Remember Dr ATKINS!!!!!!!!!!!

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:27:48 -0400, "Mathilda Jane"
wrote:

Bob Pastorio wrote in message
Bwahahahahaha. Look, she *did* tell me they're out of step with her
brave new world.

Yes, good for you. I know you're probably thrilled to have finally received
the attention of the smart girl in class.

"Probably..." They're *professional* and *published* actual *writers*
unlike yourself. You know, actual practitioners of what you wish you
could do. Perhaps you could steer us to a list of your publications
instead of merely your sermons.

I have hundreds of publications to my credit. Editors like me, too, because
they don't have to do a find/replace to delete the extra spaces in all my
work.

I can assure you that I have never gotten a script thrown back at me
for two spaces.

I have been nominated for an Emmy, won a Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice
Award, a Gracie Allen Award, an Environmental Media Award, and a whole
host of other BS awards that I can't bother to remember.

And yet no one's mentioned the two spaces. Funny, how that is.

BTW, you might want to work on your publicist. A google search of your
name doesn't bring up a single writing credit.

Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Mathilda Jane wrote:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote in message
i didn't need to try to make myself sound smart: i'm not the one who
thought court reporters used typewriters.

Well, that would be why I asked the question - one, mind you, that you never
answered.

i answered it. i just didn't answer it the way you wanted me to answer
it.

The only time I have witnessed a court reporter in action has been in the
movies, and they used a typewriter. My apologies for not hanging out in
courtrooms with lawyers and criminals.

you were sitting in front of a computer with enough time to post here,
but you couldn't take a five-second google dive?

Mathilda Jane wrote:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote in message

i didn't need to try to make myself sound smart: i'm not the one who
thought court reporters used typewriters.

Well, that would be why I asked the question - one, mind you, that you never
answered.

The only time I have witnessed a court reporter in action has been in the
movies, and they used a typewriter.

No, they didn't. They use a very different device with an extremely
abbreviated keyboard designed specifically to allow the court reporter
to take down exactly what anyone says. That machine requires that more
than one key is depressed at a time. Almost impossible to transcribe
speech in real time with a conventional keyboard. Much like the
relationship between conventional script and Gregg (or any other)
Shorthand.

It's this sort of assuming that leads you so far astray. "I assume it
so it must be true."

My apologies for not hanging out in
courtrooms with lawyers and criminals.

Are you always this snide and self-excusing?

Pastorio

Mathilda Jane wrote:

Bob Pastorio wrote in message

Bwahahahahaha. Look, she *did* tell me they're out of step with her
brave new world.

Yes, good for you. I know you're probably thrilled to have finally received
the attention of the smart girl in class.

As if. The smart girl in the class would know better than to assert
that there's only one way to use the language and that she's the only
one who's qualified to posit what it is.

I take the word of professionals like me on both sides of the
editorial desk. People who have thousands of published pieces ranging
from articles in local newspapers to national pubs to books. I've
been an editor of magazines and books and have written for literally
hundreds of them.

"Probably..." They're *professional* and *published* actual *writers*
unlike yourself. You know, actual practitioners of what you wish you
could do. Perhaps you could steer us to a list of your publications
instead of merely your sermons.

I have hundreds of publications to my credit. Editors like me, too, because
they don't have to do a find/replace to delete the extra spaces in all my
work.

Editors like me because I write well and spare them the need to edit.
I had hundreds of publications to my credit by the time I was in my
20's. Hell, I probably had that many before finishing college. I'm
well into the thousands now.

I love theoreticians like you Mathilda. You preach and harangue and
insist and demean and finally crash on the rocks of your own limits.
You want the world to be your way but nobody else wants it.

Yes, it would be nice if people actually cared about what is correct.

That's not what you mean. You mean "It would be nice if everybody
agreed with me, no questions asked." Your passive-aggressive
manipulations feel like the delicate ministrations of an unusually
corrupt used car salesman. You twist the words and the assertions of
others to gain ascendancy. It's all about the victory for you. The
perfect absoluteness of your rightness and everybody else's error
unless they unquestioningly accept your "truth."

So you
try to bludgeon and smash and demand and still make no progress. And
you can't seem to see that the rigid "truth" you're trying to peddle
is another construct, arbitrary in it's conception and arbitrary in
its implementation. Like all language and all language "rules."

So why don't you actually abide by your own theory and throw all grammar and
punctuation rules out the window with the "one space" rule?

