3310Q: the amazing thing about misc.writing, etc.
ZeroFund
"it is hard... you will find,
to be narrow of mind,
if you're younnnngggg at hearrrrrt...
you can go... to extremes...
with impossible schemes...
you can laughhhh.... when your dreams...
fall apart at the seams.
and-life-gets-more-ex-cit-ing-with-each-pas-sing DAY
and love is ei-ther-in-your-heart...
or on it's way..."
-- Frank Sinatra Singing (author unknown)
3310Q: the amazing thing about misc.writing, etc.
one of the things i rarely think about is the
generation gaps that exist in this newsgroup.
as opposed to other social constructs,
multi-age gatherings are rarely successful
when people speak honestly amongst themselves
in the group.
i think that is why there is such conflict here all the time.
more so than other newsgroups, because writing
as a subject has no really well-defined age
demographic. never has. never will. <g>
i mean, sure, there are many other things which
split us here... politics, religion, economics,
philosophics, general demeaners, intelligence,
ethnicity, manners, gender, etc.
but those are pretty obvious, usually.
but age? age is a very elusive sucker.
the older you get, the less elusive it gets, i suppose.
(i'm guessing here... i'm only 37)
when i first started posting, many thought i was
much younger, because of the content of my posts,
the calls for people to reject the brainwash, etc.
but we have people phere posting from virtually every
generation. form 15 year olds to 90 year olds.
that's a lot to get over. eras tend to mold your
ways of relating with people.
for instance, i
if you grew up in the 20's you're probably
less likely to be a sour puss.
if you grew up in the 30's you're probably
less likely to be a spend-thrift.
if you grew up in the 40's you're probably
less likely to be tolerant of other cultures.
if you grew up in the 50's you're probably
less likely to be open-minded and expermental.
if you grew up in the 60's you're probably less
likely to be quickly judgemental.
if you grew up in the 70's (like me) you're probably
less likely to be too trusting of authority.
if you grew up in the 80's you're probably
less likely to be compassionate.
if you're growing up in the 90's you're probably
less likely to not to take almost everything for granted.
of course, it's not just your era that effects you, it's the
number of years you believe you have left to live.
all of these age-effecting things are interesting to me.
add agism to all the other things you can use
to subconsciously discriminate against people.
personally, i think my writing probably appeals
more naturally to younger people, to people who
still have questions. i know i still have them.
tons of them. i adore questions.
what age group do you think your writing appeals to?
or what other demographic do you think you appeal to?
i'm gonna start adjust my writing to appeal to all the older
dumb f/*\ks who have closed off their minds. obviously,
this is not my first post in that reagrd, because narrow-
minded people are instantly offended by frank talk like this.
but i want to reach those people more than anyone else.
after all, they're the ones causing all the senseless grief
in this world. the type of grief that is preventable.
so... watch out... i'm gonna start trying to get around your
silly prejudices. i'm gonna start writing with a style that
doesn't automatically piss you off.
it's gonna be hard for me to accomplish this, because
i realy don't understand how it feels to be narrow-minded
and sheeplike, but that is what i'm going to be concentrating
on learning from now on. how does it feel to be a narrow-minded
twit? how does it feel to be offended by someone?
it's easy enough for me to identify these people.
but it''s very difficult for me to empathize with something
i just simply cannot imagine. wish me luck. this is likely
gonna be the hardest thing i've ever attempted to learn.
anyone have any adice for my pursuit here?
not the shunners of course. how could they? <g>
they don't even read my posts, they're so damned lost.
-$Zero... BewareAllTwits... I'mChangingMyTune...
ToOneYou'llLike... You'llBeDancingToMySongs...
BeforeYouCanSay... "YoungAtHeart"...
"If you make people think they are thinking,
they'll love you; but if you really make
them think, they'll hate you."
-- Don Marquis
PLEASE CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THIS INSANE POLL!!!:
(more than 220 other people have tried so far)
http://members.aol.com/zerofund/0/9998/pt.html
BUT DON'T PEEK AT THE RESULTS FIRST, GOD NO!!!
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13732 (seized again)
$Zero'sStirringWord-SpoonOfTheDay:
http://users.aol.com/zerotfl/ <--revised 13515
Copyright © 1999 Global Suggestion Box
All Rights Reserved and Writes Reversed
(Usenet quoting excluded)
aj
zero...@aol.com (ZeroFund) wrote:
> i'm gonna start adjust my writing to appeal to all the older
> dumb f/*\ks who have closed off their minds. obviously,
> this is not my first post in that reagrd, because narrow-
> minded people are instantly offended by frank talk like this.
>
> but i want to reach those people more than anyone else.
>
> after all, they're the ones causing all the senseless grief
> in this world. the type of grief that is preventable.
>
> so... watch out... i'm gonna start trying to get around your
> silly prejudices. i'm gonna start writing with a style that
> doesn't automatically piss you off.
>
> it's gonna be hard for me to accomplish this, because
> i realy don't understand how it feels to be narrow-minded
> and sheeplike, but that is what i'm going to be concentrating
> on learning from now on. how does it feel to be a narrow-minded
> twit? how does it feel to be offended by someone?
