i'm a big "why?" person
$Zero
always have been.
why?
i guess i love knowing stuff.
why?
that's a good question.
why?
i'm not sure exactly.
why?
etc., etc..
-$Zero...
thanks to modern advances in publishing and whatnot...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0e3fa798d1de847c
LNC
> i'm a big "why?" person
>
> always have been.
>
> why?
>
> i guess i love knowing stuff.
>
> why?
>
> that's a good question.
>
> why?
>
> i'm not sure exactly.
>
> why?
>
> etc., etc..
>
>
> -$Zero...
You're making a mistake. Why is never as important as the other W
questions. It's too easy, too complex and never certain.
LNC
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > i'm a big "why?" person
>
> > always have been.
>
> > why?
>
> > i guess i love knowing stuff.
>
> > why?
>
> > that's a good question.
>
> > why?
>
> > i'm not sure exactly.
>
> > why?
>
> > etc., etc..
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> You're making a mistake.
oh.
now you tell me.
> Why is never as important as the other W questions.
i disagree, obviously.
> It's too easy,
no it isn't.
> too complex
not when you have the gumption to keep asking why.
for instance:
why do rocks fall down instead of up?
> and never certain.
certainty is usually highly overrated.
and very unreliable in most cases.
especially for people who rarely ask why.
-$Zero...
if i could type faster...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/3dd038d6ce3e734a
Sylvia
Yeah? Whycome?
--
Sylvia
LNC
> On Jul 16, 6:56�pm, LNC <ugottabkid...@me.org> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>>> i'm a big "why?" person
>>> always have been.
>>> why?
>>> i guess i love knowing stuff.
>>> why?
>>> that's a good question.
>>> why?
>>> i'm not sure exactly.
>>> why?
>>> etc., etc..
>>> -$Zero...
>> You're making a mistake.
>
> oh.
>
> now you tell me.
Two observations emerge from that: why take my word and how can you
afford not to take my word?
>
>> Why is never as important as the other W questions.
>
> i disagree, obviously.
Then, you've stopped asking, "why."
>
>> It's too easy,
>
> no it isn't.
If facts A, B and C
And A = -C
Then B
It's too easy.
>
>> too complex
>
> not when you have the gumption to keep asking why.
That's not always gumption; sometimes is childish insistence.
>
> for instance:
>
> why do rocks fall down instead of up?
They don't.
>
>
>> and never certain.
>
> certainty is usually highly overrated.
That's childish insistence.
>
> and very unreliable in most cases.
Certainty, by definition, is never unreliable.
>
> especially for people who rarely ask why.
Those are the guys who think they're asking why when they don't really
know what the pertinent questions are.
LNC
LNC
Natural selection.
LNC
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 6:56�pm, LNC <ugottabkid...@me.org> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >>> i'm a big "why?" person
> >>> always have been.
> >>> why?
> >>> i guess i love knowing stuff.
> >>> why?
> >>> that's a good question.
> >>> why?
> >>> i'm not sure exactly.
> >>> why?
> >>> etc., etc..
> >>> -$Zero...
> >> You're making a mistake.
>
> > oh.
>
> > now you tell me.
>
> Two observations emerge from that: why take my word
i would never do so.
> and how can you afford not to take my word?
i'm not in the market for it.
> >> Why is never as important as the other W questions.
>
> > i disagree, obviously.
>
> Then, you've stopped asking, "why."
as if.
> >> It's too easy,
>
> > no it isn't.
>
> If facts A, B and C
> And A = -C
> Then B
>
> It's too easy.
not when you have to figure out why it's either true or false.
> >> too complex
>
> > not when you have the gumption to keep asking why.
>
> That's not always gumption; sometimes is childish insistence.
point mine.
> > for instance:
>
> > why do rocks fall down instead of up?
>
> They don't.
you're too obsessed on the where to see the what.
> >> and never certain.
>
> > certainty is usually highly overrated.
>
> That's childish insistence.
nope.
anyway, the only certainty is faith.
> > and very unreliable in most cases.
>
> Certainty, by definition, is never unreliable.
tell that to George W.
> > especially for people who rarely ask why.