See how well you do this? You take a simple statement and make it into
something it isn't. I didn't say, imply or assert that all rules or
any rules should be thrown out. The crux of my note (and others before
it) is that there is no absolute in language formulation. Nothing is
always correct. Nothing is mandatory. There are generally accepted
forms that provide the necessary minimum for understanding. Every
language group has them and every one is different than every other
one in that respect. There are guidelines for every language based on
how the people who use that language mutually agree works for them.

And for every guideline, there are violations that don't hamper
understanding. Yoda is still comprehensible. People speaking broken
English with word order all screwed up can still be understood. Poets
routinely break the rules. The rules are all postulated for
somebody's convenience. There is no governing body that determines
the perfect usage and, in spite of efforts to do exactly that, it's a
doomed exercise. The French have demonstrated that better than any
description. The speakers and writers of the language determine
rectitude and "correct" usage. Differences include style, dialect,
custom, venue, intent and a lot of other criteria outside of anyone's
control. Editors say what they want. No more.

Stop criticizing
others on this group in the "grammar, etc." thread because, as you state,
there are no rules.

Bite this rule, Mathilda. There are no *absolute* rules. I have never
said there are no rules.

If you want to debate it, let's. If you want to barefacedly lie and
distort what has actually been said about it like that I state that
there are no rules, **** you. Any questions?

Pastorio

Dawn Taylor wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:41:53 -0400, "Mathilda Jane"
announced in front of God and everybody:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote in message

i didn't need to try to make myself sound smart: i'm not the one who
thought court reporters used typewriters.

Well, that would be why I asked the question - one, mind you, that you never
answered.

The only time I have witnessed a court reporter in action has been in the
movies, and they used a typewriter. My apologies for not hanging out in
courtrooms with lawyers and criminals.

What movies were you watching that had court reporters using anything
other than stenotype machines? Just curious.

Hey. I saw that movie, too. It was "The Deadly Court Typwriting
Reporters of Doom." Tell me you didn't see it...

The best scene was when Stallone and Sharon Stone are arm wrestling
and she almost has him down when Wesley Snipes and Bruce Willis burst
in the door and shoot her dead. Stallone wins and the three guys go to
work the next day typing with big, gray Royal and Underwood manuals
what everybody says in the OJSimpson trial. She somehow disappears and
shows up on CSI the following week but nobody gets caught.

Stirring, I tell you. And she flashed her undies again. What's not
to like?

Pastorio

You call this fighting? Fighting viciously?

hahaha!
--
JC

Lyle's New Ultimate Diet

"1. eat less you fat ****
2. exercise more you fat ****"

"Chris Taylor Jr" wrote in message
...
These people follow me from thread to thread.

They can not make me leave but they can make it very annoying and
uncomfortable to stay. they can coerce me into voluntarily leaving.

I am also a bit bullheaded about this sort of thing. Giving into them
admits
defeat to me. I want them to LOSE with the result of them not wanting to
EVER screw with me again. if I make their life miserable (and mine as
well)
the result is they leave me alone but it also results if I stick it out
with
them leaving me alone in the future. IE too much trouble for their time.

Its probably pointless and probably an ego thing (on my part and theirs)
to
at least some extent. but its also an issue of principles.

My "literacy" is not bad here. sure I make a lot of spelling errors but
that
is sloppy typing not sloppy spelling. I turned on spell check once in OE
and
very quickly turned it back off. I have been getting better. as my
accuracy
catches up with my typing speed I make fewer mistakes.

I tend to forgo punctuation. its just not important to me on these kinds
of
forums. that may and does annoy some people but it tends to ONLY become an
issue when an "argument" arrises. then it is used as canon fodder against
me
otherwise it is almost never brought up.

I am coherent. sure there are technical errors galore but I am not hard to
understand until I get angry at which time I type even faster and sloppier
in an attempt to keep up with the onslaught and make many more errors.
sometimes my "thought" gets ahead of my hands and I skip words but because
I
"thought" them I do not realize I missed them till I read my own post or
someone nitpicks it to death.

but if you read a normal post (not unlike this one) those massive errors
are
not as present. I type as I think. so as the words appear in my mind my
hand
types them. That is why I see newsgroups as "chit chat" because that is
how
I use them.

I do not formulate thought. Revise correct and post.

I type thoughts as they are formed in my mind. problems occur when those
thoughts get ahead of my typing. I guess you could compare it to a CD
skipping ahead to catch up.