Are you saying that you'll be writing like a narrow-minded twit in order to
understand them, or that you're going to write in a way that won't offend them
in order to try to get them around to your way of thinking?
Either way, now that they've been warned, how can they take you seriously, and
how can you accomplish what you say you wish to accomplish?
> it's easy enough for me to identify these people.
>
> but it''s very difficult for me to empathize with something
> i just simply cannot imagine. wish me luck. this is likely
> gonna be the hardest thing i've ever attempted to learn.
>
> anyone have any adice for my pursuit here?
I don't think you should have told us what you were up to. It would have been
more fun to watch the metamorphosis in process without the explanation.
>
> not the shunners of course. how could they? <g>
> they don't even read my posts, they're so damned lost.
>
aj
of Michelangelo...
"He was a good man, but did not know how to paint."
El Greco, quoted in Pacheco, _The Art of Painting: Its Antiquity and
Greatness_, 1649
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ZeroFund
<19990222141934...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
<7aspdc$mt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
3310Q: the amazing thing about misc.writing, etc.
3319Q: benefits on the fringe
aj <ajart...@my-dejanews.com> wondered and amused:
> zero...@aol.com (ZeroFund) wrote:
>> i'm gonna start adjust[ing] my writing to appeal to all the
>> older dumb f/*\ks who have closed off their minds. obviously,
>> this is not my first post in that regard, because narrow-
>> minded people are instantly offended by frank talk like this.
>>
>> but i want to reach those people more than anyone else.
>>
>> after all, they're the ones causing all the senseless grief
>> in this world. the type of grief that is preventable.
ironically, they're also the ones who stand to benefit most
from shedding their irrational, destructive perspectives
>> so... watch out... i'm gonna start trying to get around your
>> silly prejudices. i'm gonna start writing with a style that
>> doesn't automatically piss you off.
>>
>> it's gonna be hard for me to accomplish this, because
>> i really don't understand how it feels to be narrow-minded
>> and sheeplike, but that is what i'm going to be concentrating
>> on learning from now on. how does it feel to be a narrow-minded
>> twit? how does it feel to be offended by someone?
>
>Are you saying that you'll be writing like a narrow-minded twit in
>order to understand them,
LOL. no, because:
1] that would be too easy and i wouldn't learn a damned thing.
2] these people already think i AM a narrow-minded twit,
so the only way to accomplish any communicative
bonding would be to change my opinions about the twit-ish
things they dismiss me for disagreeing with them about,
and i really don't see amy benefit in doing that.
3] the original post here had some narrow-minded examples
of age discrimination (as a sort-of psuedo paraody of myself)
and though some of the characteritics i attributed to the various
decades might be somewhat true, they were so limited and off
the cuff that i shouldn't have used them at all.
NOTE: comment # 3 does not really belong in this group,
but then again... neither do i.
>or that you're going to write in a way that won't offend
>them in order to try to get them around to your way of thinking?
actually, i was developing my writing into a super restrained mode,
trying to eliminate all possible objections i could think of that
might offend twits as i eventually get a better understanding of
them... but not to get them around to my way of thinking...
to get them around to their own way of thinking. thinking like a
child as an "adult."
to help them reject the brainwashes which they have inadvertently
absorbed into their modes of thinking without much thought.
>Either way, now that they've been warned, how can they take you
>seriously, and how can you accomplish what you say you wish to
>accomplish?
never underestimate a creative-genius.
0DQ(tm)
>Either way, now that they've been warned,
>how can they take you seriously,
well... they will attrinbute my change of communication style
to growing up. that is what they believe i _should_ do. so...
they will take me seriously as soon as they believe i'm talking
like an adult, like them. this will be a sort of victory in their minds,
and they will not be able to resist taking me seriously then.
that much i DO know about narrow-minded twits.
but i'm not gonna lie about anything along the way.
truth is paramount. (at least to me it is)
i cannot in good conscience use Dale Carnegie techniques
to influence people. even though i'm aware of how effective
those methods are.
>and how can you accomplish what you say you
>wish to accomplish?
re: learning to think like a N-M Twit? not sure yet.
re: reaching them? free will, persistence, and honesty.
>> it's easy enough for me to identify these people.
>>
>> but it''s very difficult for me to empathize with something
>> i just simply cannot imagine. wish me luck. this is likely
>> gonna be the hardest thing i've ever attempted to learn.
>>
>> anyone have any advice for my pursuit here?
>
>I don't think you should have told us what you were up to.
that would have been deceitful. and boring.
this is far more challenging and interesting.
if i really wanted to do this quick and easy,
i'd just start posting under a different email name.
i'm far too clever to need to resort to such cowardly tactics.
besides... eventually, some of these people may need
reminding that this was intentional from the begining
>It would have been more fun to watch the metamorphosis
>in process without the explanation.
not for me. :-)
though, i still think that anyone paying attention will enjoy
the subtle changes in my style. probably more so knowing
that i am doing it purposefully.
