What's this have to do with making golf clubs? ----- Original Message ----- From: "connie mack rea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:33 PM Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Was lamkin; now who gets the last word
> We seem to be at the equinox of misunderstanding, the length of the lines queued > unevenly. Unaccountably, I have entered into a competition of incompetence > where ears are pricked up and brains turned off. > > I presume you checked "snipe" before labeling me. However, if I were that > person, I would have taken aim at you, Al, and Brian from a place of concealment > and remained hidden. I signed my mail, and am who I say I am. > > Now "lout" is more interesting, and, had you not let it pop into your head > unattended, you would have known that the word means "stupid" and "awkward." > You think me stupid? You've had the opportunity to stamp me, but declined. You > think me awkward? Obviously, I can play at least scratch grammar. > > "Boor" rounds off the meaning of lout. A boor has clumsy manners and lacks > refinement. Are these the points you wish to lather me with? Probably not. > > Next, there are "haughty, vain, self-centered, discourteous." However, I would > ask that you note precise instances. On second thought, I give you all of > those, but ask you to remember how my first mail prompted these. > > I.e., I said three things: [1] Readers might appreciate the writer's giving his > mail a run through the spellchecker; [2] readers might appreciate the writer's > giving his mail a second look just to catch the long hairs and warts that exist > in everyone's first draft; and [3] writers should always be aware that they are > his chosen words, and they alone tell the reader who he is. Therefore, the > reader, in a sense, "reads" the writer through words. > > The writer is known by his words and nothing else. And the reader cannot but do > otherwise. That is why no one ever writes as poorly as he can, and the > presumption is that he has written the best that is in him. > > From these three bland points you advance and infer that I am vain, > self-proclaimed, discourteous, haughty, self-centered, puerile, trite, snipish, > and loutish. Do those fill the plate? > > You may be excellent in forming committees of allies, but you fail as chairman. > You can proclaim that spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage don't count, but > your proclaiming doesn't make it so, nor should it make it so, nor will it ever > make it so. > > By saying that standard language doesn't count but those who use it do count, > you would give non-standard writing and writers an aesthetic glow or some > undefined derivational charm that none of the rest of us possess. > > When language is snub nose or hook nose, never does it have even the grace of > regularity and uniformness. Language, like ideas, ought to be neat, divisible, > and fundamental like a carpenter's square. > > Or like Ernie Els swing. > > > tflan wrote: > > > My Dear Fellow; > > > > I guess you missed my point. So here it is again. You are a snipe. In my > > experience, snipes have mostly been haughty, vain, self-centered, > > discourteous louts. Seems to me you fit the picture in this particular > > thread. > > > > Clear? > > > > Am I interested in a discussion about whether to capitalize a word that > > appears immediately after a semi-colon? Are you serious? I'm more interested > > in not seeing your missives in print. > > > > Am I ready to let it go? Sure thing. Puerile discussions with > > self-proclaimed experts, like this one, become increasingly trite as time > > passes. > > > > TFlan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "connie mack rea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:17 AM > > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: It's Lamkin, not Lampkin > > > > > TFlan, my Good Man-- > > > > > > The adverse condition resulting from criticizing language is that you must > > use > > > language in your criticism. And therein lies the danger. > > > > > > Let's just take your first two lines. > > > > > > E.g., you could profit from knowing how to use the semicolon. Sorry to > > inform > > > you that your semicolon in the first line is egregiously wrong. Less > > egregious, > > > but still a blunder, is not knowing that the question mark goes outside > > the > > > quotation marks. > > > > > > I doubt that you're interested in the argument for using or not using a > > cap on > > > "how." > > > > > > Do you really want me to show other failures? > > > > > > You, too, should just let it go. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that one thing we don't need here is a self-appointed > > English > > > > usage cop. Being a snipe is a less than honorable profession. > > > > > > > > TFlan > >
