Re: Anyone up for experimental collaboration?

On May 6, 6:56 pm, "Mark Wallace" <mwall...@xxxxxx> wrote:
You really are a bore, do you know that?

He means me James.

And it takes a lot of effort to understand what you are trying to say,
because you ramble off in so many different (and unreferenced) directions
that there never seems to be a coherent objective to your mutterings.

<shrug> I don't like Clive Barker. Thousands do. Your opinion of me
reflects my opinion of him. He is famous for, after having got bored
of being asked "how do I become a writer?", counselling that "writers
write--so get writing"

Advice you might do well to consider following.

I get the feeling that you really do only post to Usenet when you're
runk --

Don't trust your feelings Mark--they are misleading you.

and I really do have no interest in taking the time to read the
huge and convoluted postings that you write (I only suffered the first few
paragraphs of this last, so how well do you think you are doing at
communicating your thoughts and ideas to me?)

It matters not. I gave you a title and you've copped out.

I set it there nice and clearly at the end of my last post because,
unless there's been a revolution in newsclient design solutions, it
stood the best of chance you reading it there.

I had a feeling you were going to go trying to pull some sad tedious
little wriggle-out from actually participating based on anachronistic
book and paper metaphors whilst forgetting that screen text scrolls
rather than mimics a codex.

You called my integrity into question without having so far displayed
a sniff off any.

Here's a thought: why frequent a group on writing when your
participation seems geared-up to dissuading anyone from actually doing
any? Would you not be better off on one the fetish forums?

Therefore, if you have something to say to me, I really am invoking the
25-word-or-less rule. I won't read any more of your time-wasting massive
missives.

You mean your own new personal rule that you tried to impose here all
of a fortnight ago but is otherwise about as weighty as your
culturally hidebound speculations on Sino-tibetan market forces?

Otherwise, should it not really be "If you have something to say to
me, therefore, I insist you respect my petulant demands for extreme
concision."?

This being one of the fora where grammar can be said to matter I have
no difficulty believing you can't follow me as you don't even agree
with yourself...

But I think the conclusion speaks for itself--you are butting out, as
reluctantly suggested as a closing, rather than pitching in as
invited.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

.