>> not the shunners of course. how could they? <g>
>> they don't even read my posts, they're so damned lost.
well... there are lotsa people like Airy who say they have me
killfiled, but still read everything i post. that was just one last
example of my previous style of mocking the twits without
using any of the filters i will be developing from here on in.
>aj
>
>of Michelangelo...
>"He was a good man, but did not know how to paint."
>El Greco, quoted in Pacheco, _The Art of Painting:
>Its Antiquity and Greatness_, 1649
i like your sig file here. i've been seeing around.
i just saw _The Agony and the Ecstacy_ again a few months
ago, the Pope reminded me of my investors (except the Pope
had a soul, and a plan)
so what's the context there?
did that quote predate The Sistine Chapel painting and is it
therefore meant to show the value of clueless critics?
or... was El Greco (who i have no clue about) right?
did it mean to imply that Michelangelo was not really that
good... as a painter?
-$Zero... Open-MindednessAin'tEasy... ButTheFringeBenefits...
CannotBeBeat... ByAnySTRETCH... OfTheIMAGINATION...
"If you make people think they are thinking,
they'll love you; but if you really make
them think, they'll hate you."
-- Don Marquis
PLEASE CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THIS INSANE POLL!!!:
(more than 210 other people have tried so far)
http://members.aol.com/zerofund/0/9998/pt.html
BUT DON'T PEEK AT THE RESULTS FIRST, GOD NO!!!
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13733 (seized again)
ZeroFund
<19990222141934...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
<7aspdc$mt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<36d55422....@news.mindspring.com>
<19990223211914...@ng-ce1.aol.com>
3310Q: the amazing thing about misc.writing, etc.
3319Q: benefits on the fringe
3318Q: (as of yet.... untitled)
3317Q: How to Reach Narrow-Minded Twits
ok... as some of you may know from my above posts,
i have decided to change my style of writing in order
to appeal to the older-[thinking] narrow-minded twits.
i have made this decision after realizing that it would
be in the best interests of all involved if i were able
to communicate directly to said narrow-minded twits,
since they are, by and large (very large actually),
the core cause of much of the pointless and preventable
grief in our "world." including, of course, their own grief.
anyway, i have put together a quick punch list of
intentional style changes that i should employ in order
to penetrate all the brick walls between our respective
minds.
this is part of my effort to develop a new style of writing
which will be less automatically offensive to narrow-minded
twits, hopefully resulting in my being able to convince them
to think more like themselves... to think more like a child and
less like the sad, destructive, pessimistic, peculiarly-alienated**
brainwashed twit "adults" they have unfortunately become.
** i say "peculiarly-alienated" because they have lotsa company,
people who share in (and often even rejoice in) their sad BRAND
of destructive pessimistic behavior and attitudes.
anyway, here is a quick short list off the top of my head
(please add any other suggestions which you believe
might facilitate such a seemingly-futile endeavor as the
one i am now embarking upon):
here are some of the style changes i will begin to
incorporate into my writings:
1] stop namecalling
when talking to the narrow-minded twits, i will try
to refrain from using terms like: narrow-minded twit;
idjit; brainwashed fool; cattle-prodded nit wit;
masochistic slaughter-house junkie; etc.
although NAMEcalling IS the very _essence_ of
communication and language, narrow-minded twits
are often offended by words. they somehow take
them way too seriously... and get injured... and
become highly resentful. this usually results in
them plugging their ears and running away shouting
offensive terms back at you while plotting to completely
discredit you by forming alliances with other narrow-minded
twits (oops... i did it again... i can see that this first item
is gonna be VERY difficult.)
2] use "proper" grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.
yikes... i really don't feel like working THIS hard, but...
whatever it takes to reach the core numbskulls...
i suppose that sometimes the end actually DOES
justify the means. i dread this part the most.
ex) i despise the shift key because i'm a two-finger typer.
narrow-minded twits usually cling tightly to conventional
methods. that is... until innovations become conventional.
(example: the electric guitar, computers [vs typewriters],
VCR's, the telephone, horses, etc. -- history is abundant
with such examples of resistance to alternatives)
i won't bother trying to explain why improper grammar,
punctuation, spelling, etc. could possibly considered
as innovation (partly because i don't feel like writing a
thesis on creativity right now, but mostly because it's not
actually innovation, it's laziness)
2b] learn how to type without looking at the keys
see item #2 above: learning to type should make the
effort much less painful and tedious.
this should have been done long ago anyway,
(i can't blame my own stupidity and laziness
on the narrow-minded twits... learning to type
without looking would have benefitted ME
immensely... long before the narrow-minded twits
had made this idiotic habit change appropriate)
3] never use poetry
ok.. sure, there is _some_ poetry that the narrow-minded
twits sanction as "acceptable" or "valid," however, taking
the risk is not worth it. it would be far too time-consuming
for me to learn which poetry is respected amongst all the
narrow-minded twit factions. better not to use poetry at all.
3b] never discuss time-consuming ventures
which are not money-centered
just leave the whole topic of things being "worth"
doing in and of themselves alone. it's not something
that most narrow-minded twits can't possibly fathom
while they remain narrow-minded twits.
