On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:36:32 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:

W.T. Hatch wrote:




For that matter, those who claim to "know" to a certainty about the credentials
of your wife, or of the boats you own or do not own, behave in a fashion equally
puerile to yours.

Naw. I write better.

So you have asserted, on more than one occasion. But I seem to recall someone
observing here that those who _do_ possess (and use) superior writing skills do
not make claims about those same skills, as you do.

So? What's your point? That one of the pack of right-wing buttwipers
here took a swipe at me? What else is new?

Sir:

I thought I was quite clear, but I'll rephrase. You have crowed more than once
about possessing superior writing skills. Those who truly _do_ possess such
skills do not typically find it necessary to make those claims, preferring
instead to allow their work to speak for itself.


On the one hand, however, there is something oddly fascinating about the way a
certain element here seems obsessed with details of your personal life and
possessions--and your willingness to keep them engaged at the cost of the
newsgroup.

It's amazing, isn't it? As for keeping them engaged, I really don't give
a crap what they think, say, or do. Even if they think I do.

Ah, but I think you do. There's no crime in that, mind you--but your prolific
posting to rec.boats belies your claim.

On the other hand, I suspect you are unable (or unwilling) to distinguish
between writing that is grammatically and syntactically correct and that which
conveys a worthwhile message.

Sorry, but I think spelling, grammar and syntax are important when one
is trying to express an idea. In the world of words, and that is, after
all, what usenet is, eh, the quality of your writing speaks to the
quality of your thinking. Way back when, in the Dark Ages, when I was in
college, my better professors also said, one way or another, "prove"
what you know or what have learned by writing a paper on this, that, or
the other. And spelling and grammar counted.

I have no quibble with the importance of spelling, grammar and syntax--and I am
now somewhat curious as to your apparent lack of reading comprehension. Is this
a feigned ingenuousness on your part, I wonder?

If your definition of "good" writing is the
former, I think a reasonable person would be hard put to find much fault with
yours. If the latter--well, that is another matter altogether.

Good writing is good writing. If you want to write like this....

Ah...but by your apparent criteria, cummings would not be a good writer. He
routinely ignored conventions of grammar, syntax and style. For that matter,
even spelling was quite arbitrary for many of the great writers of prose and
poetry.

In any case, I believe you are trying to conflate mere form with content. Banal
sentiments expressed with perfect form are no less banal.

Most sincerely,
W.T. Hatch


my father moved through dooms of love
through sames of am through haves of give,
singing each morning out of each night
my father moved through depths of height

...then you better be as talented as e.e. cummings.