-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:22:57 +0300,
Tim Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Because you're not reading it properly. *Your* version of the quote
>didn't have the '...for a million years...' part, and therefore is
>*not* the same as that given by Divine. If you're going to be
>picky, then you should read things through carefully.
OK, then. What purpose did Divine serve in pointing out the "correct"
version? In your words, " If she is going to be picky," then she should
have a point behind WHY she is being picky. One good pick
deserves another, I say. Also, I think YOU should read things more
carefully. That was not MY version of the quote, as you write above.
It was Robert Wilensky's version of the quote, which was made plain
in both the initial and reply messages.
>As for picking someone up over the use of the word 'mute' rather
>than 'moot', if you're going to spend your time doing that then
>you'll a) waste it and b) become a bitter twisted man. Did you
>not understand what Divine was saying? Did it impede your obvious
>reading enjoyment of the post?
I did understand what Divine was TRYING to say, and it did impede
my reading enjoyment. If Divine is allowed to pick apart an obviously
good-natured, humorous quote offered for the enjoyment of everyone,
why can't I get picky about her response? In fact, that sort of picky,
unsolicited opinion just seems to beg for an obnoxious response.
Divine is an adult engaged in a free-form discussion group and can
probably take care of herself. Who are you, Divine's mother?
As for how I spend my time in becoming bitter and twisted, well, that's
my business. But I am glad you see the sunny side of my personality.
So many people miss it, you know. ;-)
>Most significantly, are you suggesting that Shakespeare wrote
>in the correct language of the day, didn't invent his own words
>and definitions, and didn't generally mess around with the language
>to suit his own ends?
Of course he did. That was part of my point. Remember what I wrote
about creative language use? Do you think Divine was trying out a new,
innovative language technique on us? She obviously just screwed up.
Shakespeare had to be linguistically talented to be able to write as he
did. Going beyond the conventions of any art first requires a strong base
in those conventions. This is true for poetry, painting, and literature of any
sort. Picasso had to begin with painting bowls of fruit before moving on to
cubism. Otherwise, the common man's assertion that Picasso's
expressions are no more than a child's finger painting might be seen
as having some validity.
>Certainly there's no end of *that* going on on the net...
Yes, but is most of it out of ignorance or artistry? That's the fundamental
question.
I guess you put me in my place !
NOT.
Have a nice day,
HOFFA
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
