On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:09:40 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 12:55 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:35:13 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:25:55 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:59:01 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:47:41 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/25/09 11:33 AM, wrote:
snipped for contextual obligations

Then you should be able to evidentially reveal the other poster's
identity.


further redaction action

What you think I
"should" do and what *I* decide I will do only coincide when *I* decide
they do.


I'm sorry, Harry, but this doesn't even make sense,
contextually or otherwise.

That's rich. With all your ponderous scribbling you're having trouble
parsing Harry's simple phrase.

It's not the parsing that is problematic, JPS. It's the ostensible
assumption on his part that I 'thought' he should reveal the other
poster's identity. His response was juxtaposed below my assertion
that he should be able to divulge the other person's identity. There
was no requirement for him to do so, implicitly or explicitly. Does
that make sense? There are support groups that help with
comprehending "ponderous scribbling," if that will help at all.

Fresh in from the Ponderosa with a mouthful.

I haven't any trouble understanding your ponderosities.

You're like a young jazz musician who knows how to play a lot of notes
fast and hasn't yet discovered the spaces between the notes are what
make the music worth listening to.

You're a young writer, perhaps not in years.


"He" reminds me of some of the freshmen I encountered when I taught
bonehead English. There were always a couple of overwrought, purple
prose wannabe writers among the students I taught in every class.

If they were particularly obnoxious in class, I would slash and burn my
way through their homework with a red pen.

Can you imagine being his kid? Yikes.