>didn't want anyone to admire my original message, so didn't make it
>admirably clear
Am I to deduce from the fact that your last WAS clear that you DID intend
it to be admired? I assume not. I assume that you had a point to make and
saw clarity as a means to making it effectively.
>did want if anything for them to take a little time in deciding how not to
>admire it, just as I took a little time, at John K's request, in deciding
>how I do not admire Charles Bernstein's remark.
>
>wot's this call for clear prose?
There are a lot of people on these lists, myself included, who try to
attend to all contributions. This gets more difficult if posts are
unnecessarily prolix. I thought some of your points were interesting but,
as set down, reminded me of Sam Johnson on the Giant's Causeway: "worth
seeing but not worth going to see."
>clear=consequential eh
eh? This must have crept in from another conversation you're having, with
someone else.
>and doesn't anyone else tire of all this heralding of difference where so
>much is as ever the same?
Yes, indeed! . . . and you've said it clearly, too. Not
inconsequentially, though, surely?
**************************************************************************
Trevor Joyce
Apple Cork IS&T
Phone : +353-21-284405
EMail : [log in to unmask]
**************************************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|