Some thoughts on the prominence of story and character development over style.
Holly
We can say that a certain piece of prose sounds like Hemingway,
Williams or Nabokov because, like Poor Johnny One Note, they sang only
in one style. Yet, having the flexibility and facility to use
whichever style best serves the story, seems a more effective way to
go, helping the author to avoid a style-burdened prose that looms over
a vanishing story, such as we see in Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake" (not
his Ulysses) and Nabokov's "Ada."
This too, IMO, is true when introducing characters. If a particular
character were best introduced in a rococo type prose ... such as
presenting a character's mannerism for example, it could be very
effective. But generally, when introducing characters ... I think they
are bettered served if not weighted down with too much description.
Developing characters in the medium of the written word is not best
done as representationalist Rembrandt has done with oils. If done in
this style the writer's work becomes heavy with his or her intent to
convey a precise picture rather than providing only the essentials
from which the reader can decoct a meaningful impression.
Take for example a few characters in Usenet:
WimJay, Twonky and Ah come to mind. Do I need to be told the color of
their hair or whether they spiff or coif? What is essential is given
through their manner of "speech" <their style> as well as what they
say or don't say ....
Does WimJay slouch? I think not. Whereas, Twonky, is definitely a
sloucher. And we know this without being told. Clearly, unlike
WimJay, we can see the spill stains on Twonky's shirt (no doubt a
statement of independence from a nagging wife), his crumpled slacks
and worn loafers, which he wears without socks.
Both WimJay and Twonky are pudgy. Both curmudgeons. Both at times
are mean-spirited and weighted down with their ages. Whereas, Ah,
despite his age, is a man of eternal youth. He is thin, tans like a
redneck and has a nervous twitch, which he keeps under control except
when gardening.
We can surmise height, weight, body type, even their Myers Briggs,
without ever being subjected to pages of description. Each has his
own style that serves to highlight who he is but not to inundate him
through excess vanities. Whether this flexibility with styles is
achievable by one author remains to be seen ... nevertheless, I think my
point is well taken and that is: The art of great writing seems to me
to be achieved through losing who the author is.
Holly
Josh Hill
>When we think of great writers in general, we think of their style.
>We can say that a certain piece of prose sounds like Hemingway,
>Williams or Nabokov because, like Poor Johnny One Note, they sang only
>in one style. Yet, having the flexibility and facility to use
>whichever style best serves the story, seems a more effective way to
>go, helping the author to avoid a style-burdened prose that looms over
>a vanishing story, such as we see in Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake"
Drop the 'postrophe lest Stan correct you
> (not
>his Ulysses) and Nabokov's "Ada."
Paging Vivian Darkbloom! Paging Vivian Darkbloom!
>This too, IMO, is true when introducing characters. If a particular
>character were best introduced in a rococo type prose ... such as
>presenting a character's mannerism for example, it could be very
>effective. But generally, when introducing characters ... I think they
>are bettered served if not weighted down with too much description.
>
>Developing characters in the medium of the written word is not best
>done as representationalist Rembrandt has done with oils. If done in
>this style the writer's work becomes heavy with his or her intent to
>convey a precise picture rather than providing only the essentials
>from which the reader can decoct a meaningful impression.
That's entirely dependent on the skill of the author.
>Take for example a few characters in Usenet:
>WimJay, Twonky and Ah come to mind. Do I need to be told the color of
>their hair or whether they spiff or coif? What is essential is given
>through their manner of "speech" <their style> as well as what they
>say or don't say ....
That depends entirely. "Stan had a bovine face and dull cow eyes"
produces in the reader a different effect than "Stan had a porcine
face and a cute flat nose," which produces in turn a different effect
than "Stan."
Good writers use descriptive detail to convey an impression of many
things -- character, background, intent. Hack writers tend to write
trite, stereotyped descriptions of the sexy blonde with voluptuous
lips sort, or worse, flood the reader with a plethora of details that
have little significance to the story and so tend to be tedious.
IMO, the importance of descriptive details to the story, the
efficiency with which they impart information, the degree to which
they fit within the overall style, and the degree to which they have
aesthetic merit all contribute to their justification.
(I've also noticed that both readers and writers have personal
preferences -- and to the degree that that's the case, there's no
right or wrong. You mentioned the Myers-Briggs: doesn't it make sense
that sensing types would prefer detailed description while intuitive
types would prefer concept?)
>Does WimJay slouch? I think not. Whereas, Twonky, is definitely a
>sloucher. And we know this without being told. Clearly, unlike
>WimJay, we can see the spill stains on Twonky's shirt (no doubt a
>statement of independence from a nagging wife), his crumpled slacks
>and worn loafers, which he wears without socks.
>
>Both WimJay and Twonky are pudgy. Both curmudgeons. Both at times
>are mean-spirited and weighted down with their ages. Whereas, Ah,
>despite his age, is a man of eternal youth. He is thin, tans like a
>redneck and has a nervous twitch, which he keeps under control except
>when gardening.
>
>We can surmise height, weight, body type, even their Myers Briggs,
>without ever being subjected to pages of description. Each has his
>own style that serves to highlight who he is but not to inundate him
>through excess vanities. Whether this flexibility with styles is
>achievable by one author remains to be seen ... nevertheless, I think my
>point is well taken and that is: The art of great writing seems to me
>to be achieved through losing who the author is.
The best writers can imitate pretty much any style, and in their
formative period, often do. From those early experiments, a unique
voice develops. I'd argue that uniqueness of voice is a hallmark of
the major writer, and a prerequisite for greatness.
--
Josh
"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
that people have the right to live life as they please,
as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
do not care about the Constitution and they are the
ones making all the noise." - Barry Goldwater
Holly
> On 20 May 2007 10:16:04 -0700, Holly <noon_un...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >When we think of great writers in general, we think of their style.
> >We can say that a certain piece of prose sounds like Hemingway,
> >Williams or Nabokov because, like Poor Johnny One Note, they sang only
> >in one style. Yet, having the flexibility and facility to use
> >whichever style best serves the story, seems a more effective way to
> >go, helping the author to avoid a style-burdened prose that looms over
> >a vanishing story, such as we see in Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> Drop the 'postrophe lest Stan correct you
Oops! <tremble>
>
> > (not
> >his Ulysses) and Nabokov's "Ada."
>
> Paging Vivian Darkbloom! Paging Vivian Darkbloom!
>
> >This too, IMO, is true when introducing characters. If a particular
> >character were best introduced in a rococo type prose ... such as
> >presenting a character's mannerism for example, it could be very
> >effective. But generally, when introducing characters ... I think they
> >are bettered served if not weighted down with too much description.
>
> >Developing characters in the medium of the written word is not best
> >done as representationalist Rembrandt has done with oils. If done in
> >this style the writer's work becomes heavy with his or her intent to
> >convey a precise picture rather than providing only the essentials
> >from which the reader can decoct a meaningful impression.
>
> That's entirely dependent on the skill of the author.
I think we agree here.
>
> >Take for example a few characters in Usenet:
> >WimJay, Twonky and Ah come to mind. Do I need to be told the color of
> >their hair or whether they spiff or coif? What is essential is given
> >through their manner of "speech" <their style> as well as what they
> >say or don't say ....
>
> That depends entirely. "Stan had a bovine face and dull cow eyes"
> produces in the reader a different effect than "Stan had a porcine
> face and a cute flat nose," which produces in turn a different effect
> than "Stan."
>
> Good writers use descriptive detail to convey an impression of many
> things -- character, background, intent. Hack writers tend to write
> trite, stereotyped descriptions of the sexy blonde with voluptuous
> lips sort, or worse, flood the reader with a plethora of details that
> have little significance to the story and so tend to be tedious.
>
> IMO, the importance of descriptive details to the story, the
> efficiency with which they impart information, the degree to which
> they fit within the overall style, and the degree to which they have
> aesthetic merit all contribute to their justification.
Agree.
>
> (I've also noticed that both readers and writers have personal
> preferences -- and to the degree that that's the case, there's no
> right or wrong. You mentioned the Myers-Briggs: doesn't it make sense
> that sensing types would prefer detailed description while intuitive
> types would prefer concept?)
This is very insightful. Yes ... as you may have guessed, I am
strongly Intuitive. So I should place as a caveat in the subject line
"Some thoughts of an Intuitive on ...." ;)
>
>
>
>
> >Does WimJay slouch? I think not. Whereas, Twonky, is definitely a
> >sloucher. And we know this without being told. Clearly, unlike
> >WimJay, we can see the spill stains on Twonky's shirt (no doubt a
> >statement of independence from a nagging wife), his crumpled slacks
> >and worn loafers, which he wears without socks.
>
> >Both WimJay and Twonky are pudgy. Both curmudgeons. Both at times
> >are mean-spirited and weighted down with their ages. Whereas, Ah,
> >despite his age, is a man of eternal youth. He is thin, tans like a
> >redneck and has a nervous twitch, which he keeps under control except
> >when gardening.
>
> >We can surmise height, weight, body type, even their Myers Briggs,
> >without ever being subjected to pages of description. Each has his
> >own style that serves to highlight who he is but not to inundate him
> >through excess vanities. Whether this flexibility with styles is
> >achievable by one author remains to be seen ... nevertheless, I think my
> >point is well taken and that is: The art of great writing seems to me
> >to be achieved through losing who the author is.
>
> The best writers can imitate pretty much any style, and in their
> formative period, often do. From those early experiments, a unique
> voice develops. I'd argue that uniqueness of voice is a hallmark of
> the major writer, and a prerequisite for greatness.
I'd like to hear this argument.
