some] paulsen

[fabzorba]

Did you mean ''7 Year'' or ''Year 7''? .Coz if the latter, you are a
very precocious young lady.

I had thought that any fair reading of Marius' hermetically sealed
obsessions by any reasonably intelligent frouper with some grounding
in disciplines outside of chemistry, engineering and computer science
(which means that few old hats here need apply) would lead to them
coming to the conclusion that his queries were best understood in the
language of pathology, and best answered by inviting him to avail
himself of such services.

Am I the really the ONLY frouper who finds it passing strange that a
poster can read many classics in the canon of English lit, and never
ONCE mention any thought or feeling he has had on such, while
confining himself with the most trivial of questions on word usage?
And is it not odd that he must now have read far more Eng Lit than any
ordinary undergraduate, and yet appear to have made no headway at all
iin comprehending simple English idiom?

Still, there is a place for all things. Many froupers are incapable of
answering any but the most obvious queries, usually from someone who
is learning English as a second language. But they, like everyone
else, enjoys the warm inner glow achieved by, like, ''helping out'''.
So with Marius, they can get up on the teacher's platform, put on
their best avuncular smirk, and EXPLAIN stuff. As they are out of
their depth in EVERY other field of human endeavour, and have the
writing style of hamster having a shit in a small cage, this is how
they can get their intellectual kudos, and to to sleep thinking they
have told someone what a simple English idiom means, without
suggesting to them that they fucking well google it.

myles [ there Jenny, that should cut a couple of years off your
timeline for that thesis...] paulsen

[Guy Barry]

On Oct 21, 10:46 am, fabzorba <myles.abzo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Oct, 04:29, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > The great thing about Usenet is that you don't have to read any of it.
>
> Well, Guy, it's a bit like sayiing you can eat AROUND the dobs of shit
> in your porridge, innit? Marius' stuff weighs down the whole group,
> and makes it less interesting.

Then don't read it. Don't click on any thread with "Pynchon" in the
title, and you'll be spared. It's pretty damned simple.

> I also pointed out that his material
> effectively eclipses the posts before it, meaning they are less likely
> to receive responses.

How does it do that? All threads are independent.

>  I HAD suggested that he might put ALL his endless and endlessly
> asinine queries in ONE post, but no, we have to have dozens and dozens
> of them on the same book, one after the other, and at the same time.

It would be rather difficult to disentangle all the responses if they
were muddled up together, wouldn't it?

> That someone likes / does not like my / your / his / everyone's elses'
> stuff, and that such stuff is good / bad / indiffferent according to
> your own views, is a form of cultural relativism which leads nowhere,
> and to which I do not subscribe.

There are clearly people here who don't object to Marius's posts,
since they follow up to them. Sometimes the ensuing threads are
interesting. I've taken part in them from time to time. And they're
definitely on-topic for the group.

I'd rather read Marius's posts than a lot of stuff complaining about
them. What do you think this thread is likely to achieve?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:46:32 -0700 (PDT), fabzorba
<myles....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 21 Oct, 04:29, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> "fabzorba" 锟絯rote in message
>>
>> news:4315ef4d-0c10-443b...@v11g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

>>
>> > On 10?21?, ??12?55?, Jenny Telia <jnyte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > ... we'll never hear the end of it
>> > Oh no, no, no, NO NO NO FREAKING NO Jenny. I made some such comment a
>> > while back, and even suggested that we could have a new group to cater
>> > to Marius and other like him. Even set up a couple

>> > "nobody.gives.rats.arse.com and "alt.usage.whirlyturds" were two. 锟絒...]
>>
>> What's the matter? 锟絀f you don't find Marius's posts interesting, skip them.
>> They're clearly indicated. 锟絀 don't often comment but will do so if I find

