On 30 Apr, 17:30, "Mark Wallace" <mwall...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "FCS" <sipston_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:1177896820.432331.218040@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace" <mwall...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> "Blue Sow" <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >>news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> >> "FCS" <sipston_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives
> >> >> were,
> >> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> >> I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can
=
be
> >> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> >> > Then let it be your move next (-:
>
> >> Fine. Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?
It's
> >> way
> >> too silly).
>
> >> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less
kick-o=
ff.
>
> >> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> > to be worth answering?
>
> What exactly have you been sniffing? Knickers?
I don't know. What generally encases your bugger bugger bum?
> > Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> > stanza.
>
> Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Nope. Lapsang Souchong?
> Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up
=
the
> DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.
Oh, the smug confidence that precedes a fall.
I remember your infantile bugger bugger bum thing
and there was something about a dead cat. I did
not bother with aught else.
Having looked since for the post with the URL in it
I will say that I have read shopping lists which are
far more well worth copyrighting than your stuff I've
seen. And someone has copyrighted it. And in your
name. Presumably it's as easy to copy and pass off
as any other electronic form of text.
> > Thus none of it was worth writing.
>
> How about the price of beef in Bolton?
I thought actually using a question, mark, where
context was easily inferred by referring back, may
offend your minimalist sensibilities.
No point in wasting the electricity to make that wee
squiggly thing, like an upside down cedilla, render
on screen when one's dealing with a minimalist, what?
As it is, I can only conclude that far from turning
a rhetorical question into an op****tunity to discuss
various approaches to writing you have instead
gone for the, and in this instance wholly indefensibly
gone for the, cheap shot.
> That is: What the Hell are you talking about? Come back when you're
sob=
er.
Erm, if you wish to set up a moderated group where
you can be arbiter and make sure only people you
know you like can post, then nobody's stopping you.
That is: I used to have a mental picture of you as a
kind of Nick-Park-created woollen C++ coder over
in Den Haag. Now-a-days I prefer to refer to the recent
"The Comic Strip Presents..." film about swinging
parties (I forget the name) which featured an artist
somewhat along what I take your lines to be.
I love some minimalist work. But if you want to try
rebuilding a 400/4 from a squiggle with motionblur
then go ahead.
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>
> Well worth copyrighting. I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
> material.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you copyright what you make available to the
public but join in the infantile mockery when anyone
else does the same?
I don't suppose you're aware that a shopping list can
be entirely defensibly copyrighted. I suppose like a
list of things to steal to feed dead cats and the numbers
one covers on a roulette wheel can too.
When you come forth with some real criticism Mark
then you may find you get taken seriously. Until such
a point you're quite firmly on the list of people who
make sweeping statements about how you'll rip any
thing any body posts to so many pieces that suicide
is a preferable option to ever trying to write again.
Yet then you can't live up to it.
Have you read much literary criticism recently? There
has been quite a thing here about following up a critical
review with a digest containing not only a "condensed read"
but the "condensed condensed read". The last of these
does tend to come in at under 25 words.
Very few of them would sell for =A312.99 however. And
as such tend to end up in the low-price-per-word world
of newspapers--which have circulations many would-be
writers should envy
I may be something of a traditionalist here but I hold
that being able to type is a genuine skill in any writer's
canon. I'm not ashamed of being able to type. Nor am
I particularly "proud" of it. It's something I can do like a
fork-lift truck driver can steer from the rear.
There are people with genuine disabilities who struggle
to compile texts of 1000 words length. I'm aware of this
and am certainly not unsympathetic to them. You, it
seems, are not one of these.
I may put a little more time into relocating your URL. I
suspect you've cancelled the post with it in though. It
seems a shame, firing forth your flames from your little
worldview in which you are some kind of deity.
But, please, don't go back-footing now and claiming you
only suggested 25 words as a working limit because you
didn't. You wanted it cast in iron. If everybody interested
was in a position where they could log in at morning,
lunch and afternoon breaks from work I would say you
were onto a winner. But as you haven't even lived up to
your own challenge and set the ball rolling on it I am at
somewhat of a loss as to how valuable an exercise it is
outside the confines of your poor overheated deluded
head.
What poetry of yours I've seen has been mediocre to
say the least. And I suggest that from the tenor and
calibre of your criticism you may work out better as
the resident expert on news:alt.flame.regurgitation
than anywhere you're in danger of confronting original
ideas in text form--which UCAW was supposed to be
but, for whatever reason/s, hasn't turned out to be.
I think it's a shame things have gone like that.
But at the end of the day doubt away. I saw your
little website just the other day. Some of it was
bland, some just grey; and it did you no favours
either way.
Or, in other words Mark, either pitch in or butt out eh?
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--
|