>
> Those are the guys who think they're asking why
> when they don't really know what the pertinent
> questions are.
agreed.
-$Zero...
the easiest way to begin to create/write a story is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d3ac4cc06cd41f78
Ultraviolet
> $Zero wrote:
<>
>> no it isn't.
>
> If facts A, B and C
> And A = -C
> Then B
ZOMG, noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
~tiptoeing away~
$Zero
> LNC was all like:
>
> > $Zero wrote:
>
> <>
>
> >> no it isn't.
>
> > If facts A, B and C
> > And A = -C
> > Then B
>
> ZOMG, noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
>
> ~tiptoeing away~
LOL
serenebabe
> i'm a big "why?" person
>
> always have been.
<...>
Oh! I *hate* "why" most of the time. So much of the time it's
impossible to know "why."
I like "what" a *lot.* I even really like "what if" because it lets me
imagine. "When" is great, too, but I can't keep that kind of
information in my brain for long if it's looking back. "When" looking
forward is probably my favorite. Setting timelines, etc. "Where" is
okay, but, again, not a strength in my brain. I frequently catch myself
asking people where they live and then have to do my best not to fall
asleep as they answer since I kind of don't know where anything is so
their answer doesn't make a lot of sense. I nod.
"Why" drives me bananas in every instance I can imagine it at the moment.
Although, no, I like asking other people "why" quite a bit. So, I guess
I really do like why when it's someone else who's answering. And, hmmm,
thinking this through, I guess "why" was okay when I was in therapy.
Still, though, it's not my favorite question.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/
serenebabe
<...>
> LNC
What is it about "LNC" that seems female to me? It's crazy, really.
You've said you're male. There's nothing in your writing that seems
female (wonder if there ever could be?). Is it just the initial "L?"
Not many L men names? No. There are plenty. Larry. Loren. Lauren.
Lawrence. Leonard. Lewis.
$Zero
> On 2008-07-16 16:58:02 -0400, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > i'm a big "why?" person
>
> > always have been.
>
> <...>
>
> Oh! I *hate* "why" most of the time. So much of the time it's
> impossible to know "why."
not for moi.
but i'm a creative genius inventor type person, so that may be why i
like the why question so much.
to me the questions why and how are often interchangable.
> I like "what" a *lot.*
who doesn't?
> I even really like "what if" because it lets me imagine.
that's a very close cousin of why.
> "When" is great, too, but I can't keep that kind of
> information in my brain for long if it's looking back.
one who doesn't learn from history is doomed to repeat it.
> "When" looking forward is probably my favorite.
Carly Simon's song comes to mind.
> Setting timelines, etc.
fuck that.
deadlines are the hobgoblins of small minds or somesuch.
not to mention the delusional nature of same.
> "Where" is okay, but, again, not a strength in my brain.
but where would you be without where?
> I frequently catch myself
> asking people where they live and then have to do my best not to fall
> asleep as they answer since I kind of don't know where anything is so
> their answer doesn't make a lot of sense. I nod.
do you frequently lose your keys?
> "Why" drives me bananas in every instance I can imagine it at the moment.
why don't you like be driven bananas?
> Although, no, I like asking other people "why" quite a bit.
it's one of the foundations of understanding eachother.
> So, I guess
> I really do like why when it's someone else who's answering.
you don't like challenges much, do you?
just teasing.
> And, hmmm,
> thinking this through, I guess "why" was okay when I was in therapy.
that doesn't make any sense to me.
why would the word why ever come up in therapy?
> Still, though, it's not my favorite question.
nor mine.
Sylvia
> Sylvia wrote:
> > Mr. LNC wrote:
> >
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >>> i'm a big "why?" person
> >>>
> >>> always have been.
> >>>
> >>> why?
> >>>
> >>> i guess i love knowing stuff.
> >>>
> >>> why?
> >>>
> >>> that's a good question.
> >>>
> >>> why?
> >>>
> >>> i'm not sure exactly.
> >>>
> >>> why?
> >>>
> >>> etc., etc..
> >> You're making a mistake. Why is never as important as the other W
> >> questions. It's too easy, too complex and never certain.
> >
> > Yeah? Whycome?
> >
>
> Natural selection.
Oh.
