WRITERS! SHARE COMPUTER SCREENS AT BUDDYHELP.COM.
mat...@my-deja.com
Internet-based communications aid for computer users to share screens,
even if you’re miles apart. You can quickly and easily share screens
with a colleague to write and edit documents or help solve computer
problems. Visit www.buddyhelp.com with a colleague, connect and edit
simultaneously by sharing your desktops.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Neale Talbot
Noone replies but me, constantly telling you to stop posting.
Please do so.
-Neale
Prince Richard Kaminski
Neale Talbot wrote:
I rest my case for a moderated writing group.
Alan Hope
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in
article <379267D4...@lineone.net>...
> I rest my case for a moderated writing group.
You have no case for a moderated newsgroup, fuckhead. You coat-tailed
on the idea in mw after it was mentioned by someone else en passant,
and before it was taken up by people who've been down that road
before, and failed before, and hoped the climate had changed enough
in the interim to give the project some legs.
The case, since then, has been entirely made by others, as it's plain
to see you don't know your arse from your elbow. Your case, from what
I can see, consists in putting a flea in the ear of those not
well-disposed to the views you profess to support, while sucking up
to those who look to have gained possession of the ball. Later, for
reasons best known to yourself, but probably not a million miles away
from having been told more or less politely to shut the fuck up
before your personal obnoxiosity queers the pitch for everyone else,
then turn around and attack those who only moments before were your
best friends and bosom buddies.
Your only case for a moderated newsgroup is the faint hope someone
actually in charge will stop the bad boys from putting dirt from the
football pitch down the back of your collar and introducing members
of the slithering insect kingdom into your lunchtime sandwiches.
It bypasses your understanding, however, that the moment any
moderated, serious, focussed and what-have-you writing group is up
and running, you'll be the first casualty of the bouncers' door
policy. You've never had a serious word to say about any writing
topic, either here or there. All you do is snipe on the sidelines at
all and sundry, and whine like a cry-baby bedwetter when anyone comes
back at you with a well-aimed >slap<.
The thing about put-upon, tormented playground victims is, you see,
that no-one wants to bother setting up a place for them to feel safe.
A punchbag is a punchbag, and you wouldn't lock it in a cupboard
where no-one can punch it, now would you?
AH
Prince Richard Kaminski
Alan Hope wrote:
> fuckhead
Typical. This is the "freedom of speech" they value so much. "Freedom" to
be vulgar, "freedom" to insult, "freedom" to abuse, and "freedom" to
hurt.
In the words of a song, "freedom's just another word for nothing left to
lose". Clearly, Mr Hope has nothing left to lose other than his
vulgarity.
Alan Hope
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in
article <3793AD85...@lineone.net>...
> Alan Hope wrote:
> > fuckhead
> Typical. This is the "freedom of speech" they value so much.
"Freedom" to
> be vulgar, "freedom" to insult, "freedom" to abuse, and "freedom"
to
> hurt.
That's it in one. You don't need to protect the freedom of nice
speech, cos it isn't under threat. That's your moderated group, that
is.
> In the words of a song, "freedom's just another word for nothing
left to
> lose". Clearly, Mr Hope has nothing left to lose other than his
> vulgarity.
You call yourself a Prince but you're a shit-kicker under the
surface. Don't be quoting your country songs at me. I'm Rab C.
Nesbitt Glasgow scum-class. Country and western is our folk music.
AH
Flipper McKipper
Alan Hope wrote ...
[...]
> Don't be quoting your country songs at me. I'm Rab C.
> Nesbitt Glasgow scum-class. Country and western is our folk music.
Yeah, but how did that C&W thing happen? Got me flummoxed
Alan Hope
Flipper McKipper <fli...@kooks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<7n2u7h$gi9$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Alan Hope wrote ...
Ever listened to any real folk music? Ack.
