Why should I expound on the ideas of what others say first?
Is there some rule that says I should mention what others say first?
Why should I read 1, 2, 3 to 10 pages of quotes to get to what some author
says?
It seems a character flaw/defect where an author seeks validation or
foundation and thru mention of what someone else says (as if they have
nothing to say on their own [just as wrong as if it were all revolving
around the author])......
Please compare these techniques to the writers of scam spam and other great
ficional works.
Why not just post what you want and be damned?
Zen
Perhaps he has a soul.
You remember when they said at school "if you've got nothing good to
say, don't say anything"? No? Well, you should have turned up that
day.
Zen
Which is why I have a certain respect for Palmer. He too failed to be
raped of personality, care of the education system.
Besides... a veteran Usenetter once said to me "You can be sure your post
wasn't completely worthless merely by fact of reply". I go with that,
mainly for purposes of convenience, but what the fuck? It's my show,
right?
"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e7da04d.03112...@posting.google.com...
> "MI6 U2" <for-my-e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<8PLub.49283$bQ3....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
> Why not just post what you want and be damned?
>
> Zen
"Seven Nation Amy" <seven_na...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9439B1392B6C3brokenwing@such-a-shame...
> gol...@hotmail.com
Or so you say just like any fool
> Besides... a veteran Usenetter once said to me "You can be sure your post
> wasn't completely worthless merely by fact of reply". I go with that,
you have to be kidding on the fifteen minutes of fame meter you don't even
register
> mainly for purposes of convenience, but what the fuck? It's my show,
a little full of ourselves aren't you?
> right?
WHY THE HECK SHOULD I FIRST QUOTE THE MESSAGE I AM REPLYING TO???
BECAUSE MOST OF THOSE RESPONSES WERE DEFUNTIONAL NON-RESPONSES!!