Seriousness & Silliness
Don May
Good Day all, and welcome to all new comers I have missed
welcoming of late. The old timers here know me only too
well, Don, a.k.a. The Good Fairy.
Can’t speak for anyone else, all eyes roll upward, but I’ve
been pondering the situation. To me it’s not about taking
sides, it’s just what works. When to be serious and when to
be silly.
I can be exceedingly serious to the point of tears and as
frivolous a silly as any in these here parts. It is a fact
of nature it all comes from one head, but now I find myself
faced daily with a dilemma. I know where to be serious, it’s
just how silly can I be before hopping over to alt.skunks to
play. Trying to be PC, you know.
The folks at alt.skunks are fine folks and most ,if not all
there, are the same fine folks here too...Excuse me while I
feel schizoid...I think, I desperately want to use the royal
we, most of us know that in some ways taking a lot of the
playful chatter over to alt.skunks didn’t hurt us none too
much. But…But, it leaves me feeling a tab bit uncomfortable
with just where the line is at times. I don’t want to see
misc.writing become deadly serious, people cannot live on
seriousness alone. (that’s a PC cliché) I suppose it will
work itself out on its own.
Suppose most of us know when we are fabulously silly where
to take it, and that’s OK. It’s just when you are being
plain old silly where to take it that may take some thought.
I for one don’t like to think about were I can or cannot be
silly, but I suppose it’s the price we are paying for having
such a popular group that it causes too, tooo many posts
here for one big sand box.
It’s the damn channel changing I have to get use to. All
that clicking and changing and remembering if I am a serious
Don, serious Fairy, silly Fairy or Fairly Stinkn’ Skunk
Fairy. Suppose I’ll get use to it, being how fiction writers
are, as Edward Abby liked to say, "controlled
schizophrenics."
Don
a.k.a. The Good Fairy
a.k.a. The Stinkn’ Fairy
PS--Pedantic folks…Is it Stinkn’ or Stink’n?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep thy smooth words and juggling homilies
For those who know thee not.--Lord Byron
chris mclaughlin
tm...@slip.net (Don May) wrote:
:now I find myself
:faced daily with a dilemma. I know where to be serious, it’s
:just how silly can I be before hopping over to alt.skunks to
:play. Trying to be PC, you know.
Oh, heavens forbid! You, PC?!!!!??!
Don't sweat it, Don. You have taste and judgment enough.
Go with your intincts: they are good ones.
Just remember that some of us aren't allowed to
tread in alt. groups, and other of us will just
prefer one place or another.
Silliness hasn't left this place, you know.
Chris.tine
(not while I'm here, anyway.)
Jack Mingo
Don May wrote:
>
> Can’t speak for anyone else, all eyes roll upward, but I’ve
> been pondering the situation. To me it’s not about taking
> sides, it’s just what works. When to be serious and when to
> be silly.
The problem too often, in my unbearably humble opinion, with the
skunklike "silliness" in m.w was that it didn't pay off for readers.
Unless you were one of the 2, 3 or 4 people involved in making it, it
was not entertaining, not funny, not informative, not much of anything
that would make it worth the time to even scan--and in a frenzy, such a
little in-group posting could easily generate 30 or 40 posts of no
interest beyond their little group. See alt.skunk for example and
ask--if you weren't posting in on the fun, how many would you want to
sit and read?
The rule of thumb that I try to live up to (and probably fail a lot at)
is: If it's more fun to write it than read it, then it probably belongs
in skunkland. Again, a writerly exercise--considering your audience and
trying to maximize it.
Jack ("If you can't be profound, be informative; if you can't be
informative, be entertaining; if you can't be entertaining, keep it
short) Mingo
Towse
[cc:] Don May wrote:
<snip>
> Can’t speak for anyone else, all eyes roll upward, but I’ve
> been pondering the situation. To me it’s not about taking
> sides, it’s just what works. When to be serious and when to
> be silly.
<snip>
Amigo, the folks here are still silly at times. How could we *not* be
with Anna and Chris.tine still bouncing around on their trampoline and
Jack Mingo hanging his () here?
What seems to have moved to alt.skunks are the flirty banter threads and
the endlessly silly cascades which cluttered the content of misc.writing
to such an extent visitors and newcomers (and this old-timer) had
trouble finding substance.
Yes, I know. For some silly cascades *are* substance and a way to warm
up for writing. For some cascades and banter were the *only* reason they
were in m.w at all, but as I said in a rather memorable post, endless
jocularity and silliness aren't my cuppa.
I see the glimmer of the old charm, what attracted me to m.w, here
again. There are fewer threads I nuke out of existence. There are fewer
subjects being graffiti'd with the virtual spray paint of silliness.
I think the alt.skunks solution was clever and wonderful. What a crafty
solution! Not something I would have thought of myself.
With luck both contingents will flourish and folks such as thee,
Goodn'Stink'n Fairy, will continue to banter and cascade in alt.skunks
and come to m.w for a different sort of humor and silliness, for
thoughtful and serious discussions, and for (yipes!) discussions of
writing (such as we get from Sharon and Patricia) which seem be non
grata in alt.skunks. And, of course, arguments about the Oxford comma,
questions about questionable agents, and advice about simultaneous
queries.
As always, amigo,
The Wicked Witch of the West (Coast),
Sal
chris mclaughlin
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>six inches.
>Marty (decide for yourself: profane, inane, entertaining or short?)
Short.
Definitely short.
And probably an exaggeration at that!
Chris.tine
ES
Sexist, racist, uptightist, attackist, goofiest.
SW
Jack Mingo wrote:
>
> Don May wrote:
> >
> > Can’t speak for anyone else, all eyes roll upward, but I’ve
> > been pondering the situation. To me it’s not about taking
> > sides, it’s just what works. When to be serious and when to
> > be silly.
>
Wendy Chatley Green
For some inexplicable reason, a...@peavine.com (Jensen) wrote:
:What font should I use for my manuscript?
Wingdings
:And just how big are jack mingo's margins?
Six inches.
--
Wendy Chatley Green -- wcg...@cris.com
Wendy Chatley Green
:wrote:
:
:>For some inexplicable reason, a...@peavine.com (Jensen) wrote:
:>
:>:And just how big are jack mingo's margins?
:>
:> Six inches.
:>
:
:Would that be the left and right margins or the top and bottom margins?
Both. This leaves a -4 inch space between the right and left
margins and a -.5 space between the top and botton margins (assuming
that Jack prints on 8x11.5 inch paper) for his writing. Fortunately,
his editors are used to his shorthand and abbreviations.
Erin Barrett
On 16 Mar 1998 18:52:08 GMT, vinc...@wfu.edu (Kathy Vincent) wrote:
>
>I think it's worth pointing out, no matter how one thinks
>about the exodus in general, that we lost Fred Willard.
>Period. He says he's not coming back.
>
>
>I, for one, consider that a major loss.
That makes two of us.
And yes, there's a more sobering feel back to the group now. And many
really dull, previously covered topics which put me to sleep while
reading for the hundredth time.
The thread skipping hasn't died back a bit, for this old timer, with
The Exodus, even as the number of posts dwindled down to almost half.
My impression is that it's not the topic of the posts, however, as
much as the tension this whole mess placed on the people in the group.
It sort of killed the spark, except the perpetual one going on with
Chris.tine and Anna, which is always amusing, touching, and fiery to
watch for a few minutes.
Good thing my schedule picked up, I suppose. But my stars! I miss
Fred.
Erin
PDNetzley
Sal Towse wrote lots of nice stuff,
including:
>Goodn'Stink'n Fairy, will continue to
>banter and cascade in alt.skunks
>and come to m.w for a different sort of
>humor and silliness, for thoughtful and
>serious discussions, and for (yipes!) discussions of
>writing (such as we get from Sharon and Patricia)
>which seem be non grata in alt.skunks.
Thanks, Sal, for acknowledging my contributions.
=)
As I've said before, I really enjoy participating
in MW's serious writing discussions, and plan to
continue doing so regardless of what happens with
alt.skunks. I really want to help people become
successful with their writing -- whether 'success'
is defined in monetary terms or as a form of personal
satisfaction.
At the same time, I don't have any problem with
seeing certain types of humor in MW. As you
might recall, I was the person who first defined
defined MW as a cocktail party. And I view the
split in the same vein. Some of us are in the
living room talking about serious subjects like
politics, writing, and agents, throwing in
an occasional witty remark to entertain our friends.
Others of us are in the kitchen telling dirty jokes and
making up skunk poems. Everybody is having a good
time, and folks feel free to roam from room to room
the spirit moves them.
-- patricia (who doesn't want to know what's going on
in the bedroom or bathroom!)
Kathie Meyer
In article <6ejsco$o...@f1n1.spenet.wfu.edu>,
vinc...@wfu.edu (Kathy Vincent) wrote:
>I think it's worth pointing out, no matter how one thinks
>about the exodus in general, that we lost Fred Willard.
>Period. He says he's not coming back.
>
>I, for one, consider that a major loss.
I miss Fred too, but still haven't quite understood why what was posted and
suggested led to such a go away mad episode.
If I were to have all day, every day to hang out here because I'm
independently wealthy (or being fully supported by another) and don't need
this day job and night job and writing job, then maybe I could abide wading
through the threads full of nothing but people shouting each others names
at each other. But I don't have that much time. I need this group for
substance to leap up to the next writing goal. It was getting darn hard to
find that here. I was getting more substance in the backchannel and while
that might work for me as an "old timer", I'm sure it wasn't doing much for
new people.
I don't want a 100% serious newsgroup either. But there has got to be a
limit. It's too bad people got their feelings hurt in the process. I'm sure
that was not the intent.
Kathie Meyer
Kemnitzer,Trollman
On 16 Mar 1998 22:52:18 GMT, pdne...@aol.com (PDNetzley) wrote:
> As you
>might recall, I was the person who first defined
>defined MW as a cocktail party. And I view the
>split in the same vein. Some of us are in the
>living room talking about serious subjects like
>politics, writing, and agents, throwing in
>an occasional witty remark to entertain our friends.
>Others of us are in the kitchen telling dirty jokes and
>making up skunk poems. Everybody is having a good
>time, and folks feel free to roam from room to room
>the spirit moves them.
