Why "too lazy to" but not "too reluctant to"

[Dingbat]

I'm too lazy to wake up early.
I'm reluctant to wake up early.

In Indian English, it's
I'm lazy to wake up early.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

So, what's your point?


--
athel

[Dingbat]

Why do Anglophones use a too before lazy?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Dingbat skrev:

>>> I'm too lazy to wake up early.
>>> I'm reluctant to wake up early.

>>> In Indian English, it's
>>> I'm lazy to wake up early.

>> So, what's your point?

> Why do Anglophones use a too before lazy?

Because Anglophones are always lazy, but only sometimes enough to
not want to wake up.

Indians are not always lazy.

PS. Danes are always lazy too, because we use a similar
expression.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Anton Shepelev]

Dingbat:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden to Dingbat:

> > > I'm too lazy to wake up early.
> > > I'm reluctant to wake up early.
> > >
> > > In Indian English, it's
> > > I'm lazy to wake up early.
> >
> > So, what's your point?
>
> Why do Anglophones use a too before lazy?

Laziness being a general mental state, you can't
feel lazy toward one activity and all ready-teddy
toward another.

Read Ambrose Bierce explain the same thing with re-
spect to 'anxious' and 'eager':

Anxious for Eager.
"I was anxious to go." Anxious should not be
followed by an infinitive. Anxiety is contem-
plative; eagerness, alert for action.

Therefore, rephrasing your examples:

1. I am too lazy *a person* to wake up early.
2. I am *currently* reluctant to wake up early.

The first appeals to one's character and the second
to one's momentary mood.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[Richard Tobin]

In article <279e26cd-85a3-4e3f...@googlegroups.com>,

For the same reason they use it before "tired". Do you say "I am
tired to wake up early"?

And they don't use it before "reluctant" for the same reason that
they don't use it before "unable". Do you say "I am too unable to
wake up early"?

-- Richard

[Derek Turner]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:33:45 -0700, Dingbat wrote:

> I'm too lazy to wake up early. I'm reluctant to wake up early.
>
> In Indian English, it's I'm lazy to wake up early.

But in my experience, "too" has a different meaning in Indian English
meaning "very" rather than "excessively". I had an Indian friend who used
to say "I like children too much", which sounded creepy in England. The
same applies to "hardly", which has a completely different (almost
opposite) meaning in Indian English. Is thatcausing your confusion,
perhaps?

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:35:21 PM UTC+5:30, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Dingbat:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden to Dingbat:
> > > > I'm too lazy to wake up early.
> > > > I'm reluctant to wake up early.
> > > >
> > > > In Indian English, it's
> > > > I'm lazy to wake up early.
> > >
> > > So, what's your point?
> >
> > Why do Anglophones use a too before lazy?
>
> Laziness being a general mental state, you can't
> feel lazy toward one activity and all ready-teddy
> toward another.
>

So, laziness is not a general mental state to those who drop too?

i am lazy to do a good remix
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/76167320/

I Am Lazy to Read Books
https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Am-Lazy-to-Read-Books/113832388627735

i am lazy to cook Ek is lui om te kook (Afrikaans)
http://mymemory.translated.net/en/English/Afrikaans/i-am-lazy-to-cook

I am lazy to brush my teeth.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dentistry/comments/3gs6r0/i_am_lazy_to_brush_my_teeth/

... i am lazy to write ...
https://www.wattpad.com/132454037-monster-in-law-4-because-i-am-lazy-to-write

>
> Read Ambrose Bierce explain the same thing with re-
> spect to 'anxious' and 'eager':
>

I was taught that "keen to go" is wrong and it must be "keen on going".

[Peter Moylan]

Too my hears, "I'm lazy to wake up early" sounds as if it means "I wake
up early because I'm lazy".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Peter Moylan skrev:

> Too my hears, "I'm lazy to wake up early" sounds as if it means "I wake
> up early because I'm lazy".

Too my hears too.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Apr-20 21:52, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Peter Moylan skrev:
>
>> Too my hears, "I'm lazy to wake up early" sounds as if it means "I wake
>> up early because I'm lazy".
>
> Too my hears too.

Wow! I've just finished re-reading what I posted, and I STILL didn't
notice the typos.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:26:22 PM UTC+5:30, Derek Turner wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:33:45 -0700, Dingbat wrote:
>
> > I'm too lazy to wake up early. I'm reluctant to wake up early.
> >
> > In Indian English, it's I'm lazy to wake up early.
>
> But in my experience, "too" has a different meaning in Indian English
> meaning "very" rather than "excessively". I had an Indian friend who used
> to say "I like children too much", which sounded creepy in England.