Seems simple enough to me. C&W is the music of the low-down and
inexpressive. Note I'm not talking about any bona fide roots music in
the American country tradition, but of commercial Nashville, big-hair
and rhinestones. Wailing steel guitars, maudlin sentiment, the Patsy
Cline tear-stoked catch in the voice. No fucking banjoes, if you
please.
I think this is confined to Glasgow, though. Sidney Devine never
seemed to make much of an impression on the East Coast, or in rural
parts, such as there are. Paraphrasing the speech from The
Commitments, the Glasgow poor are the shitkickers of Europe. We'd be
trailer-trash, if you can imagine 20-storey stacked trailers.
AH
Flipper McKipper
Alan Hope wrote ...
> Flipper McKipper wrote ...
> > Alan Hope wrote ...
> > > Don't be quoting your country songs at me. I'm Rab C.
> > > Nesbitt Glasgow scum-class. Country and western is our folk
music.
> > Yeah, but how did that C&W thing happen? Got me flummoxed
> Ever listened to any real folk music? Ack.
Hey, I'm a big real folk music fan! My uncle was a bona fide folkie
(on the Guthrie/Dylan model), whose biggest claim to fame was getting
arrested in Red Square (that's in Moscow, for the benefit of the
yanks) while singing a song about Yuri Gagarin (sp?) at an illegal CND
meet. Glory days.
> Seems simple enough to me. C&W is the music of the low-down and
> inexpressive. Note I'm not talking about any bona fide roots music
in
> the American country tradition, but of commercial Nashville,
big-hair
> and rhinestones. Wailing steel guitars, maudlin sentiment, the Patsy
> Cline tear-stoked catch in the voice. No fucking banjoes, if you
> please.
Hangs head in shameful recognition
> I think this is confined to Glasgow, though. Sidney Devine never
> seemed to make much of an impression on the East Coast, or in rural
> parts, such as there are.
Ah, simply Devine. Is he still alive and crooning down in Ayr?
> Paraphrasing the speech from The
> Commitments, the Glasgow poor are the shitkickers of Europe. We'd be
> trailer-trash, if you can imagine 20-storey stacked trailers.
How sad. How true. I'm forced to agree. Thank you. But I wish I hadn't
asked.
Edwin J Noonan
Alan Hope wrote...
[...]
> I think this is confined to Glasgow, though. Sidney Devine never
> seemed to make much of an impression on the East Coast, or in rural
> parts, such as there are. Paraphrasing the speech from The
> Commitments, the Glasgow poor are the shitkickers of Europe. We'd be
> trailer-trash, if you can imagine 20-storey stacked trailers.
20-storey stacked trailers? Good thing you guys don't have tornadoes.
EJN
PButler111
>inexpressive. Note I'm not talking about any bona fide roots music in
>the American country tradition, but of commercial Nashville, big-hair
>and rhinestones. Wailing steel guitars, maudlin sentiment, the Patsy
>Cline tear-stoked catch in the voice. No fucking banjoes, if you
>please.
You're calling Patsy Cline "inexpressive"??? Holy shit!
Alan Hope
PButler111 <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990722105953...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
Er, no. The people who listen to her are the inexpressive ones. Hence
the desire, need even, for the ersatz, cloying sentimentality, which
stands in for real expression. Not that it isn't brilliant ersatz
cloying sentimentality, of course. Don't get me wrong.
AH
Prince Richard Kaminski
Alan Hope wrote:
> PButler111 <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in article
>
> > You're calling Patsy Cline "inexpressive"??? Holy shit!
>
> Er, no. The people who listen to her are the inexpressive ones.
You mean like PButler666?
> Hence
> the desire, need even, for the ersatz, cloying sentimentality, which
> stands in for real expression.
Why do you think PButler666 is unable to indulge in real expression? Is
it genetic?
PButler111
>the desire, need even, for the ersatz, cloying sentimentality, which
>cloying sentimentality, of course. Don't get me wrong.
>
>AH
>
Alan, you disappoint me. This is rather surprising bullshit coming from you.