>> the topic of particular interest.
>>

>> I could say the same about many of your posts. 锟絅o doubt there are many

>> people here who'd say the same about mine.
>>
>> The great thing about Usenet is that you don't have to read any of it.
>>
>Well, Guy, it's a bit like sayiing you can eat AROUND the dobs of shit
>in your porridge, innit? Marius' stuff weighs down the whole group,
>and makes it less interesting. I also pointed out that his material
>effectively eclipses the posts before it, meaning they are less likely
>to receive responses.
>
> I HAD suggested that he might put ALL his endless and endlessly
>asinine queries in ONE post, but no, we have to have dozens and dozens
>of them on the same book, one after the other, and at the same time.
>That someone likes / does not like my / your / his / everyone's elses'
>stuff, and that such stuff is good / bad / indiffferent according to
>your own views, is a form of cultural relativism which leads nowhere,
>and to which I do not subscribe.
>
>myles [subscribes to alt.usage.whirlyturds] paulsen

I don't find Marius' posts to be asinine.

Marius has a very good command of English but is not a native English
speaker.

He typically asks about words and phrases that are used figuratively or
in unfamiliar ways. Sometimes the use appears to be unique to the
author.

Someone once suggested that he should use a dictionary instead of asking
questions here. In most cases that wouldn't work. I sometimes reply to
one of his questions with a definition from a dictionary. I can do that
because I know which of the, often many, definitions in the dictionary
is relevant.

Sometimes those who reply to Marius disagree on the meaning of something
he is asking about. That makes for an interesting discussion. Sometimes
a usage is unfamilar to many or a large section of people here. That
makes for an informative thread.

[Pablo]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] escribió:

> Marius has a very good command of English but is not a native English
> speaker.
>
> He typically asks about words and phrases that are used figuratively or
> in unfamiliar ways. Sometimes the use appears to be unique to the
> author.

I still can't figure out *why* he asks questions about rare or outdated
usage. A lot of the stuff he reads makes little sense to me as a native. I
read a lot of old Spanish stuff and often bump into odd words or strange
usage. If I can't figure it out from context+google etc., then I just ignore
it. There's not much point learning it, if one is hardly likely to ever
encounter it again (and the Spanish language froups died way back - I'm not
even subscribed to them any more).

Poor old Marius can't enjoy reading much, as he is permanently analysing the
words. There can't be much of a flow to his reading.

Maybe he is studying Eng Lit for a qualification?

--
Pablo

[Guy Barry]

"Pablo" wrote in message news:aeiajm...@mid.individual.net...

> Poor old Marius can't enjoy reading much, as he is permanently analysing
> the
> words. There can't be much of a flow to his reading.

> Maybe he is studying Eng Lit for a qualification?

Since he's an author as well as a reader, I would imagine that it's in order
to improve his writing style.

--
Guy Barry

[Pablo]

Guy Barry escribió:

He wants to learn to write like a 16th century author?

--
Pablo

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 21, 10:34 am, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Guy Barry escribió:
>
>
>

> > "Pablo"  wrote in messagenews:aeiajm...@mid.individual.net...

>
> >> Poor old Marius can't enjoy reading much, as he is permanently analysing
> >> the
> >> words. There can't be much of a flow to his reading.
>
> >> Maybe he is studying Eng Lit for a qualification?
>
> > Since he's an author as well as a reader, I would imagine that it's in
> > order to improve his writing style.
>
> He wants to learn to write like a 16th century author?
>
> --
>  Pablo

Or, he wants to learn not to write like a 16th century author.

[Curlytop]

fabzorba set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> On 10월21일, 오전12시55분, Jenny Telia <jnyte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... we'll never hear the end of it

going round for ever. If he read Finnegan's Wake instead we could keep
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

[tony cooper]

Nor do I, but Marius does ask a lot of questions about extremely minor
points. He'll get hung up on why "the" or "a" is included in a
sentence when the sentence reads perfectly well with or without the
word.

Also, he often wants a reason why an author used this word or that
word in a particular sentence when the choice doesn't really alter the
meaning. A book is many pages of sentences, and it seems ordinary to
me that an author isn't as deliberate with each sentence as Marius
seems to think.

I don't understand how Marius can read a book the way he must do.
Sure, if there's a glaring incongruity, we notice it. But, if you're
into the flow of a good book, who notices the presence or absence of a
"the" here and there?

