Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: "Bernie" <rainbow1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:39:36 +0800
"Bill" <palmer.william@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1186929218.235111.210290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 12, 1:10 am, "Bernie" <rainb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bill" <palmer.will...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message:-
<...>>> > When
you come into a situation thinking you are
already perfect, you will never improve. Instead,
you will be eaten by spite at those who point
out your weak areas.
<...>
Tut, tut, Bill -- one really should learn how to
spell-check
for
words like *aspirations* and *primitive* before criticising
someone else's work.
(Acquiring some basic knowledge of grammar would not go
amiss,
either -- for instance, one would learn that a question
mark
does
not require the addition of a full-stop.)
In good faith.
Bernie.
Please. A typo lame -- the lowliest flame of all.
A strange reaction in view of what you wrote above, wouldn't
you
say?
Come back and pester me when you have 150,000
Google hits, ...
It would never be my intention or desire to accumulate "Google
hits" (whatever they happen to be).
When you talk about newsgroup writing,
Google-group hits have everything to do
with who is being read and who isn't.
(Dur! Is this person for real?)
Bill, it is my understanding that when people participate in a
newsgroup, they are going to be read by others who participate in
that newsgroup. No more, no less. So what's all this blather
about who is being read and who isn't?
(And what the dickens are "Google hits" in connection with
newsgroup participation?)
Mr, Typo-pouncing, non-writing newsgroup
nobody.
There are recognisable differences between typos and spelling
errors, Bill. Yours were spelling errors -- inexcusable in
one
criticising another's writing ability.
If there is one thing lamer than a typo lame it is
a post trying to justify a typo lame.
Like I said before, a typo can usually be excused, even in a
tirade of abuse about someone else's writing -- but spelling
errors in the same circumstances, never!
Face it,
Bernie, you got busted for your fourth-rate
flaming effort.
You're not paying attention, Bill, so I'll repeat what I said in
my previous reply:-
It has never been an aim of mine to flame. (Nor will it ever be)
Let's see, how many yearsago did someone try that hoary "This is a
writing group so no one should make
typos" ploy?
Whenever that might have been, I was not involved in it.
Rather, I have always insisted,
"This is a writing group so people should
WRITE -- no echo cliches and trite quips backi
and forth." On top of all that, your methods
are faulty. The only way to determine
whether a poster has misspelled a word
(as opposed to making a typo in it) is
to do an Advanced Google Search of
the poster's posts for the word with the
typo and the word without the typo. If
the poster has spelled the word correctly
in posts 50 times and not once or twice,
then you have a typo. I have spelled
"the" correctly many thousand times,
but no doubt you can find a few "teh"'s
in my archive too. A third rate lamer
like you would argue that the "teh"
would prove that I can't spell "the".
As I said, Bernie, your methods are
faulty. I have posted "primitive" enough
times to prove I can spell the word,
your typo-pouncing to the contrary..
A typo (i.e., the slip of a finger) is recognisable by the
*wrong* letter being nowhere near the *correct* letter on the
keyboard, Bill -- and "a" is nowhere near "i" on any keyboard
I've ever known. Any error that cannot be regarded as a slip of
the finger is a misspelling.
(You should take care with your assumptions, too; they can be
dangerous. E.g. you were wrong to assume me a Mr.)
As for the "non-writing newsgroup nobody" claim, you may well
be
right. (On the other hand, when one's rubbed shoulders with
princes and prime ministers, everything else bcomes rather
insignificant, innit?)
In the newsgroups, your archive is your
calling card and resume.
Archives?
Calling cards?
Resumes?
In newsgroups?
You'd just *have* to be joking!
You *are* joking aren't you, Bill? I mean, if not, then this
conversation ends right here -- especially since I now recall a
previous chat during which you, in an infantile attempt to
belittle someone else, revealed your truly abysmal lack of
knowledge on phonetics.
Bernie.
One bit of advice, by the way. Typos
can be proofread out of a document easily by
intelligent readers,
Agreed -- but they should not have to be.
so my Usenet approach has
always been to write and hit the send key, and
let my readers' minds take care of any typos I
have missed.
As I said above: When criticising the work of others, typos
can
be excused -- spelling errors can't.
But when you write NOTHING,
then all the proofreading you have time for and
all the editorial polish you can muster will
do you no good at all. Put THAT in your pipe
and smoke it!
I? Smoke a pipe? Another assumption, Bill?
Wrong again.
Bernie.
[Memo from the upstairs office.]
In good faith.
Bernie.
AHhttp://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com-Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Sylvia
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: gekko
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: gekko
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Bill
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- References:
- [Open Response] To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Bill
- Re: [Open Response] To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Alan Hope
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Bill
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Bernie
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Bill
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Bernie
- Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- From: Bill
- [Open Response] To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- Prev by Date: Re: Is PJ still sticky, sticky, sticky?
- Next by Date: Re: The Truth
- Previous by thread: Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- Next by thread: Re: To the misc.writing party who emailed me about the "disturbed individual"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|