On Mon, 10 May 1999, M G MCQUILLAN wrote:
> a listmember's charged and
> eloquent prose was dismissed as "turgid," instead of its content
> being disputed; another post of mine, weak as it was, was not
> disputed - I was trashed. Hey, Ric, I won't say I've "heard you
> described" as the perpetrator of these heinous acts: you are that
> man.
- no I ain't, gorblimey guv, you're conflating again. I described Keston's
prose as "difficult" - to me - because I couldn't relate the points he was
making back to his original point, thought he evidently felt it was too
obvious to need explanation. Anselm Hollo, bless him, reminded us that we
don't have to make any kind of virtue of reading turgidity, with which I
heartily agree. I can only suggest that the eagerness of both Keston and
his defenders to conflate these, and defend him from a charge of
turgidity, is worthy of consideration. Parts of Keston's "4 pints" post
remain "difficult" to me in the ways I described.
As for your own earlier post, Robin, whilst I can't speak for Randolph, it
was the bit when you said "I want to machine-gun the world" that sounded
just a tad on the macho/testosterone-fired side to me - or is that another
thing which we're supposed to allow you as a piece of devolved language? I
have to say that it brought home clearly to me the merits of Keston's
prose and his arguments - that is what you wanted to do, isn't it? I
mailed you and John K to suggest an end to the did/didn't routine, which
seemed some way away from the important points Keston had raised. That was
indeed getting "turgid" and is in danger of becoming so again.
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|