Dummies
acdouglas
The first group of high school seniors required to master the New York State
English Regents exam for graduation passed in remarkably high numbers,
according to scores released yesterday, with 97 percent of students statewide
and 95 percent in New York City passing.
But far fewer students - only about half in New York City - actually made it
to the senior year within the normal course of four years, and scores were
far lower among those who did not. Many students passed only because the
State Board of Regents has temporarily lowered the passing grade to 55[!]
from the traditional 65[!!] in the test's introductory years.
The percentage of seniors meeting the 65 mark was significantly lower: 83
statewide and 72 in New York City. Among all students who entered ninth grade
in September 1996, including those who did not make senior year in four
years, 75 percent statewide and 53 percent citywide passed the higher cutoff.
[ Full article is at: http://nytimes.com/2000/11/10/nyregion/10EXAM.html ]
------------------------------------------------
No wonder at the appalling ignorance of the generation.
Jabelson1
>No wonder at the appalling ignorance of the generation.
Horseshit - 50 years ago most people never made it TO high school - much less
finishing if they did. People went to work - certainly not college. Our biggest
problem is that we try to educate EVERYONE and expect EVERYONE to have the same
smarts... I saw on Fox a challenge for the "World's smartest Kid" These
children were amazing in their analytical skills, their knowledge of history
and their math skills. There biggest weakness seem to lay in their knowledge of
art and literature...
acdouglas
> [snipped - original post is below]
------------------------------------------------------
No, the difficulty is that public schools today are so intent on inculcating
in these dummies self-respect (think about that prima facie idiocy for a
moment) that all else either drops by the wayside, or drops so low that even
the village idiot can squeak under, and thereby feel good about himself.
*That's* "our biggest problem."
--
ACD
http://www.monmouth.com/~acdouglas
v---------------------- [original post] ----------------------v
"Jabelson1" <jabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001110064202...@ng-md1.aol.com...
acdouglas
> [snipped - original post is below]
------------------------------------------------------
[Let's try this again, and this time hit the right button (SAVE instead of
SEND). To wit:]
No, the difficulty is that public schools today are so intent on inculcating
in these dummies a feeling of self-worth (think about that prima facie idiocy
for a moment) that all else either drops by the wayside, or drops so low
that even the village idiot can hop over, and thereby feel good about
himself.
*That's* "our biggest problem."
[There. That's better. You can SEND is now, twit.]
--
ACD
http://www.monmouth.com/~acdouglas
v---------------------- [original post] ----------------------v
"acdouglas" <acdo...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:8ugnnq$of6$1...@news.monmouth.com...
Pat Marcello
> From the NYT - 10 Nov 2000
>
> The percentage of seniors meeting the 65 mark was significantly lower: 83
> statewide and 72 in New York City. Among all students who entered ninth
grade
> in September 1996, including those who did not make senior year in four
> years, 75 percent statewide and 53 percent citywide passed the higher
cutoff.
>
> [ Full article is at:
http://nytimes.com/2000/11/10/nyregion/10EXAM.html ]
>
Honestly. I have around 400 students, and do you know who some of the worst
ones are? Teachers. Elementary school teachers. They can't spell, write a
cogent sentence, and plot or characterization? Don't even go there.
I'm scared to death.
I realize my sampling is extremely low, but I can assure you, it's
frightening.
Then, there's my daughter's writing teacher. They're told to use tag
outrageous tag lines that would make you cringe to read them, and that the
second quotation mark in a line of dialogue follows the tag.
I almost lost it. We straightened that out. Thank God, I'm here to teach
my daughter proper grammar.
Oh, and they don't teach them to spell properly. It inhibits their
creativity. Puh-lease. I'm so fed up with this, I can't breathe.
--
Pat M. I'm hyperventilating, actually.
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com
How to Write a Killer Query
http://www.themestream.com/articles/203683.html
mule
<8ugo47$onr$1...@news.monmouth.com>:
> [Let's try this again, and this time hit the right button (SAVE instead of
> SEND). To wit:]
>
> [There. That's better. You can SEND is now, twit.]
You really don't need anyone else to make you look like a moron do
you? Oh well, time to spring for a more challenging enterprise.
mule
--
"jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule"
Bob Dylan
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Pat Marcello wrote:
You're not alone in such 'read it and weep' apnea! Somewhere along the
line our educational system took a mighty dive and, in my view, it has
yet to recover! Remember when the big plan was the 'new math' and it got
to the point that station managers were telling their weather folks to
use the Celsius scale whenever they spoke of tomorrow's weather in
Fahrenheit? Another farce gone by the boards which only managed to
confuse all and sundry even further.
Then it was a matter of unloading tried and true methods of mastering
the lingo. Why, for example, force some kid to 'parse' an English
sentence? And Pat, you are far from engaging in any guffaws here so much
as reality when you write that some teachers have no concern over things
like spelling, grammar rules et al since this [allegedly] 'interferes'
with the
students 'creativity.' So when John/Janeey writes, 'An thats how we
spend our sumer vacashun' , the teacher marvels that at least John/Janey
are at least 'motivated' to write something! Hmmmm.
Some moons ago I did a piece on the value of those oft criticized
paragraphs that various entities [including civil service, colleges,
private sector employers] give to their aspiring applicants. Most of the
washed and initiated knew that no-one really cared about themes such as
'what would you bring to this job if you were hired' or such gems as
'why do you feel uniquely qualified to work for us' because much of the
stuff would produce more or less standard responses.
What 'was' desired and thus sniffed out forthwith was an idea as to how
the applicant expressed themselves and then the peripheral [especially
if that part of the thing was given on-site and sans the Websters]
benefits of viewing spelling, grammar, flow, etc. Some of the results
were absolutely shocking. Such gross errors were made that it was
literally embarrassing to wade through the stuff. These were folks post
high school and indeed sheepskin holders to boot in some occupational
specialties and I was amazed at their collective manner of expression.
Just a few from what can be recalled. And 'sic' to boot
---
"We gone to visit the grand canion and the site was bresttaking"
"So I go "why should I go to collage" and my mother goes "because you
can get a better job" and then I go "your right Mom" and then I go to
the local junier collage [!] and here I am." [sic!]
That word 'go' is a word I find often permeates young folks and their
speech. "So I go, why, and she goes, why not, so I go like what's the
big deal and my friend Bill goes... ." Lordy!
Doc Tony
The 'answer'? Back to the basics! Before it's too late! Re-think the
alleged 'irrelevance' of English grammar 'rote memorizing and parsing
and application by-the-numbers' and 'enforced composition' , speech,
geography, civics et al which have pretty well been replaced by such
gems as 'sociological photography'; 'I Ching for Occidentals' ---as ad
hoc substitute for American History after 1865 or 'Pantomiming for Inner
Self-Expression' as the sub for European History. I mean who really
cares about what happened in 1066 or 1492 or 1620 or 1776 when the
emphasis 'should be' [!] on the world today a la the bromides of Malcolm
X
or an intense full semester study of the Starr Report and those juicy
Oval 'Orifice' tidbits.
And, of course, on the campus setting, there are always folks worth
knowing [?], like the late Allen Ginsberg as he contemplated his bung
hole along with visions of having sex with his mamma in re 'Kaddish' and
'Howl' where Stanford University, among others, rates Ginsberg's stuff
as bordering on the 'culturally magnificent.' But let's not forget art
too where the BVM's [Blessed Virgin Mary] image smeared with elephant
dung, blood and sundry animal parts is what passes [in the Brooklyn
Museum for the Fine Arts] for 'great 'expressive' art.' Sure.
Yeah, I know, 'Hey Doc....to each his/her own, you know.' Right. But
does that also mean the traditional classics [in all fields] and
exposure therein must be dumped in toto so as to pave the way for more
'relevant' [?] and 'cogent' [?] considerations? Hmmmm. :-(
Doc Tony
acdouglas
ACD
Alan Hope
>[There. That's better. You can SEND is now, twit.]
Nice edit, babe.
--
AH
mule
> Prudent move, little man.
Ooh, who can take the suspense?
impotent little spankard.
Animeg3282
>Horseshit - 50 years ago most people never made it TO high school - much less
>finishing if they did. People went to work - certainly not college. Our
>biggest
>problem is that we try to educate EVERYONE and expect EVERYONE to have the
>same
>smarts... I saw on Fox a challenge for the "World's smartest Kid" These
>children were amazing in their analytical skills, their knowledge of history
>and their math skills. There biggest weakness seem to lay in their knowledge
>of
>art and literature...
Also, he probably doesn't know about the different paths. There are technical
and university paths. Technical is for people who just want to get a job. They
get basic schooling and then some stuff in their job area. University is for
people who want to go to Memphis State(ok,ok. University of Memphis) :D That's
how the requirements are drawn, anyway. You can go to other Universities if you
do really good on the SAT or ACT,though :D Also, noone has funding for art, and
since college admission requires a lot of extracurriculars, no one has time for
literature.
Hana no Kaitou
Pledged to the Way of the Wimp
"Kero Kero!" Mimori, KeroKero Chime
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282 <---Fancy Lala Club! All better now!
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282/graduation.html <Graduation website.
Animeg3282
>[Let's try this again, and this time hit the right button (SAVE instead of
>SEND). To wit:]
>
>No, the difficulty is that public schools today are so intent on inculcating
>in these dummies a feeling of self-worth (think about that prima facie idiocy
>for a moment) that all else either drops by the wayside, or drops so low
>that even the village idiot can hop over, and thereby feel good about
>himself.
>
>*That's* "our biggest problem."
>
>[There. That's better. You can SEND is now, twit.]
Another problem is that classes can only move as fast as the stupidest person
in them. I'm not sure if that was true of schools before I was born.
Animeg3282
>Oh, and they don't teach them to spell properly. It inhibits their
>creativity. Puh-lease. I'm so fed up with this, I can't breathe.
>
Not in my school. I was really glad when they stopped spelling tests in 7th
grade. (although my overly grammar happy English teacher has decided to make
spelling tests out of vocaboulary tests!) If I was a person who made descisions
on this kind of thing, I'd make 3 classes out of English- Grammar, Writing, and
Literature. Grammar would be the only class required for everyone. The others
would only be semi-required(basically, only University pathers will have to do
them, since they're the only people becoming English teachers) They could
double up on say... Literature and (Formal, we already have creative) Writing
and get it over with in one year.
Animeg3282
>That word 'go' is a word I find often permeates young folks and their
>speech. "So I go, why, and she goes, why not, so I go like what's the
>big deal and my friend Bill goes... ." Lordy!
You used slang in your youth, eh? They use slang in theirs. English isn't a
dead langugue, I think.
>
>The 'answer'? Back to the basics! Before it's too late! Re-think the
>alleged 'irrelevance' of English grammar 'rote memorizing and parsing
>and application by-the-numbers'
Basically, the whole 'circle the adverb' thing in HS makes us all go "Fuck you,
we learned this in 5th grade! Now stop going over the same darn material!"
*sighs* Only one six weeks left until grammar is DONE!
>speech,
>geography, civics et al which have pretty well been replaced by such
>gems as 'sociological photography';
Geography and gov't are required and no one would have funding for that kind of
class. We (a rich school, even!) can barely get paint!
>'I Ching for Occidentals' ---as ad
>hoc substitute for American History after 1865
American History is required. *beams* <brag> I got an 102 in APUSH! </brag>
> 'Pantomiming for Inner
>Self-Expression' as the sub for European History.
European History isn't required.
>I mean who really
>cares about what happened in 1066 or 1492 or 1620 or 1776 when the
>emphasis 'should be' [!] on the world today a la the bromides of Malcolm
>X
What's wrong with Malcolm X? He was significant in History too.
>
>or an intense full semester study of the Starr Report and those juicy
>Oval 'Orifice' tidbits.
>
ewww.
> Right. But
>does that also mean the traditional classics [in all fields] and
>exposure therein must be dumped in toto so as to pave the way for more
>'relevant' [?] and 'cogent' [?] considerations? Hmmmm. :-(
Some fields are pretty useless anyway you slice it.
PButler111
>Subject: Re: Dummies
>From: "Michael Deegan" FOUR...@bigpond.com
>Date: 11/16/2000 3:05 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <eQXQ5.52663$e5.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
>
>In this 'person that writes' humble opinion,
>
>This world relies heavily on its 95% content of underachievers.
>Without them, who would work the supermarket check-outs?
>Who would stand in the drivethrough at the 'golden arches'?
>Where would the leaders of commerce and industry find someone to drive the
>forklift?
>How many executives can one corporation hold?
>Every writer would be a joy to read and hence, staid.
>The business proposal I write would not be successful as often because of
>the increased competition from literary competant opposition.
>
>I see it as the chiefs and indians syndrome, we risk a plethora of the
>former and lack of the latter.
>
>I trust this situation will remain as it is for the forseeable future as I
>have growing children and I would like them to have advantages in knowledge
>and skill over their peers. Long live the apathy of the masses.
>
>Michael C. Deegan.
Elizabeth Massie
Michael Deegan <FOUR...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eQXQ5.52663$e5.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> In this 'person that writes' humble opinion,
>
> This world relies heavily on its 95% content of underachievers.
> Without them, who would work the supermarket check-outs?
> Who would stand in the drivethrough at the 'golden arches'?
I would hardly call college students earning money to put themselves through
school via the avenue of the Golden Arches or supermarket check-outs
"underachievers." Nor would I call the retirees who are likewise employed
but are looking for a little extra cash "underachievers."
> Where would the leaders of commerce and industry find someone to drive the
> forklift?
Can you imagine that some who do menial work might do so to in order to
retain their mental energy which can, during free time, be spent on
thought-provoking creative endeavors - art, creative writing, photography,
perhaps even on inventions? I have a friend who is now a very successful
novelist who quit a high-stress and high-level job to labor for several
years as a janitor. This way, he didn't have to spend his prime work hours
at a mind-draining career and was able to use his mental energy toward a new
career - writing. He used the time while pushing a broom to create scenarios
for future novels, and it has paid off. Do you really think that every fork
lift driver is a slovenly creature with nothing in his/her mind but putting
one foot in front of the other as he/she goes through life?
> How many executives can one corporation hold?
> Every writer would be a joy to read and hence, staid.
> The business proposal I write would not be successful as often because of
> the increased competition from literary competant opposition.
>
> I see it as the chiefs and indians syndrome, we risk a plethora of the
> former and lack of the latter.
>
> I trust this situation will remain as it is for the forseeable future as I
> have growing children and I would like them to have advantages in
knowledge
> and skill over their peers.
Who is going to pay for their higher education? Wouldn't dream of letting
them flip burgers, I'm sure.
>Long live the apathy of the masses.
Just make sure you know who makes up the masses you're criticizing. You use
a pretty haughty janitorial broom to make those sweeping generalizations.
Elizabeth
>
> Michael C. Deegan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Michael Deegan
This world relies heavily on its 95% content of underachievers.
Without them, who would work the supermarket check-outs?
Who would stand in the drivethrough at the 'golden arches'?
Where would the leaders of commerce and industry find someone to drive the
forklift?
How many executives can one corporation hold?
Every writer would be a joy to read and hence, staid.
The business proposal I write would not be successful as often because of
the increased competition from literary competant opposition.
I see it as the chiefs and indians syndrome, we risk a plethora of the
former and lack of the latter.
I trust this situation will remain as it is for the forseeable future as I
have growing children and I would like them to have advantages in knowledge
and skill over their peers. Long live the apathy of the masses.
Michael C. Deegan.
Michael Deegan
>I would hardly call college students earning money to put themselves
through
>school via the avenue of the Golden Arches or supermarket check-outs
>"underachievers." Nor would I call the retirees who are likewise employed
>but are looking for a little extra cash "underachievers."
I was generalising. A quick survey at the local 'mart' reveals 38 check-out
operators with 2 attending some form of higher education.