4] do not be honest about your self-confidence
nothing loses more narrow-minded twits than tooting
your own horn. most of them seem to be quite
offended by anyone who would dare speak frankly
about their perceptions of themselves, particularly
if said perceptions are positive in nature.
somehow, this type of honesty comes across as
"bragging" or "arrogance."
actually, i find it rather indulgent and ridiculous-looking
myself when i see others do it, but i'm open-minded
enough and confident enough with myself to not really
give a shit.
5] never use "bad" words.
this would take way too long to explian here, but
suffice to say that some words are "bad" and some
words are not "bad." rather than risk losing the
respect and attention of a narrow-minded twit, it
is better just to be a word-bigot. after all, words
don't have feelings, so you won't be hurting them
by not using them. although, personally, i think
this item #5 is a f/*king shame.
but the point is, narrow-minded twits just can't get
over the use of "bad" words (unless used under certain
ridiculously acceptable circumstances)
"bad" words are like a mind switch to these twits.
{{{click}}} mind turned off.
they think you lack intelligence and/or manners if you
use said "bad" words.
4b] talk more about your failings and self-loathing
nothing delights narrow-minded twits more than to
see you mock yourself.
6] never do things like putting item #4b after item #5
even _IF_ there is good reason to do so, and even though
it can be quite entertaining to open-minded people, these
type of unconventional behaviors get you instanntly filed
under "insane" or "dangerous."
better to just go in straight chronological "order."
much less likely to lose the narrow-minded twits
if you don't make them stretch their minds too far
too fast.
7] always be polite.
nothing wrong with that anyway. sure, it CAN get
awful boring... but it's not such a bad idea.
be patient. someday politeness will become obsolete.
8] never mention the word "obsolete."
it frightens narrow-minded twits more than "bad" words.
9] (don't leave list items blank or without explanation)
10] the less humor the better.
i realize this sounds self-defeating, but it's better not to
risk offending any of the narrow-minded twits. humor
invariably does this. if you find you must use humor,
use it extremely frugally and with the utmost sensitivity
to very conceivable slight. obviously, this general ban
on humor does NOT include the self-deprecating variety.
they LOVE that stuff. it's like heroin.
11] enough for today... i'm starting to get way too
damned funny now (at their expense)
please add any items you think will assist me in
my likely-doomed effort to reach the narrow-minded
twits.
-$Zero... SomeOfYouMayEndUpMissingTheOldZero...
But_Believe_Me... ThisIsForTheGreaterGood...
4c] self-love is HIGHLY over-rated (unless it's me)
(Hopefully... ICanReturnSomedaySoon... ToMy"Normal"Style)
"If you make people think they are thinking,
they'll love you; but if you really make
them think, they'll hate you."
-- Don Marquis
PLEASE CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THIS INSANE POLL!!!:
(more than 220 other people have tried so far)
http://members.aol.com/zerofund/0/9998/pt.html
BUT DON'T PEEK AT THE RESULTS FIRST, GOD NO!!!
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13734 (seized again)
stu_...@my-dejanews.com
ZeroFund (zero...@aol.com) wrote:
:> "He was a good man, but did not know how to paint."
:> El Greco, quoted in Pacheco, _The Art of Painting:
:> Its Antiquity and Greatness_, 1649
: so what's the context there?
: did that quote predate The Sistine Chapel painting and is it
: therefore meant to show the value of clueless critics?
: or... was El Greco (who i have no clue about) right?
: did it mean to imply that Michelangelo was not really that
: good... as a painter?
Michaelangelo Buonarotti (1475-1564) painted the Sistene Chapel from
1508 to 1512, three decades before the birth of grandmaster painter
El Greco (1541-1614).
Examples of El Greco's work:
<http://www2.iinet.com/art/artists/major/e/el_greco1.htm>
Michaelangelo is generally regarded as being "really that good" as a
painter. Art historians judge El Greco as being not too shabby, also.
__________________________________________________________
Hole Poop Online http://www.pe.net/~sputnik/index1.html
__________________________________________________________
Sign my new guestbook, Zero! Point your DejaTourBus in the direction
of Hole Poop, the Whole Pop Online Magazine parody.
aj
zero...@aol.com (ZeroFund) wrote:
>
> >aj
> >
> >of Michelangelo...
> >"He was a good man, but did not know how to paint."
> >El Greco, quoted in Pacheco, _The Art of Painting:
> >Its Antiquity and Greatness_, 1649
>
> i like your sig file here. i've been seeing around.
>
> i just saw _The Agony and the Ecstacy_ again a few months
> ago, the Pope reminded me of my investors (except the Pope
> had a soul, and a plan)
>
> so what's the context there?
>
> did that quote predate The Sistine Chapel painting and is it
> therefore meant to show the value of clueless critics?
>
> or... was El Greco (who i have no clue about) right?
> did it mean to imply that Michelangelo was not really that
> good... as a painter?
>
> -$Zero... Open-MindednessAin'tEasy... ButTheFringeBenefits...
> CannotBeBeat... ByAnySTRETCH... OfTheIMAGINATION...
El Greco (the Greek), real name Domenikos Theotocopoulos. b. 1541, d.1614
Renaissance painter working in Spain.
