On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:19:26 -0700, W.T. Hatch
wrote:

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.

Not really. My thoughts are my own, and I back up what I say, unlike
Harry who's "contributions" consist of little more than empty
conjecture and innuendo, laced with a plethora of cut and past
articles from other like-minded partisans.

In general, the arguments on _both_ sides tend to be repetitive and
often specious, devolving quickly into inane personal insult.

Rhetoric tends to be that way, and usually those who resort to
personal insults do so because they cannot counter the issues.

Dave