Ha! That meaning is not, however, absent in Anglophones' English. I sent a joke to a former colleague raised in Tulsa, OK, and got a response of "Too funny!"

> The
> same applies to "hardly", which has a completely different (almost
> opposite) meaning in Indian English. Is that causing your confusion,
> perhaps?

Have to go. I might respond later.

[arth...@yahoo.com]

Recently, I was editing a text which had a typo. I pointed it out to the writer (via e-mail). He re-read his text and said that he doesn't see the typo. I pointed it out again and this time, he saw it. He wrote back and asked me if he was the only one who did not see his own typos.

I think everybody is more or less like that...

And things only get worse when it comes to politics!

Respectfully,
Navi.

[Anton Shepelev]

Dingbat:
> Anton Shepelev to Dingbat:

> > > Athel Cornish-Bowden to Dingbat:
> > > > > I'm too lazy to wake up early.
> > > > > I'm reluctant to wake up early.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Indian English, it's
> > > > > I'm lazy to wake up early.
> > > >
> > > > So, what's your point?
> > >
> > > Why do Anglophones use a too before lazy?
> >
> > Laziness being a general mental state, you can't

> > feel lazy toward one activity and all ready-ted-

> > dy toward another.
>
> So, laziness is not a general mental state to
> those who drop too?

I had to read that thrice before I undestood that
you meant those who omit the "too" before "lazy."
Proper punctuation helps.

As to your question, I answer no.

> i am lazy to do a good remix
> https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/76167320/
>
> I Am Lazy to Read Books
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Am-Lazy-to-Read-Books/113832388627735
>
> i am lazy to cook Ek is lui om te kook (Afrikaans)
> http://mymemory.translated.net/en/English/Afrikaans/i-am-lazy-to-cook
>
> I am lazy to brush my teeth.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Dentistry/comments/3gs6r0/i_am_lazy_to_brush_my_teeth/
>
> ... i am lazy to write ...
> https://www.wattpad.com/132454037-monster-in-law-4-because-i-am-lazy-to-write

If you want your examples to bear any authority se-
lect them from time-honoured literary works. Quota-
tions from forums and social networks are likely to
be poor English.

[Janet]

In article <17c9dc63-4391-4714...@googlegroups.com>,
ranjit_...@yahoo.com says...

>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:26:22 PM UTC+5:30, Derek Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:33:45 -0700, Dingbat wrote:
> >
> > > I'm too lazy to wake up early. I'm reluctant to wake up early.
> > >
> > > In Indian English, it's I'm lazy to wake up early.
> >
> > But in my experience, "too" has a different meaning in Indian English
> > meaning "very" rather than "excessively". I had an Indian friend who used
> > to say "I like children too much", which sounded creepy in England.
>
> Ha! That meaning is not, however, absent in Anglophones' English.
I sent a joke to a former colleague raised in Tulsa, OK, and got a
response of "Too funny!"

"Too funny " means "That is excessively amusing" (or "too funny for
words").

It's not the equivalent of "very" (if that was the correct meaning
in the example "I like children too much")

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> If you want your examples to bear any authority se-
> lect them from time-honoured literary works. Quota-
> tions from forums and social networks are likely to
> be poor English.

But citing Ambrose Bierce is supposed to be useful 150 years after he wrote?

[David Kleinecke]

The trick is to find written English that is not archaizing and over
formal but is also not too sloppy. That's why I've been parsing blogs.
Of all the writers I have parsed in the last couple of years the one
whose English seems "best" to me is Paul Krugman.

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter T. Daniels to Anton Shepelev:

> > If you want your examples to bear any authority

> > select them from time-honoured literary works.
> > Quotations from forums and social networks are

> > likely to be poor English.
>
> But citing Ambrose Bierce is supposed to be useful
> 150 years after he wrote?

Yes, because not all that he has written in "Write
it Right" is obsolete. The modern generation is
wanting in healthy conservatism and has much to
learn from the man in the way of careful attitude
towards language as to a beautiful and highly-devel-
oped organism ("First do no harm") rather than as to
a disorderly heap of "patterns" which no thoughless
additions or changes can make any worse because it
has no line of descent, no tradition, no consisten-
cy, and no order.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 1:26:12 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels to Anton Shepelev:
>
> > > If you want your examples to bear any authority
> > > select them from time-honoured literary works.
> > > Quotations from forums and social networks are
> > > likely to be poor English.
> >
> > But citing Ambrose Bierce is supposed to be useful
> > 150 years after he wrote?
>
> Yes, because not all that he has written in "Write
> it Right" is obsolete.

In case that's true, you as a non-native are in no position to distinguish what is
from what isn't obsolete. Doubtless Bierce would have despised Hemingway (and perhaps
loved Faulkner), but it's Hemingway who showed the way to contemporary American
style.

> The modern generation is
> wanting in healthy conservatism and has much to
> learn from the man in the way of careful attitude
> towards language as to a beautiful

In the eye of the beholder, of course. I came across a volume of
Bierce's Civil War
writings (both reporting and fiction), and it's essentially unreadable.

> and highly-devel-
> oped organism ("First do no harm") rather than as to
> a disorderly heap of "patterns" which no thoughless
> additions or changes can make any worse because it
> has no line of descent, no tradition, no consisten-
> cy, and no order.

There speaks only your inexperience (whatever you may be referring to).

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter T. Daniels:
> Anton Shepelev:
> > Peter T. Daniels:

> >
> > > But citing Ambrose Bierce is supposed to be
> > > useful 150 years after he wrote?
> >
> > Yes, because not all that he has written in
> > "Write it Right" is obsolete.
>
> In case that's true, you as a non-native are in no
> position to distinguish what is from what isn't
> obsolete.

As one who reads old and modern literature, and many
sorts of internet sites including those written in
abominable business-speak, I can distinguish between
different styles. It is not a matter of "positions"
but a simple fact which is true regardless of
whether you deny me the right to express my opinion
or not.

For example, from the first few paragraphs I recog-
nised that Thomas Ligotti's "The Last Feast of
Harlequin" was a fathful tribute to Lovecraft.

> Doubtless Bierce would have despised Hemingway
> (and perhaps loved Faulkner),

You are in no postion to make such predictions be-
cause, as far as I dare assume, you are not a medium
and neither have you consulted one in preparation
for this post.

I have only heard some Hemmingway in Russian on the
radio. He extolled animal cruelty gloating over the
death throes of a rhinoceros he had wounded on a
hunt in Africa. To me, that was disgusting.

> but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to contem-
> porary American style.

What is "contemporary American style" and who are
its prophets? Fitzgerald? Joyce? Shirley Jackson?

The hale and pleasant prose of late (alas, in both
senses) Ray Bradbury is, meseems, much better an ex-
ample of modern American style. He did not write
only sci-fi and fantasy (if that matters).

> > The modern generation is wanting in healthy con-

> > servatism and has much to learn from the man in
> > the way of careful attitude towards language
>

> In the eye of the beholder, of course. I came
> across a volume of Bierce's Civil War writings
> (both reporting and fiction), and it's essentially
> unreadable.

In the eye of the beholder, of course. As Wikepedia
impartially informs us, Kurt Vonnegut considered
Bierce's "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" the
"greatest American short story" and a work of "flaw-
less... American genius", while his depiction of an
altered state of consciousness in "An Inhabitant Of
Carcosa" is in my opinion as poetic as prose can be,
and "Haita the Shepherd" is all pure poetry.

His war stories are keenly realistic and someties
reminded me of Tolstoy's battle scenes. Did you no-
tice how the landscape and terrain play a (and often
the) decive part in their plots?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:56:19 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
> > Anton Shepelev:
> > > Peter T. Daniels:

> > > > But citing Ambrose Bierce is supposed to be
> > > > useful 150 years after he wrote?
> > > Yes, because not all that he has written in
> > > "Write it Right" is obsolete.
> > In case that's true, you as a non-native are in no
> > position to distinguish what is from what isn't
> > obsolete.
>
> As one who reads old and modern literature, and many
> sorts of internet sites including those written in
> abominable business-speak, I can distinguish between
> different styles. It is not a matter of "positions"

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you still moaning because you
misunderstood what someone (not me) said about your "here second"?

> but a simple fact which is true regardless of
> whether you deny me the right to express my opinion
> or not.

What is "a fact"? That Bierce is outmoded?

> For example, from the first few paragraphs I recog-
> nised that Thomas Ligotti's "The Last Feast of
> Harlequin" was a fathful tribute to Lovecraft.

I have no idea who that is or why anyone would think it a good idea to pay

tribute to Lovecraft.

