Re: Writing an article Re: Authoring an article for publishing


Ian Iveson wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiultra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
>
> > And your point is? -- Andre Jute
>
> A language evolves, unless it is stuck in a cultural backwater.
>
> Americans use a more advanced form of English in speech, and this is
> increasingly reflected in the way they write. It's silly trying to
> tell them how to use their own language.
>
> cheers, Ian

You should stick to obfuscation, what you call dialectics, Iveson. Not
that you are much chop at it (1), being more of a closet reformist
because you don't have the stomach for squishy eyeballs underfoot that
revolutions inevitably entail (I know, I have been in several
revolutions on one side or the other and sometimes on both; they're not
events you want to schedule around mealtimes).

I've many times demonstrated that as a historian you stink. You can't
even be relied on for a straightforward list of the facts on Soviet
Communism, about which I know about ten miles of fourlayer filing
cabinets more than you do. Now we see that as a linguist, you stink.
Americans in particular do not have "a more advanced form of English",
they speak a retrograde form of the vernacular stuck at the Plymouth
rock in the 17th century. One can hear the purest form of Quaker
English today in Boston. American pronunciation, mocked by the
instinctive America-haters on the left, is the actually a throwback to
the way the English spoke three hundred years ago.

Since I'm an old-fashioned King James Version stylist, there is
absolutely no reason for me not to expect from John, an old-school
Canadian, a similar respect for the language. You're the one who's
off-beam here, not me.

Andre Jute

(1) Even dialectic obfuscation I do better than you. Compare my note
to your the other day with your limp, transparent, efforts:
"Okay, maybe my first response to Ian was a little harsh. Instead of
just throwing up my hands and saying, Oh, ***, not that again, I could
if I were stroked argue that Marx's model of postdialectic
deappropriation holds that culture, perhaps ironically, has objective
value, given that the premise of postcapitalist materialist theory is
invalid. In that sense, anyway; after all, Sontag uses the term
'dialectic neomaterialist theory' to denote the failure of presemiotic
sexual identity ("oh, ***"? "stroked" definitely). Any number of
theories concerning textual narrative may be revealed. Ian's may be
valid. However, if constructivism holds, in environmental
interpretation we have to choose between the neoconceptualist paradigm
of context and cultural capitalism. -- Andre Jute"
If you were honest, you would have to admit that my par is not only ten
miles more leftwing than anything you ever sent to RAT but is so
totally impenetrable as to send even the best-intentioned searcher
after a singular meaning away crying in frustration -- and screw him
too for being so narrowminded as to desire a single meaning. But there
is a singular analysis lurking to be discovered by the truly nimble.
The clue is in Sontag, and Freud might help. I noticed you walked a
cowardly berth around my commie-trap. Probably wise, for you.

.