Parsing Stewart's Reply

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Richard Smyth at UNC-CH

Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at UNC-CH » 24 aug 2007 12:11:38

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

You gave something that you represented as an answer to a question that I asked, namely, whether there is any actual evidence that aggressive comments to trolls causes them to go away. Now you tell me that I should not read your answer to my question through my own pre-existing analysis of my question.

This discussion is not going to get anywhere.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 12:38:32

"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1221.1187954217.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

You gave something that you represented as an answer to a question that I
asked,
namely, whether there is any actual evidence that aggressive comments to
trolls
causes them to go away. Now you tell me that I should not read your
answer to
my question through my own pre-existing analysis of my question.

This discussion is not going to get anywhere.

Now you are being disingenuous about your own words as well as mine.

Your question to Elizabeth was:

"The question is which behavior is more effective in silencing trolls:
ignoring them or attacking them."

My answer was

"Hines was ABSENT from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar
struggle from which he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs."

You are now trying to misrepresnt my sentence about what happened AFTER a
struggle between two people to your reading about what happened BECAUSE of a
whacking by one person.

That is not logical integrity, or accurate comprehension of plain English.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 13:28:21

On 24 Aug., 12:38, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <sm...@email.unc.edu> wrote in messagenews:mailman.1221.1187954217.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

You gave something that you represented as an answer to a question that I
asked,
namely, whether there is any actual evidence that aggressive comments to
trolls
causes them to go away. Now you tell me that I should not read your
answer to
my question through my own pre-existing analysis of my question.

This discussion is not going to get anywhere.

Now you are being disingenuous about your own words as well as mine.

Your question to Elizabeth was:

"The question is which behavior is more effective in silencing trolls:
ignoring them or attacking them."

My answer was

"Hines was ABSENT from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar
struggle from which he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs."

You are now trying to misrepresnt my sentence about what happened AFTER a
struggle between two people to your reading about what happened BECAUSE of a
whacking by one person.

That is not logical integrity, or accurate comprehension of plain English.

Peter Stewart

Chaps

When we are reduced to arguing amonsgt ourselves, the trolls win.
Rather than friendly-fire, let us save our ammunition for the big-
bottomed targets who are only interested in dragging this place down.

Cheers, MAR

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 13:44:03

I'm afraid, Michael, that I was responding to a post that seems very like
trolling to me. I can't readily believe that the poster does not understand
the difference between a sole cause and a contributing cause.

Richard asked which of two approaches had been evidenced as the "more
effective", and that is what I answered: engagement is MORE effective than
silence that has no effect at all - i.e. NOT the same as saying that
engagement is ABSOLUTELY effective, or sufficient in itself, or that nothing
else mattered in the particular case.

He then tried to represent that I had said a whacking by me CAUSED Hines to
go away, without qualification. But, as I told him plainly, I didn't say
that: rather I wrote that Hines went away AFTER a struggle, i.e after being
engaged rather than ignored. That approach was evidenced to be relatively
effective compared to an alternative that could not be shown to have
produced any effect at all. Hines correctly identified the fallacy, but
attributed this to the wrong person.

Why would someone even look for an opening to quibble over what I meant,
skewing both my original statement and my amplification of this?

But then to quote back my words that don't support the contention, as if
this made an open-and-shut case of it, then to paraphrase his own words
putting a different slant on the question that I was addressing in the first
place, is somewhat bizarre behaviour unless Richard is really just looking
for a battle of his own.

If so, he might try the belligerent Hines.

Peter Stewart


<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1187958501.873465.41180@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 24 Aug., 12:38, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <sm...@email.unc.edu> wrote in
messagenews:mailman.1221.1187954217.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here,
of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

You gave something that you represented as an answer to a question that
I
asked,
namely, whether there is any actual evidence that aggressive comments
to
trolls
causes them to go away. Now you tell me that I should not read your
answer to
my question through my own pre-existing analysis of my question.

This discussion is not going to get anywhere.

Now you are being disingenuous about your own words as well as mine.