Michelangelo b. 1475, d. 1564
I liked the quote because I find it encouraging to anyone who thinks that
what they create isn't good enough. Even Michelangelo was criticized by
contemporaries (or almost contemporaries). And though El Greco is considered
a master painter, as you so clearly showed, it is Michelangelo who is the
better known today.
As to whether or not Michelangelo could paint, there have been other quotes of
people in history who, when finally seeing his work, were disappointed. It's
all in what you like or don't like, I guess.
aj
of Michelangelo...
"He was a good man, but did not know how to paint."
El Greco, quoted in Pacheco, _The Art of Painting: Its Antiquity and
Greatness_, 1649
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
aj
aj
In article <19990224102255...@ng62.aol.com>,
of Michelangelo...
ZeroFund
<19990222141934...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
<7aspdc$mt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<36d55422....@news.mindspring.com>
<19990224105756...@ng62.aol.com>
<36D434C8...@trail.com>
<19990223211914...@ng-ce1.aol.com>
<7b1phv$9qa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<7b250m$jcp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<19990224102255...@ng62.aol.com>
<7b4f59$jrv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
N-M T = narrow-minded twit
3310Q: the amazing thing about misc.writing, etc.
3319Q: benefits on the fringe
3318Q: (as of yet.... untitled)
3316Q: Shorten Posts? Or Just Proof Them?
3315Q: Reach for the Stars... or the Ceiling? (Michelangelo Buonarotti)
3317Q: How to Reach Narrow-Minded Twits
3314Q: Targeting (Your Writing To) Narrow-Minded Twits?
aj <ajart...@my-dejanews.com> reviewd the 14+ items in
article 3317Q and declared:
>I scored 4 out of 10. Does that make me a broad-minded twit?
hmm... good question.
but to really give you an uneducated answer, it would help to know:
1] which 4 (out of which 10) you were referring to... and:
2] whether you mean that you _employ_ these 4 writing
tactics/styles or if you are offended by these four items.
2b] if you mean that you employ them: are they employed
reluctantly? out of respect? or as part of your unconsciously
formed nature?... in other words, you don't feel you really have
a choice -- in _other_ other words, given carte blanche, would
you still employ them? (and if you employ them, do they
have their green card? <g>)
2c] if you mean that you are offended by the lack of these
four tactics/styles being used by someone else, to what
extent do the lack of use of each "mannerism" effect your
ability to continue a conversation with the person who does
not employ them.
anyway, i would venture a guess that since you ask the question,
you could not possibly be narrow-minded, nor a twit. even if you
were simply mocking me and my effort, the question itself shows
that you are able to talk to someone who confesses that they
have not employed these tactics in the past. narrow-minded twits
are usually unable to even forgive the object of their narrow-minded
twit-ism... unless they have shown to be totally converted to their
twit-ism (and even then, some N-M T's remain highly skeptical).
of course... if you are an aforementioned narrow-minded twit regular
(read: an old timer mw denizen) who is hiding behind an alternate
email name, well... that throws a strange wrench into all possible
conclusions.
in any case, at this juncture, let me add a few more items to my
evolving "How to Reach Narrow-Minded Twits" list:
12] never ask a narrow-minded twit to publicly elaborate too much
on their statements because they're likely to be forced to face
some weird contradictions that will cause them to shut you down.
this is the worse of all possible shut down modes. it often results
in many {{{plonks}}} from all around, and deeply held resentment.
narrow-minded twits (in general) are very reluctant to speak truly
honestly about themselves, especially when said talk might expose
their prejudices or their not-very-well-thought-out positions.
this is the kiss of death in any communication endeavor.
13] over at alt.skunks, Francine <se...@trail.com> (a self-proclaimed
narrow-minded twit -- in that reply, anyway) suggested that i would
be "more welcome" if, in addition to actually adhering to the items i
listed, i cut down the length of my posts.
this is a very interesting non-suggestion.
because i think it really means the following*:
13b] proof and edit your posts for redundancy
* i could be wrong, some N-M T's actually have preset
limits, like... they seriously follow parameters like:
"write a 500 word essay on..."
regardless, item #13b is a very good idea anyway. i really
should do that. the only reason i don't is due to laziness and
time constraints. this is a bit rude on my part i suppose.
although some of the redundancies are intentional, some are not.
and the typos i often make go a _long_ way to confusing the whole
point i was making. here are a few examples from article 3317Q:
>> 3b] never discuss time-consuming ventures
>> which are not money-centered
>>
>> just leave the whole topic of things being "worth"
>> doing in and of themselves alone. it's not something
>> that most narrow-minded twits can't possibly fathom
>> while they remain narrow-minded twits.
that "can't" should have been "can"... or, alternatively,
that "it's not something" should have been "it's something"
but not both... and not neither. that's typo changed everything.
not an easy typo to spot because all words are spelled correctly.
anyway, here is the revised entry (including a 2nd paragraph i
added when i posted the same post to alt.skunks [3317Q-B] a
few minutes later--though i did not notice the typo there either).
i've corrected this one a bit more as well:
3b] never discuss time-consuming ventures
which are not money-centered
just leave the whole topic of things being "worth"
doing (in and of themselves) alone. it's not something
that most narrow-minded twits can possibly fathom
while they remain narrow-minded twits.
wait until they become child-like again.
their resistance to such "absurdities" will
be much less troublesome when they see
the world anew, fresh, uncorrupted.
here's another addition i made to the alt.skunks version:
4b] talk more about your failings and self-loathing
nothing delights narrow-minded twits more than to
see you mock yourself.
this ingratiates yourself with them quite dramatically.
and here's something i forgot to elaborate on all together
(simple typos are shown corrected in brackets: [revised typo]
entirely missing phrases are shown in {shifted brackets}):
>> 5] never use "bad" words.