I know quite a number of extremely creative, artistic, "expressive" people who
appreciate Patsy Cline's immense talent and listen to her recordings on
occasion. It's so dumb to try to fit people into rigid categories like this,
though maybe I'm guilty of it as well as I categorized you as someone too
intelligent to do so.
Jabelson1
>who
>appreciate Patsy Cline's immense talent and listen to her recordings on
>occasion.
And even some truck drivers -- those scum! I bet a few people in trailer parks
listen as well...
Alan Hope
PButler111 <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990722205538...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
> >Er, no. The people who listen to her are the inexpressive ones.
Hence
> >the desire, need even, for the ersatz, cloying sentimentality,
which
> >stands in for real expression. Not that it isn't brilliant ersatz
> >cloying sentimentality, of course. Don't get me wrong.
> Alan, you disappoint me. This is rather surprising bullshit coming
from you.
> I know quite a number of extremely creative, artistic, "expressive"
people who
> appreciate Patsy Cline's immense talent and listen to her
recordings on
> occasion. It's so dumb to try to fit people into rigid categories
like this,
> though maybe I'm guilty of it as well as I categorized you as
someone too
> intelligent to do so.
Bah. My first PButler flame and look how half-hearted it is. Still,
it's an end to my virginity, so mustn't complain.
Let me just check to see where I wrote "only" the inexpressive listen
to Patsy Cline ... hmm ... nope, no sign of it.
Of course your artistic friends appreciate Patsy, as I do myself,
being all the things you note above. But the fact remains they're -
we're - slumming. People who have difficulty with emotions will
always prefer them served in huge portions, like Sweet Dreams. Others
may appreciate the artistry, in a po-mo irony kind of way, but that
doesn't change the fact that it's music for making you cry in your
beer. Preferably your seventeenth.
AH
Alan Hope
Jabelson1 <jabe...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990722210350...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
> >I know quite a number of extremely creative, artistic,
"expressive" people
> >who
> >appreciate Patsy Cline's immense talent and listen to her
recordings on
> >occasion.
> And even some truck drivers -- those scum! I bet a few people in
trailer parks
> listen as well...
Read the rest of the thread, if you don't mind. See where this all
started from. You're pushing at an open door.
AH
Edwin J Noonan
Alan Hope wrote...
> Bah. My first PButler flame and look how half-hearted it is. Still,
> it's an end to my virginity, so mustn't complain.
Does it hurt?
EJN
PButler111
>it's an end to my virginity, so mustn't complain.
There's a big difference between flaming and disagreeing. If I was hoping to
flame you my reply would've been more along the lines of FUCK YOU, YOU SUCKING
CUNT! That wasn't my intention, however.
>Let me just check to see where I wrote "only" the inexpressive listen
>to Patsy Cline ... hmm ... nope, no sign of it.
Really? You wrote "The people who listen to her are the inexpressive ones."
You didn't write "some of the people" or in any other way qualify the
statement.
>Of course your artistic friends appreciate Patsy, as I do myself,
>being all the things you note above. But the fact remains they're -
>we're - slumming. People who have difficulty with emotions will
>always prefer them served in huge portions, like Sweet Dreams.
I don't know about that. I like "Sweet Dreams." I also like "Crazy," whether
sung by Cline or kd lang.
Others
>may appreciate the artistry, in a po-mo irony kind of way, but that
>doesn't change the fact that it's music for making you cry in your
>beer. Preferably your seventeenth.
>
>AH
Nothing wrong with that. Still doesn't make you inexpressive -- quite the
opposite.
Prince Richard Kaminski
PButler111 wrote:
> Alan, you disappoint me. This is rather surprising bullshit coming from you.
For some of us, it's not in the least surprising.
> It's so dumb to try to fit people into rigid categories like this,
> though maybe I'm guilty of it as well as I categorized you as someone too
> intelligent to do so.
Your mistake, Patricia, but never mind. I trust you won't repeat it.
Alan Hope
Edwin J Noonan <ejno...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<7n9a7h$i5o$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Alan Hope wrote...