>
> --
> Josh
>
> "The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
> that people have the right to live life as they please,
> as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
> The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
> do not care about the Constitution and they are the
> ones making all the noise." - Barry Goldwater-
Thanks Josh.
Sylvia
>
> >When we think of great writers in general, we think of their style.
> >We can say that a certain piece of prose sounds like Hemingway,
> >Williams or Nabokov because, like Poor Johnny One Note, they sang only
> >in one style. Yet, having the flexibility and facility to use
> >whichever style best serves the story, seems a more effective way to
> >go, helping the author to avoid a style-burdened prose that looms over
> >a vanishing story, such as we see in Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> Drop the 'postrophe lest Stan correct you
It's Always About Stan, innit.
What *is* it about (that Man)?
--
Sylvia (TINIAASC)
"I seriously envy Sylvia. I hope I wake up
tomorrow morning completely and totally Sylvia."
- "Lark"/Crazy Jane/"Holly"/"Leslie Harder"/"Gladys"/et al. in MW
Josh Hill
>On May 20, 4:43 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (I've also noticed that both readers and writers have personal
>> preferences -- and to the degree that that's the case, there's no
>> right or wrong. You mentioned the Myers-Briggs: doesn't it make sense
>> that sensing types would prefer detailed description while intuitive
>> types would prefer concept?)
>
>This is very insightful. Yes ... as you may have guessed, I am
>strongly Intuitive. So I should place as a caveat in the subject line
>"Some thoughts of an Intuitive on ...." ;)
Just extrapolating from my own experience -- I'm very N as well, and
share your prejudice. Nabokov, OTOH, seems to very S, which may have
something to do with the fact that you didn't like Ada very much. Evil
intuitive though I am, and as silly as I find N's curmudgeonly
expressions of distaste for reductionists (how hard it must be to go
through life without understanding anything!), I love that book beyond
reason. You might want to give it another look some day.
>> >Does WimJay slouch? I think not. Whereas, Twonky, is definitely a
>> >sloucher. And we know this without being told. Clearly, unlike
>> >WimJay, we can see the spill stains on Twonky's shirt (no doubt a
>> >statement of independence from a nagging wife), his crumpled slacks
>> >and worn loafers, which he wears without socks.
>>
>> >Both WimJay and Twonky are pudgy. Both curmudgeons. Both at times
>> >are mean-spirited and weighted down with their ages. Whereas, Ah,
>> >despite his age, is a man of eternal youth. He is thin, tans like a
>> >redneck and has a nervous twitch, which he keeps under control except
>> >when gardening.
>>
>> >We can surmise height, weight, body type, even their Myers Briggs,
>> >without ever being subjected to pages of description. Each has his
>> >own style that serves to highlight who he is but not to inundate him
>> >through excess vanities. Whether this flexibility with styles is
>> >achievable by one author remains to be seen ... nevertheless, I think my
>> >point is well taken and that is: The art of great writing seems to me
>> >to be achieved through losing who the author is.
>>
>> The best writers can imitate pretty much any style, and in their
>> formative period, often do. From those early experiments, a unique
>> voice develops. I'd argue that uniqueness of voice is a hallmark of
>> the major writer, and a prerequisite for greatness.
>
>I'd like to hear this argument.
Hmmm -- well, consider this famous early effort of Blake's:
WHETHER on Ida's shady brow
Or in the chambers of the East,
The chambers of the Sun, that now
From ancient melody have ceased;
Whether in heaven ye wander fair,
Or the green corners of the earth,
Or the blue regions of the air
Where the melodious winds have birth;
Whether on crystal rocks ye rove,
Beneath the bosom of the sea,
Wandering in many a coral grove;
Fair Nine, forsaking Poetry;
How have you left the ancient love
That bards of old enjoy'd in you!
The languid strings do scarcely move,
The sound is forced, the notes are few.
T. S. Eliot said,
"[Blake's] early poems show what the poems of a boy of genius ought to
show, immense power of assimilation. Such early poems are not, as
usually supposed, crude attempts to do something beyond the boy's
capacity; they are, in the case of a boy of real promise, more likely
to be quite mature and successful attempts to do something small. So
with Blake, his early poems are technically admirable, and their
originality is in an occasional rhythm."
This progression -- from imitation to individuation -- seems to be a
characteristic not only of literary development but of artistic
development in general. Thus Bach's early works may be in the style of
(and typically improvements on) Buxtehude, or whoever he was studying
at the time; Mozart's of Haydn and J. C. Bach; Beethoven's of Mozart.
(Is it, in fact, too much of a stretch to suppose that that's
characteristic of intellectual development in general? Consider, for
example, Einstein's youthful proofs of Euclid.)
Those without ability don't produce good imitations. Second-order
minds produce reasonable if uninspired imitations. But genius comes
close to or surpasses even the finest originals -- as the
fourteen-year-old Blake's effort demonstrates.
There is I think abundant evidence that the mature genius retains his
ability to assimilate and imitate in homages, burlesques, variations
in the style of, and the like.
Furthermore, we know that great artists continue to study and absorb
new stylistic influences throughout their careers. J. S. Bach was
influenced by, and even wrote in, the style galante; C. P. E. Bach was
influenced by the younger Haydn, Haydn by the younger Mozart. Mozart
is known to have grown musically after he was exposed to some of the
works of the earlier but largely unknown to him J S Bach ("At last!
Someone from whom one can learn!" he exclaimed upon being shown Bach's
motets). And the influence of the younger Schubert can be heard in the
late quartets of Beethoven, who said upon being shown some of
Schubert's works, "Truly, the spark of Divine genius resides in this
Schubert!").
So I think there's little question that great artists can create in
pretty much any style with which they're familiar -- individual,
historical, or geographic, e.g., Durer's not completely successful but
nonetheless masterly assimilation of the Italian style for an example,
or Bach's assimilation of the Italian style.
Having established that the artists have the ability to create in
different styles, the question becomes why, the occasional imitation
accepted, they don't habitually do so. For if by a distinctive style
we mean a style that can be mistaken for no other, a style that allows
us to reliably identify the work of a given artist as his and no one
else's despite our unfamiliarity with the work in question, then I
can't think of a single example of a great artist who didn't have a
distinct style of his own.
There are, I think several reasons for that.
To begin with, style just happens! To all of us. In art as in life, we
find something we like doing, and so we end up writing like PJ or Zero
or Gekko or, if we're particularly unfortunate, Josh. And while we
can, to the limits of our ability, imitate one another, we generally
don't. Rther, we absorb memes from one another, create individual
styles characterized by a preference for Gekkoisms or Zeroisms even
was we build a global style characterized by misc.writingisms. Style
is like a living, growing creature: the leaf buds from the twig, the
twig from the branch, the branch from the tree -- and the history of
our branchings and gnarls makes us distinguishable, each from the
other, while also constraining and setting a preferred path for future
growth.
But while most or all artists develop to some extent a style of their
own, only the most talented and creative develop a truly distinctive
style -- that is, one that is widely recognizable -- because style is
a logical-statistical product of the works themselves, and the unique
hallmarks of genius is originality -- the ability to identify or
synthesize (the former simply being essentially an extension of the
latter) elegant symmetries that other men can't. So it is the
fecundity of the great artist's inventive faculty that makes his style
easily identifiable.
It's important I think to note that that fecundity isn't just a matter
of difference. Pope observed that
The Vulgar thus through Imitation err;
As oft the Learn'd by being Singular;
So much they scorn the Crowd, that if the Throng
By Chance go right, they purposely go wrong.
So how many snotty academically and critically-acclaimed SoHo artists
does /that/ explain? How many elephant-dung madonnas? Genius is never
shallow, never produces work that is novel only by virtue of its
perversity. Rather, genius absorbs, changes, expands, existing styles,
maybe even creates new schools only insofar as its innovations are
intelligent, organic extensions of what has become before -- even
when, as in the case of Joyce and the other great modernists, those
innovations are intentionally extreme.
There is, I think, an intellectual relationship between the constraint
of style and stylistic growth on one hand and intellectual possibility
on the other. The mind isn't infinite: we observe each of us the
universe through a keyhole, and the best that can be said of genius is
that its keyhole is slightly broader, its view slightly less
constrained. Just as a tourist has to choose a route through a city to
catch as many interesting sights as he can in a limited time, the
artist has to set constraints on his own artistic and intellectual
explorations.
What's more, as more than a few neophyte poets have discovered to
their surprise, the constraint of form encourages creativity. Art is
like a game in that respect. Put a fellow on a tennis court, and he'll
discover and examine the possibilities of backhands and serves. Put
him on a square of dirt and tell him to play a game without rules, and
he'll end up scratching his head.
Artists can become trapped in their own styles, even good and great
ones, in which case they have to reinvent themselves, or retire. But
on the whole, the constraints of a preferred, organically-developing
individual style that influences and is influenced by the styles of
other artists living and dead seem to be beneficial and even
necessary. At least, as I said, I can't think of a great artist who
didn't have one.
Josh Hill
<Syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>Josh Hill
>> On 20 May 2007 10:16:04 -0700, Holly <noon_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >When we think of great writers in general, we think of their style.
>> >We can say that a certain piece of prose sounds like Hemingway,
>> >Williams or Nabokov because, like Poor Johnny One Note, they sang only
>> >in one style. Yet, having the flexibility and facility to use
>> >whichever style best serves the story, seems a more effective way to
>> >go, helping the author to avoid a style-burdened prose that looms over
>> >a vanishing story, such as we see in Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake"
>>
>> Drop the 'postrophe lest Stan correct you
><...>
>
>It's Always About Stan, innit.
>
>What *is* it about (that Man)?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe his kindly demeanor? Maybe his vast learning?
