Oh, for God's sake, Hamilton, any *true* pedant ought to able to spell
'pedantry'!
Check it. I'm right.
Another pedant.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Poem: A Refusal To Mourn [SEDUCTION]
>> Surely you couldn't hope to seduce ANYONE if the sodding rhythm's wrong?
>>
>> joanna
>
> Unlike Dom, I got the rhythm of the pome *right*.
>
> Which mibee goes to show that there's some mileage in pedantary.
>
> Sometimes ...
>
> :-(
>
> Da Thing.
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 10:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: Poem: A Refusal To Mourn The Death, By Fire, Of A Child In
>>
>>
>> > Dom:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Oh *shite* Dom, you ought to be ashamed of yourself -- "thorough"
>> >
>> > <<
>> > Now you mention it, "thorough" really makes that line - the way it
>> > rolls off the tongue...
>> >>>
>> >
>> > <sigh>
>> >
>> > The sodding RHYTHM doesn't work (leave aside what was actually
>> > +printed+
>> > in
>> > *Miscellaneous Poems*) if you read "through".
>> >
>> > <<
>> >> Bottom line is Marvell's is more effective as a real-life seduction
> poem.
>> >
>> > Has this been empirically tested?
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Worked for me.
>> >
>> > <<
>> > The *only* person I ever managed to seduce with a poem, I'm now married
>> > to.
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Lucky you.
>> >
>> > ... Back to the Teapot.
>> >
>> > Da Dormouse.
>> >
>>
>
|