Your question to Elizabeth was:

"The question is which behavior is more effective in silencing trolls:
ignoring them or attacking them."

My answer was

"Hines was ABSENT from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar
struggle from which he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs."

You are now trying to misrepresnt my sentence about what happened AFTER a
struggle between two people to your reading about what happened BECAUSE
of a
whacking by one person.

That is not logical integrity, or accurate comprehension of plain
English.

Peter Stewart

Chaps

When we are reduced to arguing amonsgt ourselves, the trolls win.
Rather than friendly-fire, let us save our ammunition for the big-
bottomed targets who are only interested in dragging this place down.

Cheers, MAR

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 16:46:04

Peter is treading water...trying to gauge his next move -- but fearing
checkmate....

How's that for a beautiful mixed metaphor?

Aloha,

DSH

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1221.1187954217.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

You gave something that you represented as an answer to a question that I
asked, namely, whether there is any actual evidence that aggressive comments
to trolls causes them to go away. Now you tell me that I should not read
your answer to my question through my own pre-existing analysis of my
question.

This discussion is not going to get anywhere.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 18:12:55

Hilarious!

Stewart keeps vociferously insisting he wants me to leave SGM entirely and
wants to drive me out by orchestrating a campaign of vilification and
condemnation against me -- urging people to boycott me and my posts.

Yet, at the same time, he insists that if I DO leave it will be with my tail
between my legs -- as he contends I did last time.

Deeeelightful!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Peter is a pogue who obviously does not understand anything about human
motivation and needs to retake Basic Motivational Psychology 101.

Further, when I urge a de-escalation of tensions and insult-flinging -- a
detente if you will -- Stewart insists it's because I am cowardly and
defeated by his wise policies and pressure -- but still wants me to be gone
completely from SGM.

Hilarious!

A Rampant Pogue Indeed Is He...

Prescription:

1. Retake of Basic Motivational Psychology 101 Required.

2. Report Grade

3. Await Further Instructions

P.S. I'm becoming gradually convinced that Peter is as queer as a $3
bill -- hence the recurrent hysterical hissy-fits. We shall see. My
Hawai'ian and Australian Irregulars are investigating.

Stay Tuned...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 19:04:05

Hilarious!

Peter continues to tread water and back and fill -- walking the cat back
from his earlier more egregious statements of error -- which were FAR over
the top.

Par For The Course...

I love Mixed Metaphors...

They tend to resonate well in the noodles of the Masses.

Vide infra pro sapientia...

Mine, of course.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:noAzi.25582$4A1.4676@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

I'm afraid, Michael, that I was responding to a post that seems very like
trolling to me. I can't readily believe that the poster does not
understand the difference between a sole cause and a contributing cause.

Richard asked which of two approaches had been evidenced as the "more
effective", and that is what I answered: engagement is MORE effective than
silence that has no effect at all - i.e. NOT the same as saying that
engagement is ABSOLUTELY effective, or sufficient in itself, or that
nothing else mattered in the particular case.

He then tried to represent that I had said a whacking by me CAUSED Hines
to go away, without qualification. But, as I told him plainly, I didn't
say that: rather I wrote that Hines went away AFTER a struggle, i.e after
being engaged rather than ignored. That approach was evidenced to be
relatively effective compared to an alternative that could not be shown to
have produced any effect at all. Hines correctly identified the fallacy,
but attributed this to the wrong person.

Why would someone even look for an opening to quibble over what I meant,
skewing both my original statement and my amplification of this?

Hell, that's an easy one.

Richard Smyth is a PHILOSOPHER. He listened to HEIDEGGER lecture.

He LOVES Platonic Dialogues wherein he gets to play Plato on the other end
of a log from a perhaps dull student, but one willing to learn.

But then Peter may be a dull student but he's NOT willing to learn.

Ay, there's the rub.

But then to quote back my words that don't support the contention, as if
this made an open-and-shut case of it, then to paraphrase his own words
putting a different slant on the question that I was addressing in the
first place, is somewhat bizarre behaviour unless Richard is really just
looking for a battle of his own.

