- I hate having to explain jokes -
On 14 Mar 2001 15:34:45 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
> At 04:10 PM 3/14/01 -0500, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> >Oh, I see. You do the opposite. Your own
> >flabby rationalizations might be subtly valid,
> >and, on close examination,
> >*do* have some relationship to the questions....
>
>
> could we ALL please lower a notch or two ... the darts and arrows? i can't
> keep track of who started what and who is tossing the latest flames but ...
> somehow, i think we can do a little better than this ...
Dennis,
Please, where is YOUR sense of humor?
My post was a literary exercise -- I intentionally posted his lines
immediately before mine, so the reader could follow my re-write
phrase by phrase.
I'm still hoping "Irving" will lighten up.
You chopped out the original that I was paraphrasing, and you did
*not* indicate those important [snip]s -- You would mislead the
casual reader to think someone other than JimS is originating lines
like that, or intend them as critique in this group.
- I'm not always kind, but I think I am never that wild.
- It's probably been a dozen years since I purely flamed like <that>.
(Or maybe I never flamed, if you talk about the really empty ones.
In the olden days of local Bulletin Boards, with political topics, I
discarded 1/3 of my compositions without ever posting, because of
poor content or tone. I still use some judgment in what I post.)
Compare his original line about 'little or no ... relationship' with
my clever reversal, "... on close examination, *do* have some
relationship to the questions."
Well, I was trying for humor, anyway. Sorry, if I missed.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
