On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:29:20 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 09:00:30 -0700, W.T. Hatch
wrote:

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.

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.


In other words, Harry prefers style over substance, form over
function. His is an beautifully crafted shell, which contains.......
NOTHING!

Sir:

One could reasonably make the same observations about _your_ contributions to
this forum. In general, the arguments on _both_ sides tend to be repetitive and
often specious, devolving quickly into inane personal insult.

Most sincerely,
W.T. Hatch