As I said though this usually only occurs in massive flame wars. I get
angry
and sloppy especially as I try to reply to ever post (sometimes DOZENS at
a
time) When I get into a flame war I tend to drift away from quality toward
quantity.

All I want is for them to leave me alone. to stay out of my way and let me
enjoy this forum.

That's all I want and I will fight visciously to aquire that goal if I
have
to.

Its so much easier IRL When someone gets on my case (rare as I am a rather
large individual) I just give them a look or I hit them if it gets
physical
(never has yet) Problems are solved decisively and quickly.

Online though the seperation of mind and body and distance and annonymity
gives people brass balls to bully and annoy other people (trolls)

it is most aggravating.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/





"Luna" wrote in message
...
I don't understand that. No one has the power to keep you from posting
here. Maybe if people really are bullying you, by fighting back you
just
make them want to fight you more. If someone truly is a troll, then
their
goal is to get you to respond, and if you continue to fight with them
then
they've won, they've reached their goal. Being ignored is the one thing
that trolls can't stand, and the one thing that will get you fastest to
your goal, i.e. them leaving you alone. If I see someone being picked
on
or insulted in real life, and they just walk on by like they barely even
notice it, then they look like they're the better person, the stronger
person, they have enough dignity to give the silent message "I am too
good
for this kind of crap." But if they respond and fight back, they look
weak
and scared. Who cares what some idiot says about you or to you? Maybe
fighting back eventually tires out a bully so that they move on to
another
target, but the message it sends to those watching the fight is that the
person being bullied has given weight to what the bullies say, it sends
the
message to the bully of "I respect you enough to think what you're
saying
is important enough for me to respond to." It doesn't even matter what
the response IS, just the fact that there is a response makes it look
like
you're not secure enough to ignore someone who should mean nothing to
you.
Ignoring trolls and bullies and limiting your posts to helping people
who
DO matter to you, asking for help from people you DO respect, and
posting
to share your personal experiences with low-carb would make give you a
reputation of being an intelligent, warm, kind and dignified person, and
all you have to go on in the Internet is your reputation. Don't just
think
about the effect your posts have on bullies, consider the people lurking
here who may be ignoring you because they see you as "that guy who won't
stop arguing about top posting." It would be a shame for those people
to
miss out on what you have to say about more important things. Everyone
has
the power to create the impression they make. In our non-conformist
society it is popular and clichéd to say "I don't care what other people
think" but caring about what other people think is part of what makes us
part of human society. It's up to each individual to decide WHICH
people's
opinions of them matter, for instance, I don't care what a troll on
usenet
thinks of me, but I DO care if my best friend respects me.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:19:58 -0400, "Mathilda Jane"
wrote:

Steve wrote in message
All right, let's try this from the beginning:
Ignoring the other person's points, snipping them out of the
response,
and replying with only a snappy one-liner or simply repeating
your own
position without reference to the other person's points shuts
down the
debate, not because you have "won", but because no one will
invest any
more time debating with a fanatic. Bob Pastorio and I seem to be
the
only ones left with too much time on our hands to continue to
engage
you.

Or the only ones delusional enough to actually think two spaces is
correct.

We think you're not worth the effort. Consider it a compliment dear,
that Bob and Steve still want to put in the time-- imagine
that,*somebody* on usenet thinks you might be human underneath that
trollskin.

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003

Nina wrote in message
Do you get paid to write?

Yes.

Mathilda

revek wrote in message news:bn7l2i$u1sqb$1@ID-
We think you're not worth the effort.

That's why every time I post, I can count on at least 5-7 responses.

Consider it a compliment dear,
that Bob and Steve still want to put in the time-- imagine
that,*somebody* on usenet thinks you might be human underneath that
trollskin.

Shame you label someone a troll just because you are too lazy to debate with
them.

Mathilda

Nina wrote in message
I can assure you that I have never gotten a script thrown back at me
for two spaces.

Good for you.

I have been nominated for an Emmy, won a Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice
Award, a Gracie Allen Award, an Environmental Media Award, and a whole
host of other BS awards that I can't bother to remember.

Again, good for you.

And yet no one's mentioned the two spaces. Funny, how that is.

I don't think it's funny. I think it's embarassing.

BTW, you might want to work on your publicist. A google search of your
name doesn't bring up a single writing credit.

I suppose you think "The Queen of Cans and Jars" is her real name, too.

Mathilda