Maybe just the fact that he hasn't been trailing me around for the
last few years like a rabid titmouse?
ah
You are a James Follet sock, AICMF£!
ah
Who wrote that?
>
> Holly
>
Josh Hill
William Blake sock, actually: I love fucking and talking to God.
Sylvia
> Sylvia wrote:
> >Josh Hill
> >> Holly <noon_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<...>
> >> >to avoid a style-burdened prose that looms over a vanishing
> >> >story, such as we see in Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake"
<...>
.
> >> Drop the 'postrophe lest Stan correct you
> ><...>
.
> >It's Always About Stan, innit.
> >
> >What *is* it about (that Man)?
.
> Oh, I don't know. Maybe his kindly demeanor?
<nodding>
He does have a RL rep for going out of his way to help folks... all the
while givin' them the impression that he ain't goin'out of his way,
puttin' them at ease.
> Maybe his vast learning?
Oh, yeah. Didn't take me long to mark him as a fellow lifetime learner.
> Maybe just the fact that he hasn't been trailing me around for the
> last few years like a rabid titmouse?
<laughing>
'Course not! Neither trailin' nor "rabid titmouse"-esque behavio(u)r is
(the Man)'s style.
Well, whatever IT IS about (that Man), it's compellin', ain't it?
Captures all sorts of folks, and some more than others. I mean,
lookit--here you are gossipin''bout Mr. Stan, findin' yerself mentioning
him in reply to posts, yea, in entire threads, in which he has never
trod. Gawd! He hasn't even been around for almost three days, but, Josh,
you just can't rEsiST the uRGe!
Ah, well, don't feel badly. It's a STAN THING--celebrate!
<performing 1960's, Twist-esque kinda dance and singing>
Do the Stan Thing! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Baby, Baby, everyone's doin' the Stan Thing!
I am Stan as you are Stan as they are Stan
And we are all together Stan (the) Man
When we're doin' the Stan Thing!
Bay-ay-bee! Do the Stan Thing!
Koo-koo-kachoo! Do the Stan Thing!
Hey, hey, hey! I'm doin' the Stan Thing!
--
Sylvia <--- the Supreme Ruler of MW
From the MW Archives: June 2004
Joshua P. Hill: "I'm not the one who mentioned Stan. Why, I'm a
regular Stan-free zone, understand?"
Miz Sylvia: "GAWD! Would ya stop mentioning Mr. Stan's name
every five minutes? I'm trying to ignore him!"
--
Sylvia <--- Also PLONKED Mr. Stan (and I
thought of it first. Really)."
Joshua P. Hill: "I find particularly amusing is the inability of
some parties to accept the fact that they've
been killfiled. [...] Stan's a big boy, and I
Imagine that once it's sunk in that I really,
no really feel no great urge to read
His Posts,"
Miz Sylvia: "Oooh! "His Posts"! Has Mr. Stan moved on
to God Status?
" <cross> Why didn't anyone call me on the mw
Backchannel Hotline and tell me? I shouldn't
have to find out like this. PLONKING a God
might not be such a good idea. Someone shoulda
spilled the dirt."
Joshua P. Hill: "he'll stop following me around like a rejected pooch."
Miz Sylvia: "Well, now, how would you know whether or not
Mr. Stan is posting replies you? Is he still
forcing you to read his posts?"
Holly
A heady experience for your partner.
> --
> Josh
>
> "The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
> that people have the right to live life as they please,
> as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
> The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
> do not care about the Constitution and they are the
> ones making all the noise." - Barry Goldwater- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holly
XOXO
>
>
> > Holly- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Holly
> On 20 May 2007 14:33:03 -0700, Holly <noon_un...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 20, 4:43 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> (I've also noticed that both readers and writers have personal
> >> preferences -- and to the degree that that's the case, there's no
> >> right or wrong. You mentioned the Myers-Briggs: doesn't it make sense
> >> that sensing types would prefer detailed description while intuitive
> >> types would prefer concept?)
>
> >This is very insightful. Yes ... as you may have guessed, I am
> >strongly Intuitive. So I should place as a caveat in the subject line
> >"Some thoughts of an Intuitive on ...." ;)
>
> Just extrapolating from my own experience -- I'm very N as well, and
> share your prejudice. Nabokov, OTOH, seems to very S, which may have
> something to do with the fact that you didn't like Ada very much. Evil
> intuitive though I am, and as silly as I find N's curmudgeonly
> expressions of distaste for reductionists (how hard it must be to go
> through life without understanding anything!), I love that book beyond
> reason. You might want to give it another look some day.
>
over my shoulder ~ I am Nabokov's slut. There isn't a word of his I
don't love. As a youth ... you cannot imagine how impressionable I
was ;) ... my experience of Lolita was profound. However, loving an
author's works does not mean he or she is exempt from my critical
eye. I know. I know. Hubris.
More on this lovely stuff later. (Seems that 'Ns' rule.)
> "The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
> that people have the right to live life as they please,
> as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
> The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
> do not care about the Constitution and they are ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Josh Hill
<Syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>He hasn't even been around for almost three days, but, Josh,
>you just can't rEsiST the uRGe!
Three days? The irony . . .
Josh Hill
If I made the obvious quip here, I'd never be able to run for public
office.
saulgoode
Holly wrote:
> When we think of great writers in general, we think of their style.
<xxx>
> achievable by one author remains to be seen ... nevertheless, I think my
> point is well taken and that is: The art of great writing seems to me
> to be achieved through losing who the author is.
>
> Holly
Very nice, very nice, and I'm a fan, 100%, of stylistic-over-
descriptive writing, although I love a well-written setting. I'd argue
the same as you on letting Dear Reader fill in the character, but I'll
argue against cardboard settings. Don't ~overdo~ settings, but
certainly tell me what's going on around these characters, and let me
fill in their faces, shoes, hair color, and all that basic crap you
get so much of from formula writers.
I'd also argue that only ~necessary~ descriptives be made. King, for
all his windy setting descriptions, didn't tell you his character in
"It" was black, never -- instead, he had some kids chase him and rant
racisms at him. Why did he never tell you? Because it didn't matter.
Anyway.
I dug up a personal note I wrote a few years back in my private
journal along the same topic. Style's something any writer should be
thinking about, constantly, from usenet to emails to private stories
to anything you're begging the world to buy, and something the writer
should control, same as a bartender throwing out rounds from a wall of
ammunition, no two drinks the same, all poured to please.
Note the change in style between my private and public thoughts... ;)
~~~
Where does style come into the writing? That eloquent lilt to the
words that floats them off the page and into Reader's ears? Where is
my style? Do I like the old-school method, with its rolling sentences,
tailored and cut for the story, full of color, flavor, sentences that
flow around and around the paragraph with nary a period in sight, soft
rivers of words chortling through the story? Or am I concise? Direct?
Come to think of it, the more I write, the more it feels like talking.
It's hard for me to write like I once did-cheesy, long sentences. Now
I like short. Here's the point, now let's continue-that type of stuff.
I'm not gonna bore you wrapping words from one margin to the other,
chock full of two-bit locutions (which remind me of taunting
squirrels, jamming nuts in their cheeks-mine are bigger than your-
oors, mine are bigger than your-oors). I've got big words. I just
don't use them. Webster's ain't all that interestin', knowaddamean?
So that's it, I suppose. My style. Short. Sweet. Here's the fucking
point, now let's move on. If you want a description of what color some
chick painted the inside of her sock drawer-and why-go read someone
else. Or write your own story.
~~~
- Saul
Josh Hill
>On May 20, 9:48 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2007 14:33:03 -0700, Holly <noon_un...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just extrapolating from my own experience -- I'm very N as well, and
>> share your prejudice. Nabokov, OTOH, seems to very S, which may have
>> something to do with the fact that you didn't like Ada very much. Evil
>> intuitive though I am, and as silly as I find N's curmudgeonly
>> expressions of distaste for reductionists (how hard it must be to go
>> through life without understanding anything!), I love that book beyond
>> reason. You might want to give it another look some day.
>>
>Quickly ~ to clear this misunderstanding up for fear he may be reading
>over my shoulder ~ I am Nabokov's slut. There isn't a word of his I
>don't love. As a youth ... you cannot imagine how impressionable I
>was ;) ... my experience of Lolita was profound. However, loving an
>author's works does not mean he or she is exempt from my critical
>eye. I know. I know. Hubris.
Heh. Glad to hear that. I mean, my dentist told me once that he
wouldn't read Ada because it was "about" incest. Sigh . . .
N's definitely rule!
--
Josh
"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
that people have the right to live life as they please,
as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
Holly
Hey Saul, Answer me this. If you were washed up on an isolated island
and you could have only one book .... only one for ten years ..... what
would it be?
Yup ... I bet you'd wish you had a dictionary. A Webster could come in
mighty handy when you're all alone, under the stars, wishing you could
remember how to spell "overdue" or feeling you need to find that just
right word to describe the flashing lights in the sky ... and you cannot
remember what to call them. Of course you could draw pictures in the
sand. In that case, you could wish for a pictionary.
I bet you never thought about that. ;)
Holly
> On 21 May 2007 03:23:07 -0700, Holly <noon_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 20, 10:40 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:05:35 -0400, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> You are a James Follet sock, AICMF£!
>>> William Blake sock, actually: I love fucking and talking to God.
>> A heady experience for your partner.
>
> If I made the obvious quip here, I'd never be able to run for public
> office.
>
Excuse me but ... esoteric quipublican is an idea that has not quite
arrived.
