 |
 |
>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] ************************************************************************** %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%