Re: 209:11 -- VALID, +2.0

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