Holly
> On 21 May 2007 03:33:21 -0700, Holly <noon_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 20, 9:48 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20 May 2007 14:33:03 -0700, Holly <noon_un...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just extrapolating from my own experience -- I'm very N as well, and
>>> share your prejudice. Nabokov, OTOH, seems to very S, which may have
>>> something to do with the fact that you didn't like Ada very much. Evil
>>> intuitive though I am, and as silly as I find N's curmudgeonly
>>> expressions of distaste for reductionists (how hard it must be to go
>>> through life without understanding anything!), I love that book beyond
>>> reason. You might want to give it another look some day.
>>>
>> Quickly ~ to clear this misunderstanding up for fear he may be reading
>> over my shoulder ~ I am Nabokov's slut. There isn't a word of his I
>> don't love. As a youth ... you cannot imagine how impressionable I
>> was ;) ... my experience of Lolita was profound. However, loving an
>> author's works does not mean he or she is exempt from my critical
>> eye. I know. I know. Hubris.
>
> Heh. Glad to hear that. I mean, my dentist told me once that he
> wouldn't read Ada because it was "about" incest. Sigh . . .
What is it about Dentists? Mine had trouble with my reading material
too. He said the book had been band and I was only sixteen. I said my
uncle gave it to me. He called my mother and asked her if she approved
of me reading The Tropic of Cancer. My mother told him that her brother
was dying of cancer and that she would not discourage my wanting to
understand what he was going through.
Josh Hill
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On 21 May 2007 03:33:21 -0700, Holly <noon_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Heh. Glad to hear that. I mean, my dentist told me once that he
>> wouldn't read Ada because it was "about" incest. Sigh . . .
>
>What is it about Dentists? Mine had trouble with my reading material
>too. He said the book had been band and I was only sixteen. I said my
>uncle gave it to me. He called my mother and asked her if she approved
>of me reading The Tropic of Cancer. My mother told him that her brother
>was dying of cancer and that she would not discourage my wanting to
>understand what he was going through.
Very middle class in an upstanding small-town sort of way, no?
OTOH, when I was 12 or 13 and my mouth was so full of dental torture
implements that I couldn't talk, my dentist told his assistant that I
smoked bananas . . .
Sylvia
> Sylvia wrote:
<UNsnip!>
> > Josh Hill wrote:
> >> Sylvia wrote:
> >> > Josh Hill wrote:
.
<snip conversation simply about writing>
> >> >> Drop the 'postrophe lest Stan correct you
<...>
> >> > It's Always About Stan, innit.
> >> >
> >> > What *is* it about (that Man)?
<...>
.
> >> Maybe just the fact that he hasn't been trailing me around for
> >> the last few years like a rabid titmouse?
.
> > <laughing>
> >
> > 'Course not! Neither trailin' nor "rabid titmouse"-esque
> > behavio(u)r is (the Man)'s style.
> >
> > Well, whatever IT IS about (that Man), it's compellin', ain't it?
> > Captures all sorts of folks, and some more than others. I mean,
> > lookit--here you are gossipin''bout Mr. Stan, findin' yerself
> > mentioning him in reply to posts, yea, in entire threads, in which
> > he has never trod.
</UNsnip!>
> >He hasn't even been around for almost three days, but, Josh,
> >you just can't rEsiST the uRGe!
.
> Three days? The irony . . .
<cough>
Me, I was thinkin' it was an example of, at the very least, hypocrisy on
your part, but whatever. See:
1) You whine that Mr. Stan's "been trailing" after you.
2) I point out that, in reality, you are gossiping about him while Mr.
Stan hasn't even been posting.
Why do ya keep arguin' my point for me? I find that *most* suspicious.
--
Sylvia
boots
>On 21 May 2007 03:23:07 -0700, Holly <noon_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 20, 10:40 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:05:35 -0400, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >You are a James Follet sock, AICMF£!
>>>
>>> William Blake sock, actually: I love fucking and talking to God.
>>
>>A heady experience for your partner.
>
>If I made the obvious quip here, I'd never be able to run for public
>office.
Whyever would you want to run for pubic office?
--
The sane answer to insanity is madness.
Stan (the Man)
news:Sylvia-0D395B....@news-server.houston.rr.com:
Cuz he's rilly, rilly smart (just ask him)? Ok, ok, just kiddin'. Can't
get that one past anyone.
--
Stan
saulgoode
I wouldn't need books -- I'd write my own, misspellings and all! ;)
In fact, I put a story on usenet a while back about what I'd take if I
was on a desert island, and it ain't books!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.divorce/msg/a847c476361bfadd?dmode=source
- Saul
Holly
Life is good Saul. Thank ye.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If I made the obvious quip here, I'd never be able to run for public
>>office.
>
>Whyever would you want to run for pubic office?
Because there was a hungry T. rex behind me?
Josh Hill
<Syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> Sylvia wrote:
> <UNsnip!>
>> Three days? The irony . . .
>
> <cough>
>
>Me, I was thinkin' it was an example of, at the very least, hypocrisy on
>your part, but whatever. See:
>
>1) You whine that Mr. Stan's "been trailing" after you.
>
>2) I point out that, in reality, you are gossiping about him while Mr.
>Stan hasn't even been posting.
You're right, Sylvia -- it's entirely my fault for having ignored
Stan's considerate email:
Josh,
I will be away for three days competing in the Darwin Awards Shit
Division, after which I will pretend not to have seen anything posted
during that period. You may wish to refrain from making more
light-hearted and not unkind but nonetheless scathingly funny remarks
about me during that period.
>Why do ya keep arguin' my point for me? I find that *most* suspicious.
"How /dare/ the Israelis fire a missile at our beloved Assir
al-Bludshed, leaving a crater in the very spot from which he used to
dispatch young martyrs to destroy Isareli babies?"
Josh Hill
Speak for yourself, shit tunnel man.
Stan (the Man)
news:kif6535lcqqegrcgc...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:00:40 -0500, Sylvia
> <Syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>> Sylvia wrote:
>> <UNsnip!>
>
>>> Three days? The irony . . .
>>
>> <cough>
>>
>>Me, I was thinkin' it was an example of, at the very least, hypocrisy
>>on your part, but whatever. See:
>>
>>1) You whine that Mr. Stan's "been trailing" after you.
>>
>>2) I point out that, in reality, you are gossiping about him while
>>Mr. Stan hasn't even been posting.
>
> You're right, Sylvia -- it's entirely my fault for having ignored
> Stan's considerate email:
>
> Josh,
>
> I will be away for three days competing in the Darwin Awards Shit
> Division, after which I will pretend not to have seen anything posted
> during that period. You may wish to refrain from making more
> light-hearted and not unkind but nonetheless scathingly funny remarks
> about me during that period.
>
>>Why do ya keep arguin' my point for me? I find that *most* suspicious.
>
> "How /dare/ the Israelis fire a missile at our beloved Assir
> al-Bludshed, leaving a crater in the very spot from which he used to
> dispatch young martyrs to destroy Isareli babies?"
I like and respect Kurt, so I agreed to his request that I stop shitting
all over Josh. While I'm not especially proud of it, I have to admit
that I rather enjoy making him cry himself to sleep. But, Kurt was
right. It was akin to pulling the wings off a fly. Even Josh was right
when he sobbed that I was bullying him. So, I eased off. It appears,
though, that Josh hasn't the tools to recognize when he's been done a
kindness.
Now, as most here know, Josh isn't rilly, rilly smart, in spite of how
desperately he tries to get someone, anyone, to believe he is. But, I
dont' believe he's all that stupid, either. Hold on now. Hear me out. He
really isn't stupid. He's just a self-hating putz who thinks he can make
people believe he's something he's not just by saying it's so. He claims
a high intelligence, then jumps into debates over subjects about which
he clearly has zero knowledge other than what he's able to google up.
Then, he posts cites he hasnt even fully read and that, as often as not,
support the opposite position to the one he's taken (he got caught at
that one again only a week or two ago -- hysterical!). But, that's not
necessarily stupidity. It's more a matter of horribly low self-esteem
and essentially non-existent common sense.
He describes himself in terms like "dick-sucking half-boy" and can't
understand how everyone knows how horribly tormented he is about his own
confusion over his twisted sexuality. He's claimed to be half of
everything from Hispanic to black to Jewish (hence my referring to him
as "half-boy"), believing that would give his half-baked, uninformed
opinions some extra weight. Yet he still thinks he can get people to
believe he's rilly, rilly smart.
So, now he mistakes kindness for weakness, puts himself back in the
crosshairs and again sets himself up to drown in his own, big ploppy
tears. I suppose notoriety, even the kind that comes from being a
pathetic ng laughingstock, makes him, if not happy, at least not
suicidal.
--
Stan
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>Now, as most here know, Josh isn't rilly, rilly smart, in spite of how
>desperately he tries to get someone, anyone, to believe he is. But, I
>dont' believe he's all that stupid, either. Hold on now. Hear me out. He
>really isn't stupid. He's just a self-hating putz who thinks he can make
>people believe he's something he's not just by saying it's so. He claims
>a high intelligence, then jumps into debates over subjects about which
>he clearly has zero knowledge other than what he's able to google up.
Strangely enough, this is a trait you admire in Sylvia. I love
hypocrisy in action, Stan, and you do it so well.
--
Ray
Josh Hill
Stan, I rarely flame those who don't flame me. If I did so in your
case, it was because I saw no clear sign that you had decided to stop.
Now that you've told me that that is your intention, you can be
assured that I'll reciprocate.
BTW, there was a time when your flame would have made me angry;
instead, it made me laugh. And that, I think, is a sign of personal
growth, because yes, I am hypersensitive to personal criticism, albeit
not for the reasons you suppose, and when I lash out at someone here
over an ad hominem or a tease, it is because I am on an emotional
level responding to the memories of cruelties endured as a small child
40 or 50 years ago. I would much rather -- have said this often --
argue for those who by virtue of circumstance can't defend themselves
against the cruelty, willful or accidental, of others.
ah
Good man!
ah
> On 21 May 2007 03:23:07 -0700, Holly <noon_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 20, 10:40 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:05:35 -0400, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >You are a James Follet sock, AICMF£!