>Do you really think that every fork
>lift driver is a slovenly creature with nothing in his/her mind but putting
>one foot in front of the other as he/she goes through life?
Do you really think that every fork lift driver is a slovenly creature
with nothing in his/her mind but putting one foot in front of the other as
he/she goes through life?
I repeat, I was generalising.
>Who is going to pay for their higher education? Wouldn't dream of letting
>them flip burgers, I'm sure.
Why, I assume I will pay for it and indeed, have already done so. I just
could not see someone else doing it. I was going to say,"What a silly
question." but I admit to there being many ways in this world and this view
of mine is locally based. Higher education is very expensive in this part of
the world so I put investments in place to cover the costs long before I
ever considered starting a family. A personal insurance policy so to speak.
I will look to my children to keep me in the style that I have become
accustomed to when the day of my fast approaching doterage arrives.
>Just make sure you know who makes up the masses you're criticizing. You use
>a pretty haughty janitorial broom to make those sweeping generalizations.
No, you misunderstand, I am not criticizing, I fully approve of how things
stand at present. You choose the word 'haughty', to me, that implies
arrogence. I prefer 'self-confident' myself, 'successful' also fits. I would
have thought the sheer nature of 'generalising' implies 'sweeping'. Specific
generalising seems a tad ironical.
As is any generalisation, there are exceptions and to them I say, "Good
luck." They are the leaders of yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Thank you for reading,
Michael C. Deegan
Michael Deegan
>You don't actually write for a living do you, Mike?
I would suggest that business proposals, contracts, cheques, receipts.. etc
do not write themselves. I 'write' (actually 'wrote', past tense as I
retired.) the aforementioned items to 'earn' a living. Does that meet your
criteria? I would think not.
I have an ambition to write fiction and so I lurk here to learn. In amongst
all the pearls of wisdom that are to be found here, I find the occasional
grain of sand to add to my humble castle. I will toss an occasional opinion
adrift simply to enjoy seeing the many varied responses. I have learned much
here. I am learning the difference between a flame and a lame. I now know
how to down load an MP3. I know AOL is not highly thought of by a good many
people. I know it's a hell of a lot less brain deadening then the TV. Write
on, good people, the world cries out for more <user input required>.
I think I am supposed to <flounce> at this point but will await confirmation
from those with far more knowledge on this most elegant of exits than I.
Michael C. Deegan
Absolute indifference yet remains, unconsidered.
acdouglas
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
PButler111
>Message-id: <nB2R5.52863$e5.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
Okay, the answer is "no." Thanks. I didn't think so. Your writing really
sucks.
Alan Hope
[nothing]
Tongue-tied little semaphorist.
--
AH
Michael Deegan
>Okay, the answer is "no." Thanks. I didn't think so. Your writing really
>sucks.
I really do appreciate the replies. My writing is like your manners, each
has room for improvement. I *am* attempting to improve my writing skills.
I still thank you for your reply,
Michael C. Deegan
Anopheles
"Michael Deegan" wrote:
Listen, sport, I can't see a fellow Aussie being mauled and standing there
looking dumbstruck. If this group were alt.dogs, you would have just been
attacked by the local equvalent of a pitbull. This is as much a hazard here
as it is downunder with white pointers, funnel webs and Queensland
politicians. The difference is that, here, the pitbull often offers useful
advice with the mauling.
Now, put some Dettol on those wounds and rest easy.
Anopheles
Michael Deegan
If this group were alt.dogs, you would have just been
attacked by the local equvalent of a pitbull.
If it was alt.money, the local equvalent of a penny may have dropped.
Sorry about ya pitbull mista, musta bin sompin it ate.
Michael C Deegan
Dr Zen
anime...@aol.compelsia (Animeg3282) wrote:
> Pat said:
>
> >Oh, and they don't teach them to spell properly. It inhibits their
> >creativity. Puh-lease. I'm so fed up with this, I can't breathe.
> >
>
> Not in my school. I was really glad when they stopped spelling tests
in 7th
> grade. (although my overly grammar happy English teacher has decided
to make
> spelling tests out of vocaboulary tests!)
Spelling tests have their place. Communication depends on a shared code.
> If I was a person who made descisions
> on this kind of thing, I'd make 3 classes out of English- Grammar,
Writing, and
> Literature. Grammar would be the only class required for everyone.
What would it consist of?
Do you mean formal grammar? Or something with a bit broader meaning -
perhaps Chomskyan transformational grammar?
Grammar, as such, is the last thing I would teach kids.
> The others
> would only be semi-required(basically, only University pathers will
have to do
> them, since they're the only people becoming English teachers)
Do you know what it makes you sound like, Hana, to suggest that only
those who wish to become English teachers ought to, or need to, be
exposed to Literature?
> They could
> double up on say... Literature and (Formal, we already have creative)
Writing
> and get it over with in one year.
Get it over with? Being able to write fluently opens doors. The ability
to use language is, for most of us, the key to better jobs, to
prosperity, to everything in our world. You want to keep the dummies
dumb.
Zen
Dr Zen
"Elizabeth Massie" <iri...@intelos.net> wrote:
>
> Michael Deegan <FOUR...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:eQXQ5.52663$e5.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > This world relies heavily on its 95% content of underachievers.
> > Without them, who would work the supermarket check-outs?
> > Who would stand in the drivethrough at the 'golden arches'?
>
through
> school via the avenue of the Golden Arches or supermarket check-outs
> "underachievers."
And do you truly believe that those form the bulk of the employees of
Maccas and supermarkets? It might look like it from where you're
sitting, Liz, but I don't believe Maccas only exploit students.
> Nor would I call the retirees who are likewise employed
> but are looking for a little extra cash "underachievers."
Retirees? No way. Because of Australia's obsolete employment laws,
Maccas can employ teens on much lower wages than it would have to pay
older workers. They don't bother with anyone over 21 if they can help
it.
> > Where would the leaders of commerce and industry find someone to
drive the
> > forklift?
>
> Can you imagine that some who do menial work might do so to in order
to
> retain their mental energy which can, during free time, be spent on
> thought-provoking creative endeavors - art, creative writing,
photography,
> perhaps even on inventions?
Well, yes. There are some who slum it, do a "Macjob" to keep body and
soul together and pursue their life's work.
The other 99 guys driving forklifts don't have the luxury, and if they
had had the breaks, the education and the luck of the guys slumming it,
they wouldn't be driving forklifts, they'd be running the warehouse.
> I have a friend who is now a very successful
> novelist who quit a high-stress and high-level job to labor for
several
> years as a janitor. This way, he didn't have to spend his prime work
hours
> at a mind-draining career and was able to use his mental energy
toward a new
> career - writing.
That's admirable but that's one case.
> He used the time while pushing a broom to create scenarios
> for future novels, and it has paid off. Do you really think that
every fork
> lift driver is a slovenly creature with nothing in his/her mind but
putting
> one foot in front of the other as he/she goes through life?
If 'every' is the key word then you know the answer is no. But in that
case why ask the question?
Liz, I've worked the forklifts. Let me tell you, the authors in hiding
are far outnumbered by those who have been shafted by the world and are
suited for nothing beyond the forklift - or so they've been told and
they believe it.
> >Long live the apathy of the masses.
>
> Just make sure you know who makes up the masses you're criticizing.
You use
> a pretty haughty janitorial broom to make those sweeping
generalizations.
Your case is so weak that it's a joke. Had you made it on practically
any other grounds I could have fully supported it.
nancy
alt.writing I see little dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen) saying:
>Grammar, as such, is the last thing I would teach kids.
>
i wish they had focussed more on grammar in my earlier
years. they did rely more heavily on literature, and
a bit on composition. they doubtless expected us to
pick up the grammar from reading the literature and
from getting our essays corrected and returned to us.
except while we may have absorbed the grammar from reading,
we didn't know *why* we were to write the way they wrote,
and when people broke the rules for "art's sake", we
didn't know it.
and the teachers focussed more on grading the style and
content, and not the grammar and punctuation; it took me
until i was in my thirties to learn how to use semicolons
properly.
i recently had an argument with a friend over the proper use
of the subjunctive in subject-verb agreement.
i *knew* that the correct, formal way to express oneself
conditionally was,
"if i were ..."
and he insisted that "if i was ..." was equally
acceptable, and was, in fact, *more* correct.
since i did not even know the term for what i was trying
to express, i had no way to look it up.
i finally resorted to e-mailing another friend, one who
is rather pedantic about grammar, and asking her.
she supplied the word for which i was searching, and
i was able to go read up on it.
i discovered, to my horror, that because many people have
broken that "rule" in the past, it is now becoming
acceptable to use "if i was ..."
i just can't do it. i cannot say "if i was ..."
grammar is important, in school. i regret that teachers
are not stressing it enough.
--
n
A pat on the back is only a few centimeters from a kick in the
butt.
Dr Zen
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Tell me, tell me, tell me who. In
> alt.writing I see little dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen) saying:
>
> >Grammar, as such, is the last thing I would teach kids.
> >
>
> i wish they had focussed more on grammar in my earlier
> years.
Why? You're a fluent and capable writer, Nancy. What good would it have
done?
Expression is more important than formal grammar.
> they did rely more heavily on literature, and
> a bit on composition. they doubtless expected us to
> pick up the grammar from reading the literature and
> from getting our essays corrected and returned to us.
English grammar isn't difficult. The minutiae are tricky but, for most,
unimportant.
> except while we may have absorbed the grammar from reading,
> we didn't know *why* we were to write the way they wrote,
> and when people broke the rules for "art's sake", we
> didn't know it.
Do you think it would have improved your understanding *at that time*?
> and the teachers focussed more on grading the style and
> content, and not the grammar and punctuation; it took me
> until i was in my thirties to learn how to use semicolons
> properly.
That was a joke, right? Tell me it was. You don't *really* think you
used that semicolon correctly? That was a Jervis semicolon.
When they were marking you for 'style', that is when they were
considering your grammar - what you could call the 'rules', which are
important. You are lamenting the lack of education in what I have
called the minutiae.
> i recently had an argument with a friend over the proper use
> of the subjunctive in subject-verb agreement.
Jesus. The 'subjunctive' - if we mean the tense (or mood, whichever you
prefer) used in Romance languages - doesn't exist in English. Please,
no technical arguments from the amateur grammarians. English uses a
cobbled-together system of aspect and mood to convey subjunctives.
> i *knew* that the correct, formal way to express oneself
> conditionally was,
>
> "if i were ..."
Not a subjunctive, as such (you could call it the 'subjunctive
conditional' if you wished, but it's a relic, a fossil).
> and he insisted that "if i was ..." was equally
> acceptable, and was, in fact, *more* correct.
No, it isn't, but not because of 'subjunctives'. It's a convention in
modern English that we use 'If I were' for (impossible) optatives.
So, 'If I were a rich man...' (but I am not, and not by choice, at this
time).
'If I was there' (I could have been but was not).
>
> since i did not even know the term for what i was trying
> to express, i had no way to look it up.
Why was it important? What was the context, anyway? Your friend might
have been right. 'If I was/were' is as difficult as 'as if/though'.
> i finally resorted to e-mailing another friend, one who
> is rather pedantic about grammar, and asking her.
>
> she supplied the word for which i was searching, and
> i was able to go read up on it.
What word did she supply?
> i discovered, to my horror, that because many people have
> broken that "rule" in the past, it is now becoming
> acceptable to use "if i was ..."
Why horror? The 'rules' change.
You don't use a case system in English, outside of the pronouns. You
might be thankful for that.
> i just can't do it. i cannot say "if i was ..."
That's cool. In ten years you will be wrong.
> grammar is important, in school.
Knowing the word for the difference between 'if I was' and 'if I were'
is of no importance whatsoever in using them correctly. Formal grammar
tends to confuse the issue. You don't need to know the difference
between 'nominative' and 'accusative' to know that 'I' and 'me' have
different uses. We don't speak Latin.
> i regret that teachers
> are not stressing it enough.
I always took you for a liberal. Obviously not, in education at least.
nancy
alt.writing I see little dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen) saying:
>In article <8FF04FEE...@24.1.240.74>,
> na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
>> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Tell me, tell me, tell me who.
>> In alt.writing I see little dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen)
>> saying:
>>
>> >Grammar, as such, is the last thing I would teach kids.
>> >
>>
>> i wish they had focussed more on grammar in my earlier
>> years.
>
>Why? You're a fluent and capable writer, Nancy. What good would
>it have done?
taught me the rules so that i understood what i was
doing, why i was doing it, and when to break them
with effect.
now, when i break them, it's usually because i'm
ignorant.
i don't like being ignorant.
>
>Expression is more important than formal grammar.
*shurgs*
>
>> they did rely more heavily on literature, and
>> a bit on composition. they doubtless expected us to
>> pick up the grammar from reading the literature and
>> from getting our essays corrected and returned to us.
>
>English grammar isn't difficult. The minutiae are tricky but,
>for most, unimportant.
>
>> except while we may have absorbed the grammar from reading,
>> we didn't know *why* we were to write the way they wrote,
>> and when people broke the rules for "art's sake", we
>> didn't know it.
>
>Do you think it would have improved your understanding *at that
>time*?
i used to be an extremely intelligent person. yes.
at that time, it would have improved my understanding.
>
>> and the teachers focussed more on grading the style and
>> content, and not the grammar and punctuation; it took me
>> until i was in my thirties to learn how to use semicolons
>> properly.
>
>That was a joke, right? Tell me it was. You don't *really* think
>you used that semicolon correctly? That was a Jervis semicolon.
<g> i cannot resist; it's my inner bitch.
>
>When they were marking you for 'style', that is when they were
>considering your grammar - what you could call the 'rules',
>which are important. You are lamenting the lack of education in
>what I have called the minutiae.
no, no, the "style" was the way i expressed myself ... the
words i chose, the abundance of adjectives. i had the
same english teacher throughout all of high school. i
was in the honors program, what they call "AP" today. same
teacher, "Old Fang". she had this love-affair with
rich description, pregnant text. the more descriptive
you were, the more likely your grade would be high.
grammar be damned -- just pile on the adjectives and
adverbs, baby!
why was it important? oh, it was mostly a joke. another
friend had e-mailed the two of us, telling us about
a web site he had designed. he cautioned me not to
critique it (i tend to "help" him out by pointing out
errors). i got a little cheeky. the other friend
was effusive in his praise, and then used the
"<something something something>, if i was not a god."
of course he's NOT a god. so i, in my "critique"
mode still, responded, "ITYMTS "if i *were* not a god,
HTH, HAND."
then the discussion ensued. it was more in the
way of exchanging banter. he hates to be shown up.
>
>> i finally resorted to e-mailing another friend, one who
>> is rather pedantic about grammar, and asking her.
>>
>> she supplied the word for which i was searching, and
>> i was able to go read up on it.
>
>What word did she supply?
"subjunctive"
>
>> i discovered, to my horror, that because many people have
>> broken that "rule" in the past, it is now becoming
>> acceptable to use "if i was ..."
>
>Why horror? The 'rules' change.
i know. i am being facetious.
>
>You don't use a case system in English, outside of the pronouns.
>You might be thankful for that.
>
>> i just can't do it. i cannot say "if i was ..."
>
>That's cool. In ten years you will be wrong.
>
>> grammar is important, in school.
>
>Knowing the word for the difference between 'if I was' and 'if I
>were' is of no importance whatsoever in using them correctly.
>Formal grammar tends to confuse the issue. You don't need to
>know the difference between 'nominative' and 'accusative' to
>know that 'I' and 'me' have different uses. We don't speak
>Latin.
>
>> i regret that teachers
>> are not stressing it enough.
