I Will Become a TV Evangelist (Was: "Sam Wormley is Wrong...")

"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
Davoud wrote:
So, have I passed the test?

Yes, for some value of "pass."


Pass as in passing wind.

Ed T.

Davoud:
I agree with everything that you have said (or written) in your entire
life to date, and with everything that you will ever say (or write) for
the rest of your life, may it be a long and healthy and happy one.

Furthermore, if you look at the Ed Madjen query of earlier today, in
which he asked "Anyone use a laptop in their observatory or outside? Do
you have any problems doing this? *Which laptop computer would you
recommend... Are there good alternatives?", and to which you and a few
other responded most helpfully, you will note that I didn't respond at
all, in spite of the fact that none of the respondents gave the right
answer to the "good alternatives" part. So, have I passed the test?

Chris L Peterson:
Very good! But I hope you aren't bottling up your true feelings. I
gather that in your former profession you may have picked up some skills
that would be most unfortunate in an unstable individual g.

Hah! Shows what _you_ know! If it weren't for unstable individuals we
wouldn't have had any individuals at all.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com

Katchke shtikl a bit?



Davoud wrote:

Davoud:
And people took my post seriously! Except Gareth Slee, who caught on
immediately. As I said to Gareth, I don't know how those who took me
seriously deal with the spoken language, which contains no graphic
smileys.

Brian Tung:
I certainly hope you, as a linguist, are not seriously ignorant of why
spoken language needs no smileys.

Indeed I am not. I am more and more confronted by people who interpet
little or nothing, however, but seem to take everything they hear or
read quite literally. Subtleties don't work with these people, irony is
lost on them, they don't recognize figures of speech, and even the
absurd (like my post) is taken at face value. The ten centuries or so
that have gone into enriching our language are wasted on some people.
And all people, including you and me, only know what they know; if they
don't get it, they don't get it. Ya gotta despair sometimes.

Then there is the issue of being thin-skinned; in spite of my awareness
of this sin, I admit to committing it myself from time to time. Some
folks aren't aware of it, however, and make no attempt to roll with the
punches. Push a sensitive button and they go into orbit. I'm _usually_
a bit more tolerant and down-to-earth than that.

my satirizing the Old Testament in my silly post, here's a bit of
double irony: one of my languages is Modern Hebrew. That doesn't
qualify me as an Old Testament scholar by a long shot, but with help
from native speakers and dictionaries I muddle my way through bits and
pieces of the OT in Hebrew on occasion. I also read the OT in English,
of course, with the Authorized Version my sentimental favorite for the
unparalleled richness of its English, and the "Jerusalem Bible,"
produced by the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem,
for its modern clarity. http://www.op.org/op/ebaf/index-eng.htm I
consider the OT to be the greatest piece of literature ever produced --
a source of wonderful myth, fascinating history, and profound wisdom.

Regards,

Davoud
(Irony within irony within irony: One of my favorite versions of the
OT opens with a vow to protect King James from "Popish persons;" the
other is the product of those very "Popish persons," the Dominicans of
the École Biblique!)

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Davoud wrote:
I wrote, inter alia:

And people took my post seriously! Except Gareth Slee, who caught on
immediately. As I said to Gareth, I don't know how those who took me
seriously deal with the spoken language, which contains no graphic
smileys. I expected derision and flames from the right and laughter
and
nods from my fellow Humanist leftists, but I never expected to be
taken
seriously!

We're you being taken seriously or was the subject matter?

The collection plate will be
round, and its circumference will be 3 times its diameter.

that's good!!

You could dent it, make it a little concave and then hold it up as
conclusive proof. while you're at it you could throw it before a
camera (with reduced shutter speed) and claim UFO proof too. That
would get you some airtime on phone-in radio too!

Ot you could just polish the plate until it can act as a new reflector
for a home build telescope!

Davoud:
And people took my post seriously! Except Gareth Slee, who caught on
immediately. As I said to Gareth, I don't know how those who took me
seriously deal with the spoken language, which contains no graphic
smileys. I expected derision and flames from the right and laughter
and nods from my fellow Humanist leftists, but I never expected to be
taken seriously!

:
We're you being taken seriously or was the subject matter?

Well, I suppose that strictly speaking it was the subject matter. But
I'm sure you understand that from the point of view of the OP that is a
distinction without a difference.

In reference to the "Sam Wormley is Wrong..." thread (now 100 or so
articles long!) another poster and I were discussing off-line the
inability of many people to recognize sarcasm, hyperbole, subtlety,
irony, or figures of speech; people who take everything literally. What
a shame! I mean, c'mon -- I wrote that Hubble is an "Instrument of
Evil" and that Pi=3.

Whether what I wrote was humorous or not is, of course, in the eye of
the beholder. It was meant to be a humorous roast of religious
fundamentalists, and my private e-mails show that a number of people
who aren't willing to jump into the fray found it quite humorous. Since
my post cost nothing to read there are no refunds for folks who weren't
amused. But even people who have seen my other posts here, and who know
that I am a genuine amateur astronomer and a way-left skeptic and a
Humanist, took the post seriously.

My wife, who is a professional writer, a teacher of writing, and an
expert in the grammar of English and half a dozen other languages, has
warned me repeatedly that in this day and age, if one is writing for an
audience, everything must be spelled out in the most explicit,
excruciating detail -- and a significant percentage of readers still
won't get it. Sigh.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com