> > Bah. My first PButler flame and look how half-hearted it is.
Still,
> > it's an end to my virginity, so mustn't complain.
> Does it hurt?
Not as much as you said it would. Show the people that interesting
swelling.
AH
Alan Hope
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in
article <3798AB8D...@lineone.net>...
> PButler111 wrote:
Are you going to append this sort of asinine remark to every post you
come across that doesn't give you an immediate opportunity for crying
about how the world is trying to knock you down?
You know, the non-contributory wise-crack is an acceptable form of
post, and you'll notice it's used all the time by all sorts of
people. But it's really only worth doing, Richard, if it's witty, or
humorous, or clever.
Anyway, don't you have to be over in misc.writing, gathering up the
shreds of your dignity?
AH
Alan Hope
PButler111 <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990723093544...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
> >Bah. My first PButler flame and look how half-hearted it is.
Still,
> >it's an end to my virginity, so mustn't complain.
> There's a big difference between flaming and disagreeing. If I was
hoping to
> flame you my reply would've been more along the lines of FUCK YOU,
YOU SUCKING
> CUNT! That wasn't my intention, however.
You coulda faked the intention and made an effort.
> >Let me just check to see where I wrote "only" the inexpressive
listen
> >to Patsy Cline ... hmm ... nope, no sign of it.
> Really? You wrote "The people who listen to her are the
inexpressive ones."
> You didn't write "some of the people" or in any other way qualify
the
> statement.
You're ripping me out of context, Patricia. I started off talking
about the Glasgow working class and their penchant for C&W. You bring
up your artistic, creative friends as some sort of rebuttal of my
observations. We're talking about two different things. The
qualification in my statement was in the context, see?
> >Of course your artistic friends appreciate Patsy, as I do myself,
> >being all the things you note above. But the fact remains they're
-
> >we're - slumming. People who have difficulty with emotions will
> >always prefer them served in huge portions, like Sweet Dreams.
> I don't know about that. I like "Sweet Dreams." I also like
"Crazy," whether
> sung by Cline or kd lang.
Is that another rebuttal? I don't see how. I say: "The emotionally
stunted will go for a big emotional song like Sweet Dreams". You say:
"But I like Sweet Dreams". And this means? That I'm wrong?
Doesn't work that way, does it? I'm not saying: "People who like
Sweet Dreams are emotionally stunted". You see the problem with the
conversion of universal affirmatives? All dolphins are sea-creatures,
but not all sea-creatures are dolphins.
> Others
> >may appreciate the artistry, in a po-mo irony kind of way, but
that
> >doesn't change the fact that it's music for making you cry in your
> >beer. Preferably your seventeenth.
> Nothing wrong with that. Still doesn't make you inexpressive --
quite the
> opposite.
No, it certainly doesn't. How fortunate I never claimed it did.
AH
Prince Richard Kaminski
Alan Hope wrote:
> You know, the non-contributory wise-crack is an acceptable form of
> post, and you'll notice it's used all the time by all sorts of
> people.
Non-contributory wisecrack? I don't think I'm familiar with this
art-form.
Alan Hope
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in
article <3798FD64...@lineone.net>...
> Alan Hope wrote:
Evidently.
AH
Prince Richard Kaminski
Alan Hope wrote:
Oh, did you mean *cheap* wisecrack, like that one?
Alan Hope
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in
article <379A3E81...@lineone.net>...
> Alan Hope wrote:
> > > Alan Hope wrote:
> > Evidently.
It's getting harder and harder to smart-arse at your expense,
Richard. You're giving me nothing to work with. No set-ups, no
straight lines, just these lame comebacks, like you thought for some
reason this was a tit-for-tat.
No. I didn't mean cheap wisecrack, and you should know better than to
call me on that category, of which I'm a seventh Dan with fucking oak
cluster. Cheap wisecracks may or may not include the wisecracks to
which I was referring, as well as many other sorts.
What's wrong with you? Shape up, for the luvva God.
AH