> > Doubtless Bierce would have despised Hemingway
> > (and perhaps loved Faulkner),
>
> You are in no postion to make such predictions be-
> cause, as far as I dare assume, you are not a medium
> and neither have you consulted one in preparation
> for this post.

I know how Bierce wrote. I know how Hemingway wrote. They are different.

> I have only heard some Hemmingway in Russian on the
> radio. He extolled animal cruelty gloating over the
> death throes of a rhinoceros he had wounded on a
> hunt in Africa. To me, that was disgusting.

So you can't even distinguish style from content? And you have in fact no idea
what "Hemingway's style" means, either in general or in the context of American
literature?

> > but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to contem-
> > porary American style.
>
> What is "contemporary American style" and who are
> its prophets? Fitzgerald? Joyce? Shirley Jackson?

Um, do you even know where James Joyce was from?

> The hale and pleasant prose of late (alas, in both
> senses) Ray Bradbury is, meseems, much better an ex-
> ample of modern American style. He did not write
> only sci-fi and fantasy (if that matters).

"Hale and pleasant." Two utterly meaningless attributes.

> > > The modern generation is wanting in healthy con-
> > > servatism and has much to learn from the man in
> > > the way of careful attitude towards language
> > In the eye of the beholder, of course. I came
> > across a volume of Bierce's Civil War writings
> > (both reporting and fiction), and it's essentially
> > unreadable.

> In the eye of the beholder, of course. As Wikepedia
> impartially informs us, Kurt Vonnegut considered
> Bierce's "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" the
> "greatest American short story" and a work of "flaw-
> less... American genius", while his depiction of an
> altered state of consciousness in "An Inhabitant Of
> Carcosa" is in my opinion as poetic as prose can be,
> and "Haita the Shepherd" is all pure poetry.

Perhaps I was spoiled by seeing the *Twilight Zone* version of "An Occurrence
at Owl Creek Bridge" as a small boy, decades before reading the story. It's
an example of a filmed version being far, far better than the original written
version. (Which is also true for every Agatha Christie story that was ever
made into a movie.)

> His war stories are keenly realistic and someties
> reminded me of Tolstoy's battle scenes. Did you no-
> tice how the landscape and terrain play a (and often
> the) decive part in their plots?

Again you are confounding content with style.

As for content, they're all pretty much the same: proto-O. Henry irony for the
most part.

[quia...@yahoo.com]

Staying with the question in the subject line, you can say 'too
reluctant to'.
"He's too reluctant to wake up early to ever get to work on time."

The difference between 'lazy' and 'reluctant' is that 'lazy' describes
a general state, and 'reluctant' usually doesn't - you have to state,
or have understood, what the reluctance is about.
--
John

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter T. Daniels:
> Anton Shepelev:
> > Peter T. Daniels:

> > > Anton Shepelev:
> > >
> > > > not all that [Ambrose Bierce] has written in

> > > > "Write it Right" is obsolete.
> > >
> > > In case that's true, you as a non-native are
> > > in no position to distinguish what is from
> > > what isn't obsolete.
> >
> > As one who reads old and modern literature, and
> > many sorts of internet sites including those

> > written in abominable business-speak, I can dis-

> > tinguish between different styles. It is not a

> > matter of "positions" ->

>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you

> still moaning because you misunderstood what some-

> one (not me) said about your "here second"?

Why can't you restrain youself from insults even
when they are least expected? My reply addresses
the quoted paragraph and nothing else. Have another
try.

> > -> but a simple fact which is true regardless of

> > whether you deny me the right to express my
> > opinion or not.
>
> What is "a fact"? That Bierce is outmoded?

Surely not. Are you a troll to suggest things so
obviosly contrary to all I have written?

> > For example, from the first few paragraphs I

> > recognised that Thomas Ligotti's "The Last Feast
> > of Harlequin" was a fathful tribute to Love-

> > craft.
>
> I have no idea who that is or why anyone would
> think it a good idea to pay tribute to Lovecraft.

Yeah, so what? You have missed the whole point. It
was an example of my sense for style.

> > > Doubtless Bierce would have despised Hemingway
> > > (and perhaps loved Faulkner),
> >
> > You are in no postion to make such predictions

> > because, as far as I dare assume, you are not a

> > medium and neither have you consulted one in
> > preparation for this post.
>
> I know how Bierce wrote. I know how Hemingway
> wrote. They are different.

So you despise everybody different from yourself?