>>
>> this would take way too long to [explain] here, but{,}
>> suffice to say that {to narrow-minded twits} some
>> words are "bad" and some words are not "bad."
>> rather than risk losing the respect and attention
>> of a narrow-minded twit, it is better just to be a
>> word-bigot. after all, words don't have feelings,
>> so you won't be hurting them by not using them.
>> although, personally, i think this item #5 is a {big}
>> [f/*\king] shame.
{NOTE: word-bigotry DOES hurt the feelings and lives of
people who are discriminated against due to their usage
of so-called "bad" words. the problem is that you cannot
reach narrow-minded twits who cause this word-bigotry
and try to cure them of their word-bigotry while using said
"bad" words. it's a big f/*\king catch 22.}
>> but the point is, narrow-minded twits just can't get
>> over the use of "bad" words (unless used under
>> certain ridiculously acceptable circumstances)
{kinda like their attitudes towards violence and killing}
>> "bad" words are like a mind switch to these twits.
>>
>> {{{click}}} mind turned off.
>>
>> they think you lack intelligence and/or manners if you
>> use said "bad" words.
as far as typos go, this is a minor example of a typo
that before i would not cringe at (because you can sorta
tell that it was a careless mistake) but now i will try
not to let them slide by, because, the less disdain ammo
that you give narrow-minded twits, the less they can use
to dismiss your point of view:
example of a silly typo:
>> 2] use "proper" grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.
[...]
>> i won't bother trying to explain why improper grammar,
>> punctuation, spelling, etc. could possibly considered
>> as innovation (partly because i don't feel like writing a
>> thesis on creativity right now, but mostly because it's
>> not actually innovation, it's laziness)
"could possibly considered"
should have been:
"could possibly be considered"
typos that missing, or are spelled like words
are the worse possible kinds of mistakes
now, here is a typo that comes off like grammar impairment
while having the additional disadvantage of completely
confusing the meaning of the sentence... because the typo
is an actual english word:
>> 10] the less humor the better.
>>
>> i realize this sounds self-defeating, but it's better not to
>> risk offending any of the narrow-minded twits. humor
>> invariably does this. if you find you must use humor,
>> use it extremely frugally and with the utmost sensitivity
>> to very conceivable slight. obviously, this general ban
>> on humor does NOT include the self-deprecating variety.
>>
>> they LOVE that stuff. it's like heroin.
"very" should have been "every"
"with the utmost sensitivity to [every] conceivable slight."
even missing the letter e can cause a narrow-minded twit
to shut you down forever. though, these are usually limited
to a certain anal type of N-M T. the english-is-god twit.
was i already speaking about rendundancy earlier above? yikes.
anyway here are some very good examples of redundancy
that definitely should have been edited out to both shorten
the post and make it more pleasent to read:
>> i have decided to change my style of writing in order
>> to appeal to the older-[thinking] narrow-minded twits.
>> anyway, i have put together a quick punch list of
>> intentional style changes that i should employ in order
>> to penetrate all the brick walls between our respective
>> minds.
>> this is part of my effort to develop a new style of writing
>> which will be less automatically offensive to narrow-minded
>> anyway, here is a quick short list off the top of my head
>> here are some of the style changes i will begin to
>> incorporate into my writings:
where-as here are some redundancies that i meant to keep:
early on i asked:
>> (please add any other suggestions which you believe
>> might facilitate such a seemingly-futile endeavor as the
>> one i am now embarking upon):
but also in closing i repeated the beseechment:
>> please add any items you think will assist me in
>> my likely-doomed effort to reach the narrow-minded
>> twits.
the reasons are three-fold:
1] some people will only read so far <g>
2] the request was one which warranted repeating
(especially at the end, when people are more likely
to actually take action--by the end of my long post
they will have long forgotten the original request)
3] see items one and two above
now, this was a subtle change i should have made,
but i wasn't thinking clearly enough:
>> i have decided to change my style of writing in order
>> to appeal to the older-[thinking] narrow-minded twits.
"older-[thinking]" should have been: "older-minded"
and the following was ill-defined as it applies to
describing just what a narrow-minded twit is:
>> twits, hopefully resulting in my being able to convince them
>> to think more like themselves... to think more like a child and
>> less like the sad, destructive, pessimistic, peculiarly-alienated**
>> brainwashed twit "adults" they have unfortunately become.