If so, he might try the belligerent Hines.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 00:02:49

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:S4Dzi.210$Jp2.1254@eagle.america.net...
Peter is treading water...trying to gauge his next move -- but fearing
checkmate....

How's that for a beautiful mixed metaphor?

Worse than useless to your wishful misrepresentation - no element in the
mixture is true, amusing or telling in any way.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 00:19:27

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:blEzi.220$Jp2.1356@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

Stewart keeps vociferously insisting he wants me to leave SGM entirely and
wants to drive me out by orchestrating a campaign of vilification and
condemnation against me -- urging people to boycott me and my posts.

Ho hum - Hines hasn't looked up "boycott" in a dictionary, and quite
obviously doesn't know what the term means.

To help him, I quote from the _Oxford Reference Dictionary_:

"to combine in refusing to have dealings with (a person, group, etc)".

I have told Hines repeatedly that I intend to respond to each and every one
of his mendacious and/or vexatious posts, and I have urged everone else
reading SGM to do the same: this is the OPPOSITE of a boycott. The purpose
is to have a particular kind of direct dealing with Hines, that will help
him in his own undoing. Then, with any luck, Hines himself will boycott SGM.

But a campaign of condemnation is NOT the same as a boycott.

Yet, at the same time, he insists that if I DO leave it will be with my
tail
between my legs -- as he contends I did last time.

I couldn't care less how you leave, but since your tail is now stuck in the
"glory hole" (your own insider's term, from the bathhouse) between your legs
I suppose that would have to be the posture.

Deeeelightful!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Peter is a pogue who obviously does not understand anything about human
motivation and needs to retake Basic Motivational Psychology 101.

Further, when I urge a de-escalation of tensions and insult-flinging -- a
detente if you will -- Stewart insists it's because I am cowardly and
defeated by his wise policies and pressure -- but still wants me to be
gone
completely from SGM.

There will be no detente with Hines until Hines stops lying about me and
others here, and stops bullying people for his own sick gratification.

One of my correspondents off-list has already pinned down the psychological
motivations of Hines, like a specimen in a glass case for all to observe. I
quote from another perceptive email received today:

"With N[arcissistic] P[ersonality] D[isorder], he can't just be a regular
participant, he has to be best at what he does. He thinks he is best at
spelling and unusual English word usage. That is why he has to report if
there is any single letter spelled wrong. You think that is crippling,
imagine after the bashing he gives others his irrational fear of the
ridicule of trying to help someone with anything particular and being called
out on it and his true ignorance displayed. I'd think that would be an
overwhelming fear to his brain, which stops him from trying to help in any
normal way. He is incapable of it for irrational reasons."

Hilarious!

A Rampant Pogue Indeed Is He...

Prescription:

1. Retake of Basic Motivational Psychology 101 Required.

2. Report Grade

3. Await Further Instructions

P.S. I'm becoming gradually convinced that Peter is as queer as a $3
bill -- hence the recurrent hysterical hissy-fits. We shall see. My
Hawai'ian and Australian Irregulars are investigating.

More obsessive prodding and poking around his own projected longings. There
is nothing of this kind to be discovered about me in Hawaii or Australia or
anywhere else.

Stay Tuned...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

And there will be no end to pointing out Hines' ignorance of Latin as long
as he keeps repeating this boorish example.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 00:24:28

Another ground-hod day in Honolulu.

Richard Smyth misread my post, then wanted to find an inconsistency where
none existed.

Hines tried to jump onto a bandwagon, hoping that someone else - whose
academic curriculum vitae he strangely knew & thought relevant - might score
a point where he couldn't.

But this failed, and now is stuck in a groove sounding hysterical, like a
damaged 78 rpm record.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:blEzi.220$Jp2.1356@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

Stewart keeps vociferously insisting he wants me to leave SGM entirely and
wants to drive me out by orchestrating a campaign of vilification and
condemnation against me -- urging people to boycott me and my posts.