>
>I always took you for a liberal. Obviously not, in education at
>least.
er? a liberal? oh. my. no. not precisely. hard
to categorize me, since there are so many aspects to
life. can't plunk me into any one bucket, i'm afraid.
although, now that i've given my boobs to UV, i'd
fit a bit better. put my boobs in one bucket, my
ass in another. i suppose i could dunk my head into
a third.
i believe that education should lay the foundation to
enable people to make *informed* decisions, including
decisions on how to express themselves verbally.
--
n
Documentation is the castor oil of programming. Managers know it
must be good because the programmers hate it so much.
Dr Zen
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Tell me, tell me, tell me who. In
> alt.writing I see little dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen) saying:
>
> >In article <8FF04FEE...@24.1.240.74>,
> > na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> >> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Tell me, tell me, tell me who.
> >> In alt.writing I see little dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen)
> >> saying:
> >>
> >> >Grammar, as such, is the last thing I would teach kids.
> >> >
> >>
> >> i wish they had focussed more on grammar in my earlier
> >> years.
> >
> >Why? You're a fluent and capable writer, Nancy. What good would
> >it have done?
>
> taught me the rules so that i understood what i was
> doing, why i was doing it, and when to break them
> with effect.
You didn't understand what I was saying. Never mind. None of those
things rely on knowing formal grammar.
> now, when i break them, it's usually because i'm
> ignorant.
Underexperienced may be a better way to put it.
> i don't like being ignorant.
You'll have to learn to live with it, dear, since you do it so well.
> >
> >Expression is more important than formal grammar.
>
> *shurgs*
That's what she was groping towards saying, yes, but you can take that
thought to extremes. More important than doesn't mean 'important to the
exclusion of'.
> >> except while we may have absorbed the grammar from reading,
> >> we didn't know *why* we were to write the way they wrote,
> >> and when people broke the rules for "art's sake", we
> >> didn't know it.
> >
> >Do you think it would have improved your understanding *at that
> >time*?
>
> i used to be an extremely intelligent person. yes.
> at that time, it would have improved my understanding.
Really? Knowing *why* Melville used a semicolon would have improved
your understanding of Moby Dick?
That is utter shit.
I think you feel you missed out somehow. There is something others know
that you don't - something relatively easy to learn at that - and it
bites. It doesn't mean that it's important to know, though.
> >> and the teachers focussed more on grading the style and
> >> content, and not the grammar and punctuation; it took me
> >> until i was in my thirties to learn how to use semicolons
> >> properly.
> >
> >That was a joke, right? Tell me it was. You don't *really* think
> >you used that semicolon correctly? That was a Jervis semicolon.
>
> <g> i cannot resist; it's my inner bitch.
I don't think your inner bitch knows how to use semicolons. I don't
think your inner bitch likes admitting to a lack of knowledge. Your
inner bitch is thoroughly unappealing.
> >When they were marking you for 'style', that is when they were
> >considering your grammar - what you could call the 'rules',
> >which are important. You are lamenting the lack of education in
> >what I have called the minutiae.
>
> no, no, the "style" was the way i expressed myself
Hello? No one home?
> ... the
> words i chose, the abundance of adjectives. i had the
> same english teacher throughout all of high school. i
> was in the honors program, what they call "AP" today. same
> teacher, "Old Fang". she had this love-affair with
> rich description, pregnant text. the more descriptive
> you were, the more likely your grade would be high.
Yes, of course. I remember having a teacher just the same. Of course,
he was always pissed.
> grammar be damned -- just pile on the adjectives and
> adverbs, baby!
No. Not 'grammar be damned'. Grammar is nothing much to do with how
many adjectives you use. That's style!
> >> since i did not even know the term for what i was trying
> >> to express, i had no way to look it up.
> >
> >Why was it important? What was the context, anyway? Your friend
> >might have been right. 'If I was/were' is as difficult as 'as
> >if/though'.
>
> why was it important? oh, it was mostly a joke. another
> friend had e-mailed the two of us, telling us about
> a web site he had designed. he cautioned me not to
> critique it (i tend to "help" him out by pointing out
> errors). i got a little cheeky. the other friend
> was effusive in his praise, and then used the
> "<something something something>, if i was not a god."
That's not enough to be comprehensible. Sorry, I can't tell. You were
probably right.
> of course he's NOT a god.
"If I were not a god" could only be grammatical if he *was* a god (it's
his opinion that counts). That you don't know that shows your
understanding of the construction very clearly.
> so i, in my "critique"
> mode still, responded, "ITYMTS "if i *were* not a god,
> HTH, HAND."
'I wouldn't say that, if I was not a god' (I believe I am a god (god is
used metaphorically)) is fine. Try saying it out loud.
> then the discussion ensued. it was more in the
> way of exchanging banter. he hates to be shown up.
You didn't show him up though. From the little you've explained, your
argument is wrong, even if you are right in your original contention.
> >
> >> i finally resorted to e-mailing another friend, one who
> >> is rather pedantic about grammar, and asking her.
> >>
> >> she supplied the word for which i was searching, and
> >> i was able to go read up on it.
> >
> >What word did she supply?
>
> "subjunctive"
She was wrong to. If she knew her grammar, she'd've known better.
> >> i discovered, to my horror, that because many people have
> >> broken that "rule" in the past, it is now becoming
> >> acceptable to use "if i was ..."
> >
> >Why horror? The 'rules' change.
>
> i know. i am being facetious.
Oh.
> >> grammar is important, in school.
> >
> >Knowing the word for the difference between 'if I was' and 'if I
> >were' is of no importance whatsoever in using them correctly.
> >Formal grammar tends to confuse the issue. You don't need to
> >know the difference between 'nominative' and 'accusative' to
> >know that 'I' and 'me' have different uses. We don't speak
> >Latin.
> >
> >> i regret that teachers
> >> are not stressing it enough.
> >
> >I always took you for a liberal. Obviously not, in education at
> >least.
>
> er? a liberal? oh. my. no. not precisely. hard
> to categorize me, since there are so many aspects to
> life. can't plunk me into any one bucket, i'm afraid.
You know it's a broad label that you Yanks use. I only use it so that I
am talking your language. You know damn well what I meant by it, though.
> although, now that i've given my boobs to UV, i'd
> fit a bit better. put my boobs in one bucket, my
> ass in another. i suppose i could dunk my head into
> a third.
You'd need a fourth for the inner bitch.
> i believe that education should lay the foundation to
> enable people to make *informed* decisions, including
> decisions on how to express themselves verbally.
Will you fucking read that paragraph? 'Express themselves'.
Hello? 'Expression is more important than grammar.' Hello? Anyone in
there?
Nope, no one home.
Zen
>
> --
> n
>
> Documentation is the castor oil of programming. Managers know it
> must be good because the programmers hate it so much.
>
nancy
grammar is more than a semi-colon, ducks. but you
know that.
>
>I think you feel you missed out somehow. There is something
>others know that you don't - something relatively easy to learn
>at that - and it bites. It doesn't mean that it's important to
>know, though.
>
>> >> and the teachers focussed more on grading the style and
>> >> content, and not the grammar and punctuation; it took me
>> >> until i was in my thirties to learn how to use semicolons
>> >> properly.
>> >
>> >That was a joke, right? Tell me it was. You don't *really*
>> >think you used that semicolon correctly? That was a Jervis
>> >semicolon.
>>
>> <g> i cannot resist; it's my inner bitch.
>
>I don't think your inner bitch knows how to use semicolons. I
>don't think your inner bitch likes admitting to a lack of
>knowledge. Your inner bitch is thoroughly unappealing.
bite me.
>
>> >When they were marking you for 'style', that is when they
>> >were considering your grammar - what you could call the
>> >'rules', which are important. You are lamenting the lack of
>> >education in what I have called the minutiae.
>>
>> no, no, the "style" was the way i expressed myself
>
>Hello? No one home?
>
>> ... the
>> words i chose, the abundance of adjectives. i had the
>> same english teacher throughout all of high school. i
>> was in the honors program, what they call "AP" today. same
>> teacher, "Old Fang". she had this love-affair with
>> rich description, pregnant text. the more descriptive
>> you were, the more likely your grade would be high.
>
>Yes, of course. I remember having a teacher just the same. Of
>course, he was always pissed.
>
>> grammar be damned -- just pile on the adjectives and
>> adverbs, baby!
>
>No. Not 'grammar be damned'. Grammar is nothing much to do with
>how many adjectives you use. That's style!
which is, of course, what i was talking about. guess
you got lost in your own smartassed comments. the
teacher focussed on style, ignored grammar, i learned
some of the tricks, but not all of them, and am
now having to learn things late in life in order to
look *less* the ignoramus.
capice now, baby?
do i know how to use semi-colons? no. obviously.
which is *why*, o zen, i was deliberately misusing
them, thus proving that i don't know how, even after
quipping that i knew how now.
lord knows, i do the explanation thing rather a lot
and seem to like it but explaining my own humor to
a *brit* just doesn't feel right.
>
>> >> since i did not even know the term for what i was trying
>> >> to express, i had no way to look it up.
>> >
>> >Why was it important? What was the context, anyway? Your
>> >friend might have been right. 'If I was/were' is as difficult
>> >as 'as if/though'.
>>
>> why was it important? oh, it was mostly a joke. another
>> friend had e-mailed the two of us, telling us about
>> a web site he had designed. he cautioned me not to
>> critique it (i tend to "help" him out by pointing out
>> errors). i got a little cheeky. the other friend
>> was effusive in his praise, and then used the
>> "<something something something>, if i was not a god."
>
>That's not enough to be comprehensible. Sorry, I can't tell. You
>were probably right.
>
>> of course he's NOT a god.
>
>"If I were not a god" could only be grammatical if he *was* a
>god (it's his opinion that counts). That you don't know that
>shows your understanding of the construction very clearly.
it is backasswards.
"if i were a god, i'd eat grapes all day"
is formally correct, yes?
"i'd enroll in your exercise program, if i were not already
a god"
is also formally correct, yes?
"i'd enroll in your exercise program if i was not already
a god"
is the accepted, but not "formally correct" form. yes?
>
>> so i, in my "critique"
>> mode still, responded, "ITYMTS "if i *were* not a god,
>> HTH, HAND."
>
>'I wouldn't say that, if I was not a god' (I believe I am a god
>(god is used metaphorically)) is fine. Try saying it out loud.
i did. sounds wrong to me.
>
>> then the discussion ensued. it was more in the
>> way of exchanging banter. he hates to be shown up.
>
>You didn't show him up though. From the little you've explained,
>your argument is wrong, even if you are right in your original
>contention.
whatever. the discussion was fun.
>
>> >
>> >> i finally resorted to e-mailing another friend, one who
>> >> is rather pedantic about grammar, and asking her.
>> >>
>> >> she supplied the word for which i was searching, and
>> >> i was able to go read up on it.
>> >
>> >What word did she supply?
>>
>> "subjunctive"
>
>She was wrong to. If she knew her grammar, she'd've known
>better.
perhaps. but when i looked it up in bartleby's, there
it was.
>
>> >> i discovered, to my horror, that because many people have
>> >> broken that "rule" in the past, it is now becoming
>> >> acceptable to use "if i was ..."
>> >
>> >Why horror? The 'rules' change.
>>
>> i know. i am being facetious.
>
>Oh.
that inner bitch again. pay no attention.
>
>> >> grammar is important, in school.
>> >
>> >Knowing the word for the difference between 'if I was' and
>> >'if I were' is of no importance whatsoever in using them
>> >correctly. Formal grammar tends to confuse the issue. You
>> >don't need to know the difference between 'nominative' and
>> >'accusative' to know that 'I' and 'me' have different uses.
>> >We don't speak Latin.
>> >
>> >> i regret that teachers
>> >> are not stressing it enough.
>> >
>> >I always took you for a liberal. Obviously not, in education
>> >at least.
>>
>> er? a liberal? oh. my. no. not precisely. hard
>> to categorize me, since there are so many aspects to
>> life. can't plunk me into any one bucket, i'm afraid.
>
>You know it's a broad label that you Yanks use. I only use it so
>that I am talking your language. You know damn well what I meant
>by it, though.
it meant you wanted sex, right?
>
>> although, now that i've given my boobs to UV, i'd
>> fit a bit better. put my boobs in one bucket, my
>> ass in another. i suppose i could dunk my head into
>> a third.
>
>You'd need a fourth for the inner bitch.
a mere bucket wouldn't hold that.
>
>
>> i believe that education should lay the foundation to
>> enable people to make *informed* decisions, including
>> decisions on how to express themselves verbally.
>
>Will you fucking read that paragraph? 'Express themselves'.
>Hello? 'Expression is more important than grammar.' Hello?
>Anyone in there?
>
>Nope, no one home.
>
>Zen
oh zennie. you have an inner bitch too! i like
that in a man.
erm .. you ARE a man, aren't you?
btw: expression is not "more important than grammar".
put 'em on an equal plane.
--
n
We live in a world where we can perform acts of kindness every day
-- if we open our eyes and see the opportunity. -- Darlene Godsey
mule
<8FF0CC36...@24.1.240.74>:
> why was it important? oh, it was mostly a joke. another
> friend had e-mailed the two of us, telling us about
> a web site he had designed. he cautioned me not to
> critique it (i tend to "help" him out by pointing out
> errors). i got a little cheeky. the other friend
> was effusive in his praise, and then used the
> "<something something something>, if i was not a god."
ISTM that he is taking the piss out of his opinions of himself.
Can't be sure without more context. In which case his (assumed)
position is that he is a god.
> of course he's NOT a god. so i, in my "critique"
> mode still, responded, "ITYMTS "if i *were* not a god,
> HTH, HAND."
Wonderful.
> then the discussion ensued. it was more in the
> way of exchanging banter. he hates to be shown up.
This is fabulously dumb of you. Do let your inner bitch take over
more often, she's a fucking riot. I think you should apologise to
your friend.
nancy
>
>This is fabulously dumb of you. Do let your inner bitch take over
>more often, she's a fucking riot. I think you should apologise to
>your friend.
mule! you have one too!
marvelous! <hands clapping>
--
n
All men hate to hear "We need to talk about our relationship."
These seven words strike fear in the heart of even General
Schwarzkopf. -- Rita Rudner
mule
> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Tell me, tell me, tell me who. In
> alt.writing I see little mu...@wibble.co.uk (mule) saying:
>
> >
> >This is fabulously dumb of you. Do let your inner bitch take over
> >more often, she's a fucking riot. I think you should apologise to
> >your friend.
>
> mule! you have one too!
>
> marvelous! <hands clapping>
There is nothing inner about my bitch.
nancy
>na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote in article
><8FF13103...@24.1.240.74>:
>
>> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Tell me, tell me, tell me who.
>> In alt.writing I see little mu...@wibble.co.uk (mule) saying:
>>
>> >
>> >This is fabulously dumb of you. Do let your inner bitch take
>> >over more often, she's a fucking riot. I think you should
>> >apologise to your friend.
>>
>> mule! you have one too!
>>
>> marvelous! <hands clapping>
>
>There is nothing inner about my bitch.
this is true. those flashy spike heels, all those
sequins ... those eyelashes must weigh a pound each!
yours isn't the flashiest, but it's poised to take
a runner-up spot, for sure.
--
n
Does anal retentive have a hyphen?
Dr Zen
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Tell me, tell me, tell me who. In
> alt.writing I see little dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen) saying:
>
> >In article <8FF0CC36...@24.1.240.74>,
> > na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> >> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Tell me, tell me, tell me who.
> >> In alt.writing I see little dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen)
> >> saying:
> >>
> >> >In article <8FF04FEE...@24.1.240.74>,
> >> > na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> >Really? Knowing *why* Melville used a semicolon would have
> >improved your understanding of Moby Dick?
> >
> >That is utter shit.
>
> grammar is more than a semi-colon, ducks. but you
> know that.
I think I'll have that for my epitaph.
> >> <g> i cannot resist; it's my inner bitch.
