From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 07:27:02 PDT
Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> writes:
> --- Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> What a genius I am!
> >
> > Ha!
> >
>
> There, that's a typical example of the incisive remarks that make me a
> cuttingly sarcastic committee member. Although the rule appears to
> fall foul of the rule requiring all rules to comment on the sarcasm of
> previous rules I can't help but admire it's elegance. In retrospect I
> realize that unconsciously I was laughing with Steve, not at him, and
> appreciating his self-effacing sarcasm. My mono-syllabic guffaw makes
> a cheerfully supportive comment about Steve's implied statement that he
> is not in fact a genius, (a statement with which I cannot agree more).
> Speaking of genius, I can't help but remind the committe (and the
> judge) that when faced with a mind such as mine, the wisest course of
> action is to concede the rightness and validity of all of my satements
> (and rules) without courting mental injury by trying to follow my
> balletic leaps of intuition and acrobatic contortions of logic. Don't
> try this at home kids.
> Ha ha ha ha ha, I kill myself!
> All future rules must acknowledge my genius.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2003-05-27 03:35:56 GMT
>
Validity: Quotes the preceding rule. Does it comment on its sarcasm?
I argued in my judgement of 209:7 that it had no sarcasm to be
commented upon. And indeed, this rule seems to say so. But to
comment that a rule has no sarcasm is to comment on its sarcasm, I
say. VALID.
Style: Less is more. Here Joshua attempts to do the Judge's job re:
209:7, and gets it (I say) wrong; misapostrophizes "its"; misspells
"committee" and "statements"; and rattles on at a bit more length than
stylistic excellence demands. -0.5.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
"We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on." -- Pete Seeger
--
Rule Date: 2003-05-27 14:27:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST