This is utterly ridiculous, how do I talk privately with Town Heretic? It is impossible, isn't it?! Good grief! All I wanted to ask him since I saw an old message was how did he know I loved him? See? Sorry Town but blush on your on darn time, I can't spend the rest of my life trying private ms you.
Town Quixote's
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
I had a guy here who abused the open access to PMs so I had to restrict it. I rarely use it these days. Don't recall the message. Hey, why the new username? Did you forget the old password? :think:
Oh, that's right. Make me say why. I, uhm, threw a fit. Anna once said I threw fits but really they are only one at a time. So, sigh, I was disgruntled about pos reps being devalued in our society's market here... (can I somehow sound at all intellectual at least about this? Maybe not.) So I closed my identity page by changing my email. It made the name black. Mick could write a song about it. But to come back and open it again and make it viable I had to respond to the email. Yes, Admin put a neat little stop to that little trick, though I had done it once before and it had worked. So... viola, as they say. Siganora. Vio con Dios, muchachos... Sally get on your mustang and ride or something like that..sigh
I know more about you now, I pray that your mom comes home strong !!
Patrick I remember when you first came here. I still think of you as a newbie. I guess I'll have to get over that. Thank you for your prayers. Nite nite
I don't post as often and I'm busy with my schoolwork, so it's longer between Wraps, which is the only writing I tend to do in this thread. Should have another one soon. Good to see you again.
The Wrap
on Saturday
on Saturday
Let's kick this off with a little science fun...
Then Cruc decided to bait and switch...
That would be a criminal act...But let's not conflate the exception with the rule, no matter which side you're on. Most police aren't shooting anyone, aren't singling out blacks with malice aforethought, etc. And most people who identify with the BLM movement are doing so with a legitimate grievance and without violence on their part.
I don't think you give liberals enough credit, just as you slight the movement by willfully conflating irresponsible and reprehensible conduct you haven't established as a rule with the rule, but I'll let liberals debate their finer points with you.
Or were you trying to be as inaccurate in assessing me as you were with the BLM movement? Because there's something to be said for consistency.
And the fish started biting...
aC was still sizzling...
A sudden, inexplicable gender turn by CS led AB to ask...
My wife has a Freudian slip. If you ask me, it shows too much knee.
Leading to...
While on a legal note of sorts...
So aC took a curtain call...
When it comes to mischaracterization you'd be in a class by yourself, if there wasn't something inherently wrong with putting you and class in the same sentence, even given how often you're taken to school around here.
So did the Macarena.
That's a plus right there.
Wrapping up with...
When did you go royal on me? Or Crown Royal, whatever. I actually spoke directly to that and did in the thread concerning it in short order.
Spoiler
No he didn't. Not even once. He did write, "a lot of the hue and cry over "traditional marriage" was little more than a repackaging of a religious argument to make it look like something else."
What I've consistently held on the point of marriage is that as it's set out in relation to the state religion doesn't enter into it. Atheists marry every year.
The moment you put "proper" into the question you might as well as, "What do you believe the role of government should be?" ...Now if you want a subjective evaluation you shouldn't then try to turn it into a multiple choice with two wrong answers.
You'd be a lot more convincing in trying to frame my philosophical approach if you got any particular thing I wrote correctly when ham-fistedly attempting to sum it.
Tomorrow? The unbearable triteness of politics, the media plays spin the tale on the candidate, and party hats that won't fit (but everyone gets cake). :thumb:
ClimateSanity
New member
The following is good advice for you TH
Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society
strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous
frills and meaningless jargon.
Who can understand the clotted language of everyday Amer-
ican commerce: the memo, the corporation report, the business
letter, the notice from the bank explaining its latest "simplified"
statement? What member of an insurance or medical plan can
decipher the brochure explaining his costs and benefits? What
father or mother can put together a child's toy from the instruc-
tions on the box? Our national tendency is to inflate and thereby
sound important. The airline pilot who announces that he is
presently anticipating experiencing considerable precipitation
wouldn't think of saying it may rain. The sentence is too sim-
ple—there must be something wrong with it.