> >
> >I don't think your inner bitch knows how to use semicolons. I
> >don't think your inner bitch likes admitting to a lack of
> >knowledge. Your inner bitch is thoroughly unappealing.
>
> bite me.
Only if I can video it.
> >> grammar be damned -- just pile on the adjectives and
> >> adverbs, baby!
> >
> >No. Not 'grammar be damned'. Grammar is nothing much to do with
> >how many adjectives you use. That's style!
>
> which is, of course, what i was talking about.
Which is, of course, why you said 'grammar be damned'. This could go on
for post after post and you'd still be none the wiser.
> guess
> you got lost in your own smartassed comments.
You need to do more swimming, less mouthing off. You're a long way from
touching bottom, dear.
> the
> teacher focussed on style, ignored grammar, i learned
> some of the tricks, but not all of them, and am
> now having to learn things late in life in order to
> look *less* the ignoramus.
>
> capice now, baby?
Your teacher was far wiser then than you are now. Go figure, eh?
> do i know how to use semi-colons? no. obviously.
> which is *why*, o zen, i was deliberately misusing
> them, thus proving that i don't know how, even after
> quipping that i knew how now.
>
> lord knows, i do the explanation thing rather a lot
> and seem to like it but explaining my own humor to
> a *brit* just doesn't feel right.
I don't think it was a joke. That's all. It wouldn't be such a big deal
to you if it had actually been one. We'd be laughing, see?
> >
> >> >> since i did not even know the term for what i was trying
> >> >> to express, i had no way to look it up.
> >> >
> >> >Why was it important? What was the context, anyway? Your
> >> >friend might have been right. 'If I was/were' is as difficult
> >> >as 'as if/though'.
> >>
> >> why was it important? oh, it was mostly a joke. another
> >> friend had e-mailed the two of us, telling us about
> >> a web site he had designed. he cautioned me not to
> >> critique it (i tend to "help" him out by pointing out
> >> errors). i got a little cheeky. the other friend
> >> was effusive in his praise, and then used the
> >> "<something something something>, if i was not a god."
> >
> >That's not enough to be comprehensible. Sorry, I can't tell. You
> >were probably right.
> >
> >> of course he's NOT a god.
> >
> >"If I were not a god" could only be grammatical if he *was* a
> >god (it's his opinion that counts). That you don't know that
> >shows your understanding of the construction very clearly.
>
> it is backasswards.
Only if he was one can it be used in the negative. That's the thing to
remember.
> "if i were a god, i'd eat grapes all day"
>
> is formally correct, yes?
Yes.
> "i'd enroll in your exercise program, if i were not already
> a god"
>
> is also formally correct, yes?
Yes, although this is not as clearcut as the first example.
> "i'd enroll in your exercise program if i was not already
> a god"
>
> is the accepted, but not "formally correct" form. yes?
No. It means something different actually.
I'm not saying it isn't a useful distinction. I am saying a/ it is a
fossil, b/ you don't understand it fully.
> >
> >> so i, in my "critique"
> >> mode still, responded, "ITYMTS "if i *were* not a god,
> >> HTH, HAND."
> >
> >'I wouldn't say that, if I was not a god' (I believe I am a god
> >(god is used metaphorically)) is fine. Try saying it out loud.
>
> i did. sounds wrong to me.
Did you say 'wasn't'? That was the point. In spoken English, it's more
than fine.
> >
> >> then the discussion ensued. it was more in the
> >> way of exchanging banter. he hates to be shown up.
> >
> >You didn't show him up though. From the little you've explained,
> >your argument is wrong, even if you are right in your original
> >contention.
>
> whatever. the discussion was fun.
Not whatever. That's so lazy. How are you going about learning, Nancy,
really? By simply assuming you cannot make a mistake and getting all
fucking uppity when someone thinks you has (no matter how well disposed
that person is to you)?
It's not a good way to do it.
> >> "subjunctive"
> >
> >She was wrong to. If she knew her grammar, she'd've known
> >better.
>
> perhaps. but when i looked it up in bartleby's, there
> it was.
People use it. I don't say they don't.
But listen. We use the word 'possessive' for the 'genitive case' (I
hesitate to call it that, but I'm groping around the terminology for
something familiar to call it - I mean the thing we mark in English
with 's, s'). So today a woman says to me, "girls' school shouldn't
have an apostrophe because the school doesn't *belong* to the girls".
I don't believe English has a subjunctive tense. We've misappropriated
the word and it's misunderstood; just like 'possessive'.
> >> >> i discovered, to my horror, that because many people have
> >> >> broken that "rule" in the past, it is now becoming
> >> >> acceptable to use "if i was ..."
> >> >
> >> >Why horror? The 'rules' change.
> >>
> >> i know. i am being facetious.
> >
> >Oh.
>
> that inner bitch again. pay no attention.
"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
> >> >I always took you for a liberal. Obviously not, in education
> >> >at least.
> >>
> >> er? a liberal? oh. my. no. not precisely. hard
> >> to categorize me, since there are so many aspects to
> >> life. can't plunk me into any one bucket, i'm afraid.
> >
> >You know it's a broad label that you Yanks use. I only use it so
> >that I am talking your language. You know damn well what I meant
> >by it, though.
>
> it meant you wanted sex, right?
No. "Fancy a fuck?" would cover that. It would mean something more
like "I think you like it up the butt".
> >> i believe that education should lay the foundation to
> >> enable people to make *informed* decisions, including
> >> decisions on how to express themselves verbally.
> >
> >Will you fucking read that paragraph? 'Express themselves'.
> >Hello? 'Expression is more important than grammar.' Hello?
> >Anyone in there?
> >
> >Nope, no one home.
> >
> >Zen
>
> oh zennie. you have an inner bitch too! i like
> that in a man.
>
> erm .. you ARE a man, aren't you?
Well, if you are I am too.
> btw: expression is not "more important than grammar".
> put 'em on an equal plane.
No way. They're not even in the same airport.
Zen
nancy
it could.
i think there's a disconnect here. i was describing
the attitude my HS english teacher had, zen. her whole
focus was on style. nothing more. four years of nothing
but style. she wanted opulence. she didn't give a
fuck about grammar. she cared about adjectives. lots
of 'em. the more, the better.
so you said:
>> >No. Not 'grammar be damned'. Grammar is nothing much to do
>> >with how many adjectives you use. That's style!
and i say, yes. grammar has nothing to do with how many
adjectives you use. how many adjectives you use is style.
yes. which was my *point*. she did not teach grammar.
she taught style and style alone. nothing but style. no
grammar. thus, in her view, "grammar be damned."
>
>> guess
>> you got lost in your own smartassed comments.
>
>You need to do more swimming, less mouthing off. You're a long
>way from touching bottom, dear.
ditto, pooks.
>
>> the
>> teacher focussed on style, ignored grammar, i learned
>> some of the tricks, but not all of them, and am
>> now having to learn things late in life in order to
>> look *less* the ignoramus.
>>
>> capice now, baby?
>
>Your teacher was far wiser then than you are now. Go figure, eh?
no. she wasn't. in order for me to be taken
seriously NOW, in some venues, i need to not break the
rules, or break them intelligently. i cannot do that,
and must NOW scramble to learn.
>
>> do i know how to use semi-colons? no. obviously.
>> which is *why*, o zen, i was deliberately misusing
>> them, thus proving that i don't know how, even after
>> quipping that i knew how now.
>>
>> lord knows, i do the explanation thing rather a lot
>> and seem to like it but explaining my own humor to
>> a *brit* just doesn't feel right.
>
>I don't think it was a joke. That's all. It wouldn't be such a
>big deal to you if it had actually been one. We'd be laughing,
>see?
not really. i think it's easy to fall back on the
"i don't get it so it must not be a joke" thing. i
see it all the time in people over on MW who're too
caught up in themselves to just admit they didn't
get it.
saw it here, too, with whatsername. glen's woman.
but she was doing it with intent to insult.
>> >> >> since i did not even know the term for what i was trying
>> >> >> to express, i had no way to look it up.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why was it important? What was the context, anyway? Your
>> >> >friend might have been right. 'If I was/were' is as
>> >> >difficult as 'as if/though'.
>> >>
>> >> why was it important? oh, it was mostly a joke. another
>> >> friend had e-mailed the two of us, telling us about
>> >> a web site he had designed. he cautioned me not to
>> >> critique it (i tend to "help" him out by pointing out
>> >> errors). i got a little cheeky. the other friend
>> >> was effusive in his praise, and then used the
>> >> "<something something something>, if i was not a god."
>> >
>> >That's not enough to be comprehensible. Sorry, I can't tell.
>> >You were probably right.
>> >
>> >> of course he's NOT a god.
>> >
>> >"If I were not a god" could only be grammatical if he *was* a
>> >god (it's his opinion that counts). That you don't know that
>> >shows your understanding of the construction very clearly.
>>
>> it is backasswards.
>
>Only if he was one can it be used in the negative. That's the
>thing to remember.
or if he were pretending to be one, in order to be
self-deprecatingly humorous.
>
>> "if i were a god, i'd eat grapes all day"
>>
>> is formally correct, yes?
>
>Yes.
>
>> "i'd enroll in your exercise program, if i were not already
>> a god"
>>
>> is also formally correct, yes?
>
>Yes, although this is not as clearcut as the first example.
>
>> "i'd enroll in your exercise program if i was not already
>> a god"
>>
>> is the accepted, but not "formally correct" form. yes?
>
>No. It means something different actually.
>
>I'm not saying it isn't a useful distinction. I am saying a/ it
>is a fossil, b/ you don't understand it fully.
duh? i don't understand it fully? hello?
i believe that was the whole point of this exercise,
you see. i believed i was correct. i was not. i
made a fool of myself (like, what else is new?) because
of my lack. now, of course, one could argue that
knowing i don't know grammar, i was foolish to pretend
i knew it and to enter into the engagement in the first
place. that may be true, but is beside the point.
suffice it to say that here was one small, unimportant
to most, venue where a knowledge of grammar would have
stood me in good stead.
>
>> >
>> >> so i, in my "critique"
>> >> mode still, responded, "ITYMTS "if i *were* not a god,
>> >> HTH, HAND."
>> >
>> >'I wouldn't say that, if I was not a god' (I believe I am a
>> >god (god is used metaphorically)) is fine. Try saying it out
>> >loud.
>>
>> i did. sounds wrong to me.
>
>Did you say 'wasn't'? That was the point. In spoken English,
>it's more than fine.
no. i said "I wouldn't say that, if I was not a god", then
i said "I believe I am a god, parenthesis god is used
metaphorically close parenthesis."
the first sentence sounded wrong to me. the second one
sounded silly.
>> >> then the discussion ensued. it was more in the
>> >> way of exchanging banter. he hates to be shown up.
>> >
>> >You didn't show him up though. From the little you've
>> >explained, your argument is wrong, even if you are right in
>> >your original contention.
>>
>> whatever. the discussion was fun.
>
>Not whatever. That's so lazy. How are you going about learning,
>Nancy, really? By simply assuming you cannot make a mistake and
>getting all fucking uppity when someone thinks you has (no
>matter how well disposed that person is to you)?
that's pretty fucking fucked, if you ask me.
how am i going to go about learning? not by listening
to you act like an ass in order to teach me.
if you think you have something to teach me, then teach
me. don't lecture me on my behavio[u]r. if you don't care
to teach me in any other way, then bugger off. i'll
learn from people who care to take the time without
attempting to tell me when i may or may not make
quips.
i am who and what i am. i make jokes, many of them
self-deprecating if you'd but take the time to see
that instead of assuming they're me attempting to
cover a mistake or trying to provoke.
this is *usenet*, zen. i don't have to worry about
what people think of me. if i make a mistake, or
don't know something, i admit it and move on. i'm
not glen, or mule, where i have to fake things.
so.
where do you want to go with this?
>
>It's not a good way to do it.
>
>> >> "subjunctive"
>> >
>> >She was wrong to. If she knew her grammar, she'd've known
>> >better.
>>
>> perhaps. but when i looked it up in bartleby's, there
>> it was.
>
>People use it. I don't say they don't.
if people use it, and it's that way in a grammar text,
then "she knew her grammar", since she knew the term
people use and where i'd likely find it.
>
>But listen.
listening.
>We use the word 'possessive' for the 'genitive case'
>(I hesitate to call it that, but I'm groping around the
>terminology for something familiar to call it - I mean the thing
>we mark in English with 's, s'). So today a woman says to me,
>"girls' school shouldn't have an apostrophe because the school
>doesn't *belong* to the girls".
>
>I don't believe English has a subjunctive tense. We've
>misappropriated the word and it's misunderstood; just like
>'possessive'.
so. what word would be more appropriate, if not
subjunctive?
>
>> >> >> i discovered, to my horror, that because many people
>> >> >> have broken that "rule" in the past, it is now becoming
>> >> >> acceptable to use "if i was ..."
>> >> >
>> >> >Why horror? The 'rules' change.
>> >>
>> >> i know. i am being facetious.
>> >
>> >Oh.
>>
>> that inner bitch again. pay no attention.
>
>"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
a smiley! that's better.
>
>> >> >I always took you for a liberal. Obviously not, in
>> >> >education at least.
>> >>
>> >> er? a liberal? oh. my. no. not precisely. hard
>> >> to categorize me, since there are so many aspects to
>> >> life. can't plunk me into any one bucket, i'm afraid.
>> >
>> >You know it's a broad label that you Yanks use. I only use it
>> >so that I am talking your language. You know damn well what I
>> >meant by it, though.
>>
>> it meant you wanted sex, right?
>
>No. "Fancy a fuck?" would cover that. It would mean something
>more like "I think you like it up the butt".
oh.
>
>> >> i believe that education should lay the foundation to
>> >> enable people to make *informed* decisions, including
>> >> decisions on how to express themselves verbally.
>> >
>> >Will you fucking read that paragraph? 'Express themselves'.
>> >Hello? 'Expression is more important than grammar.' Hello?
>> >Anyone in there?
>> >
>> >Nope, no one home.
>> >
>> >Zen
>>
>> oh zennie. you have an inner bitch too! i like
>> that in a man.
>>
>> erm .. you ARE a man, aren't you?
>
>Well, if you are I am too.
>
>> btw: expression is not "more important than grammar".
>> put 'em on an equal plane.
>
>No way. They're not even in the same airport.
i'll take that as opinion and move on.
--
n
Without a them now and again, how would you know who us is? -- J.
Mingo
Dr Zen
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> >Which is, of course, why you said 'grammar be damned'. This
> >could go on for post after post and you'd still be none the
> >wiser.
>
> it could.
It will. I realise you take humility to be a sin rather than a virtue.
Oh well.
> i think there's a disconnect here. i was describing
> the attitude my HS english teacher had, zen. her whole
> focus was on style. nothing more. four years of nothing
> but style. she wanted opulence. she didn't give a
> fuck about grammar. she cared about adjectives. lots
> of 'em. the more, the better.
Good on her.
> so you said:
> >> >No. Not 'grammar be damned'. Grammar is nothing much to do
> >> >with how many adjectives you use. That's style!
>
> and i say, yes. grammar has nothing to do with how many
> adjectives you use.
So she is not damning grammar, lovey. Grammar is not bedamned if it is
not even the question.
> how many adjectives you use is style.
Well, it's grammar too, sort of. Mustn't exaggerate.
> yes. which was my *point*. she did not teach grammar.
> she taught style and style alone. nothing but style. no
> grammar. thus, in her view, "grammar be damned."
I got the point. We are not arguing because *I* didn't get the point,
dear Nancy.
> >
> >> guess
> >> you got lost in your own smartassed comments.
> >
> >You need to do more swimming, less mouthing off. You're a long
> >way from touching bottom, dear.
>
> ditto, pooks.
No, sweetie. One of us must be in their depth. We can't both be out of
it, can we?