>
>-- patricia (who doesn't want to know what's going on
>in the bedroom or bathroom!)
apparently, in the bathroom, we are picking nits.
And in the bedroom, we are passed out on top of people's coats,
passing around a tray of tiny brown bottles, each containing an
essential aroma, and playing this game:
"it" picks a bottle at random from the tray and sniffs. Then he or
she tells the memory it evokes. The other recumbent players guess the
odor that evoked it. The person who gets it right gets to tell a long
tangential story involving another of the senses.
The eventual winner gets to wear somebody else's coat home.
Lucy Kemnitzer
>
>
Jack Mingo
Erin Barrett wrote:
>
> On 16 Mar 1998 18:52:08 GMT, vinc...@wfu.edu (Kathy Vincent) wrote:
>
> >
> >I think it's worth pointing out, no matter how one thinks
> >about the exodus in general, that we lost Fred Willard.
> >Period. He says he's not coming back.
> >
> >
> >I, for one, consider that a major loss.
>
> Good thing my schedule picked up, I suppose. But my stars! I miss
> Fred.
Both he and Howard are over posting a zillion times a day in alt.skunks.
One statistic I saw was that nearly half of all posts over there come
from those two alone.
Jack (enjoy!) Mingo
Jack Mingo
ERNST E. SCHULTZE wrote:
>
> Sexist, racist, uptightist, attackist, goofiest.
> SW
...and let me add to my list, "try to make sense."
Jack (as best you can) Mingo
Towse
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> >> In article <350DE6...@pacbell.net>,
> >> Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> proclaimed:
>
> > Both [Fred] and Howard are over posting a zillion times a day in
> > alt.skunks. One statistic I saw was that nearly half of all posts
> > over there come from those two alone.
>
> posts between the start of the group and yesterday.
>
> If I've told you once, Jack, I've told you a zillion times: leave the
> exageration to me.
These are your stats? Truly "keeper of stats"?
Perhaps you need a new ISP <g>.
The ISP I use for news shows 2416 articles on the spool for a.s. These
include a few orphans from before the Exodus.
Rather than ramble through all the namechanges and such that are going
on, I used Deja News because the top two posters and some other prolific
ones as well don't use the x-no-archive flag...bless 'em.
2416 articles
Marty shows
> 40% or about 230 + 142 (I'm not going to say which is most) total
> posts between the start of the group and yesterday.
I show (as of this evening, using Deja News (of course!) as my source
41.5% or about 551 (22.8%) + 452 (18.7%) (I'm not going to say which
count goes to which of the two most prolific posters).
Some other nameless someone whose name pops up alot clocks in at
215 (8.9%) posts
while another nameless someone (who has been known to spoof zir address
*so* badly I can't use Deja News to count) clocks in (with name changes
but the same address) at 123 (5.1%)
These four posters, 'ccording to Deja News' archives, are responsible
for 55.5% of the traffic in alt.skunks.
Sure.
No problem,
Sal
Paul Harwood
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:27:57 GMT, tm...@slip.net (Don May) wrote:
>It’s the damn channel changing I have to get use to. All
>that clicking and changing and remembering if I am a serious
>Don, serious Fairy, silly Fairy or Fairly Stinkn’ Skunk
>Fairy. Suppose I’ll get use to it, being how fiction writers
>are, as Edward Abby liked to say, "controlled
>schizophrenics."
I'm away from home, and reading -- and posting -- in haste, but I have
to say:
The alt.skunks folks left of their own volition. They didn't take
silliness with them <though they apparently engaged in quite a
campaign to take posters with them>. To my thinking, nothing has
changed in misc.writing except the particular mix of individuals.
I've noticed a certain hesitancy to be flippant here since the exodus;
this strikes me as silly, and is perhaps a remnant misunderstanding
about the flap that caused the exodus <I don't think of it as a split,
BTW: A split would be much more formal. No, this was a few people
taking their toys and their friends and electing to play elsewhere>.
The flap that caused the exodus never was about silliness. Silliness,
in my estimation, is still an integral part of misc.writing, just as
it has always been.
Don't think twice, Don. You can say silly things, you can say serious
things; IMHO, that hasn't changed.
And I hope it never does.
Paul Harwood
Alma Hromic
>The flap that caused the exodus never was about silliness. Silliness,
>in my estimation, is still an integral part of misc.writing, just as
>it has always been.
>You can say silly things, you can say serious things; IMHO, that hasn't changed.
>
>And I hope it never does.
>
you mean i still get to push your bad pun buttons in here? <g>
Alma (oh, goody...!<g>)
*****************************************************************************
If life had a second edition, how I would correct the proofs!
(John Clare)
*****************************************************************************
Marie Moore
Does anyone other than me find it just a _tad_ ironic that on a newsgroup
where folks complained that they didn't have time to delete "silly" posts,
so much time is now being spent researching posters' identities and posting
frequencies and calculating statistics? <G>
Don May
>Does anyone other than me find it just a _tad_ ironic that on a newsgroup
>where folks complained that they didn't have time to delete "silly" posts,
>so much time is now being spent researching posters' identities and posting
>frequencies and calculating statistics? <G>
Humor works in strange and mysterious ways.
Don (Oh dear!...I have become part of the irony)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I used to think that everything was just being funny but now
I don’t know. I mean, how can you tell? -- Andy Warhol
Towse
Marie Moore wrote:
>
> Does anyone other than me find it just a _tad_ ironic that on a
> newsgroup where folks complained that they didn't have time to delete
> "silly" posts, so much time is now being spent researching posters'
> identities and posting frequencies and calculating statistics? <G>
<snip>
Haven't been here long, eh Marie?
This is something I'm known for and have been for years.
At your service,
Sal
Don May
>On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:22:58 GMT, Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com (Paul
>Harwood) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> <I don't think of it as a split,
>>BTW: A split would be much more formal. No, this was a few people
>>taking their toys and their friends and electing to play elsewhere>.
>>
> [snip]
>
>I would classify it as a split in one respect. There is an
>undercurrent of nasty bitterness in a number of posts in both groups.
>It is just the kind of tone one would expect of a split.
>
>A lot of people who outwardly claim they don't care, seem to care a
>great deal, at least enough to make little digs here and there. It
>makes it a little uncomfortable for those who follow both groups.
>
>Jason K. Chapman
Thanks for posting this Jason...I too am at a loss why a few
denizens are making this into a us-them sort of thing.
Particularly in view of the fact that them is us. <g>
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk
of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at
himself does not. -- Václav Havel (b. 1936), Czech
playwright, president.
chris mclaughlin
J&M Chiffriller <ch...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: We didn't
:'lose' Fred, he chose to leave and his leaving promted some good things to
:happen, here and elsewhere. I'm Irish - we're used to this kind of
:diaspora.
Ah, sure 'n you might want to fortify your image a bit.
This one's spongy as peat. It'll absorb a lot of moisture
or it'll burn smokey, but as a container for the thing
contained, well, I wouldn't trust my lifesavings in
it going across the ocean.
McLaughlin
Ogre
In article <gekko.890148089@valley>, mama n <gekko...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
[snip to answer a serious query]
>mama n / moira, who wonders what "HTH" means.
Lotsa things. "Hold This Hat", "Here, This's His (or Hers)", "Hang Thy
Head", "Happily Tried Haggis", and maybe a few others. Depends on
context, really.
Ogre, HTH
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes and in future lives go on
to grow into better people. Others, who don't, become ogres."
- E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Eliminate Unsolicited Commercial Email: http://www.cauce.org
Wendy Chatley Green
For some inexplicable reason, "mama n" <gekko...@aztec.asu.edu>
wrote:
:mama n / moira, who wonders what "HTH" means.
It's a brand of pool chemicals. Marty has branched out into
advertising and is subjecting us to subliminals. Look for "GMC' to
appear in his posts (he got the truck account.)
--
Wendy (yes, )
Chatley (this is a silly post)
Green -- wcg...@cris.com
J&M Chiffriller
chris mclaughlin wrote:
Sure an' I can't swim a bit so much the pity. I'll be workin' on me image when
dinner's done, Happy Saint Paddy'e to you!!
PDNetzley
In the interminable discussion of
"the split," Paul H. writes:
>The only part that I really care about is that
>some good people -- friends -- have apparently
>decided that their sillier posts are no longer
>welcome here. This just strikes me as being incorrect.
Well . . . I guess it's "true confessions time."
In my case, I was explicitly asked not to
post silly stuff here anymore. The request
came via e-mail, right around the time that we
were discussing the question: "Do you use the
subject line or the author's name to determine
whether to read a post?" Someone used that
as an opportunity to tell me that "people" who
search for for my posts by name are distressed
whenever they have to read one of my silly
posts instead of the serious ones they have
come to expect from me. This person asked
that I stick to talking about writing-related topics.
It was not the first time I've gotten such a request. I
received three others after participating in a mild flamewar
here. That time the e-mailers used the same argument -- i.e.,
"I specifically look for your posts" -- to ask me not to connect
myself to newsgroup hostilities.
The cumulative effect of these e-mails (which
were very polite, by the way) convinced
me to stop posting "silly stuff" here. This decision
came shortly *before* the creation of Skunkville,
which happily has now given me a place to express
all parts of myself -- not just the serious one --
without fear of censure.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion regarding
at least one skunker's motivations.
-- patricia
J&M Chiffriller
Jack Mingo wrote:
> Don May wrote:
> >
> > Can’t speak for anyone else, all eyes roll upward, but I’ve
> > been pondering the situation. To me it’s not about taking
> > sides, it’s just what works. When to be serious and when to
> > be silly.
> <snip>
> The rule of thumb that I try to live up to (and probably fail a lot at)
> is: If it's more fun to write it than read it, then it probably belongs
> in skunkland. Again, a writerly exercise--considering your audience and
> trying to maximize it.
>
> Jack ("If you can't be profound, be informative; if you can't be
> informative, be entertaining; if you can't be entertaining, keep it
> short) Mingo
So true, but I'm glad to have both groups to wander between, I missed a lot
of the levity when it was gone. This way I can be silly or serious,
depending on what moves me at the moment. I wouldn't want to give up
either. This group has been a welcome break during many long nights of
trying to gather my thoughts and get them to speak to others. Even though
my primary position has been lurking, I feel I'm a part of the group. I
feel the same about alt.skunks. I think my opinion is shared by others, but
if not, then not...
J&M Chiffriller
Kathy Vincent wrote:
> I think it's worth pointing out, no matter how one thinks
> about the exodus in general, that we lost Fred Willard.
> Period. He says he's not coming back.
>
> I, for one, consider that a major loss.
>
> --
> Kathy Vincent <vin...@rbdc.rbdc.com, http://www.rbdc.com/~vincent>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The way to love anything is to realize that it might be lost."
> -- G.K. Chesterton
OK and I share your sentiments, but the living continue and we know he's
gone to a place where he's happy, so don't grieve too long. We didn't
'lose' Fred, he chose to leave and his leaving promted some good things to
happen, here and elsewhere. I'm Irish - we're used to this kind of
diaspora. There are still an amazing amount of enjoyable and knowledgable
people here. Who knows, maybe this group will get to be so very exciting
and alluring that Fred will join the rest of the group who wander between
worlds. Enough of the group ( and I add myself to the number) have let him
and others know that they are missed. If he's happier with this
arrangement, then it's a good thing.
Ari Nordstrom
>The flap that caused the exodus never was about silliness. Silliness,
>in my estimation, is still an integral part of misc.writing, just as
>it has always been.
Paul, baby, this is just so *right*. It's so *nineties*. GREAT
concept.
"MW - The Movie: This Summer, We'll Bring Slapstick Into Your
Computer".
/George (Love your tie, baby.)
--
"I don't suffer fools, and I'd like to see fools suffer."
- Florence King
Wendy Chatley Green
For some inexplicable reason, Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com (Paul
Harwood) wrote:
:On 16 Mar 1998 23:19:58 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
:
:>I'm not sure on what information the remark=20
:>
:> though they apparently engaged in quite a
:> campaign to take posters with them
:>is based. I seem to have missed the campaign.
:
:You and me both. A number of folks received <and are apparently
:receiving> invitations to come and join the skunk party. For obvious
:reasons, I was excluded from the list. Perhaps you were excluded
:because you're neither a) female, nor b) a frequent contributor to the
:goofier stuff.=20
Which one aren't I? (*sniff* *sob* ignored again!!! *sigh)
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Wendy, herewith your engraved invitation to skunkdom.
Please join us.
The Twitch Skunk (Sharon AKA Sarah Edwards
Dick Harper
Paul Harwood eloquently commented in misc.writing
> I've noticed a certain hesitancy to be flippant here since the exodus;
As long as we have a serious Fairy, silly Fairy or Fairly Stinkn’
Skunk Fairy, we can't be entirely serious.
--Flip
Alma Hromic
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:12:18 GMT, Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com (Paul
Harwood) wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:44:29 GMT, ang...@ihug.co.nz (Alma Hromic)
>wrote:
>
>>you mean i still get to push your bad pun buttons in here? <g>
>>Alma (oh, goody...!<g>)
>
>Life wouldn't be the same if you didn't.
<evil little grin> i'll keep that in mind...
>I'm glad you're still around, Alma. I'm not sure I could bare it if
>you became a skunk.
>
i think i just startled the skunk party by revealing that i was a
vixen in disguise. <g>
Alma (thanks, paul. now, shall i archive this post...? <g>)
Alma Hromic
>The only part that I really care about is that some good people --
>friends -- have apparently decided that their sillier posts are no
>longer welcome here. This just strikes me as being incorrect. I'm only
>speaking for myself, of course, and I may have completely misread the
>feelings of the others here, but I'll say again that I think that
>silliness belongs here just as much as it ever has. If that changes, I
>don't think I'll be sticking around.
>
i don't think i could stay QUIET too long. if someone tosses a
punnable something into the pot i'll worry at it. it's genetic, i
think <G>
so, paul, adhere. <g>if humour is a glue stick that'll keep you around
here, i for one volunteer to apply it as often as necessary.
A.
Alexander J Berman
>i think i just startled the skunk party by revealing that i was a
>vixen in disguise. <g>
>
>Alma (thanks, paul. now, shall i archive this post...? <g>)
Huh. And here I had you figured for a minx.
Alex Jay Berman
-- needs to find his old Safari Cards
"Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, in the machinery of the world."--Günter Eich
Alma Hromic
>In article <350f7d36...@203.29.160.2>, ang...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
>>i think i just startled the skunk party by revealing that i was a
>>vixen in disguise. <g>
>>
>>Alma (thanks, paul. now, shall i archive this post...? <g>)
>
>Huh. And here I had you figured for a minx.
>
i'm a rabbit in the chinese horoscope <g> does that help any?
Alma (i know, i know, neither hare nor there...)
Alma Hromic
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:18:09 GMT, beth.m...@ma.gov.ab.ca wrote to
PD Netzley:
>
>You were going outside of someone's expectations with posts not
>strictly writing-related? I do no see where these expectations should
>be your limits. As I see it, you come as a complex package, called a
>human being, that is can be serious, silly and nasty - if you feel so
>inclined. If some want to read only serious posts, fine, but I don't
>see why you should feel obliged to limit yourself just so that they
>don't have to do a bit of work sorting posts themselves.
>
and i hope that i might for once be forgiven for tacking a "me too" on
to this.
well met, patricia, wherever you are. whatever you post.
A.
Don May
We do our best.
The Good Fairy
The SillyFairly
The odorous Fairy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hasten to laugh at everything for fear of being
obliged to weep at it.--Pierre de Beaumarchais
PDNetzley
Beth McKinley wrote:
>how many folk would seriously ask a
>friend or acquaintance to limit their
>conversation to what they personally
>find useful? Misc.writing fits, IMHO,
>much more into the friendly conversational
>arena than work or a task.
I'll have to give this some thought. In
many ways, MW is indeed conversational --
a cocktail party, as I've said before. But it's
also a classroom where people come to learn.
Sometimes these two aspects of the newsgroup
conflict.
And regarding:
>I don't see why you should feel obliged to limit
>yourself just so that they don't have to do a bit of
>work sorting posts themselves.
I think part of my reaction has to do with the
kind of writer I am. I always keep an imaginary
reader in mind when I work, and take suggestions
regarding my prospective audience very seriously.
I use criticism as a way to target my writing to
particular groups, and to evoke a specific response
from the individuals within those groups. Therefore
I found the argument regarding newsgroup-reader
expectations extremely compelling. But as I said,
I'm giving this more thought.
Thanks for sharing your comments and giving me
a new way to look at this issue.
-- patricia
Gene Royer
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
<6endjm$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> wcg...@cris.com (Wendy Chatley Green) wrote:
>
> >For some inexplicable reason, Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com (Paul
> >Harwood) wrote:
> >:On 16 Mar 1998 23:19:58 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >:
> >:>I'm not sure on what information the remark=20
> >:>
> >:> though they apparently engaged in quite a
> >:> campaign to take posters with them
> >:>
> >:>is based. I seem to have missed the campaign.
> >:
> >:You and me both. A number of folks received <and are apparently
> >:receiving> invitations to come and join the skunk party. For obvious
> >:reasons, I was excluded from the list. Perhaps you were excluded
> >:because you're neither a) female, nor b) a frequent contributor to the
> >:goofier stuff.=20
> >
> > Which one aren't I? (*sniff* *sob* ignored again!!! *sigh)
> >
>
> Wendy, herewith your engraved invitation to skunkdom.
> Please join us.
>
> The Twitch Skunk (Sharon AKA Sarah Edwards
>
> >
> >--
> >Wendy Chatley Green -- wcg...@cris.com
Gene writes:
I just arrived and read this single post, and I can't tell who said what
from the above:
"I'm not sure on what information the remark=20
> >:>
> >:> though they apparently engaged in quite a
> >:> campaign to take posters with them
> >:>
> >:>is based. I seem to have missed the campaign."
Actually, what Fred and Howard and I did was simply contact some people via
e-mail that we thought might enjoy dropping over. It was hardly a campaign
at all. In fact, I left some folks off the list--by accident--who later
came of their own accord.
There are people we did not mention it to because of the *Jean Luc Picard*
syndrome. We, as the crew of the Enterprise, never invited the Captain to
come play cards with us because we didn't think he'd care to. Of course,
he was always welcome, and we were thrilled when he showed up; and we even
moved over to give him the seat with the soft cushion.
Usenet is open to the cyber public. Anyone can post anywhere he/she
chooses. In some places, they may not get a response. I posted to
misc.writing for quite a while before anyone acknowledged my presence. I
remember that I posted something I thought was humorous and I was called a
bigot.
But when someone shows up on alt.skunks they are responded to--even Lutz
got an answer to his burning question about removing nosehair.
--Gene Royer
chris mclaughlin
What I think?
ALL y'all take yourselves a little
teensy bit too seriously.
Both sides of the stripe.
Chris.tine
Jack Mingo
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> >> In article <199803190354...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> >> mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) proclaimed:
> >> [Mingo wrote]:
> >> The problem too often, in my unbearably humble opinion, with the
> >> skunklike "silliness" in m.w was that it didn't pay off for
> >> readers. Unless you were one of the 2, 3 or 4 people involved in
> >> making it, it was not entertaining, not funny, not informative,
> >> not much of anything that would make it worth the time to even
> >> scan--and in a frenzy, such a little in-group posting could
> >> easily generate 30 or 40 posts of no interest beyond their little
> >> group. See alt.skunk for example and ask--if you weren't posting
> >> in on the fun, how many would you want to sit and read?
>
> > As someone who's been on-line for years and used to be quite
> > active in MW, I agree with Jack. I just paid a visit to
> > alt.skunks, as someone who knows nothing about the various ins and
> > outs, it's unbearably dull to read. Very, very precious.
[...]
> The problem with estimates like Jack's is they are
> wet-finger-in-the-wind things. The simple truth of Usenet is that you
> can have no idea[1] of how many people read one of your posts, or of
> those that read it, how many found it worth the effort of reading.
Actually, the simple truth of becoming a genuine writer is that you
develop a very good idea of how many people will find a particular work
worth reading, and a very good idea how the subgroups of your readership
will respond to it. Otherwise, you will not be a writer for long.
> While I agree that one should attempt to write posts that one believes
> others will be willing to read, I strongly discourage people from
> assuming that their individual taste is an accurate guideline to
> reading tendencies.