>>
>> ** i say "peculiarly-alienated" because they have lotsa company,
>> people who share in (and often even rejoice in) their sad BRAND
>> of destructive pessimistic behavior and attitudes.
the above was poorly defined because most narrow-minded twits
are completely unaware of just how destructive their narrow-minded
behavior actually is. such extremist-sounding words as "destructive"
or even "pessimistic" might impair many narrow-minded twits from
being able to identify themselves.
this may actually be a good thing. because, once one feels
that they are included under the definition of something with as
much negative connotations as being a narrow-minded twit,
they become defensive. if you are not one who is offended by
the prospect of being considered a narrow-minded twit, you are
probably not one.
however, if you ARE offended by that prospect, you most
certainly ARE a narrow-minded twit. if so, please let me
know what else to change about my style, so i can attempt
to talk you out of your twitdom.
remember... if you're not a N-M T, you would be open to
the discussion of the possibility that you are, in fact, a
narrow-minded twit.
-$Zero... AndIfYouActuallyBelieveYou'reOpenMinded...
YouCertainlyShouldHaveAbsolutely*ZERO*Problem...
WithRethinkingThatImprobability...
unfortunately, yet again, i am sending this post
without proofing it. i know i will regret that...
but it took me so long to write this, that i just
don't feel like proofing it right now.
i will gradually be changing this behavior as i get closer
to knowing how to think like a narrow-minded twit.
those who went the distance here, get a bonus joke:
>I scored 4 out of 10. Does that make me a broad-minded twit?
you only scored with 4 out of 10 broads?
hmm... either you're not much of a man,
or you're not much of a lesbian.
either way... consider monogamy.
it's far more enriching anyway.
"If you make people think they are thinking,
they'll love you; but if you really make
them think, they'll hate you."
-- Don Marquis
PLEASE CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THIS INSANE POLL!!!:
(as of today, more than 225 other people have tried so far)
http://members.aol.com/zerofund/0/9998/pt.html
BUT DON'T PEEK AT THE RESULTS FIRST, GOD NO!!!
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13735 (seized again)
aj
zero...@aol.com (ZeroFund) wrote:
<snipped>
You'll have to go read it yourself, it's four pages long.
> those who went the distance here, get a bonus joke:
>
> >I scored 4 out of 10. Does that make me a broad-minded twit?
>
> you only scored with 4 out of 10 broads?
>
> hmm... either you're not much of a man,
> or you're not much of a lesbian.
>
> either way... consider monogamy.
>
LOL Not much of either, actually. It would seem that I *am* a
god-is-english twit with some leanings toward "bad-worditis". While the
occasional typo/absent-minded error is acceptible, I do cringe over frequent
misspellings. I wasn't aware that this was a failing. Forgive me. What would
you have me do? And though I can tolerate the bad words if I must, I would
prefer that I not have to. I recognize occasions when nothing else will
suffice for some people, but I have never had to resort to them. (I lied. I
have. Three, maybe five times at last count, I believe.)
I can't remember the other two that I scored on. That would require reading
your original post (which I'm too lazy to do). You don't seem to have
addressed them in this post.
Is there hope for me?
aj
ZeroFund
<19990222141934...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
<7aspdc$mt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<36d55422....@news.mindspring.com>
<19990224105756...@ng62.aol.com>
<36D434C8...@trail.com>
<19990223211914...@ng-ce1.aol.com>
<7b1phv$9qa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<7b250m$jcp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<19990224102255...@ng62.aol.com>
<7b4f59$jrv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<7b7939$3kg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
3310Q: the amazing thing about misc.writing, etc.
3319Q: benefits on the fringe
3318Q: (as of yet.... untitled)
3316Q: Shorten Posts? Or Just Proof Them?
3315Q: Reach for the Stars... or the Ceiling? (Michelangelo Buonarotti)
3317Q: How to Reach Narrow-Minded Twits
3314Q: Targeting (Your Writing To) Narrow-Minded Twits?
3313Q: The Flaws of Perfection
aj <ajart...@my-dejanews.com> contemplates the
fairness and value of culturally-biased testing parameters:
> zero...@aol.com (ZeroFund) wrote:
>
><snipped>
>You'll have to go read it yourself, it's four pages long.
yes. you were wise not to make the mistake
of quoting my entire post this time. big no no.
lose you much respect 'round here.
you'll catch-on.
you'll see who's posts you can quote, and who's you cannot.
like any other social construct,
you'll learn who to shun if you
don't want your windows broken.
the niggers aren't always obvious to people
who don't know what color to look for. <g>
>> those who went the distance here, get a bonus joke:
>>
>> >I scored 4 out of 10. Does that make me a broad-minded twit?
>>
>> you only scored with 4 out of 10 broads?
>>
>> hmm... either you're not much of a man,
>> or you're not much of a lesbian.
>>
>> either way... consider monogamy.
>
>LOL Not much of either, actually.
well... it was just a pun.
but i see that you understood that.
believe me, there are others who would not.
bravo.
>It would seem that I *am* a god-is-english twit
>with some leanings toward "bad-worditis".
you mean an english-is-god twit, don't you?
anyway, so am i when i'm not exhausted.
the "bad"-worditus is not so good, but i can't
say i don't understand why.
>While the occasional typo/absent-minded error is acceptible,
>I do cringe over frequent misspellings.
sure, so do i. makes me look far more stupid then i really am.
but that's why i don't discriminate against other bad spellers.
like Marty Fouts. he's extremely intelligent but spells like a
moron. though, he mispells words that most morons couldn't
even remotely define. not that a big vocabulary really means
much either. i strongly believe in using the simplest of words.
i don't always do so, but that's because i'm too lazy sometimes.
>I wasn't aware that this was a failing.
well... just goes to show ya, that ya don't know everything. :-)
"hmmm... let's see here...
great content, good-grammar, very articulate,
interesting and engaging, but SORRY...
i'll have to dock you 25 points
for spelling all the words correctly.
someday you'll learn."
>Forgive me.
sorry. it goes on your permanent record.
>What would you have me do?
wash my car?
>And though I can tolerate the bad words if I must,
>I would prefer that I not have to. I recognize occasions
>when nothing else will suffice for some people, but I
>have never had to resort to them. (I lied. I have. Three,
>maybe five times at last count, I believe.)
ohhh man... you got it bad. my sympathy.
>I can't remember the other two that I scored on.
sheesh. sure, use them and split.
don't even remember their names.
don't you care about these broiads at all?
have you no shame?
>That would require reading your original post
>(which I'm too lazy to do).
well.. there ya go... 25 bonus points for laziness.
>You don't seem to have addressed them in this post.
true enough. i did not requote them.
hey, even _i_ get sick of replacing my broken windows.
>Is there hope for me?
i sincerely hope so.
-$Zero... HopeToHope... SoapToRope...
ASwingingCope... ForANovelAcceptanceEnvelope...
PLEASE CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THIS INSANE POLL!!!:
(as of today, more than 225 other people have tried so far)
http://members.aol.com/zerofund/0/9998/pt.html
BUT DON'T PEEK AT THE RESULTS FIRST, GOD NO!!!
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13737 (seized again)
$Zero'sStirringWord-SpoonOfTheDay:
http://users.aol.com/zerotfl/ <--revised 13515
Copyright © 1999 Global Suggestion Box
All Rights Reserved and Writes Reversed
(properly attributed internet quoting excluded)
B...@goodkarma.org
aj
zero...@aol.com (ZeroFund) wrote:
> >It would seem that I *am* a god-is-english twit
> >with some leanings toward "bad-worditis".
>
> you mean an english-is-god twit, don't you?
Yes, you are correct. That's what I meant. And I don't have the excuse of
being tired or anything.
> anyway, so am i when i'm not exhausted.
>
> the "bad"-worditus is not so good, but i can't
> say i don't understand why.
>
> >While the occasional typo/absent-minded error is acceptible,
> >I do cringe over frequent misspellings.
>
> sure, so do i. makes me look far more stupid then i really am.
> but that's why i don't discriminate against other bad spellers.
> like Marty Fouts. he's extremely intelligent but spells like a
> moron. though, he mispells words that most morons couldn't
> even remotely define. not that a big vocabulary really means
> much either. i strongly believe in using the simplest of words.
> i don't always do so, but that's because i'm too lazy sometimes.
>
> >I wasn't aware that this was a failing.
>
> well... just goes to show ya, that ya don't know everything. :-)
Do you?
>
> "hmmm... let's see here...
> great content, good-grammar, very articulate,
> interesting and engaging, but SORRY...
> i'll have to dock you 25 points
> for spelling all the words correctly.
> someday you'll learn."
But spelling is the biggest god of all.
>
> >Forgive me.
>
> sorry. it goes on your permanent record.
>
> >What would you have me do?
>
> wash my car?
I don't even wash my own car. I make my son do it.
> >And though I can tolerate the bad words if I must,
> >I would prefer that I not have to. I recognize occasions
> >when nothing else will suffice for some people, but I
> >have never had to resort to them. (I lied. I have. Three,
> >maybe five times at last count, I believe.)
>
> ohhh man... you got it bad. my sympathy.
Yes, it's increasingly difficult having to tolerate the descension of the
language into the sewer, but I'm managing to hang in there.
>
> >I can't remember the other two that I scored on.
>
> sheesh. sure, use them and split.
> don't even remember their names.
> don't you care about these broiads at all?
> have you no shame?
None at all, it would seem.
>
> >That would require reading your original post
> >(which I'm too lazy to do).
>
> well.. there ya go... 25 bonus points for laziness.
Why, thank you. Lazy Lizzy approves. (One of my secret selves-I mention her
in another post.)
>
> >You don't seem to have addressed them in this post.
>
> true enough. i did not requote them.
> hey, even _i_ get sick of replacing my broken windows.
>
> >Is there hope for me?
>
> i sincerely hope so.
As do I.
>
> -$Zero... HopeToHope... SoapToRope...
> ASwingingCope... ForANovelAcceptanceEnvelope...
aj
"How lovely yellow is!"
Vincent van Gogh (1853-90)
"What a horrible thing yellow is."