> >> the
> >> teacher focussed on style, ignored grammar, i learned
> >> some of the tricks, but not all of them, and am
> >> now having to learn things late in life in order to
> >> look *less* the ignoramus.
> >>
> >> capice now, baby?
> >
> >Your teacher was far wiser then than you are now. Go figure, eh?
>
> no. she wasn't. in order for me to be taken
> seriously NOW, in some venues, i need to not break the
> rules, or break them intelligently. i cannot do that,
> and must NOW scramble to learn.
If you cannot understand that you cannot learn style without learning
grammar, erm, by osmosis I suppose, then we won't make progress on this
point. There is a world of difference between 'knowing the rules'
(important but not difficult to learn) and 'knowing fucking obscure
points of formal English grammar' (not so important).
> >> do i know how to use semi-colons? no. obviously.
> >> which is *why*, o zen, i was deliberately misusing
> >> them, thus proving that i don't know how, even after
> >> quipping that i knew how now.
> >>
> >> lord knows, i do the explanation thing rather a lot
> >> and seem to like it but explaining my own humor to
> >> a *brit* just doesn't feel right.
> >
> >I don't think it was a joke. That's all. It wouldn't be such a
> >big deal to you if it had actually been one. We'd be laughing,
> >see?
>
> not really. i think it's easy to fall back on the
> "i don't get it so it must not be a joke" thing. i
> see it all the time in people over on MW who're too
> caught up in themselves to just admit they didn't
> get it.
Okay, read it how you like. I'll say for the record, though, that I
practically always get your jokes, bad as they are.
> >> >> of course he's NOT a god.
> >> >
> >> >"If I were not a god" could only be grammatical if he *was* a
> >> >god (it's his opinion that counts). That you don't know that
> >> >shows your understanding of the construction very clearly.
> >>
> >> it is backasswards.
> >
> >Only if he was one can it be used in the negative. That's the
> >thing to remember.
>
> or if he were pretending to be one, in order to be
> self-deprecatingly humorous.
If he "was" pretending to be one is correct in that sentence. Was that
another joke?
Stop using "in order to". It's doing my head in.
> >
> >> "if i were a god, i'd eat grapes all day"
> >>
> >> is formally correct, yes?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> "i'd enroll in your exercise program, if i were not already
> >> a god"
> >>
> >> is also formally correct, yes?
> >
> >Yes, although this is not as clearcut as the first example.
> >
> >> "i'd enroll in your exercise program if i was not already
> >> a god"
> >>
> >> is the accepted, but not "formally correct" form. yes?
> >
> >No. It means something different actually.
> >
> >I'm not saying it isn't a useful distinction. I am saying a/ it
> >is a fossil, b/ you don't understand it fully.
>
> duh? i don't understand it fully? hello?
>
> i believe that was the whole point of this exercise,
> you see. i believed i was correct. i was not. i
> made a fool of myself (like, what else is new?) because
> of my lack. now, of course, one could argue that
> knowing i don't know grammar, i was foolish to pretend
> i knew it and to enter into the engagement in the first
> place. that may be true, but is beside the point.
>
> suffice it to say that here was one small, unimportant
> to most, venue where a knowledge of grammar would have
> stood me in good stead.
You lost me in there somewhere. You've gone from saying you knew to
saying you didn't know. Please, it doesn't matter. It's not really a
great bringer of kudos. So long as when you watch Fiddler on the Roof,
you don't sing "If I was a rich man", innit.
> >> >> so i, in my "critique"
> >> >> mode still, responded, "ITYMTS "if i *were* not a god,
> >> >> HTH, HAND."
> >> >
> >> >'I wouldn't say that, if I was not a god' (I believe I am a
> >> >god (god is used metaphorically)) is fine. Try saying it out
> >> >loud.
> >>
> >> i did. sounds wrong to me.
> >
> >Did you say 'wasn't'? That was the point. In spoken English,
> >it's more than fine.
>
> no. i said "I wouldn't say that, if I was not a god", then
> i said "I believe I am a god, parenthesis god is used
> metaphorically close parenthesis."
>
> the first sentence sounded wrong to me. the second one
> sounded silly.
*pokes tongue out*
>> >> then the discussion ensued. it was more in the
> >> >> way of exchanging banter. he hates to be shown up.
> >> >
> >> >You didn't show him up though. From the little you've
> >> >explained, your argument is wrong, even if you are right in
> >> >your original contention.
> >>
> >> whatever. the discussion was fun.
> >
> >Not whatever. That's so lazy. How are you going about learning,
> >Nancy, really? By simply assuming you cannot make a mistake and
> >getting all fucking uppity when someone thinks you has (no
> >matter how well disposed that person is to you)?
>
> that's pretty fucking fucked, if you ask me.
I didn't ask you.
> how am i going to go about learning? not by listening
> to you act like an ass in order to teach me.
How are you going to go about learning? Good fucking question.
> if you think you have something to teach me, then teach
> me. don't lecture me on my behavio[u]r. if you don't care
> to teach me in any other way, then bugger off. i'll
> learn from people who care to take the time without
> attempting to tell me when i may or may not make
> quips.
I'll lecture you if I damn well please. You were rude. You deserved a
lecture. You might not think so, that's fine. I thought so.
> this is *usenet*, zen. i don't have to worry about
> what people think of me. if i make a mistake, or
> don't know something, i admit it and move on. i'm
> not glen, or mule, where i have to fake things.
Are you asking me to believe that? Or you don't care? It sounds as
though you think I have you wrong, and you want me to have a different
impression. Okay, I now have a different impression.
> so.
>
> where do you want to go with this?
Let's take it to the bridge. You aren't glen or mule. Can we kiss and
make up now?
> >
> >It's not a good way to do it.
> >
> >> >> "subjunctive"
> >> >
> >> >She was wrong to. If she knew her grammar, she'd've known
> >> >better.
> >>
> >> perhaps. but when i looked it up in bartleby's, there
> >> it was.
> >
> >People use it. I don't say they don't.
>
> if people use it, and it's that way in a grammar text,
> then "she knew her grammar", since she knew the term
> people use and where i'd likely find it.
Whatever. It's not worth arguing about.
> >
> >But listen.
>
> listening.
>
> >We use the word 'possessive' for the 'genitive case'
> >(I hesitate to call it that, but I'm groping around the
> >terminology for something familiar to call it - I mean the thing
> >we mark in English with 's, s'). So today a woman says to me,
> >"girls' school shouldn't have an apostrophe because the school
> >doesn't *belong* to the girls".
> >
> >I don't believe English has a subjunctive tense. We've
> >misappropriated the word and it's misunderstood; just like
> >'possessive'.
>
> so. what word would be more appropriate, if not
> subjunctive?
For what? For which of the things that get labelled 'subjunctive'?
There are different ways of labelling them.
For example:
"I move that the committee be elected".
"If I had twenty dollars..."
"I wish she loved me."
Subjunctive (it's a remnant. virtually the only one. "Long live the
king" is another.)
Conditional something or other
Optative
> >> >> >> i discovered, to my horror, that because many people
> >> >> >> have broken that "rule" in the past, it is now becoming
> >> >> >> acceptable to use "if i was ..."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why horror? The 'rules' change.
> >> >>
> >> >> i know. i am being facetious.
> >> >
> >> >Oh.
> >>
> >> that inner bitch again. pay no attention.
> >
> >"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
>
> a smiley! that's better.
Don't tell Hopey.
> >> btw: expression is not "more important than grammar".
> >> put 'em on an equal plane.
> >
> >No way. They're not even in the same airport.
>
> i'll take that as opinion and move on.
Okay.
Think about this though, Nancy. Which would you prefer to be said about
you: Nancy writes elegantly and well, or nancy never loses a fight over
grammar?
mule
> i think there's a disconnect here. i was describing
> the attitude my HS english teacher had, zen. her whole
> focus was on style. nothing more.
Nothing more? Style can incorporate a lot of things.
> four years of nothing
> but style. she wanted opulence. she didn't give a
> fuck about grammar.
Your interpretation or hers?
> she cared about adjectives. lots
> of 'em. the more, the better.
And that constitutes what you interpret as style does it?
> and i say, yes. grammar has nothing to do with how many
> adjectives you use. how many adjectives you use is style.
But style is not how many adjectives you use.
> yes. which was my *point*. she did not teach grammar.
> she taught style and style alone. nothing but style. no
> grammar. thus, in her view, "grammar be damned."
mule
mule
> not really. i think it's easy to fall back on the
> "i don't get it so it must not be a joke" thing. i
> see it all the time in people over on MW who're too
> caught up in themselves to just admit they didn't
> get it.
You know what else is easy to fall back on? The whole "I made a fuck
up so I'm going to pretend it was done intentionally for laughs"
thing. I see it all the time from people over here who're too caught
up in themselves to just admit they fucked up.
> saw it here, too, with whatsername. glen's woman.
> but she was doing it with intent to insult.
Care to elaborate ms humour queen?
mule
Fucking hell nancy, 375 lines and I had to read all the way down to
line 255 to find where you mention me. I normally give up if I don't
get to the good bit on the first screen. Still, this exchange is
really quite a hoot. Lucky I read on, eh?
> i think there's a disconnect here. i was describing
> the attitude my HS english teacher had, zen. her whole
> focus was on style. nothing more.
Nothing more? Style can incorporate a lot.
> four years of nothing
> but style. she wanted opulence. she didn't give a
> fuck about grammar.
Your interpretation or hers?
> she cared about adjectives. lots
> of 'em. the more, the better.
And that constitutes what you interpret as style does it?
> and i say, yes. grammar has nothing to do with how many
> adjectives you use. how many adjectives you use is style.
But style is not how many adjectives you use. Is it?
> yes. which was my *point*. she did not teach grammar.
> she taught style and style alone. nothing but style. no
> grammar. thus, in her view, "grammar be damned."
<snip>
> not really. i think it's easy to fall back on the
> "i don't get it so it must not be a joke" thing. i
> see it all the time in people over on MW who're too
> caught up in themselves to just admit they didn't
> get it.
You know what else is easy to fall back on? The whole "I made a fuck
up so I'm going to pretend it was done intentionally for laughs"
thing. I see it all the time from people over here who're too caught
up in themselves to just admit they fucked up.
> saw it here, too, with whatsername. glen's woman.
> but she was doing it with intent to insult.
Care to elaborate ms humour queen?
> >> it is backasswards.
> >
> >Only if he was one can it be used in the negative. That's the
> >thing to remember.
>
> or if he were pretending to be one, in order to be
> self-deprecatingly humorous.
Switch "not a god" for "a mortal". Maybe it'll help.
> duh? i don't understand it fully? hello?
>
> i believe that was the whole point of this exercise,
> you see. i believed i was correct. i was not. i
> made a fool of myself (like, what else is new?) because
> of my lack. now, of course, one could argue that
> knowing i don't know grammar, i was foolish to pretend
> i knew it and to enter into the engagement in the first
> place. that may be true, but is beside the point.
>
> suffice it to say that here was one small, unimportant
> to most, venue where a knowledge of grammar would have
> stood me in good stead.
Zenny must've really got your goat over this nancy, you normally
content yourself with a few words.
> that's pretty fucking fucked, if you ask me.
Poor style, needs more adjectives.
> how am i going to go about learning? not by listening
> to you act like an ass in order to teach me.
Please, don't insult the asses, I know some very fine asses.
> if you think you have something to teach me, then teach
> me. don't lecture me on my behavio[u]r. if you don't care
> to teach me in any other way, then bugger off. i'll
> learn from people who care to take the time without
> attempting to tell me when i may or may not make
> quips.
Ooh, he has suckered you. Nancy, this is alt.writing, he can lecture
you on whatever he likes, your behaviour, your grammar, your humour.
How you respond can determine the course of the exchange, but
telling him not to do something is like telling a bear not to shit
in the woods.
> i am who and what i am. i make jokes, many of them
> self-deprecating if you'd but take the time to see
> that instead of assuming they're me attempting to
> cover a mistake or trying to provoke.
Sometimes you're pretty good.
> this is *usenet*, zen. i don't have to worry about
> what people think of me. if i make a mistake, or
> don't know something, i admit it and move on.
Good for you. Although you don't seem to be moving on over this one.
You seem to be letting it drag you down. This is *usenet* nancy, who
is it that's lost sight of that?
> i'm
> not glen, or mule, where i have to fake things.
Now this could be taken one of several ways. I'm going to give you
the benefit of the doubt, since I like you, and I have been poking a
stick at you lately, although I expected the direct assault, not
this conniving sniping 2/3rds of the way down a 375 line post.
Really nancy, I thought you were more valiant than that.
Now, you've praised mule in the past for his self-deprecating
humour. Something you're giving yourself credit for here. And the
mule is often the first to admit his weaknesses - ask Zen if I know
any limericks. So what is it that the mule is faking? Are you
suggesting that the mule faked Glen? FFS nancy, I expect that from
some, but from you? You know better. So come on, let's have the
charges out in the open where they can be defended you snivelling
little wretch.
> so.
>
> where do you want to go with this?
Seems to me he's taking it where he wants and you're following to
heel like a good little puppy. Prove me wrong.
> >"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
>
> a smiley! that's better.
No it fucking well isn't. If you can't communicate your emotions
through words then what kind of horseshit writer are you?
> >> btw: expression is not "more important than grammar".
> >> put 'em on an equal plane.
> >
> >No way. They're not even in the same airport.
>
> i'll take that as opinion and move on.
At last, the penny drops, she moves on.
mule
Andy
Dr Zen <dr_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8vdh75$4vh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8FF2B201...@24.1.240.74>,
> na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> > >Which is, of course, why you said 'grammar be damned'. This
> > >could go on for post after post and you'd still be none the
> > >wiser.
> >
> > it could.
>
> It will. I realise you take humility to be a sin rather than a virtue.
> Oh well.
>
> > i think there's a disconnect here. i was describing
> > the attitude my HS english teacher had, zen. her whole
> > focus was on style. nothing more. four years of nothing
> > but style. she wanted opulence. she didn't give a
> > fuck about grammar. she cared about adjectives. lots
> > of 'em. the more, the better.
>
> Good on her.
If you can talk about grammar, and use some technical vocabulary, you're
better equipped to discuss style. Let's say nancy's class were looking at a
selection of text and talking about how to make it better. A student who
had learned some grammar might say, "Let's drop some of these adjectives and
try using stronger verbs and nouns." I'm sure you're not arguing against all
teaching grammar. It's a question of how much, and when, and how grammar is
taught. Most importantly, any discussion or lesson on grammar should be
applied to a meaningful text.
Daddio
mule <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5eek1ts08utn86e7s...@4ax.com...
> na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote in article
> <8FF2B201...@24.1.240.74>:
> > i'm
> > not glen, or mule, where i have to fake things.
>
> Now this could be taken one of several ways. I'm going to give you
> the benefit of the doubt, since I like you, and I have been poking a
> stick at you lately, although I expected the direct assault, not
> this conniving sniping 2/3rds of the way down a 375 line post.
> Really nancy, I thought you were more valiant than that.
>
> Now, you've praised mule in the past for his self-deprecating
> humour. Something you're giving yourself credit for here. And the
> mule is often the first to admit his weaknesses - ask Zen if I know
> any limericks.
Not.
>So what is it that the mule is faking? Are you
> suggesting that the mule faked Glen? FFS nancy, I expect that from
> some, but from you?
Oh, you'd 'expect it from some' would you?
> You know better. So come on, let's have the
> charges out in the open where they can be defended you snivelling
> little wretch.
There you go. Let's have a look at ya, here "Mule". Everything you say
above is absolute bullshit. So long as you've been around here, the last
thing anyone's seen coming from you is "self deprecation"; and strictly in
accord with the essence of a "mule" never have you admitted to fault or
error, except once, and at first (in my recall) in my regard when you
finally got it figured out that there was a lot more to be contended with in
the Jerv than your own petty albeit grandiose self perception was at first
willing to admit. But then, that was easy enough to do, since there was
nobody else calling upon you to admit to anything in MY regard, not even me.
