On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:20:24 -0400, a team of surgeons from
alt.sailing.asa removed the following benign growth from Scout:

1. Peter Wiley wrote:
What credibility? Bertie and his smelly sockpuppets don't have any. I
use 'any' in the most general sense, as in 'they have nothing' -

1. Then Peter J Ross wrote:
Since "any" is meaningless unless it refers back to "credibility",
your "most general sense" is clearly not a sense known in English as
the rest of us speak and write it. Redefining words to mean what you
choose them to mean doesn't make a good impression on a reader.

1. Then Scout corrected Peter J. Ross with this clarification:
No. Since "What credibility?" is clearly the topic sentence of this
abbreviated paragraph, modern English readers and writers (rightfully)
assume the supporting details of that paragraph refer back to it. If they do
not refer back to the topic sentence, then the paragraph is considered
unfocused and disorganized.

Insofar as I can make any sense of this verbiage, you appear to be
agreeing with me. Thanks!

2. Peter Wiley wrote:
no wit, no humour, no skills in debate, no originality, no ability to
engage in even social conversation over the net, where they can hide
their physical inadequacies from the world.

2. Then Peter J Ross wrote:
This makes no sense at all unless the word "even" modifies "over the
net", in which case it needs to be moved two words along. When you
learn to write English more fluently you'll be able to place words
better.

2. Then Scout corrected Peter J. Ross with this clarification:
No. I believe the writer is using 'even' as an additional adjective for the
noun 'conversation', Id est, he is referring to the sad fact that you and
your pals are incapable of having a conversation with us that is "on the
level."

Then what do you make of the appendage about "physical inadequacies"?
How is it contrasted with "socail conversation", as "even" requires it
to be?

Admit that you're gibbering in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

3. Peter Wiley wrote:
Look what happened here. Bertie got his head handed to him on a
platter. Unable to compete in wit at any level, or invective above the
puerile, he runs off to fetch his equally dim and socially retarded
compatriots -

3. Then Peter J Ross wrote:
Are you saying we're all of the same nationality, or are you confused
about the meaning of the word "compatriot"? Perhaps you wanted the
word "compeers"?

3. Then Scout corrected Peter J. Ross with this clarification:
Any confusion about the definition of the word compatriot can be cleared up
with an English dictionary. My own dictionary (American Heritage, 3rd ed.)
gives these two definitions for the word: [com·pa·tri·ot: n. 1. A person
from one's own country. 2. A colleague.].

O tempora. O mores.

I hate it when useful, precise words come to be misused so often that
even dictionaries have to accept the misuse.

I believe the writer (correctly) chose the second definition. Might I add
that you (plural) made the decision to (ahem) collaborate with the
Bunyippies; hence, you are colleagues, or compatriots, if you prefer.

No, I don't prefer "compatriots". It's sloppily ambiguous at best.

4. Peter Wiley wrote:
Not even a paragraph can they manage.

4. Then Peter J Ross wrote:
No style,

4. Then Scout corrected Peter J. Ross with this clarification:
Of course it's style.
It just so happens you don't care for that style.

If you had enough brains to work out who said what, you'd know that
that was exactly what my response (which you snipped silently) meant.

Yes, it just so happens that I don't care for pseudo-archaic
pretentiousness, especially when the writer is clearly semi-literate.
Nevertheless, it's sometimes fun to laugh at it.

"Star Wars" fans love it!

Then tell your little friend to bugger off to a Star Wars newsgroup.

5. Peter Wiley wrote:
and it's a struggle for them to get
there. We're all laughing at the few pathetic posts that make their
way past the twit filters, respond to less,

5. Then Peter J Ross wrote:
"We're all laughing... responding... and laughing" would be correct,

5. Then Scout corrected Peter J. Ross with this clarification:
No. Your rewrite is ambiguous.

I expect I'd stick an extra pronoun or two in.

The reader may incorrectly interpret that to
mean "we laugh at you, we respond, and then we laugh at our own responses."
Or is that not what you mean? See? I'm confused by your diction.

I suggest you stick to "Janet and John" then.

Since you
have decided to grade this as a formal, college level paper,

No, I'm treating it as an effort at communication by somebody who
probably wouldn't get into any college that set a written exam.

you had better
not be guilty of ambiguity yourself, professor.

Since about half of what you've written so far is barely
comprehensible and you've even shown confusion about who said what, I
don't think you're in a very strong position to criticise.

{large section snipped - contained extreme nit-picking on the part of Peter
J Ross}

I'm glad you admit that you can't dispute any of it.

6. Then Peter J Ross wrote:
For the piece as a whole, I'll give you five marks out of ten, and
hope you'll improve after reading these few hints. In your next
exercise, aim for clarity, and don't attempt to use vocabulary that's
beyond you. Good luck!

You don't *have* to pay me anything, but a few years ago I used to
receive five or ten UK pounds a time for writing similar comments on
Local Government leaflets. It was money for old rope.

6. Then Scout summarized his take on the post:
You don't have to pay me either. I make $74,000/year teaching English in
America. I'm also a paid/published author.

O tempora again.

Peter, at least I see an honest attempt to communicate here.

No, you've been trolled, actually.

I've been on a roll recently. One of the idiots in soc.men is accusing
one of my temporary sockpuppets of stalking him; another of them seems
to think I've reported his Yahoo group to the Canadian government; and
now I have you boasting about how much you earn.

I haven't *tried* to achieve any of these things, but I've certainly
found myself in the right place at the right time.

You are, of
course, guilty of (facetiously?) grading a memo as though it were a
dissertation. Even so, your point deductions are at best, debatable. The
real crime, however, is that you miss, no, that you ignore, the author's
point.

His "point", if that's the right word for something so lacking in
sharpness, was to whine about the illiteracy of people who in fact
write far more clearly, stylishly and entertainingly than he does.

Most of your friends post one or two word nonsensical responses.
Throw in a controversial thought once in a while, and we'll have a good time
kicking it around. Behave like asses, however, and we will just have to
enjoy ourselves by kicking you around.

Oh yes. "Look how my face is smashing your fist!"

One more thing. I did my Master's in linguistics at Temple University.

Ought I to have heard of it?

One
day our professor handed out an essay and told us to find all the mistakes.
We found plenty. We gave the graded papers back to the teacher. He checked
our work, and handed us all F's. Why? Because there was nothing really wrong
with the papers. We wanted to find mistakes, so we did. Language, no,
syntax, is like that. The Gettysburg Address was torn to ribbons by a
grammar checker. My posts could be ripped apart as well. So can anything
you care to post. You know it. I know it. So why pretend that we don't see
the point in Peter's post?

Why is this rather silly diatribe not directed at your semi-literate
little friend? He's the one who started complaining about other
posters' grammar and style, remember.

You seem like an intelligent person, why not put it to good use? It's your
choice.

Oh I will, I assure you. But you probably won't like it much.

--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8