From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 12:57:49 PDT
Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> writes: > "Each future rule must use a previously unused abstruse term, just to > prove how very erudite we all are."(Welton, 209:10) > > Once again Jesse succumbs to his perennial hybris and flouts my > omni-perspicaciousness. Indeed, what better proof of intelligence is > there, my oh-so-sapient friend than public displays of thesaurical > aptitude? > > On a related note, the sarcastic tone of recent rules has undermined > their praise of my genius. Avaunt, avoid internecine sniping and give > into me now! > > Future rule-writers must describe their own abilities in suitably > grovelling terms so as to steer clear of Jesse's error and uphold the > distinction between all of you, and ME. > > -- > Rule Date: 2003-05-30 02:42:33 GMT Validity: No problems. Style: Either Joshua is being too abstruse even for me, or he's misspelled "hubris", which takes a bit of the edge off his ad hominism. Aside from that, nicely sarcastic and abstruse. +2.0. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY "We're waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool says to push on." -- Pete Seeger -- Rule Date: 2003-05-30 19:58:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST