|
Post by markland on Oct 27, 2010 7:23:49 GMT -6
Since there are so many examples on this thread and the In Other News thread, I thought this an appropriate place to post these extracts from Alexander McCall Smith's column in the Word Craft section of the WSJ: "My bête noire—and there is nothing wrong with using the occasional French expression, although one does not want to sound too much like a menu—is overwriting. Something is overwritten when there is just too much of it. This may be because the writer has labored the point and made a mountain out of a molehill, or because too many words are used. As a result, descriptions are cluttered and the prose quickly becomes unreadable. There is a lot of it about. "The real aim, of course, is conciseness. Concise prose knows what it wants to say, and says it. It does not embellish, except occasionally, and then for dramatic effect. It is sparing in its use of metaphor. And it is certainly careful in its use of adjectives. Look at the King James Bible, that magnificent repository of English at the height of its beauty. The language used to describe the creation of the world is so simple, so direct. "Let there be light, and there was light." That sentence has immense power precisely because there are no adjectives. If we fiddle about with it, we lose that. "Let there be light, and there was a sort of matutinal,* glowing phenomenon that slowly transfused, etc." No, that doesn't work." Be good, Billy P.S. Here is the link for the entire column although you may have to have a subscription to read it: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440004575548170190455294.html
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 27, 2010 11:33:02 GMT -6
Really. An example from the so many of 'too many adjectives' and metaphors on these two threads, please. Don't feel bad; Smith has none, either. Not one. Bob Newhart did it better from the opposite view in his bit about Abe Lincoln on the phone to his press agent. "You changed four score and seven..............to 87?" I suppose if your writing and reading is limited in the main to "Smith, John, Captain; Smith, Tom, General...." then the McGuffey Reader might seem verbose. Or if your taste runs to the Lady's Detective Agency, as Alexander McCall Smith (hold the adjectives, hold the metaphor, but make way for my bloodline and I dare someone to call me Smitty) prefers, or at least wrote. Now pay attention and listen to this. wimp.com/frylanguage/
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 17, 2010 9:08:34 GMT -6
On the other board, along with some very interesting exchanges between rch and blaque (although over what I consider trivia, still of note), conz and keogh have, yet again, demonstrated either callous disregard for fact or denseness overwhelming. Now that AZ - benteeneast there - is keeping track of their past statements, he's just slaughtering the Bevo Boy and Costume Boy for their marked and ridiculous postings. Sometimes with irony they don't get whatever.
They' only be idiotic if the goal wasn't clearly to deform history for their own, personal ego rush. Nobody has the right to do that above the age of eight.
I've said the great danger of the Living Historian mentality is that a mere fetish to play dress up and assume the identity and value of a past human being becomes destructive when the poseur prefers the act to reality (possibly reinforced by people who know them). Then, all is subsumed to the necessity to keep attention upon their pseudo avatar, and all energy goes into protecting the tales that prop up the fantasies that make that character stand out. 'keogh' is a clear example, and so is the guy devoted to Peter Thompson. In a sense, conz' posing as a military authority is no different, given years now of people like fred and AZ and others shredding conz' claims and pretensions. He certainly demonstrates that kowtowing to someone's credentials (as some did and still do.....) is not justified.
The Keogh and Thompson declared avatars defend and hold on to the absurd beyond all excuse, which current threads on the other board show and many past ones here prove. They are illustrative examples of why toleration of this absurdity of costume - and it's no different than Trekkies or Furries - is so detrimental.
In general, note how often the LBH devolves into tales from their own actual combat experiences or their own military experiences, imagined or not. The LBH is not often about the LBH; it's a template and tool for people to, not resolve, but wallow in or replot incidents in their own lives. THAT is very interesting, but it needs to be clearly seen for what it is and not allowed to be retrofitted to the past.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 1, 2010 8:02:40 GMT -6
Today, on the other board, the blatant return of Bevo Boy and Costume Lad to the falsehood motif.
AZ, yet again, follows the broad trail of Bevo Boy's face plants around the field, today down from the bluffs to the river. Conz yet again demonstrates he knows remarkably little about the LBH river, cavalry, and the events here. Today he breaks yet new ground and shows he's unclear on the benefits of eyesight, and the wonders of evidence to note river fords, and this despite the fact most accord the LBH to be one perpetual ford since it's shallow, broad, and easy.
Costume Lad continues to install the falsehood that Cooke's note says "come quick" and not "be quick" (yes, a difference), and that ammo was the sole point of the note, and - in granite testimony to his own ignorance, that cavalry and infantry officers today are as moronic and ignorant as he is trapped in Miniver Cheevy Land with mirrors.
He attended an entire year of ROTC, so let's stay humbled when he and conz ruminate together on stuff of which they know, and could know, nothing whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 13, 2010 11:10:45 GMT -6
Today, a new favorite of mine is spelling AZ/benteeneast's obligation to clean conz' clock. Montrose made my day by quoting Bevo Boy and concluding: "I have no idea where you come up with this nonsense. Listening to you discuss the military decision making process is like listening to a blind man describe the sun."
Again, montrose and AZ are combat vets, claire not so much, no. Yet the unwary have, for years, been willing to accord conz a regard not derived from either knowledge, nor experience, nor anything but Bevo Boy nonsense. Throughout, his posts have been slammed for callous ignorance and disregard for fact and never, ever admission of ignorance nor error. And it just continues.
He went to West Point - shudder - but his factual contributions are of the level of 'keogh', who attended one year of ROTC and read a paper, and now poses dramatically in costume. Time and again, his contentions are shredded and yet people continue to express regard for them.
I'm glad the tide seems to be turning, or at least the actual vets gaining members to lend quiet gravitas to their combined opinions on conz' posts and varied bagfuls of misinformation and nonsense. It's important, and while not as hysterically entertaining as strange's supposed attempt to enter actual military life (if successful, I'd have recommended across the board surrender to someone....), it still has ratings for its time slot.
Anyway, pleasant to know and read. Good stuff.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Dec 19, 2010 19:44:39 GMT -6
Let's get off religion. I said nothing about it. You assumed I meant a specific religion when I used the term terrorists. Your prejudice, not mine. No one claimed that Weir was engaged in an affair with anyone else either. Melanie certainly did not. I guess your response was, "your prejudice, not ours."
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 20, 2010 9:31:36 GMT -6
Come on Joe where is your Christmas spirit?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 20, 2010 12:36:47 GMT -6
Let's get off religion. I said nothing about it. You assumed I meant a specific religion when I used the term terrorists. Your prejudice, not mine. No one claimed that Weir was engaged in an affair with anyone else either. Melanie certainly did not. I guess your response was, "your prejudice, not ours." I wish you were as clever as you think you are. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. It has been asserted many times on these boards that there was a relationship between Weir and Libbie and/or Libbie and Keogh. Check the Tupperware Gossip board and you will find that Melani has been a willing participant in such discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Dec 21, 2010 13:45:56 GMT -6
It has been asserted many times on these boards that there was a relationship between Weir and Libbie and/or Libbie and Keogh. Check the Tupperware Gossip board and you will find that Melani has been a willing participant in such discussions. Certainly, with enthusiasm. But there is a difference between flirting and having a physical relationship, and I seriously doubt that Libbie had the latter with anybody but Autie. Flirting, on the other hand, could be considered an art form in some circles, and certainly would have pushed Autie's buttons, especially after his letters from NY about appreciating the ladies' low necklines.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 22, 2010 9:45:25 GMT -6
We agree!
Merry Christmas, Melani!
Diane
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Dec 22, 2010 16:59:56 GMT -6
We agree! Merry Christmas, Melani! Diane And a Merry Christmas to you and Chuck too Goddess. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Dec 22, 2010 18:12:25 GMT -6
And the same to all of you!
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 23, 2010 18:26:17 GMT -6
Merry Christmas, Hunk. I'm sending lots of virtual hugs to you.
Melani, I hope you and your family have a great Christmas.
Diane
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 23, 2010 19:35:36 GMT -6
"They wish they'd said that," eh?
Merry Christmas, Diane. Merry Christmas to both you and Chuck.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 24, 2010 16:55:27 GMT -6
Thank you. Merry Christmas to you and Lisa, Fred!
Diane
P.S. Are you still in Florida or did you move to Texas?
|
|