> > I have only heard some Hemmingway in Russian on
> > the radio. He extolled animal cruelty gloating
> > over the death throes of a rhinoceros he had
> > wounded on a hunt in Africa. To me, that was
> > disgusting.
>
> So you can't even distinguish style from content?

I most certainly can, but you missed the point
again: I explained how I became disappointed in Hem-
mingway, even if too easily. (ObAUE: I think tense
shifting ("had become") is optional here).

> And you have in fact no idea what "Hemingway's
> style" means, either in general or in the context
> of American literature?

No, not a whit of it, so I asked that of you (quoted
below), but you didn't attempt an answer:

> > > but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to con-
> > > temporary American style.

> >
> > What is "contemporary American style" and who
> > are its prophets? Fitzgerald? Joyce? Shirley
> > Jackson?
>
> Um, do you even know where James Joyce was from?

Mea culpa. I was so focused on the unhale and un-
pleasant that I forgot he was not only merely "from"
Ireland but right into it.

> > The hale and pleasant prose of late (alas, in

> > both senses) Ray Bradbury is, meseems, much bet-
> > ter an example of modern American style. He did
> > not write only sci-fi and fantasy (if that mat-
> > ters).
>
> "Hale and pleasant." Two utterly meaningless at-
> tributes.

Only for a total ethical and esthetical relativist.

> Perhaps I was spoiled by seeing the *Twilight
> Zone* version of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek
> Bridge" as a small boy, decades before reading the
> story.

Or maybe, as Stephen King put it, the muscles of
your imagination have grown weak? Whose prose af-
fects you on the deepest, gut, emotional level?
What writers thrill you literally?

> It's an example of a filmed version being far, far
> better than the original written version. (Which
> is also true for every Agatha Christie story that
> was ever made into a movie.)

Not that I disagree with you here, but why do you so
often make such bald statements without so much as
preperding them with "I think that..." Is it con-
sidered polite in English?

> > His war stories are keenly realistic and
> > someties reminded me of Tolstoy's battle scenes.

> > Did you notice how the landscape and terrain

> > play a (and often the) decive part in their
> > plots?
>
> Again you are confounding content with style.

I was not talking specifially about style, but men-
tioned realism in the sense of Hi-End in music re-
production -- a quality of delivery allowing the
perceiver to immerse into a work of art so as com-
pletely to bypass the imperfections of the medum and
to feel the artist's mind and emotions without con-
scious effort or analysis.

In true art, style is only a means of expressing
content, and you shall not feel any realism if the
artist has not the talent to convey it (if he have
things to convey to begin with), just as you shall
not fully enjoy a landscape by viewing it through a
tiny hole fitted with muddied glass (hence Ansel
Adams's f.64 club, no pun intended), or a movie by
watching it on your cell phone.

Style is therefore subservient to the artist's mes-
sage, and if he lets his message naturally express
itself by not hampering it with his inaptitude, his
style is like clear glass through which the message
reaches the perceiver undistorted.

If you analyse content and style in mutual isolation
then you are missing the greatest secret of the Uni-
verse -- that of how the whole exceeds the sum of
its parts. As Gandalf said:

He that breaks a thing to see what it is has left
the path of wisdom.

Stephen King agrees:

I think there are few if any descriptive passages
in the English language that are any finer than
this; it is the sort of quiet epiphany every
writer hopes for: words that somehow transcend
words, words which add up to a total greater than
the sum of the parts. Analysis of such a para-
graph is a mean and shoddy trick, and should
almost always be left to college and university
professors, those lepidopterists of literature
who, when they see a lovely butterfly, feel that
they should immediately run into the field with a
net, catch it, kill it with a drop of chloroform,
and mount it on a white board and put it in a
glass case, where it will still be beautiful...
and just as dead as horseshit.

> As for content, they're all pretty much the same:
> proto-O. Henry irony for the most part.

Is the nominal plot all that interest you? As Akira
Kurosawa said in an interview, it is not the plot,
but the execution of the plot that matters.

The same is true of music. It is not not skeleton
of the musical score (which has only formal, mathe-
matical beauty) but the flesh of the beautiful tim-
bers and, most importantly, the soul of the emotions
the director and the musicians put into the perfor-
mance, that causes the listener to experience in-
tense, elevating feelings and leave the concert hall
a better man.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 1:38:28 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:

(pretending to quote me)

> No, not a whit of it, so I asked that of you (quoted
> below), but you didn't attempt an answer:
>
> > > > but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to con-
> > > > temporary American style.