>>>
>>> William Blake sock, actually: I love fucking and talking to God.
>>
>>A heady experience for your partner.
>
> If I made the obvious quip here, I'd never be able to run for public
> office.
>
Gowan!
Stan (the Man)
Josh, you're not capable of flaming anyone. You try, sure, but all you
ever get from it is bemused astonishment or ridiculing laughter. And,
whether you stop or not doesn't matter to me, one way or the other. Do
as you wish. I'm more than pleased to accomodate you.
> BTW, there was a time when your flame would have made me angry;
> instead, it made me laugh. And that, I think, is a sign of personal
> growth, because yes, I am hypersensitive to personal criticism, albeit
> not for the reasons you suppose, and when I lash out at someone here
> over an ad hominem or a tease, it is because I am on an emotional
> level responding to the memories of cruelties endured as a small child
> 40 or 50 years ago. I would much rather -- have said this often --
> argue for those who by virtue of circumstance can't defend themselves
> against the cruelty, willful or accidental, of others.
Could you possibly be more of a self-pitying candy-ass?
--
Stan
Josh Hill
<newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
Stan, a moment ago you claimed that you had agreed to stop flaming:
"I like and respect Kurt, so I agreed to his request that I stop
shitting all over Josh."
I responded, politely, with a promise to reciprocate, and refrained
from responding to your flames.
Do you or do you not intend to honor your commitment?
boots
>On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:34:17 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If I made the obvious quip here, I'd never be able to run for public
>>>office.
>>
>>Whyever would you want to run for pubic office?
>
>Because there was a hungry T. rex behind me?
Read more closely.
Stan (the Man)
You responded with an "oh, poor me" whining excuse for your nauseating
attempts to make yourself feel less inadequate. I said I agreed to
Kurt's request to stop shitting on you. Even gave you an opportunity to
walk away to lick your wounds when I pointed out that I'd lost the
weekend's posts. Then you opened your big mouth again, apparently
thinking that since I was away you'd get a pass. So, you got shit on
again.
> Do you or do you not intend to honor your commitment?
I intend to smack you each and every time you earn a smacking. If it's
causing you to sob yourself to sleep again, I suggest you simply stfu
and walk away.
--
Stan
Josh Hill
<newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
Dude, no one could possibly be this deluded. And, really, that tells
me something important, because I'd thought you were merely flaming,
but it seems that you're genuinely confused.
Let me then try to help you understand what did happen.
Your response here to Kurt's original request was negative -- you said
in effect that you would continue to flame me because it amused you.
That being the case, I amused myself by responding in like manner to
some of your flames over the weekend. When you didn't immediately
respond, it became apparent that you weren't around.
You returned on Monday or Tuesday and claimed that you had not seen my
posts of the weekend. I read that claim, and deemed it a fairly clever
dodge. It never occurred to me that you would be so far off base as to
suppose that I would interpret your failure to respond as some kind of
opportunity.
I posted a few more words about you in response, IIRC, to Sylvia's
post, maybe one or two others.
After that, you posted a long post in which you said you agreed to
Kurt's request to stop "shitting on me,: and then -- in the same post!
-- you proceeded to flame me at great length.
Despite the obvious and very tempting opportunities at hand, I
restrained myself and did not make fun of your flame or respond in
kind. Instead, I said that I would gladly reciprocate if it was your
intention to stop the flame war.
I added not an excuse, but rather a factual confession of a personal
flaw. I did so as a gesture of good will.
You responded to my overture by flaming me again -- whereupon I once
again showed restraint, and queried you about your intentions.
Perhaps if you got off your high horse for a moment and stopped
deluding yourself about the impact of your flames or the nature of my
reaction to them, you would achieve a more realistic understanding of
my reactions and intent. Meanwhile, let me try to clarify.
You cannot hurt me here, Stan, and you never have been able to. No one
can do that, not even the masterful Fundoc, without going far beyond
the bounds of what others here would consider acceptable. It's just a
game.
There was a time when you could make me angry. But you can no longer
even do that. Now, you just make me laugh.
You should heed your own comment about not confusing restraint with
weakness. My main concern here has always been to avoid hurting /you/
by striking below the belt.
>> Do you or do you not intend to honor your commitment?
>
>I intend to smack you each and every time you earn a smacking. If it's
>causing you to sob yourself to sleep again, I suggest you simply stfu
>and walk away.
In other words, you lied and don't intend to honor your commitment.
Which is fine. I just wanted to know where you stood, and, more to the
point, I wanted to everyone else to know where you stand, because it's
clear that many are tired of this and I want to make it absolutely
clear that you had, and continue to have, an opportunity to have the
last word and walk away if you so desire. The choice is, as it has
been for several years now, yours.
My own further actions will depend in large measure on my assessment
of your mental stability. I do not wish to be cruel or a bully. And
having seen things get out of hand in other groups, I've learned to
avoid those who are unstable enough to take matters into real life.
If, on the other hand, you're sitting about laughing at my responses,
I have no problem with flaming or being flamed by you.
Problem is, you've given so many indications that that isn't the case
that I find it hard to believe. I could just ask you, but I doubt I'd
get an honest answer.
Stan (the Man)
Wow! You actually figured out that I wasn't around with so few clues? I
mean, that and the fact that I'd posted to boots that I was leaving?
Quite the investigative genius you are.
> You returned on Monday or Tuesday and claimed that you had not seen my
> posts of the weekend. I read that claim, and deemed it a fairly clever
> dodge. It never occurred to me that you would be so far off base as to
> suppose that I would interpret your failure to respond as some kind of
> opportunity.
'Course not. Must be why you attempted another of your impotent flails.
Got it.
> I posted a few more words about you in response, IIRC, to Sylvia's
> post, maybe one or two others.
Uh-huh. Maybe.
> After that, you posted a long post in which you said you agreed to
> Kurt's request to stop "shitting on me,: and then -- in the same post!
> -- you proceeded to flame me at great length.
Kindly, of course.
> Despite the obvious and very tempting opportunities at hand, I
> restrained myself and did not make fun of your flame or respond in
> kind. Instead, I said that I would gladly reciprocate if it was your
> intention to stop the flame war.
My intention was to offer you the door. You were too stupid to take it.
> I added not an excuse, but rather a factual confession of a personal
> flaw. I did so as a gesture of good will.
Nah. You whined, yet again, about what a poor, picked-on little pussy
you are and how that's why you are the way you are.
> You responded to my overture by flaming me again -- whereupon I once
> again showed restraint, and queried you about your intentions.
I smacked you for your whine. I've told you before that your whining is
irritating.
> Perhaps if you got off your high horse for a moment and stopped
> deluding yourself about the impact of your flames or the nature of my
> reaction to them, you would achieve a more realistic understanding of
> my reactions and intent. Meanwhile, let me try to clarify.
Oh, please do.
> You cannot hurt me here, Stan, and you never have been able to. No one
> can do that, not even the masterful Fundoc, without going far beyond
> the bounds of what others here would consider acceptable. It's just a
> game.
Sure I can. Anyone can. You've demonstrated that time and time again
when you stamp your feet and flail away, tears in your eyes and lips
pouted. But, hurting you is not my intention, Josh. I simply enjoy
pricking your little pomposity balloon and giving you every opportunity
to show yourself to be a fool. And, you never let an opportunity pass,
as you just demonstrated with this post.
> There was a time when you could make me angry. But you can no longer
> even do that. Now, you just make me laugh.
'Course I do. I believe you. Really. So, just say 'thank you' and sashay
on your way.
> You should heed your own comment about not confusing restraint with
> weakness. My main concern here has always been to avoid hurting /you/
> by striking below the belt.
Ah, yes. Back to your "I'm keeping my inner fundoc in check" feint. I've
told you before, stop holding back, Killer! Let 'er rip! Let's see what
you've got. Wait! Wait! Lemme brace myself! 'K. I'm ready. Let's have
it, Mad Dog!
>>> Do you or do you not intend to honor your commitment?
>>
>>I intend to smack you each and every time you earn a smacking. If it's
>>causing you to sob yourself to sleep again, I suggest you simply stfu
>>and walk away.
>
> In other words, you lied and don't intend to honor your commitment.
Lied? Hardly. As I said, I gave you a way to avoid more tears. As I
said, you're too stupid to have taken it. No problem. I'm pleased to
accomodate.
> Which is fine. I just wanted to know where you stood, and, more to the
> point, I wanted to everyone else to know where you stand, because it's
> clear that many are tired of this and I want to make it absolutely
> clear that you had, and continue to have, an opportunity to have the
> last word and walk away if you so desire. The choice is, as it has
> been for several years now, yours.
Unlike you, Josh, I accept responsibility for my own actions. While you
blame all those big, bad meanies for turning you into a whiny little
putz.
> My own further actions will depend in large measure on my assessment
> of your mental stability.
Didn't you already do the mental health lame to death? Y'know, most
posters in the ng have long ago realized that those stock lames only
serve to make you look like a trite ass.
> I do not wish to be cruel or a bully.
Oooh! Josh, the bully! Ok, now you made *me* laugh. We're even.
And
> having seen things get out of hand in other groups, I've learned to
> avoid those who are unstable enough to take matters into real life.
Oh, dear. "Take matters into real life." Would you care to provide some
cite of your basis for that little, off-the-wall accusation? Do
youreally think you hold enough importance for *anyone* to do more than
bitch-slap you in a ng? Please.
