In article <iKB0s*lr0@prolix.apana.org.au> dac@prolix.apana.org.au (Andrew Clayton) makes more claims that are unrelated to anything that I've written:
>In article <Bxx79v.AD4@nic.umass.edu>, I explain my response to Banta, which
has clearly confused dac no end.
>
>> I responded quite simply and honestly:
>
>Simply, because you had no other choice, and honestly? Who cares!
>
Actually, simplicity is a lot harder to achieve than unnecessary
complication. For example, take the following sentence from your
latest attack:
>Your lack of vision is nowhere near as unimportant as your lack
>of self worth.
Although the sentiment is clear, this would be a much more effective
sentence without the triple negative. Clarifying the prose is left
as an exercise to the reader.
As for "who cares?" I can only conclude, dac, m'love, that you care.
Otherwise, why would you take the time and effort to respond. I'm
tickled, dac, really I am. It means so very much to me to know that
there is someone like you, sitting at your terminal glued to every
word I post. So maybe you're a little overzealous & are so eager to
enlighten me that you see flaws that aren't there. I guess that's to
be expected considering your own lack of literary style.
But don't think it doesn't go unappreciated - or should I say, for
simplicity's sake, it is appreciated, dac. Thank you.
>You would be the type of maverick who would point out to people
>that 'I called an hotel about a reservation I had made' is
>_correct_ english usage. Most other people call it pedantry.
>Those who lack nouce call it 'wanking.'
Actually, no, I wouldn't call it correct, because the 'h' is aspirated.
At least in English. Of course if you were talking in French, it would
be a whole different issue. Then again, if you were talking in French,
most of the words in the sentence would have to be changed, so the
question of "a" vs. "an" would not be at issue.
>
>> Why I'm quite certain many people could do as much. I wouldn't be surprised
>> in the least to discover that you posted the flame to which I am responding
>> while playing the skin flute of one of your Ozzies.
>
>A bit tepid, Jenny? Can't you bring up your level of flaming
>past genitals? And surely the ostracisation of homosexuals is
>olde worlde discrimination, in these enlightened times, so your
>allegory is both UN-PC, and uninteresting.
Honey, I'm merely responding to you - it was clear that you had misunderstood
my intention when I said that I was capable of doing two things simultaneously.
It seemed to you that I was saying that I was special in this regard, and
you found this attitude disturbing. I merely pointed out that I do NOT think
that I am special in this regard. Rather I think most people can do two things
at once. I think YOU can do two things at once - even the two that I had
mentioned, posting & fellating. I didn't say that you DID such things, but
only that it would not surprise me, because I am sure you are capable. Just
as capable as I.
>
>> >Your current status could be coelesced down to "Lost and
>> >bewildered in Usenet"
>
>> Well, seeing as you seem just as bewildered as I, I hope you're enjoying
>> the barrel.
>
>Only to your precious uninformed way of thinking, dear.
>
Well, seeing as you are responding to MY posts, with comments that have
nothing to do with what I was talking about, I guess you are bewildered
as "to my..way of thinking". My manner of thinking bewilders you. That's
OK. Some of my thoughts get complex. I"ve never had much problem with
other people understanding me, but it's OK if you don't. I'm sure you
have a lot to offer as a human being, and a small problem like reading
incomprehension should not prevent you from having a useful, fulfilling