I did not misspell "Hemingway," so it is now revealed that you retype and quite
possibly deliberately misquote other people's postings.

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter T. Daniels:

> (pretending to quote me)

>
> > but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to con-
> > temporary American style.
>

> I did not misspell "Hemingway," so it is now re-
> vealed that you retype and quite possibly deliber-

> ately misquote other people's postings.

Oh yeah? A very reasonable conclusion on the firm
basis of a single spurious letter. Such serious
claims need more serious evidence.

Charles Fort was no so simple:

So no logician would be satisfied with identifying
a peanut as a camel, because both have humps: he
demands accessory agreement -- that both can live
a long time without water, for instance.

Having found no better way to vent your distemper,
you condescended to picking nits.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 3:39:53 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > (pretending to quote me)
> >
> > > but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to con-
> > > temporary American style.
> >
> > I did not misspell "Hemingway," so it is now re-
> > vealed that you retype and quite possibly deliber-
> > ately misquote other people's postings.
>
> Oh yeah? A very reasonable conclusion on the firm
> basis of a single spurious letter. Such serious
> claims need more serious evidence.

Then how did the extra m get in there?

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter T. Daniels:
> Anton Shepelev:

> > Peter T. Daniels:
> >
> > > (pretending to quote me)
> > >
> > > > but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to

> > > > contemporary American style.

> > >
> > > I did not misspell "Hemingway," so it is now

> > > revealed that you retype and quite possibly
> > > deliberately misquote other people's postings.

> >
> > Oh yeah? A very reasonable conclusion on the
> > firm basis of a single spurious letter. Such
> > serious claims need more serious evidence.
>
> Then how did the extra m get in there?

No idea[1]. It does not matter. What's important
is that you supposed ill will upon clearly insuffi-
cient basis.
____________________
1. It could be that I mispalced the cursor in the
quoted text and started typing, mangling your
word "Hemingway," which I then miscorrected to
"Hemmingway."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 4:46:40 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
> > Anton Shepelev:
> > > Peter T. Daniels:
> > >
> > > > (pretending to quote me)
> > > >
> > > > > but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to
> > > > > contemporary American style.
> > > >
> > > > I did not misspell "Hemingway," so it is now
> > > > revealed that you retype and quite possibly
> > > > deliberately misquote other people's postings.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah? A very reasonable conclusion on the
> > > firm basis of a single spurious letter. Such
> > > serious claims need more serious evidence.
> >
> > Then how did the extra m get in there?
>
> No idea[1]. It does not matter. What's important
> is that you supposed ill will upon clearly insuffi-
> cient basis.
> ____________________
> 1. It could be that I mispalced the cursor in the
> quoted text and started typing, mangling your
> word "Hemingway," which I then miscorrected to
> "Hemmingway."

As you have been told many times, your incessant meddling with formatting --
by inserting hyphens in order to achieve miniature, right-justified columns
in the mono-spaced font that hardly anyone sees -- is offensive.

And here you see a consequence of it.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <f73cda62-0e07-45f6...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> > Then how did the extra m get in there?

>> No idea[1]. It does not matter. What's important
>> is that you supposed ill will upon clearly insuffi-
>> cient basis.
>> ____________________
>> 1. It could be that I mispalced the cursor in the
>> quoted text and started typing, mangling your
>> word "Hemingway," which I then miscorrected to
>> "Hemmingway."

>As you have been told many times, your incessant meddling with formatting --
>by inserting hyphens in order to achieve miniature, right-justified columns
>in the mono-spaced font that hardly anyone sees -- is offensive.
>
>And here you see a consequence of it.

A consequence so trivial that you shouldn't care about it.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

I shouldn't care that he retypes quotations and tries to disguise that fact?

[Richard Tobin]

In article <045207cf-c6c8-4574...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <f73cda62-0e07-45f6...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> > Then how did the extra m get in there?
>> >> No idea[1]. It does not matter. What's important
>> >> is that you supposed ill will upon clearly insuffi-
>> >> cient basis.
>> >> ____________________
>> >> 1. It could be that I mispalced the cursor in the
>> >> quoted text and started typing, mangling your
>> >> word "Hemingway," which I then miscorrected to
>> >> "Hemmingway."
>> >As you have been told many times, your incessant meddling with formatting --
>> >by inserting hyphens in order to achieve miniature, right-justified columns
>> >in the mono-spaced font that hardly anyone sees -- is offensive.
>> >
>> >And here you see a consequence of it.
>>
>> A consequence so trivial that you shouldn't care about it.
>
>I shouldn't care that he retypes quotations and tries to disguise that fact?

