On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:20 AM, maskedzebra <[email protected]>wrote:
> RESPONSE: Thomas, could you provide an example of a sentence or two, from > the letter above, which illustrates the problem of the intelligibility and > clearness of my argument? > > Not easily. Your bombast runs through every word. I don't know if you're modeling yourself after a 19th century itinerant American speechifier, someone who would have performed to the enthralled crowds at, for example, Chautauqua Park in Fairfield during Chautauqua's hayday, or W.C. Fields, who I suspect was making fun of those itinerant speechifiers. Whichever, doesn't matter. You've told us over and over again how very open and receptive to Earhard you were the day of the massacre and that a massacre ensued but never described the assault. You used the word "transgression" or "transgressed" when describing yoru interaction with Earhard. IMO an inappropriate word chosen for theatrical effect and not to convey to us mere mortals what actually went on. I'm creating a "histrionic" label for your posts in Gmail so I can readily find them when I'm hankering for the 1840s rhetorical genre your posts embody. Thanks for adding to the variety of FairfieldLife.
