Ah, Connie.... You are now added to my 'go directly to trash' file.!!!! I'm sure many more will do so as well.
AT LEAST YOU COULD CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE TO SOME THING MORE APPROPRIATE. I'M SURE THE REST OF THE ST'ERS CAN SUPPLY ANY NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS. Grampa On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:00:48 -0400, connie mack rea wrote: >Ah, Jen, a (lady) paladin to the rescue of wounded men. How >ironically apropos. > >Not bad, Jen. Let me "insert [my] adjective of choice": Wordy, >stylishly perfunctory, and mundane. Need some vertebrae and >gristle. But you did read the handbook. > >Perhaps deny yourself the amateurish caps for emphasis. > >Dare I ask that you capitalize "english"? > >Few too many copulative verbs, perhaps? > >You seem intelligent enough to understand that you are defending the >indefensible. I infer that you've taken up the victims' defense >because you alone can use the language as Tflan, and others, can't. > >Consider this: That from good manners and common civility a writer >might do two things: [1] Take a second look over what he has >written. Everyone makes obvious blunders. [2] Run the work through >a spell checker. You say "some might not choose to use [bit jingly, >no?] a spell-check program." Why? One good reason will do. > >Damn, I didn't ask for the excellent writing of Burgess, William >Buckley, or E.B. White. Just a nominal consideration from the >forum. > >To suggest these two minimal points roused Tflan from his >pretentious ignorance and illiteracy to call me the "Nazi of >grammar" several months ago. [Are you a "femi-Nazi" of fallen men? >Hmm?] > >Civilly, John asked me to back off. Done. > >Then Tflan, and others, bombed me again last week. Now, that's not >nice, wouldn't you say? Why can't Tflan like me, Nazi and all? My >dog is modestly attached to me despite our academic history. I >don't red-pen his barks, and he doesn't criticize my English-- >especially because his food comes in cans. The relation works as an >acceptable evolutionary standoff. > >Maybe you and I can similarly achieve. Presupposing, of course, >that you can acknowledge having danced with the devil. > >Thanks for the note. > > > > > > > > > >Jen Kuntz wrote: The purpose of this forum is to discuss >clubmaking, not literacy, spelling or grammar. I am sure there are >educated and uneducated people on this forum. Some of them couldn't >spell everything correctly if their life depended on it. Some spell >perfectly well but cannot type and choose not to use a spell-check >program. There are others who don't give a damn whether their posts >are perfectly proper english even if they have the education to be >able to know the difference. Since the point of the forum is GOLF >not ENGLISH 101, it doesn't really matter as long as someone on the >forum understands the questions posed and is interested in >responding with answers or suggestions. If you cannot post responses >other than to point out your apparently superior education or >upbringing with respect to literacy, then why don't you find another >forum to share your ray of sunshine? If that isn't possible, then >perhaps keep your comments to yourself and save everyone the hassle >of deleting your [insert your choice of adjective here] posts? Jen >- >---- Original Message ----- >From: connie mack rea To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, >September 03, 2002 10:59 AM Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Penley on spines >Naughty, naughty, too, Dr. Voo.You just can't resist can you? Why >not let Tflan defend himself rather than show your own faults? Just >let it "goo," Dr. Voo. > >Now, to the subject of this post [.] I was not a big fan of Penley >line [.] Overprice [not "overpriced"] . . . concern. Period >omissions are illiterate errors.