Overall, I read all of Marius' posts but only skim "fabzorba"'s. The
latter tries too hard to impress.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter Young]

On 21 Oct 2012 Curlytop <pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> fabzorba set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:

>> On 10?21?, ??12?55?, Jenny Telia <jnyte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ... we'll never hear the end of it

> going round for ever. If he read Finnegan's Wake instead we could keep

<applause>

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[fabzorba]

On 10월22일, 오전5시01분, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't find Marius' posts to be asinine.
>
> Nor do I, but Marius does ask a lot of questions about extremely minor
> points.  He'll get hung up on why "the" or "a" is included in a
> sentence when the sentence reads perfectly well with or without the
> word.
>
> Also, he often wants a reason why an author used this word or that
> word in a particular sentence when the choice doesn't really alter the
> meaning.  A book is many pages of sentences, and it seems ordinary to
> me that an author isn't as deliberate with each sentence as Marius
> seems to think.
>
> I don't understand how Marius can read a book the way he must do.
> Sure, if there's a glaring incongruity, we notice it.  But, if you're
> into the flow of a good book, who notices the presence or absence of a
> "the" here and there?
>
> Overall, I read all of Marius' posts but only skim "fabzorba"'s.  The
> latter tries too hard to impress.
>

Tres odd, Tony. You spend two pars stating that you cannot understand
how Marius can be so hung up on the most trivial aspects of word usage
when he reads a great novel, and then, to finish off, you note that
you read ALL his posts, but only skim through mine. Which is a fairly
odd twist. Why would you bother reading them all if you find them
pointless and pedantic. I'm relieved that you prefer him to me though.
In the end, you are much closer to where Marius' head is at then you
ever will be to where mine is.

myles [Man's GOTTA know his limitations, Tony, just...gotta....]
paulsen

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:53:44 -0700 (PDT), fabzorba
<myles....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10�3�322�3�1, �2�7�3�75�2�701�1�9, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't find Marius' posts to be asinine.
>>
>> Nor do I, but Marius does ask a lot of questions about extremely minor
>> points. He'll get hung up on why "the" or "a" is included in a
>> sentence when the sentence reads perfectly well with or without the
>> word.
>>
>> Also, he often wants a reason why an author used this word or that
>> word in a particular sentence when the choice doesn't really alter the
>> meaning. A book is many pages of sentences, and it seems ordinary to
>> me that an author isn't as deliberate with each sentence as Marius
>> seems to think.
>>
>> I don't understand how Marius can read a book the way he must do.
>> Sure, if there's a glaring incongruity, we notice it. But, if you're
>> into the flow of a good book, who notices the presence or absence of a
>> "the" here and there?
>>
>> Overall, I read all of Marius' posts but only skim "fabzorba"'s. The
>> latter tries too hard to impress.
>>
>Tres odd, Tony. You spend two pars stating that you cannot understand
>how Marius can be so hung up on the most trivial aspects of word usage
>when he reads a great novel, and then, to finish off, you note that
>you read ALL his posts, but only skim through mine. Which is a fairly
>odd twist. Why would you bother reading them all if you find them
>pointless and pedantic.

But I didn't say that. I said that some of them can be pointless.
But, we expect to find less gold than gravel in the pan. We keep
panning because there is some gold, and there might be more in the
next pan.

>I'm relieved that you prefer him to me though.

Too much gravel and what appears to glitter turns out to be pyrite.

[Guy Barry]

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:akg888lst94n32rqi...@4ax.com...

> Overall, I read all of Marius' posts but only skim "fabzorba"'s. The
> latter tries too hard to impress.

He doesn't impress me. Most of his posts seem to involve insulting other
posters.

--
Guy Barry

[fabzorba]

See, this is a perennial puzzle to me re: your posts. A lot of them
are just inaccurate. For example, you most certainly DID NOT SAY that
"some of [Marius' posts] can be pointless. I refer you back to what
you DID say. At no stage there did you even suggest that some of his
stuff was good.