--
Sylvia <--- Unnaturally selected to be The Supreme Ruler
serenebabe
> On Jul 16, 6:38�pm, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
>> I frequently catch myself
>> asking people where they live and then have to do my best not to fall
>> asleep as they answer since I kind of don't know where anything is so
>> their answer doesn't make a lot of sense. I nod.
>
> do you frequently lose your keys?
Yes. So frequently that I no longer carry keys. I try to keep the car
keys in my car at all times, but sometimes forget and bring them in the
house. So, I try to keep a spare stuck under the floor mat. But, then I
use that and forget to replace it. So, yeah.
<...>
>> And, hmmm,
>> thinking this through, I guess "why" was okay when I was in therapy.
>
> that doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> why would the word why ever come up in therapy?
<...>
Is this a joke?
"Why am I so anxious? Why am I afraid of people? Why do I always lose my keys?"
$Zero
> On 2008-07-16 18:58:32 -0400, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> said:
> > On Jul 16, 6:38�pm, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> thinking this through, I guess "why" was okay when I was in therapy.
>
> > that doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> > why would the word why ever come up in therapy?
>
> <...>
>
> Is this a joke?
huh?
> "Why am I so anxious?
> Why am I afraid of people?
> Why do I always lose my keys?"
they actually charge you to answer those kinds of questions?
Alan Hope
$Zero wrote:
> On Jul 16, 6:38�pm, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-07-16 16:58:02 -0400, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> i'm a big "why?" person
>>> always have been.
>> <...>
>>
>> Oh! I *hate* "why" most of the time. So much of the time it's
>> impossible to know "why."
>
> not for moi.
>
> but i'm a creative genius inventor type person, so that may be why i
> like the why question so much.
You like the question, but you never listen to the answer.
What a load of delusional bollocks.
--
AH
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 6:38�pm, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2008-07-16 16:58:02 -0400, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> i'm a big "why?" person
> >>> always have been.
> >> <...>
>
> >> Oh! I *hate* "why" most of the time. So much of the time it's
> >> impossible to know "why."
>
> > not for moi.
>
> > but i'm a creative genius inventor type person, so that may be why i
> > like the why question so much.
>
> You like the question, but you never listen to the answer.
i used to wonder why it was that arrogant elitists like yourself have
so much trouble confusing "listening to" with "agreement with" and/or
"taking the advice of," then along came (and went) Josh Hill to
demonstrate the reason in its extreme.
to be fair, arrogant elitists aren't the only kind of people who can't
seem to listen to individuals who don't agree with their various
proclamations.
there's alot of dumb fucks who have the exact same mental block.
that's pretty lazy thinkins' on your part.
so it certainly comes as no surprise that you're not up to making any
specific cases in that regard.
-$Zero...
flattery is so easy
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/10119f8c915e072e
multi-tasking... what a silly concept
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/76a863ed8952f1cf
LNC
> On Jul 17, 11:36 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 6:38�pm, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2008-07-16 16:58:02 -0400, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>> i'm a big "why?" person
>>>>> always have been.
>>>> <...>
>>>> Oh! I *hate* "why" most of the time. So much of the time it's
>>>> impossible to know "why."
>>> not for moi.
>>> but i'm a creative genius inventor type person, so that may be why i
>>> like the why question so much.
>> You like the question, but you never listen to the answer.
>
> i used to wonder why it was that arrogant elitists like yourself have
> so much trouble confusing "listening to" with "agreement with" and/or
> "taking the advice of," then along came (and went) Josh Hill to
> demonstrate the reason in its extreme.
>
> to be fair, arrogant elitists aren't the only kind of people who can't
> seem to listen to individuals who don't agree with their various
> proclamations.
>
> there's alot of dumb fucks who have the exact same mental block.
Knowing what I did for a living, they thought, but really only knowing
the name of it, the kids used to ask me why such and such was against
the law. I'd have to decide on which "why" to tell them.
The "why" that names the name of the people (those you actually name),
what (so far as the record preserves it) they did, when (subject to
accuracy) it was done, how (complete with substantive and procedural
background) they did it and the location (physical, temporal and
otherwise) where it took place?