> If, on the other hand, you're sitting about laughing at my responses,
> I have no problem with flaming or being flamed by you.
You really don't get it, do you? I couldn't give two rat's rumps about
what you do or don't have a problem with. I'll do what I do because of
what *I* want to do. Read that again. Slowly.
> Problem is, you've given so many indications that that isn't the case
> that I find it hard to believe. I could just ask you, but I doubt I'd
> get an honest answer.
I'm not laughing at your responses. I'm laughing at *you*, just like
everyone else. Your responses are just a window into what you are: a
whiny little putz who refuses to accept that he's earned every bit of
ridicule he finds himself having to endure, and, instead, tries to blame
the world.
Now, you said above that you wanted to give me the "opportunity to have
the last word." I'll leave it at this, if you like. Or, as I've said,
I'm pleased to accomodate your need to play victim. Your call.
--
Stan
Josh Hill
<newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
I do not read your every post, Stan: they are almost unfailingly
tedious.
I reiterate: have you accepted my offer of a mutual cessation of
hostilities? If so, you are welcome to have the last word; if not, I
will not accord you that courtesy. I do not think I can make it any
plainer than that.
Stan (the Man)
Heh! You're still not getting it. I don't give a flying fuck about any
"offer" of yours or what "courtesy" you think you can or can't give. Do
you really think your flaccid and unoriginal attempts to score an insult
point earn you anything other than snickering ridicule? Your watery
posts hardly qualify as "hostilities." I'll tell you yet again, I'm more
than happy to accomodate your need to be a victim. And, I'll stay at it
as long as you like. I've given you more than ample opportunity to get
out from under. I allowed my last post as a last word. Go read it again
("I'll leave it at this, if you like"). You're apparently still too
stupid to follow even your own dictates. Here, I'll dumb it down a bit
more for you: you keep replying, I'll keep smacking you silly.
--
Stan
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>Here, I'll dumb it down a bit
>more for you: you keep replying, I'll keep smacking you silly.
Writes the only one here to fill both roles of "Dumb and Dumber" at
the same time.
Well done, Stan. Josh is wiping the floor with you and you somehow
believe you are "winning" something. Exactly what are you winning?
--
Ray
Josh Hill
<newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
Dude, as usual, you're the one who isn't getting it. I have
intentionally refrained from insulting you in the course of this
thread, or responding to your chicken coop posturing. I don't give a
fuck about what you think of my offer or my courtesy: I merely asked
that you accept or reject it. I am perfectly willing to let the whole
business drop, if that is what you want; as I said, I do not make it a
practice to flame those who don't flame me. I am also, as I said,
willing to let you have the final word as a courtesy. I do not,
however, give a fig for your threat, and will not assent to a
self-serving Hobson's Choice.
Stan (the Man)
And, every other post you've ever directed at me. As I said, you do try,
but never quite get over the bar.
I don't give a
> fuck about what you think of my offer or my courtesy:
'Course not. I tell you I don't give a fuck, so you tell me you don't
give a fuck. I point out that you're not getting it, you tell me I'm not
getting it. I tell you you're shrill, you accuse me of being shrill. You
just can't manage to find anything of your own.
I merely asked
> that you accept or reject it. I am perfectly willing to let the whole
> business drop, if that is what you want; as I said, I do not make it a
> practice to flame those who don't flame me. I am also, as I said,
> willing to let you have the final word as a courtesy.
No you're not. You're incapable of actually doing it.
I do not,
> however, give a fig for your threat, and will not assent to a
> self-serving Hobson's Choice.
As I said, you keep responding, I'll keep smacking you. Now, that can be
the final word, if you wish. Your call.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
news:4ej9539r8clhf0jo0...@4ax.com:
So, hero, what word from your FOIA request (what was that file number
again?)? Been about 3 weeks now, hasn't it? They get real upset that you
made them fess up about that little '74 Hanoi bombing thingie?
--
Stan
gekko
we're at it, let's read what Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> had
to say in news:4ej9539r8clhf0jo0...@4ax.com:
> Josh is wiping the floor
with his great drooling tongue that he does not seem to know how to
reel back in.
Fuck sake.
Do you *really* take Usenet so seriously that you imagine "winners" and
"losers"?
--
gekko
I plead contemporary insanity.
Josh Hill
<newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
All right, Stan. It occurred to me after I read Ray's post that my
taking a stand here was a sign of weakness rather than of strength.
That being the case, you have your wish.
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>Could we have kippers for breakfast, Mummy dear, Mummy dear? And, while
>we're at it, let's read what Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> had
>to say in news:4ej9539r8clhf0jo0...@4ax.com:
>
>
>> Josh is wiping the floor
>
>with his great drooling tongue that he does not seem to know how to
>reel back in.
So, Gek -- is this post 365, or 366?
>Fuck sake.
>
>Do you *really* take Usenet so seriously that you imagine "winners" and
>"losers"?
" 'Josh is wiping the floor' with his great drooling tongue that he
does not seem to know how to reel back in." - Gekko
gekko
May 2007 s/he wrote something in misc.writing! See?
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:34:31 GMT, gekko
> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>Could we have kippers for breakfast, Mummy dear, Mummy dear? And,
>>while we're at it, let's read what Ray Haddad
>><rha...@iexpress.net.au> had to say in
>>news:4ej9539r8clhf0jo0...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>> Josh is wiping the floor
>>
>>with his great drooling tongue that he does not seem to know how
>>to reel back in.
>
> So, Gek -- is this post 365, or 366?
>
>>Fuck sake.
>>
>>Do you *really* take Usenet so seriously that you imagine
>>"winners" and "losers"?
>
> " 'Josh is wiping the floor' with his great drooling tongue that
> he does not seem to know how to reel back in." - Gekko
>
Thank you for not going on and on and on and on and on with great
droopy explanations of your thoughts, dreams, hopes, intentions,
fantasies, greatness, weighty intellect, cleverness, and other
matters of your imagination in your response to me, dearheart.
There's a lovely kerfuffle involving some magazine-ish spammer, some
alt.english.usage newsgroup kops, and Kurt Ullman. I'll just bet
they'd *love* you over in that thread.
--
gekko
The covers of this book are too far apart. - Ambrose Bierce (1842-
1914)
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>Ohmigosh! It's Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com>! And look! On 23
>May 2007 s/he wrote something in misc.writing! See?
>
>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:34:31 GMT, gekko
>> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>Could we have kippers for breakfast, Mummy dear, Mummy dear? And,
>>>while we're at it, let's read what Ray Haddad
>>><rha...@iexpress.net.au> had to say in
>>>news:4ej9539r8clhf0jo0...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Josh is wiping the floor
>>>
>>>with his great drooling tongue that he does not seem to know how
>>>to reel back in.
>>
>> So, Gek -- is this post 365, or 366?
>>
>>>Fuck sake.
>>>
>>>Do you *really* take Usenet so seriously that you imagine
>>>"winners" and "losers"?
>>
>> " 'Josh is wiping the floor' with his great drooling tongue that
>> he does not seem to know how to reel back in." - Gekko
>>
>
>Thank you for not going on and on and on and on and on with great
>droopy explanations of your thoughts, dreams, hopes, intentions,
>fantasies, greatness, weighty intellect, cleverness, and other
>matters of your imagination in your response to me, dearheart.
"Bored bored bored, and MW is like total deadsville. Oh, how I miss
those endless arguments I used to have with Josh (sob). Now there's no
one to talk to anymore and I have to spend my time watching reruns of
MASH. Maybe if I put my little devil cap on and in the guise of
flaming Ray troll Josh he'll pay attention to me?"
>There's a lovely kerfuffle involving some magazine-ish spammer, some
>alt.english.usage newsgroup kops, and Kurt Ullman. I'll just bet
>they'd *love* you over in that thread.
Never has the desperation for an issue, any issue, to write about been
so manifest. Poor spammer probably thinks he's stumbled into the pits
of hell.
Rev. Phineas T. Pepperwinkle
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>Ohmigosh! It's Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com>! And look! On 23
>May 2007 s/he wrote something in misc.writing! See?
>
>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:34:31 GMT, gekko
>> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>Could we have kippers for breakfast, Mummy dear, Mummy dear? And,
>>>while we're at it, let's read what Ray Haddad
>>><rha...@iexpress.net.au> had to say in
>>>news:4ej9539r8clhf0jo0...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Josh is wiping the floor
>>>
>>>with his great drooling tongue that he does not seem to know how
>>>to reel back in.
>>
>> So, Gek -- is this post 365, or 366?
>>
>>>Fuck sake.
>>>
>>>Do you *really* take Usenet so seriously that you imagine
>>>"winners" and "losers"?
>>
>> " 'Josh is wiping the floor' with his great drooling tongue that
>> he does not seem to know how to reel back in." - Gekko
>>
>
>Thank you for not going on and on and on and on and on with great
>droopy explanations of your thoughts, dreams, hopes, intentions,
>fantasies, greatness, weighty intellect, cleverness, and other
>matters of your imagination in your response to me, dearheart.
My dear, I must protest. No good can come of addressing insults at
someone who has, by virtue of his unfailing modesty, greatness of
heart, generosity of spirit, and unbounded intellect earned the
universal respect and admiration of his fellow men.
Lizzie
Reverend, forgive me; I am an awful lizard indeed, and as penance
shall devote the rest of my life to silent meditation in a damper than
average nunnery, breaking my silence only to praise our Savior and ask
forgiveness for the manifest wrongs I have committed here against a
good and blameless soul.
funsock (the other one)
Dizzie: "Oh! Oh! Oh! Fuck my shriveled, leprous twat, you syphilitic
hunchback, you! Lick my pendulous desiccated tits with that running
sore of a tongue stump!"
