ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

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.

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."

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.].
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.

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.
"Star Wars" fans love it!


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. 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. Since you
have decided to grade this as a formal, college level paper, you had better
not be guilty of ambiguity yourself, professor.

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

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.
Peter, at least I see an honest attempt to communicate here. 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. 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.
One more thing. I did my Master's in linguistics at Temple University. 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?
You seem like an intelligent person, why not put it to good use? It's your
choice.
Scout

ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

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

ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

I've ordered extra popcorn and some donuts and pulled up a comfy
seat to watch Scout, the friendly neighbourhood vivisector,
display his artistry on a hypnotised victim. "It's all for your
own good!" he says, as he delicately gelds the willing subject.
But will Peter J Ross, having failed in normal intercourse, now
resort to binary fission?


--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com


Scout wrote:

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.

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."

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.].
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.

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.
"Star Wars" fans love it!

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. 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. Since you
have decided to grade this as a formal, college level paper, you had better
not be guilty of ambiguity yourself, professor.

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

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.
Peter, at least I see an honest attempt to communicate here. 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. 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.
One more thing. I did my Master's in linguistics at Temple University. 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?
You seem like an intelligent person, why not put it to good use? It's your
choice.
Scout

ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

I kf'ed Peter J Ross a while ago for committing the unforgiveable sin
of being boring. It seems that I was correct in my initial assessment.

He wants to nit-pick my grammar? Let him. I don't care. I write in
conversational English, an ability that his compatriots sadly lack,
judging by their posts. Most of their posts are one-liners and puerile
at that. They remind me of a bunch of preschoolers making toilet jokes
to each other, mainly because they've so recently managed to learn how
& when to use one for its intended purpose.

With luck, my top-posting will be annoying to the lot of them. While
they fume and spend time attempting to compose intelligent, coherent
and witty replies, I'll be, first, having coffee and dinner with an
attractive *adult* blonde, followed by a quiet night's reading of
Dick Feynman's book. Tomorrow I'll glance in, kf all the new
sockpuppets, then spend the rest of the day working with the
contractors getting my ship ready for the first voyage of the season.
Yesterday, I was building my new cottage and paddling my kayak across
the tide flats. It's a tough life, but someone has to live it.

This rabble of losers can only aspire to master comic books, and their
ability to have social intercourse with a female is limited to their
ability to purchase inflatable dolls. They couldn't even get a second
date with a prostitute, because there are some things even they won't
do for money. Sooner or later, they'll realise just how far out of
their intellectual depth they are and retire to lick their wounds, or
they'll actually respond to training and attempt to lift their feeble
repartee. Who knows, one or two of them may actually *be* trainable.
Nav was giving dancing lessons and getting somewhere, but he has more
patience than I do.

God help them if Mooron gets bored.

Ah well, looks like the fun's over x-posting into the vampire ******
n/g; the German news server blocked it. No loss really. If they don't
read ASA, good riddance.


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.
Peter, at least I see an honest attempt to communicate here. 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. 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.
One more thing. I did my Master's in linguistics at Temple University. 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?
You seem like an intelligent person, why not put it to good use? It's your
choice.
Scout

Bertie gets trolled
 

"Scout" wrote in
:

Peter,
Our hero appears to be stumped by your word order.
"Not even a paragraph can they manage" has, of course, all the
necessary components of a technically complete sentence. I
congratulate you for so cleverly exposing his weak grasp of the
English language.

Bwaswahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwha hhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhw
hahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwha hwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwh
ahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhah hwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwh
ahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwha hwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwh
ahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhah whahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwha
hhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhah hwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwh
ahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhah whahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwha
hwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahh whahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwha
hhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahhwhah whahwhahwhahhwha!

Bertie

ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

"Scout" wrote in
:


You don't have to pay me either. I make $74,000/year teaching English
in America.

enough said.

if you gotta tell 'em who you are, you ain't.-Gregory Peck


Bertie

ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

Flying Tadpole wrote in
:

I've ordered extra popcorn and some donuts and pulled up a comfy
seat to watch Scout, the friendly neighbourhood vivisector,
display his artistry on a hypnotised victim. "It's all for your
own good!" he says, as he delicately gelds the willing subject.
But will Peter J Ross, having failed in normal intercourse, now
resort to binary fission?


Mmm hmm.

bertie

ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

I must answer this one. No, I'm not Gregory Peck, but I not only met him, I
sat next to him as we watched his daughter in a play. Thanks for the
reminder of a great man and a great memory!!
Scout


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
if you gotta tell 'em who you are, you ain't.-Gregory Peck

Bertie

ASA Remedial English Classes, Lesson One [ Bertie gets trolled]
 

Thanks Katy,
It's beginning to look like some of the minor bunyippies could bloom into
reasonably intelligent posters. It's only the top dog(s) who still can't
manage much more than a "snort" response.
My theory is that his overuse of "snort" is an onomatopoeic throwback to the
root cause of his disorder.
BTW - I do appreciate his random choice of Gregory Peck in his attempt to
'humiliate' me. As you know, Scout is a character from the movie in which
Peck cemented his place as my favorite actor of all time.
Scout

"katysails" wrote
I would lend Scout my machete, but then it would all be over too
quickly...