But, as "Glen" you'd made a perfect jackass of yourself, hadn't you? Yes,
especially in regard to this dear lady by descending to the politics of ad
hominem attacks that were purely below the belt. Knowing this, and finding
yourself under unrelenting attack from all quarters for many other reasons
than that, rather than being a man and admitting to the least fault (a thing
you never do) you resorted to your "Mule" persona, as in this transparent
foolishness you remain, thinking yourself aloof from the most common duty of
every decent human being, which is nothing more than to have the grace to
admit, on occasion, to a fault.
One of these days, even our dear Paula is going to wake up to the fact that
you are a brittle, self-absorbed narcissistic putz. The tragedy of it is to
find such a fine mind trapped in the ego of jackass, even to such an extent
that now your need never to admit of the least chip on the surface of your
china body has led you to eschew the finest elements of your self for the
sake of this self-imposed acetic withdrawal into haircloth, in which guise
you pretend to a pose of self deprecation. But those are not ashes on your
head, they are diamonds you are sprinkling to shower yourself with. The
masquerade is over. It worked for awhile, people thought me quite mad, as
first to suggest it, but...
--
Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
"You can't roller-skate in a buffalo herd, but you can be happy if you've a
mind to."
Roger Miller
mule
<l%yS5.9773$pZ1.5...@nntp3.onemain.com>:
> > > not glen, or mule, where i have to fake things.
> >
> > Now this could be taken one of several ways. I'm going to give you
> > the benefit of the doubt, since I like you, and I have been poking a
> > stick at you lately, although I expected the direct assault, not
> > this conniving sniping 2/3rds of the way down a 375 line post.
> > Really nancy, I thought you were more valiant than that.
> >
> > Now, you've praised mule in the past for his self-deprecating
> > humour. Something you're giving yourself credit for here. And the
> > mule is often the first to admit his weaknesses - ask Zen if I know
> > any limericks.
>
Innit.
> >So what is it that the mule is faking? Are you
> > suggesting that the mule faked Glen? FFS nancy, I expect that from
> > some, but from you?
>
> Oh, you'd 'expect it from some' would you?
Yep. It happens pretty often. Sometimes I play along, sometimes I
don't. It keeps the myth alive. Anyone who can't see beyond the
ordinary is not worth dealing with Jervis. Can you see beyond?
> > You know better. So come on, let's have the
> > charges out in the open where they can be defended you snivelling
> > little wretch.
>
> There you go. Let's have a look at ya, here "Mule".
The jpegs are on the site. Take a look.
> Everything you say
> above is absolute bullshit.
It's not, it's all true. I could probably find the references in
deja if I felt so inclined. I don't. Your whining isn't doing a
thing for me. If nancy, who is more than adequate at defending
herself, disputes anything I may have attributed to her then I will
see, you can whistle for it.
> So long as you've been around here, the last
> thing anyone's seen coming from you is "self deprecation";
The last thing, the first thing, every thing or the very thing? Were
I not a god, some of the things I have said would not have come
across as quite so self deprecatory.
> and strictly in
> accord with the essence of a "mule" never have you admitted to fault or
> error, except once,
You don't read much of what I write then Jervis, or perhaps you
misunderstand. I'm often wrong.
> and at first (in my recall) in my regard when you
> finally got it figured out that there was a lot more to be contended with in
> the Jerv than your own petty albeit grandiose self perception was at first
> willing to admit.
What the fuck man? Say what you think. Be contentious.
> But then, that was easy enough to do, since there was
> nobody else calling upon you to admit to anything in MY regard, not even me.
I've never shied away from reporting my liking for some of your
writing. Show me where I have.
> But, as "Glen" you'd made a perfect jackass of yourself, hadn't you?
Jerv, who is making the jackass of himself? Me, Glen or you?
> Yes,
> especially in regard to this dear lady by descending to the politics of ad
> hominem attacks that were purely below the belt.
Oh piss off you stupid little wanker. Nancy is perfectly used to me
rattling her cage, she can rattle mine anytime she fancies.
> Knowing this, and finding
> yourself under unrelenting attack from all quarters for many other reasons
> than that, rather than being a man and admitting to the least fault (a thing
> you never do) you resorted to your "Mule" persona, as in this transparent
> foolishness you remain, thinking yourself aloof from the most common duty of
> every decent human being, which is nothing more than to have the grace to
> admit, on occasion, to a fault.
What? This is great stuff mate! Really good. But, it's never good to
be an author who can't separate fiction from reality.
mule isn't a persona, it's a nickname. Given to me at school if you
must know. I hated it then. Love it now. Guess why they gave it me?
Glen Wall was a persona. Glen Wall claimed as much himself. The
question is: was he mine? You seem to be all on your own there mate.
I am Glen Wall, I am, I am.
> One of these days, even our dear Paula is going to wake up to the fact that
> you are a brittle, self-absorbed narcissistic putz.
self-absorbed narcissistic putz. Now Jervis, that is good
description. Very good. "One of these days, even our dear Paula" I
bet she wears your patronage with pride. Self-absorbed?
Narcissistic? Good lord man, the fans of irony are running for cover
lest they split their sides. As far as I'm concerned Paula can call
it as she sees it. I wouldn't respect her if she didn't.
> The tragedy of it is to
> find such a fine mind trapped in the ego of jackass,
Two fine minds according to you. I'm content with the one. My ego
loves the compliment though.
> even to such an extent
> that now your need never to admit of the least chip on the surface of your
> china body has led you to eschew the finest elements of your self for the
> sake of this self-imposed acetic withdrawal into haircloth, in which guise
> you pretend to a pose of self deprecation.
Awful. Absolutely awful. Liar, liar your pants are on fire. Would
have done just as well.
> But those are not ashes on your
> head, they are diamonds you are sprinkling to shower yourself with. The
> masquerade is over. It worked for awhile, people thought me quite mad, as
> first to suggest it, but...
Those binoculars are distorting the view.
Daddio
mule <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sbhl1t8cshtcp8kn0...@4ax.com...
> > Yes,
> > especially in regard to this dear lady by descending to the politics of
ad
> > hominem attacks that were purely below the belt.
>
> Oh piss off you stupid little wanker. Nancy is perfectly used to me
> rattling her cage, she can rattle mine anytime she fancies.
That's right. Invoke your anger to cover your shame, just as you come to
this ball covered in the masquerade of the mule. But, oh my dear: what
long ears you have!
> Glen Wall was a persona. Glen Wall claimed as much himself. The
> question is: was he mine? You seem to be all on your own there mate.
Face reality, Sam. Zen and now Nancy have seen that there just may be
something to it. I well recall Paula's response to the first ever
revelation I posted, as her finger went immediately to her lips with a
virtual "Sh! Not supposed to tell." We do learn to read betwixt the lines,
dear boy.
--
Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
"To ask about that which should not be asked is to land in extremities.
To answer questioners who land in extremities is not to surmount
therefore the Kunlun Mountains and travel in the realm of the Great Void."
--Laotse
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like unto him."
--Proverbs 26:4
mule
> > > Yes,
> > > especially in regard to this dear lady by descending to the politics of ad
> > > hominem attacks that were purely below the belt.
> >
> > Oh piss off you stupid little wanker. Nancy is perfectly used to me
> > rattling her cage, she can rattle mine anytime she fancies.
>
> this ball covered in the masquerade of the mule. But, oh my dear: what
> long ears you have!
Anger? You said I had descended to the politics of ad hominem
attacks that were purely below the belt. I fulfilled your prophesy
for you. It was not said in anger. Everything here is tongue in
cheek.
> > Glen Wall was a persona. Glen Wall claimed as much himself. The
> > question is: was he mine? You seem to be all on your own there mate.
>
> Face reality, Sam. Zen and now Nancy have seen that there just may be
> something to it.
I think they may be playing with your mind.
> I well recall Paula's response to the first ever
> revelation I posted, as her finger went immediately to her lips with a
> virtual "Sh! Not supposed to tell." We do learn to read betwixt the lines,
> dear boy.
Ok, I give up.
Frank S.
"Daddio" <dadd...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:l%yS5.9773$pZ1.5...@nntp3.onemain.com...> news:5eek1ts08utn86e7s...@4ax.com...
> > > not glen, or mule, where i have to fake things.
> >
> > Now this could be taken one of several ways. I'm going to give you
> > the benefit of the doubt, since I like you, and I have been poking a
> > stick at you lately, although I expected the direct assault, not
> > this conniving sniping 2/3rds of the way down a 375 line post.
> > Really nancy, I thought you were more valiant than that.
> >
> > Now, you've praised mule in the past for his self-deprecating
> > humour. Something you're giving yourself credit for here. And the
> > mule is often the first to admit his weaknesses - ask Zen if I know
> > any limericks.
>
>
> >So what is it that the mule is faking? Are you
> > suggesting that the mule faked Glen? FFS nancy, I expect that from
> > some, but from you?
>
>
> > You know better. So come on, let's have the
> > charges out in the open where they can be defended you snivelling
> > little wretch.
>
say
> above is absolute bullshit. So long as you've been around here, the
last
> thing anyone's seen coming from you is "self deprecation"; and
strictly in
> accord with the essence of a "mule" never have you admitted to fault
or
> finally got it figured out that there was a lot more to be contended
with in
> the Jerv than your own petty albeit grandiose self perception was at
first
was
> nobody else calling upon you to admit to anything in MY regard, not
even me.
>
> especially in regard to this dear lady by descending to the politics
of ad
finding
> yourself under unrelenting attack from all quarters for many other
reasons
> than that, rather than being a man and admitting to the least fault (a
thing
> you never do) you resorted to your "Mule" persona, as in this
transparent
> foolishness you remain, thinking yourself aloof from the most common
duty of
> every decent human being, which is nothing more than to have the grace
to
> admit, on occasion, to a fault.
>
that
is to
> find such a fine mind trapped in the ego of jackass, even to such an
extent
> that now your need never to admit of the least chip on the surface of
your
> china body has led you to eschew the finest elements of your self for
the
> sake of this self-imposed acetic withdrawal into haircloth, in which
guise
your
> head, they are diamonds you are sprinkling to shower yourself with.
The
> masquerade is over. It worked for awhile, people thought me quite
mad, as
> first to suggest it, but...
>
>
> Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
>
> "You can't roller-skate in a buffalo herd, but you can be happy if
you've a
> mind to."
> Roger Miller
>
>
I see two things happening here:
Jervis, in his usual fog, composes paragraph upon paragraph of analysis
that could be counted right, righteous, and correct, if the subject were
Jervis. (I'm certain he knew, at some subterranean level, that it was.
Isn't it always?)
Jervis, in his usual fog, fabricates within his mind a number of turned
phrases and neat embellishments; having this festering little missile in
his arsenal, he casts about for a likely target, and—Well, looky here! A
damsel under attack—he insinuates his bony, insubstantial bum, complete
with Briticisms.
Well aware his persona is universally regarded as a nadir in Usenet
beingness, Jervis is again in no-risk territory.
Nie swork, Jervuccino, Old Thing. Mission accomplished.
Love and kudos from your fwiend,
Fwank
Ultraviolet
[Zen said]
> > >"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
> >
> > a smiley! that's better.
>
> No it fucking well isn't. If you can't communicate your emotions
> through words then what kind of horseshit writer are you?
:-Ş
-Ultra V.
Ultraviolet
"Daddio" <dadd...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message news:l%yS5.9773$pZ1.5...@nntp3.onemain.com...
> But, as "Glen" you'd made a perfect jackass of yourself, hadn't you? Yes,
> especially in regard to this dear lady by descending to the politics of ad
> hominem attacks that were purely below the belt.
You're so silly about nancy, Jerv. Whenever are you going to realize
that she plays the game with relish and isn't some damsel in distress?
<>
> One of these days, even our dear Paula is going to wake up to the fact that
> you are a brittle, self-absorbed narcissistic putz. The tragedy of it is to
<dusted>
I'm never going to agree with you about this stuff, Jerv. Now stop
obsessing and upload some more songs, k?
*huggles*
-Dear Paula
Ultraviolet
"Daddio" <dadd...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message news:ppAS5.5251$l95.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> Face reality, Sam. Zen and now Nancy have seen that there just may be
> something to it. I well recall Paula's response to the first ever
> revelation I posted, as her finger went immediately to her lips with a
> virtual "Sh! Not supposed to tell." We do learn to read betwixt the lines,
> dear boy.
Oh, for heaven's sake, Jerv!
-UV
Daddio
>
> Fwank
>
Yes, well, we''ll see Fwank if there are any others who can find sympathy
with your views. Otherwise, we'll just chaulk it up to Fwank and his
peculiarly warped little perceptions. :-)
Daddio
mule <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6dsl1t4e27juelvu2...@4ax.com...
> Ok, I give up.
You're admitting it, then. Well done, old chap.
--
Jerv
Frank S.
> > Love and kudos from your fwiend,
> >
> > Fwank
> >
>
> Yes, well, we''ll see Fwank if there are any others who can find
sympathy
> with your views. Otherwise, we'll just chaulk it up to Fwank and his
> peculiarly warped little perceptions. :-)
>
Perceptive little warper?
Daddio
news:8vets0$tqu$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
But, if I'm right, you got to admit that my statement "But, as "Glen" you'd
made a perfect jackass of yourself, hadn't you?" Couldn't be more
hilarious.
Songs? Let's see. Did you get "Bird Song" yet? It's far from my best
performance, but it gives a flavor of stuff to come, now that I replaced
that piece of shit stock bridge with a custom job that permits precise
intonation of the strings. This version was done with the old bridge, so
that third string is still a bit sour, there's no depth to the vocal (no
room echo or reverb) but it's such a damn nice song (a favorite of every
Deadhead everywhere) for its own sake that I uploaded it anyway. Did you get
"Out of Nowhere"?
There's a whole new look at the J-Zine. Also got a new download site:
50megs.com. No more pop ups. The J-Zine is still linked to Nettaxi only as
a "Mirror Site" so now "Jerv-Zine II" is at 50megs. Also got a new page
under the "More" link, with more songs. See how you like the wallpaper; I
did it myself with my old Windows 3.1 paintbrush; all the wallpaper is my
own er... 'art'.
I may buy a beret and move to Paris, see if I can run into Glen Wall hanging
around Les Magots in Montmartre. I'll just look for a jackass tied to a
lamppost.
--
Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
"To ask about that which should not be asked is to land in extremities.
To answer questioners who land in extremities is not to surmount
therefore the Kunlun Mountains and travel in the realm of the Great Void."
--Laotse
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like unto him."
--Proverbs 26:4
>
> *huggles*
>
> -Dear Paula
>
>
>
nancy
sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the alt.writing part of
it:
>Nancy writes elegantly and well, or nancy never loses a fight over
>grammar?
>
"Nancy doesn't take shit when she doesn't have to."
you think i was being rude? fine. i apologize for
your thinking i was being rude. i think you were
being rude.
so.
we're even.
--
n
Headline: Bear takes over Disneyland in Pooh D'Etat!
nancy
it:
>Are you
>suggesting that the mule faked Glen?
no. but the mule does not admit when he's wrong.
he "fakes" that he knew all along.
or so it would seem.
nancy
alt.writing part of it:
>she plays the game with relish
oh not relish. surely not! unless it's a
salsa relish, with habaneros and teeny bits of
tomato. but not that sweet pickle stuff. yech.
--
n
Enjoy your life. If you don't, no one else will.
Dr Zen
"Andy" <an...@the-peoples-net.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Dr Zen <dr_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8vdh75$4vh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> > > >Which is, of course, why you said 'grammar be damned'. This
> > > >could go on for post after post and you'd still be none the
> > > >wiser.