It has only a little to do with taste. It has more to do with learning
to write for an audience, a readership. We are all nominally WRITERS,
after all. If we can't infer what there's a significant audience for,
then we should call ourselves something else.
Take a simple example: How do you discern that an editor and readers
will possibly be interested in a story well told about a person who, for
example, makes teddybears, but not in a 10,000-word essay about things
you've found in your nose? If you can't figure that difference out, then
your writing will likely not find an audience.
Being aware of your readers as you write--that's elemental: In the same
way a composer will know what is harmonic and what is dissonent and will
use them for effect, a writer will usually have a pretty good idea of
what effects their words will have. A writer will be able to
differentiate between which only they themselves will find fun to read,
what only one or two other people will want to read, and what is of more
widespread appeal. They will, I hope, write the first in their journal;
the second in mail or e-mail; and the third in a newsgroup.
> An irony about the discussion WRT the silly threads is that about the
> only real measure of entertainment/information value of a post that we
> have available is how much activity that post generates, in the form
> of thread responses. By that metric, the silly posts were/are quite
> successful, as they tend to generate quite a volume of traffic, and,
> despite SWAG guesses, actually tend to involve quite a few posters.
(I bet those acronyms mean something in your world. I can, if I spend a
few long moments guess "with regard to" for the first, and....? I
always think it funny when someone takes the time to write a clear
several-hundred-word post, but then clutters it up with obscure,
in-group acronyms. The overt idea, presumably, is to save those
half-dozen or so keystrokes, even if it means your readers will have to
stop and break concentration to decipher them. I usually just skip over
techtalk--or in this case pseudo-techtalk--often to the next paragraph
or post. But I suspect that many people are willing to lose a good chunk
of audience just to show what an old-timer they are...which is really
funny in a sad way, and an illustration of what I'm trying to say here.)
Mathethematical measurement of followup posts is one of the worst ways I
can think of to measure interest. It's like saying that "One Way Do Not
Enter" is better writing than Hamlet, because each day so many more
people read and heed the former's lessons than the latter.
Jack (You don't need a finger in the air to know which way the wind
blows) Mingo
The Last Real Marlboro Man
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:53:44 GMT, ang...@ihug.co.nz (Alma Hromic)
wrote:
>>I'm glad you're still around, Alma. I'm not sure I could bare it if
>>you became a skunk.
>>
>i think i just startled the skunk party by revealing that i was a
>vixen in disguise. <g>
>
>Alma (thanks, paul. now, shall i archive this post...? <g>)
Be careful, Alma. Please note that the perverted swine said "bare
it", not "bear it".
- Wayne
Ari Nordstrom
On 17 Mar 1998 21:16:55 GMT, pdne...@aol.com (PDNetzley) wrote:
>The cumulative effect of these e-mails (which
>were very polite, by the way) convinced
>me to stop posting "silly stuff" here. This decision
>came shortly *before* the creation of Skunkville,
>which happily has now given me a place to express
>all parts of myself -- not just the serious one --
>without fear of censure.
>
>I hope this clears up some of the confusion regarding
>at least one skunker's motivations.
>
>-- patricia
Nobody's going to censor your words here, Patricia. Some of the people
around might disapprove of your posting the silly stuff here, and say
so, but you don't *have* to listen to them, and you certainly don't
have to post somewhere else.
I'd tell them that their suggestion stinks.
/Ari
PDNetzley
Gene wrote:
>Actually, what Fred and Howard and I did was
>simply contact some people via e-mail that we
>thought might enjoy dropping over.
<snip>
>There are people we did not mention it to
>because of the *Jean Luc Picard* syndrome.
>We, as the crew of the Enterprise, never invited
>the Captain to come play cards with us because
>we didn't think he'd care to.
Well, now I'm really insulted.
Since I got an invitation, that means I'm not
a captain -- despite my beautiful stripes.
Prepare to be sprayed! <g>
;-) -- pd
MLYoung
>The problem too often, in my unbearably humble opinion, with the
>skunklike "silliness" in m.w was that it didn't pay off for readers.
>Unless you were one of the 2, 3 or 4 people involved in making it, it
>was not entertaining, not funny, not informative, not much of anything
>that would make it worth the time to even scan--and in a frenzy, such a
>little in-group posting could easily generate 30 or 40 posts of no
>interest beyond their little group. See alt.skunk for example and
>ask--if you weren't posting in on the fun, how many would you want to
>sit and read?
As someone who's been on-line for years and used to
be quite active in MW, I agree with Jack. I just paid a
visit to alt.skunks, as someone who knows nothing about the
various ins and outs, it's unbearably dull to read. Very, very
precious.
Which isn't to say the alt.skunkers shouldn't enjoy themselves.
I just don't feel like reading it. But then, I only really enjoy
MWV when it's a commentary on the newsgroup--I say
this as the lost-in-the-depths-of-time founder of the Viragos.
Anyway, posting should be like any other sort of writing--
particularly for writers--inform, entertain or both. When in
doubt, make it short.
--margaret (whose fellow writer husband and she ended up
with a very short wedding ceremony)
Carol Thomas
Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com (Paul Harwood) wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:44:29 GMT, ang...@ihug.co.nz (Alma Hromic)
>wrote:
>
>>you mean i still get to push your bad pun buttons in here? <g>
>>
>>Alma (oh, goody...!<g>)
>
>Life wouldn't be the same if you didn't.
>
>you became a skunk.
And, of course, she would never.
Carol
(A redheaded skunkette, maybe, but never a skunk. Right,
Scentsational?)
Dick Harper
Patricia eloquently commented in misc.writing
> In my case, I was explicitly asked not to
> post silly stuff here anymore. The request
> came via e-mail...
Dear Patricia,
Will you puleeeeethe keep pothting thilly thtuff??? It'th jutht
thuch a detholate dethert when thome of uth thenthor the
fripperouth thlapthtick nonthenthe with centhure.
--Dick
[emailed and pothted]
Alma Hromic
On 18 Mar 1998 10:12:09 GMT, at...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.J. Kalin)
wrote:
>Alma> i'm a rabbit in the chinese horoscope <g> does that help any?
> (i know, i know, neither hare nor there...)
>
>
>From Neil Somerville's _Your Chinese Horoscope_ :
<snip>
>Famous Rabbits -- Ingrid Bergman, Lewis Carroll, Fidel Castro, John Cleese,
>W.C. Fields, George Orwell, Edith Piaf, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Queen Victoria
><to name a few>
much of THAT explains a lot... (lewis carroll? you don't say...<g>)
><one further item of possible relevance>
>The Rabbit is especially well-suited to those born under the sign of the
>Goat...
>
ROTFL!
you are EVIL you are...
Alma Hromic
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:09:09 GMT, wl...@home.com (The Last Real
Marlboro Man) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:53:44 GMT, ang...@ihug.co.nz (Alma Hromic) wrote:
>
>>>I'm glad you're still around, Alma. I'm not sure I could bare it if
>>>you became a skunk.
>>>
>>vixen in disguise. <g>
>>
>>Alma (thanks, paul. now, shall i archive this post...? <g>)
>
>Be careful, Alma. Please note that the perverted swine said "bare
>it", not "bear it".
i particularly noticed that point, wayne <grin>
Alma Hromic
>>
>>I'm glad you're still around, Alma. I'm not sure I could bare it if
>>you became a skunk.
>
>And, of course, she would never.
>
>Carol
>(A redheaded skunkette, maybe, but never a skunk. Right,
>Scentsational?)
<purr>
Neil Blenkiron
Wendy Chatley Green <wcg...@cris.com> wrote:
> For some inexplicable reason, Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com (Paul
> Harwood) wrote:
> :On 16 Mar 1998 23:19:58 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> :
> :>I'm not sure on what information the remark=20
> :>
> :> though they apparently engaged in quite a
> :> campaign to take posters with them
> :>
> :>is based. I seem to have missed the campaign.
> :
> :You and me both. A number of folks received <and are apparently
> :receiving> invitations to come and join the skunk party. For obvious
> :reasons, I was excluded from the list. Perhaps you were excluded
> :because you're neither a) female, nor b) a frequent contributor to the
> :goofier stuff.=20
>
> Which one aren't I? (*sniff* *sob* ignored again!!! *sigh)
Oh for goodness sake! Don't wait for your invite, do what I did and
gatecrash (watch out comeing through the door though -- I saw someone
placing something above it).
--
Neil Blenkiron
AKA Nebulous Bowkay - Dyslexic Editor of Alt.Skunk
Oh OK then, evereyone's invited to the sillyness (or is that
skunkiness?), just leave you serious hats at the door please.
Neil Blenkiron
Alma Hromic <ang...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:31:48 GMT, smeg...@erols.com (Alexander J
> Berman) wrote:
>
> >In article <350f7d36...@203.29.160.2>, ang...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >
> >>i think i just startled the skunk party by revealing that i was a
> >>vixen in disguise. <g>
> >>
> >>Alma (thanks, paul. now, shall i archive this post...? <g>)
> >
> >Huh. And here I had you figured for a minx.
> >
> i'm a rabbit in the chinese horoscope <g> does that help any?
>
> Alma (i know, i know, neither hare nor there...)
>
LOL Very bunny Alma!
Neil B
--
"To be nobody but yourself--in a world which is doing its best night and
day, to make you everybody else--means to fight the hardest battle which
any human being can fight; and never stop fighting." e.e. cummings
Jack Mingo
Marty Fouts wrote:
[A long, well-written response that I disagree with in many key points,
agree with in others, and have little interest in following up because I
have a proposal to do]
> As far as I know, the only measure of 'quality' is by comparison to an
> aesthetic system; and I do know that aesthetic systems are pretty much
> a matter of taste.
And yet, the fact that so many people share certain aesthetics; the fact
that it is possible to discern quality even in art objects that are
personally outside one's taste, hints subtly (in a shouting sort of way)
that there is more than mere subjectivity involved, that there are
measurable--or at least discernable--standards that exist outside mere
personal taste.
Jack (In the same way that I know nothing about woodworking, but can
discern aspects of quality work) Mingo
Erin Barrett
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:55:35 GMT, Pa...@computerbits.com (Paul
Harwood) wrote:
>MHO is that it's possible to write a highly entertaining or
>informative post that generates no discussion or feedback whatsoever.