Usually, as you have to do with kids, and if you have kids you know the
"why" game they like to play when they're about four, the one where they
ask a question and then follow it up with "why," no matter what or how
you answer, I settled on the "why" that would make the most sense to a kid.
"Because it's wrong/right," was the easiest answer. Luckily, my kids
took those answers to be temporary, remembered then and later compared
them with what they found out on their own. Luckily, they don't all
believe exactly the same way I do--even when it comes to answering
questions about why some things just seem to be.
None of them, as far as I've seen or heard, has called an adult who
doesn't have infinite time to entertain a child an elitist, though.
LNC
$Zero
give an example of a law they would question.
> I'd have to decide on which "why" to tell them.
>
> The "why" that names the name of the people (those you actually name),
> what (so far as the record preserves it) they did, when (subject to
> accuracy) it was done, how (complete with substantive and procedural
> background) they did it and the location (physical, temporal and
> otherwise) where it took place?
>
> Usually, as you have to do with kids, and if you have kids you know the
> "why" game they like to play when they're about four, the one where they
> ask a question and then follow it up with "why," no matter what or how
> you answer,
i suppose you consider that "childish" in a demeaning sense.
you might want to think about why that is.
> I settled on the "why" that would make the most sense to a kid.
that's certainly a reasonable enough aspiration.
> "Because it's wrong/right," was the easiest answer.
point mine.
> Luckily, my kids
> took those answers to be temporary, remembered then and later compared
> them with what they found out on their own. Luckily, they don't all
> believe exactly the same way I do--even when it comes to answering
> questions about why some things just seem to be.
well, that's healthy.
> None of them, as far as I've seen or heard, has called an adult who
> doesn't have infinite time to entertain a child an elitist, though.
firstly, kids generally don't know what elitists are, so you'd hardly
expect them to come to such conclusions and express same.
secondly, it doesn't usually take "infinite time" to explain why
something's true unless you're treading well beyond your expertise on
the matter and can only come up with an "easy answer" which qualifies
as no answer at all.
thirdly, thinking that taking the time to interestingly and
intelligently answer specific questions is merely an "entertainment"
indulgence for childish children is a sure sign of elitism.
fourthly, Alan had enough time to read this in the first place and
post a comment completely lacking in any substance, but he doesn't
need your assistance here, he's just too lazy to make an intelligent
argument to support his errored proclamations, much the same way that
you threw in the towel in this thread:
whatever happened to all the music?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/85cf84ecd83d1630
fifthly, there is no sixthly.
Alan Hope
$Zero wrote:
> fourthly, Alan had enough time to read this in the first place and
> post a comment completely lacking in any substance, but he doesn't
> need your assistance here, he's just too lazy to make an intelligent
> argument to support his errored proclamations
You post long lists of questions, and never ever engage with any of the answers anyone tries to provide. There's no error there, and you have to admit that.
You think asking questions makes you a creative genius? Well, do you? Can I join in? What do I win?
--
AH
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > fourthly, Alan had enough time to read this in the first place and
> > post a comment completely lacking in any substance, but he doesn't
> > need your assistance here, he's just too lazy to make an intelligent
> > argument to support his errored proclamations
>
> You post long lists of questions, and never ever engage with
> any of the answers anyone tries to provide.
not true.
i engage whenever i have the time.
i LOVE a good argument/discusssion.
however, unlike you, when i do engage, i don't make unsupportable
proclamations nor do i avoid the interesting questions.
> There's no error there, and you have to admit that.
see above.
> You think asking questions makes you a creative genius?
you're confusing cause and effect.
though sometimes the former can lead to the latter.
(if you have enough gumption).
> Well, do you?
is this a rhetorical question?
> Can I join in?
sure.
go back upthread and dive in.
> What do I win?
take your pick:
think of a road
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bd194364243fe293
how to find beauty in a cynical world
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/6a5c3eff425f8ada
LN
>
> give an example of a law they would question.
For example, why don't you need a license if you look like an adult,
engage in adult activities but still ask really stupid questions and
think you can make silly demands.
>
>> I'd have to decide on which "why" to tell them.