Yet, at the same time, he insists that if I DO leave it will be with my
tail
between my legs -- as he contends I did last time.

Deeeelightful!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Peter is a pogue who obviously does not understand anything about human
motivation and needs to retake Basic Motivational Psychology 101.

Further, when I urge a de-escalation of tensions and insult-flinging -- a
detente if you will -- Stewart insists it's because I am cowardly and
defeated by his wise policies and pressure -- but still wants me to be
gone
completely from SGM.

Hilarious!

A Rampant Pogue Indeed Is He...

Prescription:

1. Retake of Basic Motivational Psychology 101 Required.

2. Report Grade

3. Await Further Instructions

P.S. I'm becoming gradually convinced that Peter is as queer as a $3
bill -- hence the recurrent hysterical hissy-fits. We shall see. My
Hawai'ian and Australian Irregulars are investigating.

Stay Tuned...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 00:49:13

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MMJzi.25712$4A1.22878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Another ground-hod [sic] day in Honolulu.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

Lux e Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitavi Asinum

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 01:02:18

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:u8Kzi.256$Jp2.1584@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MMJzi.25712$4A1.22878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Another ground-hod [sic] day in Honolulu.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

Lux e Veritas et Libertas

Pathetic beyond description, and the Latin still hasn't improved.

I often miss a letter by more than two keys - my typo above is quite
pleasingly near to the mark. Hines never rises above an intellectual ground
level, and indeed he is just as subterranean, dirty and combustible as coal
shovelled from a hod, though not nearly as useful.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 01:31:00

I still have bouts of illiteracy and trouble with speaking, a kind
of stammer that adds extra syllables.

The other day I came out with a felicitous one, in trying to
desribe [sic] the pornographic content of some spam
messages - I called it "porn-agog-raphy".

Peter Stewart
-----------------------------------------

He says he still has bouts of illiteracy...

Yes, indeed he does -- frequently.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:u8Kzi.256$Jp2.1584@eagle.america.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MMJzi.25712$4A1.22878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Another ground-hod [sic] day in Honolulu.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

Lux e Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitavi Asinum

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 04:07:32

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:VLKzi.258$Jp2.1444@eagle.america.net...
I still have bouts of illiteracy and trouble with speaking, a kind
of stammer that adds extra syllables.

The other day I came out with a felicitous one, in trying to
desribe [sic] the pornographic content of some spam
messages - I called it "porn-agog-raphy".

Peter Stewart
-----------------------------------------

He says he still has bouts of illiteracy...

Yes, indeed he does -- frequently.

Not frequently, but occasionally. The most tedious problem in reading is
that I sometimes fail to recognise odd words, usually common & simple ones
such as "enough" or "that", and have to make emendations in my head to work
around these blanks in a sentence.

There is no shame or discreit in this, Hines, and nothing in anyone's
afflictions for a decent human being to revel in.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Ah, he has regressed - last time out (see below) Hines, the sub-editing
papaer-tiger, managed to lose a "t" and wrote "Lux e Veritas", a promising
sign that he might manage to lose the residual "e" next, and improve his
attempt at the simplest expression in Latin; but this was not to be.

Deus Vult

And still this wannabe Rasputin invokes the deity...

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:u8Kzi.256$Jp2.1584@eagle.america.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MMJzi.25712$4A1.22878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Another ground-hod [sic] day in Honolulu.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

Lux e Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitavi Asinum


D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 04:23:34

We see evidence of these frequent bouts of illiteracy in Peter's posts on
USENET -- marred as they are by carelessness, ignorance, sloth and poor
logical progression.

He even confesses that he often sees blanks in a sentence.

Yes, we see blanks in his sentences too -- blanks of Reason, Good Sense,
Sensititivity and Understanding of even the simplest matters of Fact &
Logic.

Par For The Course.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:U1Nzi.25805$4A1.13913@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:VLKzi.258$Jp2.1444@eagle.america.net...

I still have bouts of illiteracy and trouble with speaking, a kind
of stammer that adds extra syllables.