Peppertwat: "You ain't no choir boy. Get me a friggin' choir boy."
gekko
ya been? Last time i saw you, you were posting in misc.writing and
wrote this:
> Never has the desperation for an issue, any issue, to write about
> been so manifest.
Right up yer alley, then, pardon the expression.
--
gekko
I'm living so far beyond my income that we may almost be said to be
living apart. --e e cummings
gekko
long time! How ya been? Last time i saw you, you were posting in
misc.writing and wrote this:
What ever became of Rob? Not Rob ... the other Rob.
Alex Pope
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>Hey! Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com>! It's been a long time! How
>ya been? Last time i saw you, you were posting in misc.writing and
>wrote this:
>
>
>> Never has the desperation for an issue, any issue, to write about
>> been so manifest.
>
>Right up yer alley, then, pardon the expression.
Oh, dear.
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
Inverted, past participled, went away?
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
>news:4ej9539r8clhf0jo0...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:06:10 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>
>>>Here, I'll dumb it down a bit
>>>more for you: you keep replying, I'll keep smacking you silly.
>>
>> Writes the only one here to fill both roles of "Dumb and Dumber" at
>> the same time.
>>
>> Well done, Stan. Josh is wiping the floor with you and you somehow
>> believe you are "winning" something. Exactly what are you winning?
>
>So, hero, what word from your FOIA request (what was that file number
>again?)? Been about 3 weeks now, hasn't it? They get real upset that you
>made them fess up about that little '74 Hanoi bombing thingie?
Nice try and avoiding my statement, Stan. The USS Ranger logbooks
for the entire months of August and September are winging their way
to me by regular post.
Will you be apologizing later? Probably not. You're not man enough
for that despite your nym.
Now, about your being slam dunked by Josh . . .
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> instead replied:
No, but I do take great joy in watching Stan view it that way. Why
else would he behave like such a pork chop?
--
Ray
gekko
Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au>, and the date, 23 May 2007, and
even the newsgroup in which i read this, misc.writing. There. You
happy?
> No, but I do take great joy in watching Stan view it that way
yer weird, you know.
--
gekko
Why is there an expiration date on my sour cream container?
Ray Haddad
and gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> instead replied:
>What ever became of Rob? Not Rob ... the other Rob.
Fluffy?
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>'Course not. I tell you I don't give a fuck, so you tell me you don't
>give a fuck. I point out that you're not getting it, you tell me I'm not
>getting it. I tell you you're shrill, you accuse me of being shrill. You
>just can't manage to find anything of your own.
And Stan begins slapping himself silly. How mortifying it must be to
be you, Stan.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> instead replied:
>This is an attribution line. In this, I'm expected to cite the author,
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au>, and the date, 23 May 2007, and
>even the newsgroup in which i read this, misc.writing. There. You
>happy?
>
>> No, but I do take great joy in watching Stan view it that way
>
>yer weird, you know.
We're both here, aren't we?
--
Ray
Sylvia
.
> Sylvia wrote:
> >Josh Hill wrote:
> >> Sylvia wrote:
> > <UNsnip!>
>
> >> Three days? The irony . . .
> >
> > <cough>
> >
> >Me, I was thinkin' it was an example of, at the very least, hypocrisy on
> >your part, but whatever. See:
> >
> >1) You whine that Mr. Stan's "been trailing" after you.
> >
> >2) I point out that, in reality, you are gossiping about him while Mr.
> >Stan hasn't even been posting.
.
> You're right, Sylvia -- it's entirely my fault
You should have just stopped there.
> for having ignored Stan's considerate email:
<snip fake email>
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
--
Sylvia <--- The Supreme Ruler of MW
HADDAD: "My fan club disagrees with you."
Miz Sylvia: " <aside> They're the ones wearin'
the mouse ears and the tin foil hats."
----------------------
"I want people to find me. Without them finding me,
I wouldn't be fabulously wealthy from them paying me
money to entertain them or to write for them."
-- Ray Haddad
"Beer belly bucking! Beer belly bucking! Ooh! Ooh!
Boob wants to buck bellies!"
-- Ray Haddad in MW
Sylvia
> Josh Hill wrote :
<...>
> > BTW, there was a time when your flame would have made me angry;
> > instead, it made me laugh. And that, I think, is a sign of personal
> > growth, because yes, I am hypersensitive to personal criticism, albeit
> > not for the reasons you suppose, and when I lash out at someone here
> > over an ad hominem or a tease, it is because I am on an emotional
> > level responding to the memories of cruelties endured as a small child
> > 40 or 50 years ago. I would much rather -- have said this often --
> > argue for those who by virtue of circumstance can't defend themselves
> > against the cruelty, willful or accidental, of others.
Josh, the cleaners called. They said yer Superman costume's ready.
> Could you possibly be more of a self-pitying candy-ass?
Mebbe Mr. RJM will start a new award category for 2007.
--
Sylvia <--- The Supreme Ruler of MW
From the MW Archives: March 2004
Miz Sylvia: "Why is it that when you post a reply to what
Mr. Stan sez, you're 'commenting', but you
describe his replies to you as 'comments he
made behind my back'? "
Josh Hill: "I just won't see the responses."
Miz Sylvia: "You said that you *chose* not to see his
responses. The fact that you are still addressing
them proves otherwise."
Josh Hill: "What are you going on about? I don't see his
responses unless "
Miz Sylvia: " 'I just won't see the responses.' -J Hill"
Josh Hill: "someone quotes them."
Miz Sylvia: "Hello? You *are* seeing them. And responding to them."
Sylvia
<...>
> Stan, I rarely flame those who don't flame me.
Josh Hill: "I do not, for the most part, make comments about
those I've killfiled."
Miz Sylvia: "Either you have done it or you haven't. 'For the most
part' means that you have."
Josh Hill: "That's like saying "either you're tall or you're short."
<...>
Miz Sylvia: "No, it's like sayin' that you announced that you
killfiled Mr. Stan, but you're still reading and
replying to what he posts and you discuss him in
posts with other people, which kinda defeats the
whole purpose of killfin', doncha know." <...>
> If I did so in your case, it was because I saw no clear sign that you had decided to stop.
Josh Hill: "And how does that differ from the comments he made
behind my back?"
> Now that you've told me that that is your intention, you can be
> assured that I'll reciprocate.
Miz Sylvia: "Mr. Stan is free to respond to any post, and guess
what? So are you."
You're acting like someone denied you your
rights. If you really had killfiled him, then he
wouldn't be able to reply to *you*, but he could
still respond to what you wrote. Still, moot
point, innit."
Josh Hill: "Yes, he's free to respond to my posts and I'm free to
respond to his."
Miz Sylvia: " 'whereas I can't respond to most of his comments'
- J Hill"
" 'And when he badmouths me knowing that I can't
see most of his posts he's depriving /me/ of the
means to strike back.' - J Hill"
"If Stan doesn't want me to comment on his posts
about me, he won't make 'em." - J Hill
[Mr. Stan never said he didn't want Joshua to
comment on his posts]"
" 'comments he [Mr. Stan] made behind my back' "
Josh Hill: "I'm not sure what your point is."
Miz Sylvia: "That you keep switching your point."
<snip Hill's Drama Queen Pity Me speech>
--
Sylvia <--- The Supreme Ruler of MW
"I want people to find me. Without them finding me,
Ray Haddad
and Sylvia <Syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> instead replied:
>Sylvia <--- The Supreme Ruler of MW
>
> "I want people to find me. Without them finding me,
> I wouldn't be fabulously wealthy from them paying me
> money to entertain them or to write for them."
>
> -- Ray Haddad
Finally. A bit of truth out of you, Sylvia.
Now, why don't you want people to find you?
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
Knew you couldn't do it. As to *my* wish I wish you to stick around and
continue be the ng dart board. It's what you do best.
Since your memory doesn't seem to work beyond a sentence or two, allow
me to refresh: "As I said, you keep responding, I'll keep smacking you."
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Have you ever tried reading what you write, Ray, before you hit 'send'?
Does it make any sense to you? Do you think it makes any sense to anyone?
See what I mean?
--
Stan
boots
At least you don't have to wish for Joshers to come back, now quit
bitching about getting what you wanted and tell me what, if anything,
this global warming crap is doing to the climate in Arizona? Are you
guys going to be seeing 140F+ temps this summer? Is it turning into a
garden paradise? No real change? More mutants? Other?
--
The sane answer to insanity is madness.
boots
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
<6 gazillion lines removed>
Jeez, people jest forget plumb how ta snip these days.
boots
>How mortifying it must be to be you, Stan.
Exactly who would it not be mortifying to be?
boots
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
<snip>
>> And Stan begins slapping himself silly. How mortifying it must be to
>> be you, Stan.
>
>Have you ever tried reading what you write, Ray, before you hit 'send'?
>Does it make any sense to you? Do you think it makes any sense to anyone?
>See what I mean?
Stan, if your implicit requirement that posts make sense is even
informally accepted, post traffic will quickly dribble to nothing...
gekko wished for Joshers to return, are you sure you want to wish for
only sensible posts?
boots
If you had to go through life with somebody's hand up your butt would
you want to be embarassed by meeting folks you know while so
encumbered? Geez, she's 2' tall and has to feed a freakin' parrot,
give 'er a break.
Josh Hill
>"Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
><snip>
>>> And Stan begins slapping himself silly. How mortifying it must be to
>>> be you, Stan.
>>
>>Have you ever tried reading what you write, Ray, before you hit 'send'?
>>Does it make any sense to you? Do you think it makes any sense to anyone?
>>See what I mean?
>
>Stan, if your implicit requirement that posts make sense is even
>informally accepted, post traffic will quickly dribble to nothing...