>>
>> The "why" that names the name of the people (those you actually name),
>> what (so far as the record preserves it) they did, when (subject to
>> accuracy) it was done, how (complete with substantive and procedural
>> background) they did it and the location (physical, temporal and
>> otherwise) where it took place?
>>
>> Usually, as you have to do with kids, and if you have kids you know the
>> "why" game they like to play when they're about four, the one where they
>> ask a question and then follow it up with "why," no matter what or how
>> you answer,
>
> i suppose you consider that "childish" in a demeaning sense.
Why...no...
That's what all adults do...
That's how Edison worked. When something blew up in his face he'd do the
same thing over again to see whether it would kill him this time.
>
> you might want to think about why that is.
Right...
>
>
>> I settled on the "why" that would make the most sense to a kid.
>
> that's certainly a reasonable enough aspiration.
>
>> "Because it's wrong/right," was the easiest answer.
>
> point mine.
If you comb your hair right nobody'll notice it.
>
>
>> Luckily, my kids
>> took those answers to be temporary, remembered then and later compared
>> them with what they found out on their own. Luckily, they don't all
>> believe exactly the same way I do--even when it comes to answering
>> questions about why some things just seem to be.
>
> well, that's healthy.
It's worrisome to me that you'd say so.
>
>
>> None of them, as far as I've seen or heard, has called an adult who
>> doesn't have infinite time to entertain a child an elitist, though.
>
> firstly, kids generally don't know what elitists are, so you'd hardly
> expect them to come to such conclusions and express same.
They're all adults now and knew the general meaning of the word more
than 10 years ago. They probably even know "elitist" is used by some
people to describe their own special membership in a class others
readily identify as warranting protection because of its emotional or
intellectual limitations.
>
> secondly, it doesn't usually take "infinite time" to explain why
> something's true unless you're treading well beyond your expertise on
> the matter and can only come up with an "easy answer" which qualifies
> as no answer at all.
Maybe it's like the joke about having spent a week talking to you one day.
>
> thirdly, thinking that taking the time to interestingly and
> intelligently answer specific questions is merely an "entertainment"
> indulgence for childish children is a sure sign of elitism.
Some of us aren't as lucky as you are to be able to be paid handsomely
by the word for our riveting Usenet posts.
>
> fourthly, Alan had enough time to read this in the first place and
> post a comment completely lacking in any substance, but he doesn't
> need your assistance here, he's just too lazy to make an intelligent
> argument to support his errored proclamations, much the same way that
> you threw in the towel in this thread:
>
> whatever happened to all the music?
After trying to communicate with you, it drove a Chevy to the levy and
gunned the engine.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/85cf84ecd83d1630
>
> fifthly, there is no sixthly.
I won't ask why.
LNC
serenebabe
> On Jul 17, 3:19�pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>>> fourthly, Alan had enough time to read this in the first place and
>>> post a comment completely lacking in any substance, but he doesn't
>>> need your assistance here, he's just too lazy to make an intelligent
>>> argument to support his errored proclamations
>>
>> You post long lists of questions, and never ever engage with
>> any of the answers anyone tries to provide.
>
> not true.
>
> i engage whenever i have the time.
>
> i LOVE a good argument/discusssion.
<...>
Actually, Zero, the reason I don't usually respond to your posts is
exactly for the reason Alan describes. It's a bit like you think you're
sitting on a throne casting questions to the crowd, not regarding where
the questions land.
I'm actually not complaining, just saying that you don't seem to make
time for engaging those of us who do respond. Some people don't care
and just enjoy responding.
I'm on a mini-vacation and work is piling up at home so I have a double
motivation to distract myself. So, I've been replying to your messages.
But, usually it feels a bit like a puppet's response answering your
long lists of questions.
That said, you've replied to me lot in the past couple days. And it's
been kind of fun. :-)
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 3:58 pm, LNC <ugottabkid...@me.org> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
>
> > give an example of a law they would question.
>
> For example, why don't you need a license if you look like an adult,
> engage in adult activities but still ask really stupid questions and
> think you can make silly demands.
that's a pretty convoluted paragraph.
i can't make heads or tails of it.