The other day I came out with a felicitous one, in trying to
desribe [sic] the pornographic content of some spam
messages - I called it "porn-agog-raphy".

Peter Stewart
-----------------------------------------

He says he still has bouts of illiteracy...

Yes, indeed he does -- frequently.

Not frequently, but occasionally. The most tedious problem in reading is
that I sometimes fail to recognise odd words, usually common & simple ones
such as "enough" or "that", and have to make emendations in my head to
work around these blanks in a sentence.

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 05:00:40

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:CiNzi.265$Jp2.1414@eagle.america.net...
We see evidence of these frequent bouts of illiteracy in Peter's posts on
USENET -- marred as they are by carelessness, ignorance, sloth and poor
logical progression.

Show us one example of each, and explain it. But as we all know, Hines has
never yet succeeded in doing this.

I am careless of typing, because I don't think typos matter in the slightest
where the meaning can be readily understood (and if not I _carefully_
correct myself, unlike Hines who carelessly, ignorantly, slothfully and
illogically refuses to correct his poor Latin).

He even confesses that he often sees blanks in a sentence.

Not "even" or "confesses" - this is not a matter of enormity or of a sin. I
freely admit to difficulties in reading and writing, that can be a great
nuisance for someone liek myself who needs to be using words all day. The
main trouble from an occupational point of view is that I can't read any
faster than the words can be distinctly spoken - not that I have to read
aloud, but because my facility in recognising words (sometimes) and
individual letters (some fewer times) is substantially impaired.

It doesn't matter how many times Hines goes over his distortions about this,
it just doesn't phase me, and I am open to teel the truth and repeat it as
often as necessary while the baboon jibbers.

Yes, we see blanks in his sentences too -- blanks of Reason, Good Sense,
Sensititivity and Understanding of even the simplest matters of Fact &
Logic.

Which blanks, which matters?

Par For The Course.

A par 3 "glory hole"? This post of Hines is par for his own lurching round
from bunker to hazard, out of bounds all the way.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

And still he can't correctly express the most elementary slogan in Latin....

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 09:11:30

"I freely admit to difficulties in reading and writing, that can be a great
nuisance for someone liek [sic] myself who needs to be using words all day."

"The main trouble from an occupational point of view is that I can't read
any faster than the words can be distinctly spoken - not that I have to read
aloud, but because my facility in recognising words (sometimes) and
individual letters (some fewer times) is substantially impaired."

Peter Stewart -- 25 August 2007
-----------------------------------------------

Yes, we certainly see that -- in spades.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Illegitimatis Non Carborundum

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 09:37:59

Hines now acknowledges he can't do better to hurt an oppontent than to
repeat the opponent's own frank self-report. Bullies and failed belligerents
don't come any more pathetic than this.

As a correspondent wrote to me today:

"The more damaged and failing [Hines] perceives his facade of a persona to
his 'reading public' (to whom he is performing or displaying himself, so to
speak), the more frequently he introduces entirely non-topic posts routed
through several different newsgroups (posts about politics, Hitler, etc.,
obviously BEGGING for ANY response for attention)."

But still he avoids addressing or copying any reply that points out his
ignorance of Latin, that he evidently learned out of a primer kit from the
Acme School of Fancy Tags. He is stuck between the rock of error and the
hard place of admission. Everyone in the audience he depends on knows that
Hines is not the educated mandarin he so wants to be, and that he is not
even intelligent enough to get a simple phrase right in his masquerade.

So he is reduced to endless evasive canting about the inconsequential.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:avRzi.274$Jp2.1680@eagle.america.net...
"I freely admit to difficulties in reading and writing, that can be a
great nuisance for someone liek [sic] myself who needs to be using words
all day."

"The main trouble from an occupational point of view is that I can't read
any faster than the words can be distinctly spoken - not that I have to
read aloud, but because my facility in recognising words (sometimes) and
individual letters (some fewer times) is substantially impaired."

Peter Stewart -- 25 August 2007
-----------------------------------------------

Yes, we certainly see that -- in spades.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Illegitimatis Non Carborundum

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»