I think you may have touched on a very important point, Mr. Harwood.
It stands to reason that I, in all actuality, am not a thread killer.
I am a highly entertaining and informative poster whose contributions
get lost in the shuffle. All of my offerings to this prestigious group
are entertaining, intelligent, informative and of great interest if
anyone would bother to read them.
They're beautiful too.
It's just the stinking readership can't recognize brilliance when it's
right under their noses.
Erin
"Tell me, Julie. Am I right?
He's better off this way, too, poor feller."
PDNetzley
Well, since Paul Harwood said:
>Please share some of your silly stuff with us
>here, Patricia. Please don't send it ALL to Skunkville.
and Dick Harper said:
>Dear Patricia,
>Will you puleeeeethe keep pothting thilly thtuff???
and they are two of my favorite people in MW, then
I just have to oblige!
It's early on a coffee-less morning for me, but here
goes:
We once had a skunkette named Smell
Who would spray at the sound of a bell
When the doorbell would ring
We'd all shout "Stop that thing!"
And then we'd go running like hell.
Howzzat?
-- patricia, the spontaneous poet
Towse
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Sorry Jack, but WRT is one of the most common Usenet acronyms, and is
> understood by nearly everyone who used the medium. Nor have you
> correctly stated the overt idea. If I merely wanted to save
> keystrokes, I would use 'abbrev-mode' in my text editor, which causes
> it to automatically expand abbreviations. The common reason for using
> acronyms is that they are both faster to write _and_ faster to read,
> at least among those who bother to learn the vocabulary of the medium
> they are using.
>
> BTW, WRT is defined in the general Usenet FAQ, between BTW and RTFM,
> which, I assume, by now, you have done. HTH. (see
> http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/usenet/faq/part1/faq-doc-34.html
<snip>
Jack said he had less problem with WRT than with SWAG, Marty. Your whole
response never addressed SWAG, and neither does your URL reference.
Here you had a comment from a reader, Marty. You should listen.
Jack's concerns are very valid, especially considering all the "average
Joe" folks who now use Usenet who don't have the years on the 'net that
Jack does.
Jargon loses your audience and your reaction of "well, RTFM" is a sign
of a writer not caring much about his target audience but more about
what?
Let's look at how you could have worded things differently in that first
instance where Jack was jarred by acronyms:
> An irony about the discussion WRT the silly threads is that about the
> only real measure of entertainment/information value of a post that we
> have available is how much activity that post generates, in the form
> of thread responses. By that metric, the silly posts were/are quite
> successful, as they tend to generate quite a volume of traffic, and,
> despite SWAG guesses, actually tend to involve quite a few posters.
An irony about the discussion of the silly threads is that about the
only real measure of entertainment/information value of a post that
we have available is how much activity that post generates, in the
form of thread responses. By that metric, the silly posts were/are
quite successful, as they tend to generate quite a volume of
traffic, and, despite wild guesses, actually tend to involve quite a
few posters.
Simple, no? Much easier for "Jane Average" and "Joe Ordinary" to
understand.
When a simple word can replace the jargon and the jargon is preferred,
the writer, as Jack mentioned, is losing a part of his audience for no
reason other than, perhaps, to show what an old 'net hand they are.
Some people can take critique, some can't.
A good writer listens to criticism and doesn't blow it off with RTFM.
Jack's comments were spot on.
MOSHO.
Sal
PDNetzley
Ari wrote:
>Nobody's going to censor your words here,
>Patricia.
Oh, Ari! You're going to get both of us in
such trouble! <g>
I said "censure," not "censor."
But regarding:
>Some of the people around might disapprove of
>your posting the silly stuff here, and say
>so, but you don't *have* to listen to them,
>and you certainly don't have to post somewhere else.
>I'd tell them that their suggestion stinks.
Thanks for being so supportive -- and for including
a clever reference to skunks, which have so recently
become dear to my heart. You're terrific. =)
And I've decided that you're right.
This place definitely needs more silliness!
So here's a completely pointless and silly
limerick, which I composed in haste and will
probably repent at leisure.
[Warning: The following is a blatant attempt
to provoke someone to say "Hey! I can do
better than that! Isn't it about time for another
limerick contest around here?"]
There once was a man from Duluth
Who drank nothing else but vermouth
The neighbors were shocked
At the liquor he stocked
And called him, quite simply, uncouth.
(Yes, I know its ending is weak,
but at least it isn't about skunks.)
;-) -- patricia
PDNetzley
Jack Mingo wrote an interesting
post, in which he said:
>Being aware of your readers as you write--that's elemental
and discussed newsgroup writing as though it were
the same as published writing in regard to audience.
This is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped to
engender here. *Is* newsgroup writing the same
as published writing? Do you have to think about
your audience when you write posts? Or should
newsgroup writing instead be considered a form of
"thinking out loud," sort of like journal writing, with
no regard for audience. I know that both of these
approaches are represented among the members here.
I'm just wondering if one view prevails over another,
and if so, why.
-- pd
Elizabeth Moon
PDNetzley wrote:
>
> Jack Mingo wrote an interesting
> post, in which he said:
>
>
> the same as published writing in regard to audience.
>
> This is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped to
> engender here. *Is* newsgroup writing the same
> as published writing? Do you have to think about
> your audience when you write posts? Or should
> newsgroup writing instead be considered a form of
> "thinking out loud," sort of like journal writing, with
> no regard for audience. I know that both of these
> approaches are represented among the members here.
> I'm just wondering if one view prevails over another,
> and if so, why.
>
> -- pd
How can you shape your posts for your audience in newsgroups, when it's
constantly changing, and when different news servers carry different
packets all the time? When people who aren't even subscribed to the ng
may find your post in DejaNews, next to all those other posts which you
never saw because they didn't show up on your ISP's server? I have
*much* more sense of my audience when writing for book or magazine
publication than for newsgroups on Usenet.
I treat posts like letters to the editor of a large (very large)
newspaper...it's public, it's going to be read out of context, and the
chances of making a real connection to a particular individual are next
to zero. (When it happens, it seems to involve offlist email.)
Elizabeth
--
"A little raised number at the end of a statement is not an icon of
inerrancy." _British Medical Journal_
Fleming.Judi
[snip, snip, snippity, snip]
<laughing> Yep, things haven't changed that much here in m.w. afterall.
Go away on a years-long bus trip and see that not much has really changed
here.
<sigh>
At least there are some good points on audience within this thread (along
with all the nits that are being picked). Are you folks *that* bored or
is it that you have so much spare time that these types of discussions
are really the meat of this group? I sure hope not. I'm actually sort of
jealous. Wish I had the spare time to goof off in a newsgroup. Just
think of all the real (as in sell-to-a-publisher) writing I could have
done!!! <dreamy looks>
Wonder how many newbie lurkers (yep, I know their web-specific terms) are
cowering in their boots, afraid to post, because of such bitter
discussions as someone tears apart someone else's post, bit-by-bit? If
there are any, let me reassure them:
Welcome to the group. Pull up a chair and listen awhile. Think before
you post, but do post. Ask questions. Join in the discussions. And have
fun. Don't mind the mean ones here. Don't mind the flippant ones
either. Just take all with a grain of salt (wonder where that term came
from, she says, searching for her word origins dictionary). The group is
sort of like a wild-west bar with card games going on in the corners and
spittoons all over the floor. Gun fights break out every now and then,
but if you ignore them, they really won't shoot at you as an innocent
bystander. Belly up to the bar and order a long drink of the disease
called writing...
Bye for now,
Judi
PDNetzley
Judi Fleming wrote:
>Wonder how many newbie lurkers (yep,
>I know their web-specific terms) are
>cowering in their boots, afraid to post,
>because of such bitter discussions as
>someone tears apart someone else's post,
>bit-by-bit?
And trying to remain polite (because I interpreted
this post as hostile), I say:
You're very out of touch with what's been going
on here lately, and should have lurked a while before
posting. The group recently "split" into misc.writing and
alt.skunks. At first, serious posts remained here, and silly
ones ended up in Skunkville. That's how this thread
began. Now, however, MW is regaining a little playfulness
and alt.skunks has been having some very advanced
discussions related to the craft of writing. It's been
interesting to watch the changes that have taken place.
And, as a "long-timer" who participates in both groups, I
can attest to the fact that many more "newbies" are
coming forward to post these days. I'm seeing lots of
names I've never seen before. Therefore I conclude
that your depiction of those "newbies" as timid little souls
"cowering in their boots" is incorrect.
And regarding:
>Wish I had the spare time to goof off in a newsgroup.
>Just think of all the real (as in sell-to-a-publisher) writing
>I could have done!!! <dreamy looks>
Well, I spend quite a bit of time here, and I still managed
to write four books in 1997 (now published), and two
books (out of 12 under contract) so far this year. What's
your excuse?
-- patricia, who couldn't control her irritation after all
Kemnitzer,Trollman
On 19 Mar 1998 10:14:02 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
<at the end of a long post>
>
>Although that may just be a scientific wild assed guess on my part.[1]
>HTH.
>
>marty
>[1] and now you know the correction that should have been applied
>
Dear heart,
you lost me several times in that post. Only because I am persistent
and for some reason determined to understand "SWAG" did I keep
scrolling down and skimming till I found the end.
& Marty? I am not richer for having SWAG. My suggestion is "spell
it out next time."
Lucy Kemnitzer
Ari Nordstrom
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:16:28 -0800, Elizabeth Moon
<elizabe...@sff.net> wrote:
<snip>
>How can you shape your posts for your audience in newsgroups, when it's
>constantly changing, and when different news servers carry different
>packets all the time? When people who aren't even subscribed to the ng
>may find your post in DejaNews, next to all those other posts which you
>never saw because they didn't show up on your ISP's server? I have
>*much* more sense of my audience when writing for book or magazine
>publication than for newsgroups on Usenet.
Well, stick around for a while. Learn to kow some of the people here.
Misc.writing is a rather stable group, and many of the posters have
been around for years. These long-time mw posters tend to share a
number of traits, which, of course, is why they like it here and stay
for so long. (How's that for a circular argument?)
So, having been around for a while, I wouldn't personally have any
trouble identifying my audience here in the 'ville.