?"don't"? need a license for *what*?
can't you come up with an example of a law that they would question
for which your answer would have to be:
"Because it's wrong/right,"
...because that was the "easiest answer" for you to give due to the
fact that you didn't have "infinite time to entertain them"?
i'm being serious here.
i'm sincerely trying to understand your point of view.
please don't let my smartassed style give you an excuse to obfuscate
the main points in contention.
> >> I'd have to decide on which "why" to tell them.
>
> >> The "why" that names the name of the people (those you actually name),
> >> what (so far as the record preserves it) they did, when (subject to
> >> accuracy) it was done, how (complete with substantive and procedural
> >> background) they did it and the location (physical, temporal and
> >> otherwise) where it took place?
>
> >> Usually, as you have to do with kids, and if you have kids you know the
> >> "why" game they like to play when they're about four, the one where they
> >> ask a question and then follow it up with "why," no matter what or how
> >> you answer,
>
> > i suppose you consider that "childish" in a demeaning sense.
>
> Why...no...
>
> That's what all adults do...
i see you've missed my point.
> That's how Edison worked. When something blew up in his face he'd do the
> same thing over again to see whether it would kill him this time.
that's a very poor analogy to try to apply to a child naturally asking
why.
thought exercise:
true or false?
children can be curious in a good and productive way.
> > i suppose you consider that "childish" in a demeaning sense.
>
> > you might want to think about why that is.
>
> Right...
well, it's not mandatory that you give it any thought.
> >> I settled on the "why" that would make the most sense to a kid.
>
> > that's certainly a reasonable enough aspiration.
>
> >> "Because it's wrong/right," was the easiest answer.
>
> > point mine.
>
> If you comb your hair right nobody'll notice it.
"the easiest answer" does not equal "a good answer".
no hairdos involved.
> >> Luckily, my kids
> >> took those answers to be temporary, remembered then and later compared
> >> them with what they found out on their own. Luckily, they don't all
> >> believe exactly the same way I do--even when it comes to answering
> >> questions about why some things just seem to be.
>
> > well, that's healthy.
>
> It's worrisome to me that you'd say so.
you might want to think about why that is.
> >> None of them, as far as I've seen or heard, has called an adult who
> >> doesn't have infinite time to entertain a child an elitist, though.
>
> > firstly, kids generally don't know what elitists are, so you'd hardly
> > expect them to come to such conclusions and express same.
>
> They're all adults now and knew the general meaning of the word more
> than 10 years ago.
uh huh.
> They probably even know "elitist" is used by some
> people to describe their own special membership in a class others
> readily identify as warranting protection because of its emotional or
> intellectual limitations.
yeah, well, i guess some four-year olds are very well-read, indeed.
let me guess, no television allowed in your home?
> > secondly, it doesn't usually take "infinite time" to explain why
> > something's true unless you're treading well beyond your expertise on
> > the matter and can only come up with an "easy answer" which qualifies
> > as no answer at all.
>
> Maybe it's like the joke about having spent a week talking to you one day.
maybe it's a nice strawman.
but that would be the "easy answer".
> > thirdly, thinking that taking the time to interestingly and
> > intelligently answer specific questions is merely an "entertainment"
> > indulgence for childish children is a sure sign of elitism.
>
> Some of us aren't as lucky as you are to be able to be paid handsomely
> by the word for our riveting Usenet posts.
well, you've taken quite a bit of time reading and responding while
somehow avoiding providing any kind of reasonable summaries about the
specific issues being discussed.
did you bill that all out somewhere?
> > fourthly, Alan had enough time to read this in the first place and
> > post a comment completely lacking in any substance, but he doesn't
> > need your assistance here, he's just too lazy to make an intelligent
> > argument to support his errored proclamations, much the same way that
> > you threw in the towel in this thread:
>
> > � whatever happened to all the music?
>
> After trying to communicate with you, it drove a Chevy to the levy and
> gunned the engine.
so you agree that the American Pie went Bye Bye then.
> > �http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/85cf84ecd83d1630
>
> > fifthly, there is no sixthly.
>
> I won't ask why.
it's because i'm not an arrogant elitist.