>gekko wished for Joshers to return
Call me Mr. Monkey's Paw.
Josh Hill
<newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
Oh, I am /so/ smacked.
Josh Hill
>"Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
><6 gazillion lines removed>
>
>Jeez, people jest forget plumb how ta snip these days.
There's a tradition that says you don't snip posts in a flame war.
Makes no sense, but then neither do neckties.
Josh Hill
<Syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>Mr. Stan (the Man) wrote:
>
>> Josh Hill wrote :
><...>
>> > BTW, there was a time when your flame would have made me angry;
>> > instead, it made me laugh. And that, I think, is a sign of personal
>> > growth, because yes, I am hypersensitive to personal criticism, albeit
>> > not for the reasons you suppose, and when I lash out at someone here
>> > over an ad hominem or a tease, it is because I am on an emotional
>> > level responding to the memories of cruelties endured as a small child
>> > 40 or 50 years ago. I would much rather -- have said this often --
>> > argue for those who by virtue of circumstance can't defend themselves
>> > against the cruelty, willful or accidental, of others.
>
>Josh, the cleaners called. They said yer Superman costume's ready.
Damn! Just when I was getting used to these ward pajamas.
>> Could you possibly be more of a self-pitying candy-ass?
>
>Mebbe Mr. RJM will start a new award category for 2007.
Or maybe not.
Josh Hill
<Syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
> <...>
>> Stan, I rarely flame those who don't flame me.
>
> Josh Hill: "I do not, for the most part, make comments about
> those I've killfiled."
>
>Miz Sylvia: "Either you have done it or you haven't. 'For the most
> part' means that you have."
That's like saying "either you're tall or your short."
> Josh Hill: "That's like saying "either you're tall or you're short."
Josh Hill
<Syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>.
>> Sylvia wrote:
>> >Josh Hill wrote:
>> >> Sylvia wrote:
>> > <UNsnip!>
>>
>> >> Three days? The irony . . .
>> >
>> > <cough>
>> >
>> >Me, I was thinkin' it was an example of, at the very least, hypocrisy on
>> >your part, but whatever. See:
>> >
>> >1) You whine that Mr. Stan's "been trailing" after you.
>> >
>> >2) I point out that, in reality, you are gossiping about him while Mr.
>> >Stan hasn't even been posting.
>.
>> You're right, Sylvia -- it's entirely my fault
>
>You should have just stopped there.
I should have been bedded by Miss November.
>> for having ignored Stan's considerate email:
>
> <snip fake email>
>
>LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
I no longer flame Stan. That being the case, I must protest: Stan is
not a liar.
boots
>On Thu, 24 May 2007 07:26:54 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>"Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>><6 gazillion lines removed>
>>
>>Jeez, people jest forget plumb how ta snip these days.
>
>There's a tradition that says you don't snip posts in a flame war.
>Makes no sense, but then neither do neckties.
Fuck tradition, fuck neckties.
Real flamewars contain below-the-belt venom, they're not this
pattycake shit you and Stan have been indulging in out of boredom.
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
>news:0u1a53t72ahvuqk1p...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:05:05 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>
>>>'Course not. I tell you I don't give a fuck, so you tell me you don't
>>>give a fuck. I point out that you're not getting it, you tell me I'm not
>>>getting it. I tell you you're shrill, you accuse me of being shrill. You
>>>just can't manage to find anything of your own.
>>
>> And Stan begins slapping himself silly. How mortifying it must be to
>> be you, Stan.
>
>Have you ever tried reading what you write, Ray, before you hit 'send'?
>Does it make any sense to you? Do you think it makes any sense to anyone?
>See what I mean?
I knew you wouldn't be able to comprehend. Go back to your barstool,
sailor. It's all you're good for.
--
Ray
Rev. Phineas T. Pepperwinkle
I am not bored.
funsock (the other one)
I am not bored either.
Lizzie
And neither am I.
Sylvie
Liar. Liar. Liar.
Josh Hill
Oh, my dear. Such harsh words!
Can we not lay aside our differences to lie side-by-side in amiable
amity, lion and lamb, spider and fly, joying in one another and in the
magnificence of God's inimitable creation, in the bright blue sky
dappled with happy white cottony clouds, in the laughing yellow sun
that swaddles us in the downy blanket of its beneficent warmth?
Oh, children, forfend, lest having wandered astray ye be swallowed by
eternal night and live not eternally in heavenly bliss but in
suffering and torment and hellfire eternal.
Eh? What were we discussing? Is it bingo night? Surely not that tryst
with Brother Aloysius! Monsignor, that was years ago.
--
Josh
"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson,
President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic
surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales
Towse
> There's a tradition that says you don't snip posts in a flame war.
Never heard of it.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> There's a tradition that says you don't snip posts in a flame war.
>
>Never heard of it.
I've never heard of it either. It just seems to be something people
do.
Towse
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 08:20:48 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>> There's a tradition that says you don't snip posts in a flame war.
>> Never heard of it.
>
> I've never heard of it either. It just seems to be something people
> do.
Some people snip during heated flame wars because (1) they don't like
the on and on and on and know how deadly boring it is to some other
people, (2) they want to address some specific just said and/or (3) they
know that snipping annoys the heck out of whomever they're currently
arguing with.
"Tradition" is not defined as something that some people do and some
people don't.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 08:20:48 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a tradition that says you don't snip posts in a flame war.
>>> Never heard of it.
>>
>> I've never heard of it either. It just seems to be something people
>> do.
>
>Some people snip during heated flame wars because (1) they don't like
>the on and on and on and know how deadly boring it is to some other
>people, (2) they want to address some specific just said and/or (3) they
>know that snipping annoys the heck out of whomever they're currently
>arguing with.
>
>"Tradition" is not defined as something that some people do and some
>people don't.
Why not? There are lots of traditions that some people abide by and
some don't.
Towse
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 09:37:14 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 08:20:48 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There's a tradition that says you don't snip posts in a flame war.
>>>> Never heard of it.
>>> I've never heard of it either. It just seems to be something people
>>> do.
>> Some people snip during heated flame wars because (1) they don't like
>> the on and on and on and know how deadly boring it is to some other
>> people, (2) they want to address some specific just said and/or (3) they
>> know that snipping annoys the heck out of whomever they're currently
>> arguing with.
>>
>> "Tradition" is not defined as something that some people do and some
>> people don't.
>
> Why not? There are lots of traditions that some people abide by and
> some don't.
Inherent in "tradition" is that "the majority" has created a convention
over a period which is accepted as the preferred norm by the people so
encumbered. There may be some outlaws who do not follow tradition, but,
as a whole, the group does.
Your characterization of people who do not snip because they are engaged
in a bore-war as "tradition" is nothing like that. Ergo, you have no
tradition to bank on and are simply blowing bubbles while humming LADY
IN SPAIN because you like to watch the line count pile up in your own
private DejaMountain of Ausscheidung.
Josh Hill
Traditions may, and frequently are, created by a minority. Indeed, it
takes only two people (if that) to create a tradition, e.g., "We
traditionally go to a restaurant to celebrate our wedding
anniversary."
I stated that there was a tradition that says you don't snip posts in
a flame war because I've noticed it. I don't know whether the majority
of posters or groups observe that tradition. I chose to observe it
here because, well, when I thought about it, that's what I decided to
do.
Towse
> Traditions may, and frequently are, created by a minority. Indeed, it
> takes only two people (if that) to create a tradition, e.g., "We
> traditionally go to a restaurant to celebrate our wedding
> anniversary."
Two people celebrating a wedding anniversary are (legally, in this
country) a majority of those whose wedding anniversary celebration it is.
> I stated that there was a tradition that says you don't snip posts in
> a flame war because I've noticed it. I don't know whether the majority
> of posters or groups observe that tradition. I chose to observe it
> here because, well, when I thought about it, that's what I decided to
> do.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it
means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
Aw doo, Humpty.
You are so dull.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> Traditions may, and frequently are, created by a minority. Indeed, it
>> takes only two people (if that) to create a tradition, e.g., "We
>> traditionally go to a restaurant to celebrate our wedding
>> anniversary."
>
>Two people celebrating a wedding anniversary are (legally, in this
>country) a majority of those whose wedding anniversary celebration it is.
Yes, and one person is a majority of that one person. Which, however,
does not give them the power to decide elections.
>> I stated that there was a tradition that says you don't snip posts in
>> a flame war because I've noticed it. I don't know whether the majority
>> of posters or groups observe that tradition. I chose to observe it
>> here because, well, when I thought about it, that's what I decided to
>> do.
>
>'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it
>means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
>
>Aw doo, Humpty.
>
>You are so dull.
You start a debate on the tradition of not trimming posts in a flame
war and you complain about dull?
Gawd. Me fer the wide open spaces.
gekko
before it is understood. Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au>, who
posted in misc.writing on 23 May 2007 demonstrates this principle in
this way:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:06:31 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> instead replied:
>
>>What ever became of Rob? Not Rob ... the other Rob.
>
> Fluffy?
No thanks.
--
gekko
What would men be without women? Scarce, sir, mighty scarce. - Mark
Twain
gekko
misc.writing on 24 May 2007 demonstrates this principle in this way:
> tell me what, if anything,
> this global warming crap is doing to the climate in Arizona? Are
> you guys going to be seeing 140F+ temps this summer? Is it
> turning into a garden paradise? No real change? More mutants?
> Other?
We're having unseasonably cool weather. In the eighties and nineties,
rather than the usual low hundreds.
gekko
in this way:
> From: "funsock (the other one)" <liz...@lizzie.net>
You're getting your thingies confangled, Josherpoo.