>I treat posts like letters to the editor of a large (very large)
>newspaper...it's public, it's going to be read out of context, and the
>chances of making a real connection to a particular individual are next
>to zero. (When it happens, it seems to involve offlist email.)
I beg to differ. What's being said here affects me a lot; it touches
me in ways I thought was impossible in a public forum such as this
one. Stop thinking of mw as a newspaper, and you'll be fine. <g>
Oh, btw, leave the proofs outside. I know my spelling isn't the best
at times.
>Elizabeth
Erin Barrett
On 19 Mar 98 21:57:52 GMT, "mama n" <gekko...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>In <35113650...@enews.newsguy.com> er...@best.com (Erin Barrett) writes:
>
>>It's just the stinking readership can't recognize brilliance when it's
>>right under their noses.
>
>You are dead-nuts on about that Erin. The problem with you is that
>once you've had your say, there is nothing further anyone could add
>that is as insightful, witty, brilliant, entertaining, or informative.
>
>I know that I, for one, after reading one of your posts, just sit
>there mutely, nodding my head, wishing I could have said it as well
>as you did.
You want a date, don't you Mama N?
What have you heard?
Erin
(Lies, I tell you! All lies!)
Erin Barrett
> Just take all with a grain of salt (wonder where that term came
>from, she says, searching for her word origins dictionary).
Wendy?
Erin
Ari Nordstrom
On 19 Mar 1998 17:25:32 GMT, pdne...@aol.com (PDNetzley) wrote:
>Jack Mingo wrote an interesting
>post, in which he said:
>
>>Being aware of your readers as you write--that's elemental
>
>and discussed newsgroup writing as though it were
>the same as published writing in regard to audience.
>
>This is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped to
>engender here. *Is* newsgroup writing the same
>as published writing? Do you have to think about
>your audience when you write posts? Or should
>newsgroup writing instead be considered a form of
>"thinking out loud," sort of like journal writing, with
>no regard for audience. I know that both of these
>approaches are represented among the members here.
>I'm just wondering if one view prevails over another,
>and if so, why.
>
>-- pd
Neither. Ideally, mw's like talking to friends. I wouldn't call my
friends an *audience*, although I realize that many people would
regard them as such.
/Ari (Apart from good ol' Chelsea, I haven't gotten any rejection
letters from the editors of mw yet...)
Erin Barrett
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:53:38 GMT, Pa...@computerbits.com (Paul
Harwood) wrote:
>... So.
>
>Think the Packers will be back?
No, not this time. We're moving it all ourselves to save on cost.
Erin
(did you know the suggested change for 'Harwood' is first 'hardwood'
then 'harpoon?')
Towse
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote
<snip>
> Although that may just be a scientific wild assed guess on my part.[1]
>
> HTH.
>
> marty
> [1] and now you know the correction that should have been applied
Oh, Yes!!! I see now!!!
> By that metric, the silly posts were/are quite successful, as they
> tend to generate quite a volume of traffic, and, despite SWAG guesses,
> actually tend to involve quite a few posters.
You meant to say "despite scientific wild-assed guesses guesses."
Founding Chair of the CATAAMOA
Sal
[Is that a spelling flame, a grammar flame, or just silliness...?]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Towse
Fleming.Judi wrote:
>
> [snip, snip, snippity, snip]
<as I do hers as well...>
> Just take all with a grain of salt (wonder where that term came
> from, she says, searching for her word origins dictionary).
<and another>
The online Brewer's gets into gory detail
<http://www.bibliomania.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/>
With a grain of salt. Latin, "Cum grano salis, " with great
reservation. The French phrase has another meaning - thus, "It le
mangcrait avec un grain de sel " means, he could double up such a
little whipper-snapper as easily as one could swallow a
grain of salt. In the Latin phrase cum does not mean "with" on
"together with," but it adverbialises the noun, as cum fide,
faithfully, cum silentio, silently, cum lætitia, joyfully, cum
grano, minutely ("cum grano salis, " in the minute manner that one
takes salt).
But a simpler version can be found at ASK THE WORD WIZARD:
<http://wordwizard.com/club/askww/>
‘(Take it) with a grain of salt’ is the literal English translation
of the Latin tag ‘cum grano salis’. It was first used in the
mid-16th century. Who coined it in Latin I do not, alas, know.
Sal
Jack Mingo
PDNetzley wrote:
>
> Jack Mingo wrote an interesting
> post, in which he said:
>
> >Being aware of your readers as you write--that's elemental
>
> and discussed newsgroup writing as though it were
> the same as published writing in regard to audience.
>
> This is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped to
> engender here. *Is* newsgroup writing the same
> as published writing? Do you have to think about
> your audience when you write posts? Or should
> newsgroup writing instead be considered a form of
> "thinking out loud," sort of like journal writing, with
> no regard for audience.
Neither, actually, in my opinion. I think my idea of "audience" for m.w
is the same as if at a large, potentially cacaphonious dinner table.
Jack (need I extend the metaphor further?) Mingo
Jack Mingo
Erin Barrett wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:14:37 -0500, fire...@twincreek.com
> (Fleming.Judi) wrote:
>
> >from, she says, searching for her word origins dictionary).
Oh shoot--Erin entered this thread. I guess we have to quit it.
Jack (A really nice person...but She Kills Threads Dead) Mingo
Erin Barrett
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:22:30 -0800, Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Oh shoot--Erin entered this thread. I guess we have to quit it.
>
>Jack (A really nice person...but She Kills Threads Dead) Mingo
Ohmygod! She killed Threadie! Bastard!
-Stan
Erin Barrett
On 19 Mar 1998 21:50:26 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> In article <3511f0b5...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> >> er...@best.com (Erin Barrett) proclaimed:
>You go to hell. You go to hell and you die.
Beefcake!
-The 'C-man'
Ari Nordstrom
On 19 Mar 1998 17:10:03 GMT, pdne...@aol.com (PDNetzley) wrote:
>Ari wrote:
>
>>Nobody's going to censor your words here,
>>Patricia.
>
>Oh, Ari! You're going to get both of us in
>such trouble! <g>
>
>I said "censure," not "censor."
Whoops! I need my reading glasses when I post. <g>
Oh, btw, *loved* the pome.
/Ari
Ari Nordstrom
Phil's Daddy
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:34:01 GMT, tm...@slip.net (Don May) typed:
>Thanks for posting this Jason...I too am at a loss why a few
>denizens are making this into a us-them sort of thing.
>Particularly in view of the fact that them is us. <g>
>
Sort of like the famous Pogo statement, "We have met the
enemy and they is us."
Doug (with the obligatory mw tag line)
MLYoung
The resident mathematician wrote:
>> As someone who's been on-line for years and used to be quite
> > active in MW, I agree with Jack. I just paid a visit to
> > alt.skunks, as someone who knows nothing about the various ins and
> > outs, it's unbearably dull to read. Very, very precious.
>
>As misc.writing's resident mathematician, I am _always_ concerned when
>people try to apply numerical constraints on posting relevance. No
>wait, that's way to dense text, let me get out my gum eraser.
>Scratch, scratch, scratch. Ah yes, this version is much better:
I think, perhaps, that you should concern yourself somewhat
less with quantitative matters and more with qualitative issues.
I simply pointed out my reaction to the matter as a reader.
>
>The problem with estimates like Jack's is they are
>wet-finger-in-the-wind things. The simple truth of Usenet is that you
>can have no idea[1] of how many people read one of your posts, or of
>those that read it, how many found it worth the effort of reading.
Nonsense. You can't figure out exact numbers by any means,
but usenet is interactive and you can pick up a great deal
from the reactions one does or does not get. Once again,
qualitative, not quantitive.
>
>While I agree that one should attempt to write posts that one believes
>others will be willing to read, I strongly discourage people from
>assuming that their individual taste is an accurate guideline to
>reading tendencies.
Snort! It's clear you're not MW's resident writer. The
publishing industry exists because editors, writers, and
publishers do indeed assume they can guage popular
reading tendencies. Hey, there are even a fair number
of guidelines regarding this. Any pro worth her or his
salt is going to know the tastes of whom they're writing for.
It's part of the jbb.
Now, in the interest of not boring the audience to death--
<snip>
--margaret
>
MLYoung
Somewhere in the middle of a long post that included
the usual brags about what a respected writer he was,
Marty wrote:
>You've confused writing-on-demand, that is writing for a specific
>audience, with finding an audience
And you, Marty, are confusing self-indulgent
ramblings with communication. If you don't consider your
audience, don't expect them to consider you.
Yeah, that even goes for poets.
--margaret (P.S. your comments on composing, harmonies
and dissonance are incorrect.)
MLYoung
Marty pontificated:
>You have stated a commonly held belief. It is this hopeful belief
>that there is more than subjecivity involved that forms the basis for
>the search for an aesthetic. Yet, if you look carefully at the history
>of art, all effective aesthetic systems have been descriptive and
>after the fact.
Actually, that's demonstrably wrong. Writers and painters
are frequently influenced by theories.
>
>If you look carefully at aesthetic systems and their relationship to
>cycles of innovation in art, you discover that what appears to be
>"more than mere subjectivity" is in fact a cataloging of shared taste,
>shaped by shared experience, with the experience derived from the
>available art.
Just because complete objective truth is not possible; this
does not mean no objectivity is possible. Your grasp of
postmodernism needs work.
>
>An example that is an easy demonstration: "most" people prefer
>representational to abstract art. Does this mean that representational
>art is in some way of a superior quality to abstract art? No. It means
>that "most" people have a far greater exposure to representational art
>than to abstract art, and that when queried often don't realize how
>much abstract art they've appreciated it.
The catch here is that "superiority" is a context-dependent
term. Representational art can, indeed, be considered
superior in certain ways. It depends on the criterion one
is using. One can argue, for example, that abstract art
fails in addressing the role of humanity--something which
representational art has, at times, handles brilliantly.
>
> > Jack (In the same way that I know nothing about woodworking, but
> > can discern aspects of quality work) Mingo
>
>Don't confuse craftsmanship or material quality with artistic
>quality. I too can appreciate a well shaped drawer when I open it and
>it doesn't stick, but that doesn't give me any insight at all in how
>Stratavari (sp?) did his thing.