-$Zero... <--- creative genius
$Zero
> On 2008-07-17 15:33:15 -0400, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Jul 17, 3:19 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >>> fourthly, Alan had enough time to read this in the first place and
> >>> post a comment completely lacking in any substance, but he doesn't
> >>> need your assistance here, he's just too lazy to make an intelligent
> >>> argument to support his errored proclamations
>
> >> You post long lists of questions, and never ever engage with
> >> any of the answers anyone tries to provide.
>
> > not true.
>
> > i engage whenever i have the time.
>
> > i LOVE a good argument/discusssion.
>
> <...>
>
> Actually, Zero, the reason I don't usually respond to your posts is
> exactly for the reason Alan describes.
well, that settles it then.
Alan's characterization of my posts being "long lists of questions" (i
guess any more than one question IS a bit highly challenging,
especially when there's a gun to your head demanding that you answer
all two or three) is true!
> It's a bit like you think you're sitting on a throne
that part's true.
> casting questions to the crowd,
also true.
...
oh, and please excuse the court jester, he's having some difficulty
remembering his last Five Jokes.
> not regarding where the questions land.
well, i do have other royal duties to perform sometimes.
i simply cannot be bothered indulging the riff raff at their whims.
i mean, how would that look to the guests?
> I'm actually not complaining, just saying that you don't seem to make
> time for engaging those of us who do respond.
well, have you ever tried to "make time"?
i once spent four years trying to make five minutes and was sorely
disappointed that i couldn't even make half a milli-second.
after that, i was so exhausted for several months in despair that i've
since given up on such time-consuming experiments.
> Some people don't care and just enjoy responding.
go figure.
> I'm on a mini-vacation and work is piling up at home so I have a double
> motivation to distract myself. So, I've been replying to your messages.
lucky you.
> But, usually it feels a bit like a puppet's response answering your
> long lists of questions.
"long lists of questions"
yikes.
> That said, you've replied to me lot in the past couple days.
lucky you.
> And it's been kind of fun. :-)
it always is for moi.
so anyway, i've got a little spare time before my next royal manicure,
so if there are any outstanding posts that anyone would like my royal
responses to, here's our current seasonal menu:
the easiest way to begin to create/write a story is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d3ac4cc06cd41f78
if i could type faster...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/3dd038d6ce3e734a
i'm a big "why?" person
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a49e791bb4c5dc10
thanks to modern advances in publishing and whatnot...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0e3fa798d1de847c
pointless request for a round of nicey nicey week
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/9b5d92a91f42b5d9
goog weirdness
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/9204f486355bab65
newly created joke (tweaked for reference-free retelling)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c3a07433f9f50712
how many jokes do you know?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b85b97cd66c902d4
things that make me want to be a better person
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bd8e55d903d0e504
this is the most worthwhile post you'll ever read on Usenet
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef9e9e3fac453ecb
a few simple words, be they true, and pretentious...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5a191802ae4fc694
dreams that wake you up
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/6f5e0977121b6dff
another Friday that looks very much like Wednesday to me.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/903edac17f70cc33
an honest day's work in an abstract economy
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/32745b9b9d8407fa
your percentage of happiness
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/103b803d2b675c43
the psychological benefits of lowered economic expectations
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/40d0f04b6c8659fe
when optimism lets you down, look on the bright side...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0dd7e25c69b713a6
a nation full of whiners
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/197d515bed9fec2d
using humor to make a serious point
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5318407cae5d1013
having a Can-Do spirit in a world full of Can't-Do people
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0e9178295a55a4bf
if you were going to invent something, what would it be?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/591a53018fe187ad
the return of the horse and buggy
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/371ff88c8c95d016
An Essay About Love
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7a3191bbb8827bc4
POLL -- Are you an annoying person?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/69a42ec3253f6a50
POLL -- Do you ask yourself enough questions?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f1cf3c4e8693365a
whatever happened to all the music?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/85cf84ecd83d1630
things NOT beyond your comprehension
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/15fcbee9fb166137
yet another creative genius proposal
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b79ad7de093664c7
things beyond your comprehension
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f2fc0c5bfb347511
think of a road
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bd194364243fe293
how to find beauty in a cynical world
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/6a5c3eff425f8ada
...
our special for this evening is:
multi-tasking... what a silly concept
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/76a863ed8952f1cf
it comes with a salad or a potato.
would you like to see our whine list?