That's right (supposing it's true).

-- Richard

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter T. Daniels:
(pretending to quote me)

> but it's Hemmingway who showed the way to con-
> temporary American style.

I did not misspell "Hemingway," so it is now re-
vealed that you retype and quite possibly delib-

erately misquote other people's postings.

Anton Shepelev:

Oh yeah? A very reasonable conclusion on the

firm basis of a single spurious letter. Such se-

rious claims need more serious evidence.

Peter T. Daniels:

Then how did the extra m get in there?

Anton Shepelev:
No idea[1]. It does not matter. What's impor-

tant is that you supposed ill will upon clearly

insufficient basis.

Peter T. Daniels:

As you have been told many times, your incessant
meddling with formatting -- by inserting hyphens
in order to achieve miniature, right-justified

columns in the mono-spaced font that hardly any-

one sees -- is offensive.

And here you see a consequence of it.

Your wording is deliberately misleading. First, you
are the only one in this group who keeps complaining
about my formatting, which you tried to hide under
the passive voice. Second, the attribution by a
parenthetical clause instead of by inidirect speech
connotes that what you say is not your humble per-
sonal opinion but Ultimate Truth and you are only
its channel into the mundante world. Third, you are
plain wrong in that "hardly anyone" reads this group
in a monospace font, but of course you never be-
laboured yourself to check it. Neither do you un-
derstand that plain text with hard line-breaks is
intended to be rendered in a monospace font.

Bickering about tiny unimportaint faults is appar-
ently more interesting to you than discussing "con-
temporary American style," or you are so loth to ac-
cept your mistakes that you prefer to derail the
conversation into the bog of piddling personal at-
tacks. I think you also do it when you have nothing
worthy to say on the subject.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yet you've never explained why you do it.

Let alone your deceptive (Brader-style) screwing with the attributions:
because there are no levels of indentation (i.e. chevrons at the left),
it is impossible to determine the relations among the various excerpts.

It makes your postings _very_ hard to read and thus easy to dismiss.

> which you tried to hide under
> the passive voice. Second, the attribution by a
> parenthetical clause instead of by inidirect speech
> connotes that what you say is not your humble per-
> sonal opinion but Ultimate Truth and you are only
> its channel into the mundante world. Third, you are
> plain wrong in that "hardly anyone" reads this group
> in a monospace font, but of course you never be-
> laboured yourself to check it. Neither do you un-
> derstand that plain text with hard line-breaks is
> intended to be rendered in a monospace font.
>
> Bickering about tiny unimportaint faults is appar-
> ently more interesting to you than discussing "con-
> temporary American style," or you are so loth to ac-
> cept your mistakes that you prefer to derail the
> conversation into the bog of piddling personal at-
> tacks. I think you also do it when you have nothing
> worthy to say on the subject.

There's no point in discussing "'contemporary American style'" with you since
you think Bierce is the epigone and you've never heard of Hemingway (let
alone the subsequent near-century of literature after his revolutionary
achievements).

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter T. Daniels:
> Anton Shepelev:

> > Peter T. Daniels:
> >
> > > As you have been told many times, your inces-

> > > sant meddling with formatting -- by inserting
> > > hyphens in order to achieve miniature, right-
> > > justified columns in the mono-spaced font that

> > > hardly anyone sees -- is offensive.
> >

> > Your wording is deliberately misleading. First,
> > you are the only one in this group who keeps

> > complaining about my formatting, which you tried

> > to hide under the passive voice.
>

> Yet you've never explained why you do it.

Yet you keep changing the subject and bringing up
new and unrelated questions that, one thinks, you
may avoid answering the opponent's counter-argu-
ments. Have you been watching American talk-shows
too much, or do you want me to jump around like a
mad kangaroo that you may have the upper hand
through my mere exhaustion? This way you can ask of
me a million questions one at a time yet never pay
heed my own ones.

> Let alone your deceptive (Brader-style) screwing
> with the attributions: because there are no levels

> of indentation (i.e. chevrons at the left), ->

Yet you will not let it alone, will you?