And just as odd is your banal trope: "Too much gravel and what appears
to glitter [sic] turns out to be pyrite." This shows what happens when
you try to reason by analogy. Why would the quantity of gravel
present affect the chances that what glitters [sic] within it, is gold
or pyrite? You imply that having a smaller amount of gravel means that
it is more likely the glitter [sic] within it is gold rather than
pyrite. And that is garbage. You produce crap like this endlessly,
ridiculously wrong definitions, and absurd lines of argument.

myles [and it's "glisters", for the record...] paulsen

[Skitt]

fabzorba wrote:

> tony cooper wrote:

>> Too much gravel and what appears to glitter turns out to be pyrite.

[...]

> And just as odd is your banal trope: "Too much gravel and what appears
> to glitter [sic] turns out to be pyrite." This shows what happens when
> you try to reason by analogy. Why would the quantity of gravel
> present affect the chances that what glitters [sic] within it, is gold
> or pyrite? You imply that having a smaller amount of gravel means that
> it is more likely the glitter [sic] within it is gold rather than
> pyrite. And that is garbage. You produce crap like this endlessly,
> ridiculously wrong definitions, and absurd lines of argument.
>
> myles [and it's "glisters", for the record...] paulsen

For your education (from M-W Online):

glit·ter
intransitive verb \ˈgli-tər\
Definition of GLITTER
1
a : to shine by reflection with many small flashes of brilliant light :
sparkle <sequins glittered in the spotlight>
b : to shine with strong emotion : flash <eyes glittering in anger>
2
: to be brilliantly attractive, lavish, or spectacular; also : to be
superficially attractive or exciting
— glit·ter·ing·ly adverb

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[fabzorba]

Yairs, takes a hell of a lot of erudition to press a button, and then
copy and paste a definition over. Tony's use is a direct reference to
maxim "All that glisters is not gold". We should be respectful of
usage where some variant may be fossilised in a particular saying. For
example, we say someone is at someone else's "beck and call". And it
would NOT be acceptable to "update" this to something like "there to
be beckoned and summoned". Of course, if there is no more to
acceptable English usage than looking up a dictionary, then there
would be little need for the prognostications instigated in the
confines of this hallowed froup, would there be now...

myles [As I'm being forever told in relation to Marius' stuff...]
paulsen

[tony cooper]

Possibly I am being too generous in assessing your comprehension
ability, but I would think that "Marius does ask a lot of questions
about extremely minor points" is sufficient indication that not all of
what Marius says is pointless. Given the number of questions Marius
asks - as you so frequently point out - "a lot" is not all.

>And just as odd is your banal trope: "Too much gravel and what appears
>to glitter [sic] turns out to be pyrite." This shows what happens when
>you try to reason by analogy. Why would the quantity of gravel
>present affect the chances that what glitters [sic] within it, is gold
>or pyrite? You imply that having a smaller amount of gravel means that
>it is more likely the glitter [sic] within it is gold rather than
>pyrite. And that is garbage. You produce crap like this endlessly,
>ridiculously wrong definitions, and absurd lines of argument.
>
>myles [and it's "glisters", for the record...] paulsen

I admit to being lost among your [sic]s. Your objection to "glitter"
eludes me.

And, no one who uses "froup" should ever consider being critical of
anyone else's tropes, analogies, or word choice. It is too much like
Donald Trump criticizing someone else's hairstyle.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), fabzorba
<myles....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 23 Oct, 11:18, Skitt <skit...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> fabzorba wrote:
>> > tony cooper wrote:
>> >> Too much gravel and what appears to glitter turns out to be pyrite.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > And just as odd is your banal trope: "Too much gravel and what appears
>> > to glitter [sic] turns out to be pyrite." This shows what happens when
>> > you try to reason by analogy. �Why would the quantity of gravel
>> > present affect the chances that what glitters [sic] within it, is gold
>> > or pyrite? You imply that having a smaller amount of gravel means that
>> > it is more likely the glitter [sic] within it is gold rather than
>> > pyrite. And that is garbage. You produce crap like this endlessly,
>> > ridiculously wrong definitions, and absurd lines of argument.
>>
>> > myles [and it's "glisters", for the record...] paulsen
>>
>> For your education (from M-W Online):
>>
>> glit�ter