If, however, you had developed the skills to make that
drawer, you'd have a much better idea of the height and
depth of Stradivarius' achievement.
Craftsmanship is a necessary component of art.
--margaret
>
>marty
>
>--
>marty fouts mailto:fo...@null.net http://www.best.com/~mjf
>
>A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
> -- Adlai Stevenson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>and discussed newsgroup writing as though it were
>the same as published writing in regard to audience.
>
>This is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped to
>engender here. *Is* newsgroup writing the same
>as published writing? Do you have to think about
>your audience when you write posts? Or should
>newsgroup writing instead be considered a form of
>"thinking out loud," sort of like journal writing, with
>no regard for audience.
Hmmm, don't know about the rest of you, but I try
to make my journal interesting. I don't want to be
a bored old lady.
Seriously, most writers don't have as near as large
an audience anywhere else as they do on Usenet.
Why not write well? It's a good habit.
--margaret
Susan Jane Hogarth
Jack Mingo (mi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
:
: Neither, actually, in my opinion. I think my idea of "audience" for m.w
: is the same as if at a large, potentially cacaphonious dinner table.
In that case, could you please pass the cranberry sauce?
--
Susan
I am the dog I let out in the morning
wagging and panting at the open door. - Marie Ponsot
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html
Wendy Chatley Green
For some inexplicable reason, er...@best.com (Erin Barrett) wrote:
:On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:14:37 -0500, fire...@twincreek.com
:(Fleming.Judi) wrote:
:
:> Just take all with a grain of salt (wonder where that term came
:>from, she says, searching for her word origins dictionary).
:Wendy?
<*grumble grumble grumble* I'm supposed to be on vacation, enjoying my
first visit from my parents in years *grumble*>
According to _Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable_, "with a
grain of salt" is from the Latin "cum grano salis" (with a grain of
salt). Since Mr. Brewer said it so well, I quote:
"With great reservations or limitations; allowing it merely a
"grain" of truth. As salt is sparingly used in condiments, so is
truth in remarks to which this phrase is applied."
<*gripe* If y'all would spring eight bucks and buy your own used copy,
I could enjoy my vacation *gripe*>
--
Wendy Chatley Green -- wcg...@cris.com
Kemnitzer,Trollman
Patricia said:
*Is* newsgroup writing the same
>> as published writing? Do you have to think about
>> your audience when you write posts? Or should
>> newsgroup writing instead be considered a form of
>> "thinking out loud," sort of like journal writing, with
>> no regard for audience.
And Jack said:
>
>Neither, actually, in my opinion. I think my idea of "audience" for m.w
>is the same as if at a large, potentially cacaphonious dinner table.
>
earlier this week we were at a cocktail party,with I think seriousness
in the livingroom and silliness in the kitchen, and nobody cared that
I thought that nitpicking was going down in the bathroom and nostalgia
in the bedroom.
Now Jack's collected us all in the dining room and we're all trying to
talk at once. Various maternal types are cutting the meat of whoever
happens to be sitting across from them, never mind that the actual
children are at the children's table and they're doing dog knows what
with the meat but they are not eating it except for that couple of
kids with the vegan parents, and they are eating up every scrap they
can get.
I will leave it to your imagination as to who is at the head of the
table and who at the foot -- or is it a Round Table?
I can tell you a few things that are going on though: an Irish poet
has sat down in the Elijah chair, but he's not sure whether or not to
drink from the cup: it's way fancy, and he'd like to think he's used
to cruder stuff. Anyway, he wouldn't want to be seen accepting
hospitality _here_.
Don's wings do not get stuck in the gravy, because he's much too
graceful for that to happen.
Marty's got a pen out and he's doing calculations on the napkins.
A small group around John are shouting, but I can't figure out what
they're disagreeing about. But this is not surprising: I'm a little
deaf, and it is, as Jack said, cacaphonous here.
Almost half of us keep glancing at our watches saying "I really must
sneak off and get a bit of work done before too long."
And in the noise and muddle of sitting down to dinner, nobody
remembered to put away the trampoline, and people keep jumping on it
between courses.
Lucy Kemnitzer
(isn't it time for somebody to bring out another tureen or covered
dish or something? )
(a kugel would be fine. Why, yes, it is getting to that season, isn't
it?)
Alexander J Berman
>(isn't it time for somebody to bring out another tureen or covered
>dish or something? )
>
>(a kugel would be fine. Why, yes, it is getting to that season, isn't
>it?)
<between gritted teeth> Yes, it is. For whomever may be attending Wayne's
NotaWrevel soiree, I shall have to do a LOT of cooking--kugel
included--because it'll be on the last day of Passover, and a certain Jedi
Knight can't cook.
Alex Jay Berman
-- is going to have to drudge around (not a typo) and come up with a huge
potato kugel, bushels of Pesadic (that means "Kosher For Passover") rolls, and
perhaps some Pesadic chicken tempura nuggets ... I hope Wayne's new house has
a large (NOT microwave) oven ...
"Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, in the machinery of the world."--Günter Eich
Anna Banana
Alma Hromic wrote:
: i'm a rabbit in the chinese horoscope <g> does that help any?
Oh my gosh, Alma! Sister! Bunnywoman!
Anna
Small world.
MLYoung
>The publishing industry exists because someone can make money by
>printing, distributing, and selling the written word. Those who assume
>they can indeed gauge popular reading tendencies tend to go bankrupt
>or be acquired on a fairly regular basis.
No, dear. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
>Usenet exists for a considerably different purpose. Certainly you are
>not suggesting that a writer's awareness of the tastes of those he or
>she writes for qualifies that writer to be aware of all of the tastes
>represented on Usenet, or even within a single newsgroup?
Actually, I *am* suggesting that one write for one's
audience on a newsgroup. Look, I've studied voice for
years and am quite happy discussing fachs, cadenzas,
breathing, etc. However, this group isn't one geared
towards fellow singers, so, guess what? I don't talk
about repetoire here.
>
>Even in your analogy, which is fairly slender, it is not the writer,
>but the the editor and publisher who chose what they think will draw
>an audience, and there is neither an editor nor a publisher here.
Any writer worth his or her professional salt knows how
to edit copy. I wouldn't dream of not editing my copy before
handing it over for publication. Editors aren't janitors and
they resent sloppy copy.
>
>Although there does seem to be a tendency by some of the professionals
>to confuse writing for a newsgroup with writing for publication.
>
>Narf!
Sweetie, I know, even if you don't, that my posts get stored
in Deja for anyone to see. I'm posting in public and my
posts are seen by thousands. Why on earth shouldn't
I try to write well and keep self indulgence to a minimum?
Hell, I do that in e-mail. Frankly, it's kind of amazing to me
that you lack the self respect as a writer to do the same.
--margaret
>
>marty
>
>--
>marty fouts mailto:fo...@null.net http://www.best.com/~mjf
>
>A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
> -- H. H. Munro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>You will find nothing in that post that claims I am a _respected_
>writer. Nor have I ever made such a claim. AFAIK, I've never been a
>respected writer, and I shall be very surprised if I ever become one.
So will I. Nonetheless, you made a point of telling us how
long you'd been writing and the favorable reviews you'd
received. The inference was obvious--as a writer you
should be aware of the implications of what you write.
>
> >> You've confused writing-on-demand, that is writing for a specific
> >> audience, with finding an audience
>
> > And you, Marty, are confusing self-indulgent ramblings with
> > communication. If you don't consider your audience, don't expect
> > them to consider you.
>
>No. But you are confusing communication with writing for publication.
Marty, for many intents and purposes, you are writing
for publication here. More importantly, you *are* writing
for an audience here. If you are not trying to communicate
with us, I suggest you stop posting. If you are trying to
communicate with us, I suggest you consider how to become
a more effective poster.
>
> > Yeah, that even goes for poets.
>
> > --margaret (P.S. your comments on composing, harmonies and
> > dissonance are incorrect.)
>
>No they are not. Anyone who has studied the history of western
>classical music can demonstrate that they are in fact accurate. I
Marty, I have. I've also studied the anthropology of music.
--margaret
>
MLYoung
>I wonder if this is true. It is notoriously difficult to estimate
>newsgroup readership. I did a very informal experiment a couple of
>years ago from which it was
Marty, most writers here have tiny readerships. Many are
beginners, or writers of literary fiction that appears in
magazines with small subscription lists. Or they may be
technical writers whose work is seen primarily within their
company.
>possible to determine that misc.writing
>apparently had a readership of a few hundred.
Marty, so far your adventures into the scientific method
are notably lacking.
>
>Although it is true that the _potential_ readership is in the tens of
>millions, that readership has tens of thousands of newsgroups to chose
>from, so the probable readership for any group is likely to be modest.
No because not all newsgroups are of equal interest to people.
The X-Files newsgroup is a lot more active than alt.tarot.
>
>I suspect my web page has a larger readership than the average
>newsgroup, and my web page has a miniscule readership by web
>standards.
Marty, please don't embarrass yourself by trying to be an
expert on the Web. This is worse than your trying to be
an expert on Western music, but not having the foggiest
notion of how to spell Stradivarius.
--margaret (prefers Guarneri)
>
>marty
>
>--
>marty fouts mailto:fo...@null.net http://www.best.com/~mjf
>
>The easiest kind of relationship for me is with ten thousand
>people. The hardest is with one. -- Joan Baez
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Alexander J Berman
In article <6et301$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Pa...@computerbits.com (Paul Harwood) wrote:
>Thus spake Alexander J Berman in misc.writing:
>
>>In article <3511e8b9...@enews.newsguy.com>, rit...@cruzio.com wrote:
>>
>>>(isn't it time for somebody to bring out another tureen or covered
>>>dish or something? )
>>>
>>>(a kugel would be fine. Why, yes, it is getting to that season, isn't
>>>it?)
>>
>><between gritted teeth> Yes, it is. For whomever may be attending Wayne's
>>NotaWrevel soiree, I shall have to do a LOT of cooking--kugel
>>included--because it'll be on the last day of Passover, and a certain Jedi
>>Knight can't cook.
>
>
>Not to betray my goy heritage and / or my non-Jedi status, but I have
>to ask:
>
>What the heck is a "kugel"?
