For the most part, Bricker can elucidate on the odd bit of lawyer-y type stuff, but sometimes he’ll write a long wall of ostensibly fairminded legalese that I might have to, well, re-read.
It’s punctuated. Poorly.
And I’m not the slightest bit linear. You may have noticed that. Having to type it out forces me to try, but then I’m a hundred thoughts down the road and my original point is lost in the wind.
We’ll be checking in with you throughout the night, Floyd. And happy 23rd birthday!
Obi Wart Kenobi.
You’re not alone in this. I go off on tangents all the time, and sometimes forget my original point. I usually try to finagle the language to make it look like everything is related, but it’s a smokescreen, really.
No one has mentioned AHunter3? I think of the posters, he’s the most frustrating because I am interested in various gender issues and would like to understand what the hell what wants to say. However, it’s like he takes pride in a writing style which deliberately ensures that that task in needlessly complicated. Is there something wrong with simply making your point?
Likewise. Yesterday I was talking to someone about fixing their battery cables, and I was reminded of the time I needed a new heel for m’shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. “Gimme five bees for a quarter,” you’d say. Now where were we… oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. I didn’t have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones…
The story of my life.
Thank you for that! The world needs more Billy and the Boingers.
I agree with you about the first statement, and far as the sig goes you might want to rewrite it to avoid confusion-something like “Octopus-Eat shit, asshole”, just to clarify that everyone is saying it to you.
As Zombie Millhouse said, “brevity soul wit.”
So, the President of the United States and the party controlling the U.S. Congress - they support legislation to fight climate change?
When did this happen? You’d think this would have made the news.
(The U.S. IS one of “the world’s most industrialized nations,” right? And the Presidency and Congress are rather major bodies in the U.S. government, right? Just checking.)
No, it’s not like that at all, actually. That is to say, pride would convey a sense of active enthusiasm for the writing style in and of itself. Note that you’ve attached the notion of deliberately ensuring needless complexity to the writing style itself. I want to make a difficult but important distinction here, between offering as an object of ridicule the notion that a writing style can deliberately do anything, on the one hand, and holding up the notion that in some sense (anthropomorphized a bit though it may in fact be) the writing style does deliberately embrace complexity, on the other, and ally myself with the latter. That is to say, I disavow any intention at this point of deflecting your claim with the cheap easy shot of ridicule and I am in fact suggesting we give it thoughtful consideration.
Robert Pirsig, late in Zen, eventually replies to the pointed question from the Philosophy Department’s head, to wit, “So is quality inherent in the object that possesses it or is quality merely what you like?”; his eponymous main character feels thwarted for awhile before dropping his metaphorical pen-point down in midsentence and asking, “What purpose is served within that sentence by the word ‘merely’?”, which begins his dissection of the phony opposition of objectivity and subjectivity – as those of you who’ve read it will recall. I’m going to attempt a similar thing in bringing your focus to the word “needlessly” in your own sentence.
I do have a fondness for fine differentials in precise meaning right at the point of their divergence, and I will confess to a fondness for a rhetorical approach that indicates that point of divergence and only later on, in subsequent paragraphs, puts on display the larger and hence genuinely significant of that fork. Since proceeding in this fashion allows me to work with a verbal dissecting knife to perform a precision disentanglement of normally-conflated concepts, and the latter is the territory in which I quite often find myself operating, I will herewith confess to the pride of which you speak but at the same time shall defend it against the charge of lacking sufficient necessity.
On the plus side, you’d be amazing at literary criticism.
I’ve just always assumed you’re manic when you go on like that.
:dubious:
Da’hell? Is this meant to be a whoosh or something like that?
Jeez people, he did everything but announce “I’m placing my tongue into my cheek now.”
No one has mentioned my favorite, Dunmurry. I picture him as the frontier-gibberish guy from Blazing Saddles. I’d say these are some highlights, but it’s only a few randomly selected quotes - there’s plenty more if you want to search his history. Hopefully he returns soon.