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.

W.T. Hatch wrote:

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.


Ahh, I had no idea you were appointed spokesperson for the world's
professional writers.






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.


I post in rec.boats for the comic relief I find in the responses...and I
need comic relief these days.




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



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


Whoosh...right over your head.

Are you always such a pedantic bore?

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:37:26 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

Took the boat up to Lake Oroville, Calif. Ramp is about as steep as the
boating mishap ramp, except is about 1000' longer. Lake is down about
60'
so can not get all the way up to Feather Falls, but still 4-500' of water
in
the lake. Did a little fishing, watched a great 4th fireworks show on
the
lake. All the houseboats line the dam area, for the fireworks, eliciting
the comment from a nearby spectator "Holy ****! look at all those lights.
Looks like Las Vegas". Weather was warm, in the high 90's and stayed hot
until about 1 am. Did a little fishing, caught a few bass, and couple of
silver salmon. Boat has had a small leak that I have not been able to
find.
Well, pulling the boat on the 5th, the leak showed itself. Small 1/8"
size
corrosion hole in the lower part of the anchor locker. Epoxied for
Tuesday
boating. Will have to see if more corrosion, was round like, a small
piece
of copper wire, or something fell in the locker. 0.190" thick aluminum.
All in all a great weekend, with my wife, a queen among wives. The
Feather
river was giving up some spring run king salmon, but too hot to fish for
them. Spent a lot of time swiming.
Bill



Sounds great, Bill, but how can it be too hot to fish?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

If you get out from under the shade of the top, you get cooked. And since I
have my semi-yearly skin cancer checkup and removal, I am a lot more careful
about the sun. Besides, us NorCal people are not used to your square
weather. 95 degrees and 95% humidity. But the humidity was only about 35%
and the temps were about 98.

"W.T. Hatch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:34:44 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:GY5Hc.9221
snipped the drivel

I take it that you put yourself in the same light as those you call
"political whores"? You post and respond as much as anybody.

Nope. Rarely, if ever, start a political thread.

Sir:

Do you believe that _continuing_ an acrimonious "political" thread is
somehow
different from _starting_ one?

Over the past 30 days, here's your tally: out of 127 posts, 98 are
participating
in some sort of "political" squabble.

Most sincerely,
W.T. Hatch

Yes.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:GY5Hc.9221
snipped the drivel

I take it that you put yourself in the same light as those you call
"political whores"? You post and respond as much as anybody.

Nope. Rarely, if ever, start a political thread.

Ah, so, using your senile analogy, if you don't start a thread, then
your not a political poster?

Where is my senile anolgy? And I did not say I was not involed in the
political infights.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:10:48 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:GY5Hc.9221
snipped the drivel

I take it that you put yourself in the same light as those you call
"political whores"? You post and respond as much as anybody.

Nope. Rarely, if ever, start a political thread.

Ah, so, using your senile analogy, if you don't start a thread, then
your not a political poster?

Where is my senile anolgy? And I did not say I was not involed in the
political infights.

Sir:

I'm afraid you did. You responded to the following assertion:

You post and respond as much as anybody.

With

Nope.

While it is true that you do not _start_ any of these silly threads, you
certainly present as an avid participant and nurturer of same.

With respect to damage to a newsgroup, your copious posts do as much harm as
those coming from the other "side."

Most sincerely,
W.T. Hatch

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!

Dave

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

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

Dave Hall wrote:


One could reasonably make the same observations about _your_ contributions to
this forum.

Not really. My thoughts are my own,


You don't have thoughts, fella. You have a thought, you regurgitate it
repeatedly, and your entire life seems built around it. It's the same
"I've got mine, me first, screw you" over and over and over and over
and over. Your life seems to be one of selfishness in the extremis.


and I back up what I say,

In your selfish little mind, perhaps. What you say here really backs you
down an alley almost every time. You're the kind of conservative that
would have made Barry Goldwater puke.


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.

Thank you, we partisans appreciate it, and we're going to show you how
much when we toss your lying, thieving thug of a POTUS out the door come
election day.





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