> > >
> > > it could.
> >
> > It will. I realise you take humility to be a sin rather than a
virtue.
> > Oh well.
> >
> > > i think there's a disconnect here. i was describing
> > > the attitude my HS english teacher had, zen. her whole
> > > focus was on style. nothing more. four years of nothing
> > > but style. she wanted opulence. she didn't give a
> > > fuck about grammar. she cared about adjectives. lots
> > > of 'em. the more, the better.
> >
> > Good on her.
>
you're
> better equipped to discuss style.
It's not that that I'm disputing, Andy.
> Let's say nancy's class were looking at a
> selection of text and talking about how to make it better. A student
who
> had learned some grammar might say, "Let's drop some of these
adjectives and
> try using stronger verbs and nouns." I'm sure you're not arguing
against all
> teaching grammar.
You know that I'm not. When I talk about the 'rules', of course I am
talking about grammar (especially in so far as we mean syntax by that).
But there are certainly elements of formal grammar that are not *that*
important, and Nancy has illustrated a couple of them.
> It's a question of how much, and when, and how grammar is
> taught. Most importantly, any discussion or lesson on grammar should
be
> applied to a meaningful text.
I couldn't agree with you more. Teaching grammar in isolation was a
failing of the curriculum my English teachers used - it turned most of
the classes I was in off English altogether. I believe Nancy's teacher
was *trying* to avoid this.
Dr Zen
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
> dr_...@my-deja.com (Dr Zen) was born with a gift of laughter, and a
> sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the alt.writing part of
> it:
>
> >Nancy writes elegantly and well, or nancy never loses a fight over
> >grammar?
> >
>
> "Nancy doesn't take shit when she doesn't have to."
That's big of you. I felt the same when I was eighteen. Ready for
fisticuffs at the slightest provocation. Know what I got? Fisticuffs.
Funny that.
> you think i was being rude? fine.
No.
> i apologize for
> your thinking i was being rude.
Clever. Don't feel obliged to apologise for my thinking, please.
> i think you were
> being rude.
I was. You can suck on it.
> so.
>
> we're even.
Whatever.
Dr Zen
> > > Yes,
> > > especially in regard to this dear lady by descending to the
politics of
> ad
> > > hominem attacks that were purely below the belt.
> >
> > Oh piss off you stupid little wanker. Nancy is perfectly used to me
> > rattling her cage, she can rattle mine anytime she fancies.
>
to
> this ball covered in the masquerade of the mule. But, oh my dear:
what
> long ears you have!
>
> > question is: was he mine? You seem to be all on your own there mate.
>
> something to it. I well recall Paula's response to the first ever
> revelation I posted, as her finger went immediately to her lips with a
> virtual "Sh! Not supposed to tell." We do learn to read betwixt the
lines,
> dear boy.
No way. And don't drag me into your fucking madcap rubbish, Jerv. I was
joking when I said it.
Dr Zen
"Ultraviolet" <Virtual...@eXXXcite.com> wrote:
>
> "mule" <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
Nancy said:
> > > a smiley! that's better.
Someone else said:
> > No it fucking well isn't. If you can't communicate your emotions
> > through words then what kind of horseshit writer are you?
>
> :-Ş
Kewl.
I think Nancy only plays with relish when she thinks she's winning.
She's a fucking sore loser. That's my 2 cents.
mule
> mu...@wibble.co.uk (mule) was born with a gift of laughter, and a
> sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the alt.writing part of
> it:
>
> >Are you
> >suggesting that the mule faked Glen?
>
> no. but the mule does not admit when he's wrong.
> he "fakes" that he knew all along.
>
> or so it would seem.
Oh; how apt.
mule
<8vet10$2th$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>:> [Zen said]
> > > >"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
> > >
> > > a smiley! that's better.
> >
> > No it fucking well isn't. If you can't communicate your emotions
> > through words then what kind of horseshit writer are you?
>
>
Present company excused.
Daddio
Many an hour has gone by leaving you unjoined, all alone and forlorn in your
opinions as stated below. So, I have chosen to condescend toward pity in
your regard, in order that you might not slip into despondancy and other
miseries too tragic to mention.
> > Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
> >
> > "You can't roller-skate in a buffalo herd, but you can be happy if
> you've a
> > mind to."
> > Roger Miller
> >
> >
>
> I see two things happening here:
>
> Jervis, in his usual fog...
Tut, tut, tut. Pray, do tell just how it is that you have arrived upon this
novel impression of Jervis' general state of mind, lest one should be forced
to conclude that this is but another case of Fwoink's own self-loathing
being projected upon another whom he enviously recognizes for an attractive,
talented, brilliant and uncommonly courageous member of this society? Not
an unusual syndrome, you have here Fwoink, one rather easily recognized for
those few of us who are not altogether abysmally ignorant or decadently
suspicious of psychodynamic verities.
> composes paragraph upon paragraph of analysis
Bean counting again, are we Fwoink? How outwardly anal of you.
> that could be counted right, righteous, and correct, if the subject were
> Jervis.
But of course the subject is "Jervis," as indeed, the subject is you,
Glen/Mule and/or any other typically human, typically neurotic, typically
congenitally sinful fool on earth, as further, the subject should never be
anything else, other than man's absurd existential condition. But we are
continually surrounded by such shallow, and unintuitive sorts who can find
nothing better to do with their minds than employ them as toys for the kind
of fun and games that are continually in session here.
But now that this is the subject, let us consider it: Of course this
describes me, to some extent--else how should I be able to come to these
intuitions about the hidden motivations of others? And that is the point;
the better we learn to understand ourselves, the more easily can we see
through the same foibles in others. You knew that for example, no Freudian
psychoanalyst ever receives a license to practise except that first he has
undergone analysis? You bet your ass.
> (I'm certain he knew, at some subterranean level, that it was.
> Isn't it always?)
>
> Jervis, in his usual fog, fabricates within his mind a number of turned
> phrases and neat embellishments; having this festering little missile in
> his arsenal, he casts about for a likely target, and—Well, looky here! A
> damsel under attack—he insinuates his bony, insubstantial bum, complete
> with Briticisms.
There you go, Fwoink, living up to the image I have always had of you from
the first, as you go forth to judge others according to the amount of weight
they may carry on their bones, as if that were some matter of importance?
Are people bass or pickerels which are to be judged worthy of interest or
acceptance according to size? I believe that this is the way in which you
compensate for your feelings of intellectual inferiority when you find
yourself thrown into concourse with an intellectual, moral and aesthetic
giant the size of Jervis. You can say to yourself, "Well, at least I've got
about forty or fifty pounds on him, and could probably cold-cock him with
one punch."
But, there's just one problem with coming around and barfing such
putrefactions of interior dialog as yours out here on the public stage.
The fact that I am hardly a small man at 5'9.5" and 155 pounds, this does
not remove the stench and stain of your crime against the little people of
the earth, which is a bigotry of utterly the worst, most savage, bullying
and cowardly character. I'd even go so far as to say that I hate a little
people bigot worse than I hate a racist or anti-semite, because the little
people of the earth, black, white, Jewish, male, female really do suffer
alone, always have, always will, since no one ever takes their cause
seriously, since somehow the animalistic nature of man in your mind and
others like yours, refuses to see a serious matter in it.
Billy the Kid saw a serious matter in it, as he arrived at the day when he
decided that rather than listen to another word of that cruel, rotten shit,
he'd shoot the first man who would even begin to spew it. He was a little
man, greatly at the disadvantage in a fist fight with other men, or even,
one might say 'unfairly' so such that more than any other sort of man, a man
like Billy has the misfortune of being the target of more violence than any
man of a more average build. So, after having suffered the inconvenience of
one more bully like you, Fwoink, he just blew the next bastard like you
clean away, and never had a single twitch of conscience over it to his dying
day.
Unfortunately, unlike Billy, I do not live in a society where his solution
is a viable choice--as even, in the end, it proved not to be so for him.
But if this were such a society, yes, well, let's just say, Fwoink that you
may regard what follows as two guns blazing right at your guts: This is the
body that God gave me, and you have no damn right on earth to say one
crumby, stinking disparaging word about it. It is purely an objective
matter what a scum you are, any intelligent being can see it. You stoop to
the lowest thing to which a man can reach for his sense of self-worth, as
you think you can raise yourself up in the sight of others by standing on
the beaten body of another man. Thank your lucky stars I am not the King of
the World, the likes of you would be in a World of Trouble, but then again,
insofar as that just might be my aim--begin to tremble. :-)
--
Jerv
"I would stop all the cars, and the bars, and the wars, and make sweet love
to you. Joy to the World, All the boys and girls. Joy to the fishes in the
deep blue sea, and Joy! To you and me."
--Three Dog Night
New MP3's at the Jerv-Zine http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
"...and you know you're gonna be sorry, 'cause you treated me this way."
mule
> mu...@wibble.co.uk (mule) was born with a gift of laughter, and a
> sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the alt.writing part of
> it:
>
> >Are you
> >suggesting that the mule faked Glen?
>
> no. but the mule does not admit when he's wrong.
> he "fakes" that he knew all along.
>
> or so it would seem.
Oh, just one question Nancy, how come you always let me off so easy?
You're never so nice to the other inmates. I reckon you've got the
hots for my ginger fringe.
Daddio
Dr Zen <dr_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8vg2l6$8n1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Eat my wazoozie, dipshit. You'd have to be blind, or a moron not to see it.
Fucking jack-headed fool. Idiot. Moron. Retard.
--
Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
"To ask about that which should not be asked is to land in extremities.
To answer questioners who land in extremities is not to surmount
therefore the Kunlun Mountains and travel in the realm of the Great Void."
--Laotse
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like unto him."
--Proverbs 26:4
>
Daddio
> I think Nancy only plays with relish when she thinks she's winning.
> She's a fucking sore loser. That's my 2 cents.
But your two cents isn't worth two cents, "Dr." "Zen", you fucking half-wit
who wouldn't know a Zen koan from a verse in a Presbyterian hymnal. You try
to pass yourself off as a literary critic around here but you don't know
shit, and yet you can't even so much as recognize the Glen Wall style in the
writings of Sam the "Mule", let alone the evidence of the ISP being the
same, or i.e. as it was before he lately concealed it behind one of these
proxy name servers. It was Freeserve UK, same as Glen's. Not too goddam
observant are ya? No, it's not "proof", don't try that cheap trick. I said
"evidence". A preponderance of evidence continues to pile up in favor of
the hypothesis.
So, now you dig this, you disrespectful fucking no-count mudball on a roll.
You watch how you talk to me you down-under smart-mouth upside down drink of
shit with your mouth open at the asshole of the world, don't you forget WHO
you are talking to when you talk to me, you fucking dog who is not fit to
lick the Doublemint stuck to the sole of my shoe and chew it.
Where does this fucker get off? Actually imagines himself to be something
worthy of an opinion about ME?
Hoo boy. Next thing you know some goddam poodle will come around walking
on its hindlegs calling itself "Dr. Mu" and thinking itself worthy to be
heard, on no other credential than its Buddha Nature.
--
Jerv
New MP3'S at the Jerv-Zine http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
Ultraviolet
"nancy" <na...@gekkografx.com> wrote in message news:8FF3BD64...@24.1.240.74...
> Virtual...@eXXXcite.com (Ultraviolet) was born with a gift of
> laughter, and a sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the
> alt.writing part of it:
>
> >she plays the game with relish
>
> oh not relish. surely not! unless it's a
> salsa relish, with habaneros and teeny bits of
> tomato. but not that sweet pickle stuff. yech.
Mango relish/salsa is good. Fruity hunks, spicy
morsels, peppery pieces, ginger sauce. Goes well
with lamb. Or swordfish.
-UV
Ultraviolet
"Daddio" <dadd...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message news:cuDS5.10404$rs4.7...@nntp2.onemain.com...
> Ultraviolet <Virtual...@eXXXcite.com> wrote in message
> news:8vets0$tqu$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > I'm never going to agree with you about this stuff, Jerv. Now stop
> > obsessing and upload some more songs, k?
>
> But, if I'm right, you got to admit that my statement "But, as "Glen" you'd
> made a perfect jackass of yourself, hadn't you?" Couldn't be more
> hilarious.
Okay: if you're right, then that satement couldn't be more hilarious.
> Songs? Let's see. Did you get "Bird Song" yet?
Yep. Sorry to say, I really liked only the first few. It's not you -
I'm just a rock 'n roll girl.
> There's a whole new look at the J-Zine. Also got a new download site:
> 50megs.com.
Songs wouldn't play on my 'puter from there. Lycos listening
room still worked, though.
> No more pop ups. The J-Zine is still linked to Nettaxi only as
> a "Mirror Site" so now "Jerv-Zine II" is at 50megs. Also got a new page
> under the "More" link, with more songs. See how you like the wallpaper; I
> did it myself with my old Windows 3.1 paintbrush; all the wallpaper is my
> own er... 'art'.
Trippy, man. Like, whoa. Cool pic of you on main page, too.
-UV
Ultraviolet
"mule" <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:pr2n1toe3a107i01d...@4ax.com...
> "Ultraviolet" <Virtual...@eXXXcite.com> wrote in article
> <8vet10$2th$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>:
> > "mule" <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:5eek1ts08utn86e7s...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> > [Zen said]
> > > > >"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
> > > >
> > > > a smiley! that's better.
> > >
> > > No it fucking well isn't. If you can't communicate your emotions
> > > through words then what kind of horseshit writer are you?
> >
> >
>
> Present company excused.
:-)
Thanks, Gl...er, Mule.
-UV
Ultraviolet
"Dr Zen" <dr_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vg2l6$8n1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Face reality, Sam. Zen and now Nancy have seen that there just may be
> > something to it. I well recall Paula's response to the first ever
> > revelation I posted, as her finger went immediately to her lips with a
> > virtual "Sh! Not supposed to tell." We do learn to read betwixt the
> lines,
> > dear boy.
>
> No way. And don't drag me into your fucking madcap rubbish, Jerv. I was
> joking when I said it.
Ooh, you said "rubbish"! Glen always said that. Hmm.
Go on, say "illiterate drivel" now, so I can compare.
-UV
Daddio
Ultraviolet <Virtual...@eXXXcite.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Yep. Sorry to say, I really liked only the first few. It's not you -
> I'm just a rock 'n roll girl.
Maybe you'll like "Milk Cow Blues"--uploaded it last night. It's my first
recording done with the use of headphones and monitor; did it late at night
after my wife had gone to bed, just for a first test of the system. I was
just kind of quietly noodling around, as might be noted from the intro,
suddenly caught a groove and started singing the song. Before I knew it, I
was hitting the notes like I wanted 'em for a change. So, I thought, what
the hell, it sounded all right to me; a very quiet rocker that won't even
disturb the slumber of a sleeping person.
> Trippy, man. Like, whoa. Cool pic of you on main page, too.
<G> Heh. You should see all the uncool ones that had to happen just to get
that one. But, I really should have combed my hair better--oh well,
nothing's ever perfect.
--
Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
mule
> > laughter, and a sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the
> > alt.writing part of it:
> >
> > >she plays the game with relish
> >
> > oh not relish. surely not! unless it's a
> > salsa relish, with habaneros and teeny bits of
> > tomato. but not that sweet pickle stuff. yech.
>
>
> morsels, peppery pieces, ginger sauce. Goes well
> with lamb. Or swordfish.
Did someone say ginger?
mule
Merely an imitation. Don't be fooled by inferior copies.
Fundoc
"Ultraviolet" <Virtual...@eXXXcite.com> wrote in message
news:8vh2pf$67v$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
>
> Yep. Sorry to say, I really liked only the first few.
You duplicitious Jezebel cunt
Daddio
news:YnVS5.265446$JS3.40...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Correction: Duplicitous *little* Jezebel cunt.