>> intransitive verb \?gli-t?r\

>> Definition of GLITTER
>> 1
>> a : to shine by reflection with many small flashes of brilliant light :
>> sparkle <sequins glittered in the spotlight>
>> b : to shine with strong emotion : flash <eyes glittering in anger>
>> 2
>> : to be brilliantly attractive, lavish, or spectacular; also : to be
>> superficially attractive or exciting
>> � glit�ter�ing�ly adverb
>
>Yairs, takes a hell of a lot of erudition to press a button, and then
>copy and paste a definition over. Tony's use is a direct reference to
>maxim "All that glisters is not gold". We should be respectful of
>usage where some variant may be fossilised in a particular saying. For
>example, we say someone is at someone else's "beck and call". And it
>would NOT be acceptable to "update" this to something like "there to
>be beckoned and summoned". Of course, if there is no more to
>acceptable English usage than looking up a dictionary, then there
>would be little need for the prognostications instigated in the
>confines of this hallowed froup, would there be now...
>
>myles [As I'm being forever told in relation to Marius' stuff...]
>paulsen

Ah, so you are taken to using the modern version of phrasing.
Shakespeare, progressive as he was, got positively slangy and changed
Chaucer's "glareth" in "Hit is not al gold, that glareth" ("House of
Fame" - 1380) to the trendy "glisters".

[James Hogg]

Shakespeare: "All that glisters is not gold; Often have you heard that
told."
Johnson: "All is not gold that glitters, as we have been often told."

The earliest recorded form in English is from c. 1220:
"Nis hit nower neh gold al þat ter schineþ."

--
James

[R H Draney]

tony cooper filted:

>
>And, no one who uses "froup" should ever consider being critical of
>anyone else's tropes, analogies, or word choice. It is too much like
>Donald Trump criticizing someone else's hairstyle.

I couldn't have filted it better myself....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

It's a proverbial saying. The way that Shakespeare happened to give
it isn't the only way it's been used before or since. I learned it as
"glitters", and I see that as common from the eighteenth century.
Including in (early 18th-century editions of) Dryden:

For you may palm upon us new for old:
All, as they say, that glitters is not Gold.

"The Hind and the Panther"

Down, of course, to Gilbert's

Black sheep dwell in every fold;
All that glitters is not gold.

"Things are Seldom What They Seem".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If I may digress momentarily from
SF Bay Area (1982-) |the mainstream of this evening's
Chicago (1964-1982) |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Tom Lehrer

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Skitt]

fabzorba wrote:

Did you really expect Tony to emulate Shakespeare? He used the much
more popular expression -- the one I, also an American, might use,
although I might prefer "glistens", but never "glisters". Shakespeare's
writing can be perceived these days as being "delightfully quaint", and
emulating it might be taken as "putting on airs".

Nice defense, though a bit wordy, but you can't help that, I understand.

[abc]

Jenny Telia wrote:
> ... we'll never hear the end of it
>

LOL
abc

[occam]

All I can say is that all the nit-picking (of other peoples books) has
not done him much good so far. Have you read any of his writing? Go to
amazon.com and brace yourself for a wincing experience.

[Robin Bignall]

I've read a great deal worse in paperbacks. Have you published
anything?
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[fabzorba]

Yes, that's the kind of logic you might get in a sheltered workshop.
Occam does not like Marius' stuff, but as you point out, Occam has not
published anything himself, so therefore has no right to make any
negative criticism of ANYONE'S work. Tell me, genius, have you
disliked a book you have read? Certainly. And have you published
anything? Certainly not.

Next time you blow your big mouth off, have just a little thinkette on
the logical consequences of what you are asserting. And then delete
it.

myles [not suffering them all that well today] paulsen