Mark's convention is actually a good one because it
replaces a deeply nested structure with a linear
one, which in a clear way shows which line belongs
to whom. This is exactly how plays are formatted,
of which you no doubt have read enough to have used
youself to the convention. Imagine any extended di-
alogue or polylogue formatted according to the stan-
dard Usenet and e-mail structuring and you shall see
what a nighmare it would be. The chevrons are OK
for at most three levels, and beyond that they be-
come messy and confused because the attributions re-
move father and farther from the corresponding pas-
sages.

> -> it is impossible to determine the relations
> among the various excerpts.

Do you share the superstition that 'between' works
only for two elements? Whereas it is true that it
originates from 'twain', that in no way prevents us
from applying 'between' to a Cartesian product, or a
set of pairs, or a binary relation.

> It makes your postings _very_ hard to read and
> thus easy to dismiss.

But you will not dismiss them but will scrutinize
them thuroughly for trifling errors.

> > Second, the attribution by a parenthetical
> > clause instead of by inidirect speech connotes

> > that what you say is not your humble personal

> > opinion but Ultimate Truth and you are only its
> > channel into the mundante world. Third, you are
> > plain wrong in that "hardly anyone" reads this
> > group in a monospace font, but of course you

> > never belaboured yourself to check it. Neither
> > do you understand that plain text with hard

> > line-breaks is intended to be rendered in a
> > monospace font.
> >

> > Bickering about tiny unimportaint faults is ap-
> > parently more interesting to you than discussing
> > "contemporary American style," or you are so
> > loth to accept your mistakes that you prefer to

> > derail the conversation into the bog of piddling

> > personal attacks. I think you also do it when

> > you have nothing worthy to say on the subject.
>
> There's no point in discussing "'contemporary

> American style'" with you ->

Ungentlemanly ignoring all my arguments again.

> -> since you think Bierce is the epigone ->

A gross lie.

> -> and you've never heard of Hemingway ->

A crass lie.

> (let alone the subsequent near-century of litera-
> ture ->

A blatant lie.

> after his revolutionary achievements).

You brand yourself as totally ignorant of his "revo-
lutionary achievements" in the way of writing style
because you avoid saying what they are.

[Jack Campin]

A: | ========= quoting Peter T. Daniels: ========= | * Peter
n: | As you have been told many times, your inces- | * is
t: | sant meddling with formatting -- by inserting | * wrong
o: | hyphens in order to achieve miniature, right- | * about
n: | justified columns in the mono-spaced font that | * the
: | hardly anyone sees -- is offensive. | * fixed
S: | ========= end quote Peter T. Daniels ========= | * width
h: * font -
e: -----------------> Your wording is deliberately * I
p: --------------------> misleading. First, you * use
e: -----------------------> are the only one in * it
l: --------------------------> this group who keeps * too -
e: -----------------------------> complaining about * but
v: --------------------------------> my formatting * I've
* complained
* about
* your
* clever
* dick
* formatting
* as
* well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Anton Shepelev]

Jack Campin:

> A: | ========= quoting Peter T. Daniels: ========= | * Peter
> n: | As you have been told many times, your inces- | * is
> t: | sant meddling with formatting -- by inserting | * wrong
> o: | hyphens in order to achieve miniature, right- | * about
> n: | justified columns in the mono-spaced font that | * the
> : | hardly anyone sees -- is offensive. | * fixed
> S: | ========= end quote Peter T. Daniels ========= | * width
> h: * font -
> e: -----------------> Your wording is deliberately * I
> p: --------------------> misleading. First, you * use
> e: -----------------------> are the only one in * it
> l: --------------------------> this group who keeps * too -
> e: -----------------------------> complaining about * but
> v: --------------------------------> my formatting * I've
> * complained
> * about
> * your
> * clever
> * dick
> * formatting
> * as
> * well.

That's nice, albeit exagerrated. Yes, I remember there
were others but Peter is the most insistent. Note that
I wrote "keep complaining" instead of "complains".

Is it the inability to rewrap my messages that bothers
you?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 10:36:07 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:

> > -> it is impossible to determine the relations
> > among the various excerpts.
>
> Do you share the superstition that 'between' works
> only for two elements? Whereas it is true that it
> originates from 'twain', that in no way prevents us
> from applying 'between' to a Cartesian product, or a
> set of pairs, or a binary relation.

"Between" and "among" do not differ only in number.

> > It makes your postings _very_ hard to read and
> > thus easy to dismiss.
>
> But you will not dismiss them but will scrutinize
> them thuroughly for trifling errors.

How is ignoring the content not dismissing them?