But, that's okay. The first few really were the best. If I get time today,
I'll take another crack at *Sweet Little Sixteen* with the new bridge on the
guitar and the monitor on the p.a., then maybe we'll be in the money again
with "tight dresses and lipstick, and worn out shoes."
"Oh mommy, mommy, I'm tellin' you...."
Andy
Ultraviolet <Virtual...@eXXXcite.com> wrote in message
> > > "mule" <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5eek1ts08utn86e7s...@4ax.com...
> > > > na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote in article
> > > > <8FF2B201...@24.1.240.74>:
> > >
> > >
> > > [Zen said]
> > > > > >"Oh" means "I am paying no attention" :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > a smiley! that's better.
> > > >
> > > > No it fucking well isn't. If you can't communicate your emotions
> > > > through words then what kind of horseshit writer are you?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Present company excused.
>
>
> :-)
>
> Thanks, Gl...er, Mule.
Very nice double bluff, you two, but I know who the real Glen Shady is.
>
> -UV
>
>
Fundoc
> Fundoc <fun...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:YnVS5.265446$JS3.40...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep. Sorry to say, I really liked only the first few.
> >
> > You duplicitious Jezebel cunt
>
> Correction: Duplicitous *little* Jezebel cunt.
>
> But, that's okay. The first few really were the best. If I get time
today,
> I'll take another crack at *Sweet Little Sixteen* with the new bridge on
the
> guitar and the monitor on the p.a., then maybe we'll be in the money again
> with "tight dresses and lipstick, and worn out shoes."
>
> "Oh mommy, mommy, I'm tellin' you...."
> --
> Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
>
>
I dloaded Out of Nowhere the other day. I wouldn't have believed it
possible, but your singing is worse than your prose. Kudos.
--
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/weasels.html
"lovely.... I don't know (how) else
to put it." -- the Glen Wall subpersonality
Frank S.
> Well now, Fwoink,
>
> Many an hour has gone by leaving you unjoined, all alone and forlorn
in your
> opinions as stated below.
Forlorn? Of course. You have fallen for a pair of creaky old fallacies:
"A Popular Vote Determines What Or Who Is Best," and "An Opinion
Unexpressed Is Not Held."
So, I have chosen to condescend toward pity in
> your regard, in order that you might not slip into despondancy and
other
> miseries too tragic to mention.
Well, I would certainly appreciate that, but your premise and conclusion
are both far off the mark. I think you are again proving my assesment of
the subject of your effluent.
<snip>
> --
> Jerv
>
>
You know, Jerviz, I was tempted to read beyond the first paragraph of
this. Then I came to my senses, secure in the knowledge that
whatever—*whatever*—you spilled on the page would fulfill my expressed
expectations and support my assertions, *to wit*:
<< Jervis, in his usual fog, composes paragraph upon paragraph of
analysis
that could be counted right, righteous, and correct, if the subject were
Jervis. (I'm certain he knew, at some subterranean level, that it was.
Isn't it always?)
Jervis, in his usual fog, fabricates within his mind a number of turned
phrases and neat embellishments; having this festering little missile in
his arsenal, he casts about for a likely target, and—Well, looky here! A
damsel under attack—he insinuates his bony, insubstantial bum, complete
with Briticisms.
Well aware his persona is universally regarded as a nadir in Usenet
beingness, Jervis is again in no-risk territory. >>
You don't seem to be able to read, understand, gauge, or write. Maybe
you should stick to foisting "music." Your multitude of fans would
surely appreciate it. I'll bet someone who finds you and your gyrations
interesting could extract significant supporting statistics from
expressions in this forum. If that kind of thing is important to you.
Way I figure it, Jervis, is that you have exactly no comprehension of
anything outside your own twisted self. You're pretty old to be stuck
there. Still, it might be worth the effort to check in to the part of
the universe that isn't centered near your pituitary. You've still got a
little time left.
"Forlorn" Frank
nancy
sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the alt.writing part
of it:
>na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote in article
><8FF3BCBF...@24.1.240.74>:
>> mu...@wibble.co.uk (mule) was born with a gift of laughter, and
>> a sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the alt.writing
>> part of it:
>>
>> >Are you
>> >suggesting that the mule faked Glen?
>>
>> no. but the mule does not admit when he's wrong.
>> he "fakes" that he knew all along.
>>
>> or so it would seem.
>
>Oh, just one question Nancy, how come you always let me off so
>easy? You're never so nice to the other inmates. I reckon you've
>got the hots for my ginger fringe.
truth be told, i'm terrified of you. that heavy
book, you know. very intimidating.
--
n
You know you've been working too hard when you can travel without
moving.
nancy
and a sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the alt.writing
part of it:
>
>
>Dr Zen <dr_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8vg2l6$8n1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <ppAS5.5251$l95.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>,
>> "Daddio" <dadd...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>>
>> No way. And don't drag me into your fucking madcap rubbish,
>> Jerv. I was joking when I said it.
>
>Eat my wazoozie, dipshit. You'd have to be blind, or a moron
>not to see it. Fucking jack-headed fool. Idiot. Moron. Retard.
>
>--
>Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
>
>"To ask about that which should not be asked is to land in
>extremities. To answer questioners who land in extremities is
>not to surmount therefore the Kunlun Mountains and travel in the
>realm of the Great Void." --Laotse
>
>"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made
>like unto him." --Proverbs 26:4
>
>
>
>>
>> Zen
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>
>
wazoozie?
nancy
a sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the alt.writing
part of it:
>I think Nancy only plays with relish when she thinks she's
>winning. She's a fucking sore loser. That's my 2 cents.
>
troll.
<pout>
Daddio
> > Fundoc <fun...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:YnVS5.265446$JS3.40...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Ultraviolet" <Virtual...@eXXXcite.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8vh2pf$67v$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep. Sorry to say, I really liked only the first few.
> > >
> > > You duplicitious Jezebel cunt
> >
> > Correction: Duplicitous *little* Jezebel cunt.
> >
> > But, that's okay. The first few really were the best. If I get time
> today,
> > I'll take another crack at *Sweet Little Sixteen* with the new bridge on
> the
> > guitar and the monitor on the p.a., then maybe we'll be in the money
again
> > with "tight dresses and lipstick, and worn out shoes."
> >
> > "Oh mommy, mommy, I'm tellin' you...."
> > --
> > Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
> >
> >
>
>
> I dloaded Out of Nowhere the other day. I wouldn't have believed it
> possible, but your singing is worse than your prose. Kudos.
Look who's talking. Ha! At least I'm attempting something in the way of a
melody. If you want to call all that shouting into a microphone you do
"singing" then yeah, by your standards, it ain't too hot; sure as hell won't
make it to the hippety-hop charts. On the other hand, of course, I fully
disagree with you about my singing on that track, as I think so would others
with an ear for improvisational jazz vocal. Fact is, I completely disagree.
You got a dead ear in my book, chump.
Daddio
news:8vhdka$4nnob$1...@ID-34438.news.dfncis.de...
> > "evidence". A preponderance of evidence continues to pile up in favor
of
> > the hypothesis.
>
and
> anchovy sandwiches. And, he doesn't look the slightest bit Rumanian.
Well, now you mentioned it, I never would've thought of that. But, it's
probably just one of those analomies of Kantian antinomies that you can't
reconcile with reason--if you think about it, like, for a minute or two,
more or less.
Daddio
Frank S. <fsheffi1@san dot rr dot com> wrote in message
news:yxXS5.3713$b73.1...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
>
> "Daddio" <dadd...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> news:E3MS5.5618$l95.2...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > Well now, Fwoink,
> Way I figure it, Jervis, is that you have exactly no comprehension of
> anything outside your own twisted self. You're pretty old to be stuck
> there. Still, it might be worth the effort to check in to the part of
> the universe that isn't centered near your pituitary. You've still got a
> little time left.
>
>
> "Forlorn" Frank
Jealous bastard.
>
Daddio
> dadd...@nettaxi.com (Daddio) was born with a gift of laughter,
> wazoozie?
It's not a holy relic, my dear.
Daddio
Envious little....
No. That 'little' is way overused. I like Brando's line from *One-Eyed
Jacks*:
Envious goddam 'tub of guts'.
How's that suitcha Fwoink? That's you in a nutshell, eh?
Tub of guts.
Haw! Yeah.
Anopheles
> > I think Nancy only plays with relish when she thinks she's winning.
> > She's a fucking sore loser. That's my 2 cents.
>
half-wit
> who wouldn't know a Zen koan from a verse in a Presbyterian hymnal. You
try
> to pass yourself off as a literary critic around here but you don't know
> shit, and yet you can't even so much as recognize the Glen Wall style in
the
> writings of Sam the "Mule", let alone the evidence of the ISP being the
> same, or i.e. as it was before he lately concealed it behind one of these
> proxy name servers. It was Freeserve UK, same as Glen's. Not too goddam
> observant are ya? No, it's not "proof", don't try that cheap trick. I
said
> the hypothesis.
Yeah? Well what about the anti-evidence? Mule simply hates goat's cheese and
anchovy sandwiches. And, he doesn't look the slightest bit Rumanian.
Anopheles
Frank S.
Fundoc
>
> Look who's talking. Ha! At least I'm attempting something in the way of
a
> melody. If you want to call all that shouting into a microphone you do
> "singing" then yeah, by your standards, it ain't too hot; sure as hell
won't
> make it to the hippety-hop charts. On the other hand, of course, I fully
> disagree with you about my singing on that track, as I think so would
others
> with an ear for improvisational jazz vocal. Fact is, I completely
disagree.
> You got a dead ear in my book, chump.
>
Talk into your "Mr Microphone" gramps. I can't hear you.
Frank S.
> Frank S. <fsheffi1@san dot rr dot com> wrote in message
>
> No. That 'little' is way overused. I like Brando's line from
*One-Eyed
> Jacks*:
>
> Envious goddam 'tub of guts'.
>
> How's that suitcha Fwoink? That's you in a nutshell, eh?
>
> Tub of guts.
>
> Haw! Yeah.
>
> --
> Jerv http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
You are improving: just wrong two out of three. Not bad for a third
grade insult tosser. Do you reckon your status is enhanced when you let
your inner child vent? Don't tell me the esteem of your readers isn't
important to you: you're the one who figured a poll would settle
something.
Anopheles
"Daddio" wrote:
> Anopheles <hi...@jeack.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8vhdka$4nnob$1...@ID-34438.news.dfncis.de...
> of
> > > the hypothesis.
> >
> > Yeah? Well what about the anti-evidence? Mule simply hates goat's cheese
> and
> > anchovy sandwiches. And, he doesn't look the slightest bit Rumanian.
>
>
> probably just one of those analomies of Kantian antinomies that you can't
> reconcile with reason--if you think about it, like, for a minute or two,
> more or less.
Well, I thought about it for less than a minute but it began to hurt.
Fucking analomies! You have to cook them just right or they taste like
tyres. It helps if you beat the shit out of them before they go in the pan.
Anopheles
Daddio
Hey now, let's try and get a fix on reality, here. No more "Mr.
Microphone", okay? Let's come up to date in your knowledge of what's
happening here. Try a Roland mixer and two hundred watt Toshiba P.A.
That's what you're hearing on "Out of Nowhere", but unless you're hip to
early fifties era BeBop, man you ain't going to hear a thing, like you say.
You won't know what you're listening to, as quite clearly, you don't. And
don't give me this "gramps" horseshit because this has nothing to do with
age but beauty, rather. If you're too unhip to dig a music influenced by
Benny Carter, Billy Holiday and Charlie Parker, man you ain't even grown up
musically enough to tie your shoes without help. If you think that slogging
around in the fashions of contemporary "alternative" pap pop is where it's
at, man, you better pick up a CD of the Squirrel Nut Zippers and the Cherry
Popping Daddies before you are revealed for nothing but a Zero-Zero
Generation version of the 1910 Fruitgum Company or Pat Boone. Dig it, Dude,
I'm talking the eternal truth.
Fundoc
> Hey now, let's try and get a fix on reality, here. No more "Mr.
> Microphone", okay? Let's come up to date in your knowledge of what's
> happening here. Try a Roland mixer and two hundred watt Toshiba P.A.
Gosh. That sounds really state of the art.
"Hey now," said the chimpanzee, "let's get a fix on reality here. This is a
Commodore 64 I'm using here."
> That's what you're hearing on "Out of Nowhere", but unless you're hip to
> early fifties era BeBop, man you ain't going to hear a thing, like you
say.
What I'm hearing on OON is a mediocre guitarist singing out of tune over
hackneyed changes played on a guitar so far out of tune that it's painful.
And buy a metronome for fuck's sake.
> You won't know what you're listening to, as quite clearly, you don't. And
> don't give me this "gramps" horseshit because this has nothing to do with
> age but beauty, rather. If you're too unhip to dig a music influenced by
> Benny Carter, Billy Holiday and Charlie Parker, man you ain't even grown
up
> musically enough to tie your shoes without help.
The only thing you have in common with Charlie Parker, you self-aggrandizing
fuckwitted twaddle-pump, is that you should be relaxing at Camarillo.
>If you think that slogging
> around in the fashions of contemporary "alternative" pap pop is where it's
> at, man, you better pick up a CD of the Squirrel Nut Zippers and the
Cherry
> Popping Daddies before you are revealed for nothing but a Zero-Zero
> Generation version of the 1910 Fruitgum Company or Pat Boone. Dig it,
Dude,
> I'm talking the eternal truth.
The eternal truth, gramps, is that you're a desperate over the hill midget
with an ezine and a Mr Microphone. It's really fucking sad.
Daddio
> What I'm hearing on OON is a mediocre guitarist singing out of tune over
> hackneyed changes played on a guitar so far out of tune that it's painful.
> And buy a metronome for fuck's sake.
Screw you with a stupid ass metronome. A metronome? Hah! Get atta here,
kid. And dig it you silly toddler from twitsville, that guitar is not in
the least way out of tune in this song. What sounds 'out of tune' to your
tin ear is the effects processor delaying the notes for a chorus effect. As
to the 'mediocre' description of my chops? It comes from the mind of the
same tasteless putz who characterizes these changes by George Gershwin as
"hackneyed". Okay? See where you're at you envious little guttersnipe? Of
course. Face it: You just pus and puke-green jealous after all this
attention to my musical goodies, cause you can't stand it how your tunes
continue to be entirely ignored. I don't blame you for spreading this
disinformation, but I won't let you get away with it.
Now go lay your greasy butt with some dressing up it, back down where it
belongs on the dining room table.
There's a good boy.
Who wants a drumstick?
Happy Thanksgiving to all, and to all...
Good Night.
nancy
of it:
>There's a good boy.
>
and now we know. acd, you do that jervis
thang, like, *real* good. you know?
--
n
You know you are no longer a kid when... You are taller than the
slide at the McDonald's playland.
Debi Moseley
people can share their writing and offer guidance, advice and encouragement,
all I find is snide commentary, backbiting and general bullshit all too
common to the newsgroup community. I will lurk a it longer, in hopes that
what I was hoping for might manifest itself, but frankly, I don't hold out
much hope.
--
Debi
*
Chaos, panic and disorder-- my work here is done.
*
http://www.geocities.com/area51/chamber/8057
Debi Moseley
with my presence any longer.
PButler111
>From: "Debi Moseley" debi_...@yahoo.com
>Date: 11/24/2000 8:19 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <znFT5.662$uu4.4...@news1.atlantic.net>
>
>After reading only a few posts, in what I was hoping to be a list where
>people can share their writing and offer guidance, advice and encouragement,
>all I find is snide commentary, backbiting and general bullshit all too
>common to the newsgroup community. I will lurk a it longer, in hopes that
>what I was hoping for might manifest itself, but frankly, I don't hold out
>much hope.
>
>--
>Debi
Why wait? Best you leave now, averting your eyes as you go.
Buh bye!