But the secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its
cleanest components. Every word that serves no function, every
long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries
the same meaning that's already in the verb, every passive con-
ruction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what—
these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the
strength of a sentence. And they usually occur in proportion to
education and rank.
From "On writing well" by William Zinsser.
Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society
strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous
frills and meaningless jargon.
Who can understand the clotted language of everyday Amer-
ican commerce: the memo, the corporation report, the business
letter, the notice from the bank explaining its latest "simplified"
statement? What member of an insurance or medical plan can
decipher the brochure explaining his costs and benefits? What
father or mother can put together a child's toy from the instruc-
tions on the box? Our national tendency is to inflate and thereby
sound important. The airline pilot who announces that he is
presently anticipating experiencing considerable precipitation
wouldn't think of saying it may rain. The sentence is too sim-
ple—there must be something wrong with it.
But the secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its
cleanest components. Every word that serves no function, every
long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries
the same meaning that's already in the verb, every passive con-
ruction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what—
these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the
strength of a sentence. And they usually occur in proportion to
education and rank.
From "On writing well" by William Zinsser.
It isn't, but I understand by now why you think so, having witnessed your struggles with inference.
No. Poor construction/grammar is the disease of more than simply American writing. I'll get to the root in a moment.
No. We're a Twitter nation, truncating spelling and garbling simplistic, poorly written reflections that speak to our a need for self-examination, effort and education.
We're a society that by and large doesn't read often or well. People who aren't exposed to much beyond the ninth grade processing of the average magazine or paper, if that, will think much of what lives outside of that stricture and beyond their reading comprehension is suspect, ostentatious, etc.
That sentence failed his standard.
Else, particular jargon, within a particular profession, is almost always readily understood by those meant to and less so by those to whom it was never intended.
Nah. Our tendency is to confuse our limitations with taste and to sneer at what exceeds it.
Who decides what constitutes that? Who gets to decide when someone isn't doing that?
It's you, isn't it.
lain: Next time you want to come at me, bring something of mine to sustain the nonsensical, passive-aggressive approach.Desperate insecurity noted, along to an appeal to authority you haven't actually managed to apply in any particular.
Man, you really don't handle an appearance in The Wrap very well, do you. The punctuation means it's rhetorical. :think: That means you aren't really being asked a question.
ClimateSanity
New member
It isn't, but I understand by now why you think so, having witnessed your struggles with inference.
No. Poor construction/grammar is the disease of more than simply American writing. I'll get to the root in a moment.
No. We're a Twitter nation, truncating spelling and garbling simplistic, poorly written reflections that speak to our a need for self-examination, effort and education.
We're a society that by and large doesn't read often or well. People who aren't exposed to much beyond the ninth grade processing of the average magazine or paper, if that, will think much of what lives outside of that stricture and beyond their reading comprehension is suspect, ostentatious, etc.
That sentence failed his standard.
Else, particular jargon, within a particular profession, is almost always readily understood by those meant to and less so by those to whom it was never intended.
Nah. Our tendency is to confuse our limitations with taste and to sneer at what exceeds it.
Who decides what constitutes that? Who gets to decide when someone isn't doing that?
It's you, isn't it.
Desperate insecurity noted, along to an appeal to authority you haven't actually managed to apply in any particular.
Man, you really don't handle an appearance in The Wrap very well, do you. The punctuation means it's rhetorical. :think: That means you aren't really being asked a question.
Hit a sore spot huh?
No, it's called a reasoned rebuttal. And I didn't lean on an authority I failed to understand or apply to manage it. :nono:
To everyone else, enjoy his contributions to The Wrap from Saturday, a couple of posts behind this. :thumb:
Last edited:
ClimateSanity
New member
:nono:
ClimateSanity
New member
ewe
ClimateSanity
New member
I saw no rebuttal. I saw unintelligible gibberish. Lean on an authority? Hardly . I was reading it when you jumped out from the pages as a prime example. I certainly applied it. It was spot on in regards to your writing.
You goofed the quote function. Let me assist. I already noted your declarative habit.