>
>To be honest with you, the first thing that came to mind was
>Chris.tine's apocryphal "croodle" -- I'm not sure what her definition
>of "croodle" is this week; you'll have to check with her -- but I
>thought that you likely had a firmer definition at hand than an
>undergarment-showing strumpet might dream up on the spur of the
>moment.
>
>Paul Harwood
>Hi, Chris! What? You? Why, no! I meant the other Chris.tine, and I
>OUCH!!
A kugel can either be a noodle kugel (sweet baked thingy) or, more commonly, a
potato kugel. It's something like a cross between a giant hash brown and a
potato cake--grated potato, onion, and pepper--plus a lot of beaten eggs. It's
good.
For any who will be attending Wayne's thingy, don't mind the fact that despte
the crispy brown crust, the inside is gray--that's because I don't peel the
potatoes; the peels are better for you, and they make the kugel taste better.
Alex Jay Berman
-- essgezintereite! ("Eat in good health" in Yiddish)
MLYoung
>Yet, if you look
> >> carefully at the history of art, all effective aesthetic systems
> >> have been descriptive and after the fact.
>
> > Actually, that's demonstrably wrong. Writers and painters are
> > frequently influenced by theories.
>
>cycle of art is one of innovation, exploration, explication, and
>completion. It is the painters who complete that are influenced by
>theories, and those who innovate who, after having innovated tend to
>theorize.
Tell it to George Seurat. Ummm, you do realize, by the way,
you're not actually making sense?
>
> >> If you look carefully at aesthetic systems and their
> >> relationship to cycles of innovation in art, you discover that
> >> what appears to be "more than mere subjectivity" is in fact a
> >> cataloging of shared taste, shaped by shared experience, with the
> >> experience derived from the available art.
>
> > Just because complete objective truth is not possible; this does
> > not mean no objectivity is possible. Your grasp of postmodernism
> > needs work.
>
>Postmodernism wasn't about objectivity. You might consider (re)reading
>"Shock of the New." I also recommend Sontag's _Against Interpretation_.
Postmodernism does indeed deal with the problems of
objectivity--at least according to Derrida, Levi-Strauss, etc.
It's all about relativism.
You do realize, don't you, that the term "postmodernism"
has never simply applied to art theory. It's a term that
originated in sociology.
<snip>
>
> > The catch here is that "superiority" is a context-dependent term.
> > Representational art can, indeed, be considered superior in
> > certain ways. It depends on the criterion one is using. One can
> > argue, for example, that abstract art fails in addressing the role
> > of humanity--something which representational art has, at times,
> > handles brilliantly.
>
>Youu need to expand the phrase "addressing the role of humanity", I'm
>afraid I don't know what you mean by it. Of course there are things
>that can done more easily in one form than in another. This does not
>make the form superior, it only makes it more appropriate for certain
>uses.
In other words, superior for certain purposes. Figurative
art explores the human form and its relationship to the
world about it. In Renaissance art, the human body
takes on a primacy that reflects the humanism of the
time period. Post WWII, the
human figure basically disappears as an artistic focus. It's
actually a rather jarring switch--alienating.
--margaret
Alma Hromic
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:33:25 +1100, ne...@vicnet.net.au (Neil
Blenkiron) wrote:
>> >Huh. And here I had you figured for a minx.
>> >
>> i'm a rabbit in the chinese horoscope <g> does that help any?
>>
>> Alma (i know, i know, neither hare nor there...)
>>
>LOL Very bunny Alma!
>
<preen>
just call me harvey.
(okay, so who gets THAT reference first? <g>)
*****************************************************************************
If life had a second edition, how I would correct the proofs!
(John Clare)
*****************************************************************************
Alma Hromic
>
>Not to betray my goy heritage and / or my non-Jedi status, but I have
>to ask:
>
>What the heck is a "kugel"?
in cape town, a kugel is a well-heeled well-groomed (usually but not
exclusively) blonde who knows little else about life other than doing
lunch with like-minded companions and flourishing a gold visa card at
owners of exclusive boutiques. <g>
i'm sure it means an ENTIRELY different thing in "american". <g>
A.
Alma Hromic
i'm utterly pleased to share even something as esoteric as a chinese
horoscope sign with a woman with this much class. <g>
Alma
(smaller than you would ever believe...)
Alma Hromic
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 03:11:37 GMT, Pa...@computerbits.com (Paul
Harwood) wrote:
><I said I couldn't bare it if Alma became a skunk; she said she's a
>vixen in disguise. That dastard Wayne "Moustache-twirler" Lutz then
>chimed in with:>
>>>Be careful, Alma. Please note that the perverted swine said "bare
>>>it", not "bear it".
>>i particularly noticed that point, wayne <grin>
>
>Har-RUMPH!
<mmmphphm>
i WILL NOT post the first thing that came to my mind.
>I will have you know, young lady, that the particular point in
>question is relatively obscure when unbared. I know that you may be
>used to grander points, such as the one that Wayne parades about, but
>the truth is that life is filled with points that are rather more subtle.
>Like mine.
paul, dear heart, subtle is my middle name. <smile>
>Paul Harwood
>Who will probably regret posting this, of course ...
whatever for...? <gg>
Alexander J Berman
In article <35122db6...@203.29.160.2>, ang...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:41:57 GMT, Pa...@computerbits.com (Paul
>Harwood) wrote:
>
>>
>>Not to betray my goy heritage and / or my non-Jedi status, but I have
>>to ask:
>>
>>What the heck is a "kugel"?
>
>in cape town, a kugel is a well-heeled well-groomed (usually but not
>exclusively) blonde who knows little else about life other than doing
>lunch with like-minded companions and flourishing a gold visa card at
>owners of exclusive boutiques. <g>
>
>i'm sure it means an ENTIRELY different thing in "american". <g>
>
>A.
So THAT'S why the currency there is called "kugellands"!
Alex Jay Berman
-- so solly ...
Alma Hromic
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:08:35 GMT, Pa...@computerbits.com (Paul
Harwood) wrote:
>>>LOL Very bunny Alma!
>>>
>>just call me harvey.
>>
>>(okay, so who gets THAT reference first? <g>)
>
>I do! I do! Me me me!
>
>Paul Harwood
>Who has read the script, but never seen the movie, and has never
>imagined Alma to be invisible.
i note he does not make any mention of imagining my height or his
speculations on my pooka nature... <gg>
Don May
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:42:09 GMT, rit...@cruzio.com
(Kemnitzer,Trollman) wrote:
>On 19 Mar 1998 10:14:02 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
><at the end of a long post>
>>
>>Although that may just be a scientific wild assed guess on my part.[1]
>Dear heart,
>
>you lost me several times in that post. Only because I am persistent
>and for some reason determined to understand "SWAG" did I keep
>scrolling down and skimming till I found the end.
>
>& Marty? I am not richer for having SWAG. My suggestion is "spell
>it out next time."
>
>Lucy Kemnitzer
YES, Marty I too would like to know what SWAG is. Is it, a
SWAG, to SWAG, or SWAG like?
Think I will take another SWAG of coffee and SWAG on down
the road.
Good Morning.
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hasten to laugh at everything for fear of being
obliged to weep at it.--Pierre de Beaumarchais
Kemnitzer,Trollman
>In article <6et301$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Pa...@computerbits.com (Paul Harwood) wrote:
>>Thus spake Alexander J Berman in misc.writing:
>>
>>>In article <3511e8b9...@enews.newsguy.com>, rit...@cruzio.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>(isn't it time for somebody to bring out another tureen or covered
>>>>dish or something? )
>>>>
>>>>(a kugel would be fine. Why, yes, it is getting to that season, isn't
>>>>it?)
>>>
>>><between gritted teeth> Yes, it is. For whomever may be attending Wayne's
>>>NotaWrevel soiree, I shall have to do a LOT of cooking--kugel
>>>included--because it'll be on the last day of Passover, and a certain Jedi
>>>Knight can't cook.
>>
>>Um.
>>
>>Not to betray my goy heritage and / or my non-Jedi status, but I have
>>to ask:
>>
>>What the heck is a "kugel"?
>>
>>To be honest with you, the first thing that came to mind was
>>Chris.tine's apocryphal "croodle" -- I'm not sure what her definition
>>of "croodle" is this week; you'll have to check with her -- but I
>>thought that you likely had a firmer definition at hand than an
>>undergarment-showing strumpet might dream up on the spur of the
>>moment.
>>
>>Paul Harwood
>>Hi, Chris! What? You? Why, no! I meant the other Chris.tine, and I
>>OUCH!!
>
>A kugel can either be a noodle kugel (sweet baked thingy) or, more commonly, a
>potato kugel. It's something like a cross between a giant hash brown and a
>potato cake--grated potato, onion, and pepper--plus a lot of beaten eggs. It's
>good.
>For any who will be attending Wayne's thingy, don't mind the fact that despte
>the crispy brown crust, the inside is gray--that's because I don't peel the
>potatoes; the peels are better for you, and they make the kugel taste better.
>
>Alex Jay Berman
>-- essgezintereite! ("Eat in good health" in Yiddish)
>
>"Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, in the machinery of the world."--Günter Eich
Why do I have trouble with these two quotes one right after the other?
Anyway, Alex Jay, the narrowness of your youthful experience is
showing. A kugel can be a number of things, and a potato kugel is
probably not the most common type.
I am the proud owner of an annotated kugel cookbook produced by one of
my father's folklore students. The recipes come from _all over_ and
involve eggs with noodles, potatoes, matzo, & other suchlike items,
and are roughly half sweet and half savory. Though I believe
especially these days the sweet ones are actually made less often than
the savory ones.
I am a woman who cooks, but I use recipes for philosophical
entertainment, not directions, so while I have learned much from the
kugel cookbook, I have not actually followed the recipes. Most of the
recipes don't have garlic and chile in them, anyway, and you can't
have dinner without garlic and chile. And a little cilantro,
probably.
Paul: it's Jewish potluck food. It can be made pareve, I think, but
it is almost always dairy. (Davida, can you make a pareve kugel?) And
people make them a lot for Passover.
Lucy Kemnitzer
(well, no, I don't, but it's amusing to think about people who do keep
kosher)
Dick Harper
Don May eloquently commented in misc.writing
> The Good Fairy
> The SillyFairly
> The odorous Fairy
Did you know there was once a deodorant called Odorono?
--Dick