It's a problem with you. Well, your whole part was to hide behind the skirt of the authority you presented and assert it was a criticism that applied to me. Since you weren't standing up I took on what was offered, without conceding the point of your attempt and in opposition to the writer whose opinion controls...nothing much. It's just his notion. Here's an example of rebuttal.
The author you posted wrote: "We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon."
He asserts it without proof. It's his impression. I answer: No. We're a Twitter nation, truncating spelling and garbling simplistic, poorly written reflections that speak to our a need for self-examination, effort and education.
Then your reading comprehension is worse than I imagined.
It's a problem with you. Well, your whole part was to hide behind the skirt of the authority you presented and assert it was a criticism that applied to me. Since you weren't standing up I took on what was offered, without conceding the point of your attempt and in opposition to the writer whose opinion controls...nothing much. It's just his notion. Here's an example of rebuttal.
The author you posted wrote: "We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon."
He asserts it without proof. It's his impression. I answer: No. We're a Twitter nation, truncating spelling and garbling simplistic, poorly written reflections that speak to our a need for self-examination, effort and education.
Then your reading comprehension is worse than I imagined.
You're right. You didn't lean. I was being too easy on you. You stood behind it to the point of becoming invisible.
Supra.
Saying, "This is you" then regurgitating/cut and pasting isn't application. It's repetition founded in assumption.
It wasn't even more than arguably correct in relation to anyone's writing. So, no, again.
ClimateSanity
New member
You know good and well that your writing requires a lawyer to decipher it. The point of the authors book is that people enjoy reading something they don't have to work at in getting the meaning. For anyone who is trying to write to be understood, they must be concise without clutter and use words that do work and precisely convey the authors meaning. Enjoyable writing also let the personality of the writer be seen in what he writes .
You fail the concise and clear standard. You also use big words when simpler words convey your meaning more clearly.
If you writing is an extension of your personality , it flows from a cluttered and unsure mind.
ClimateSanity
New member
Do you wish to be understood and make a convincing point? Your writing fails. If you were to write a length book. Most people would fall asleep.
It really doesn't, though I'd admit I fashion a good bit of humor for an audience that excludes more than a few. When I was a kid I loved Bullwinkle. You could watch it on one level and it was fine. You got older and read widely enough, you began to understand there was another layer in the humor and it was even funnier.
Outside of humor, I mostly tone down the writing, but given I do most of it on the fly, if I'm in a hurry it can move up the FOG index a bit. Even so, anyone with an understanding of grammar and a good dictionary can keep up, regardless of their education level.
Look, if this was that densely packed Quixote's wouldn't draw the numbers it does. You're reading too much into things outside of your personal wheelhouse. You have a hard time with inferential humor, especially the sort resting on an assumption of cultural exposure. There's nothing inherently wrong with being outside of the target group, but there's something wrong about insisting that your limitation is someone else's problem. If you aren't interested in making up the difference then it's simply not for you and it's time to move along.
The author made a number of points. I disagreed with most of them. It might be a time consideration. When was it published?
Writing is a bit like telling a joke. It begins with the idea, which you want to communicate. Then you need to know two things. Who am I trying to communicate the idea to and what language will do that in a way that interests.
Some people love the guy who hammers fruit with a mallet. If he tried running the spiel Dennis Miller ran on his old HBO show the bleachers would empty in a heartbeat. Does that mean Dennis should invest in a giant hammer or is there a point you're missing?
You fail to understand the point and the audience. Not everything is a recipe. Sometimes, it's a crossword puzzle and there's satisfaction to be had in working the NY Times in pen. But it isn't for everyone and it isn't trying to be.
Such as? You should stop making general charges and point to specifics. What I imagine you'll find is that you understand most of the words. It's the lyric in their use that you struggle with. Else, it's called vocabulary. Mine is expansive and appropriate for my education. Again, not all conversations are for everyone.
You're just tipping your hand here. You aren't fit to judge what you mostly don't understand. That's just a thin bit of hostility on your part. Feel free to disengage at any point and pursue something you feel is worthy of you.
:e4e: