lit. crit. and Potter (actually just another exchange between Lyn and Sean)

[kumayama]

Ah, Sean, 
I thanked you in advance, and I shall again thank you now for making quite clear your 
meaning.  You find merit in a convention I don't subscribe to (nor feel bound by--ever 
notice the rules for participating in this group?-- DU can serve as a model of how to 
rectify that). Perhaps a less confrontational and controlling reaction to your dissatisfaction 
with my style of posting (and your perception of it as a waste of your bandwith) would be 
simply not to read my posts anymore, or bother to reply to them. 

As for whether or not I lived up to my statement that "I shan't go far into this" is perhaps a 
matter of perspective. I'm used to writing 25-35 page reports for medical professionals 
and the courts; and even in my pasttime I am known for comprehensive equipment 
reviews. So for me, a page or less is a most certainly not a lengthy treatment of a matter; 
your standards for judgment are different and you don't care for mine. Perhaps I detect a 
trend here. 

I am pleased to learn that I brought some hilarity into your life, for whatever reason and 
with whatever justification (actually your phrase "authorial meglomania" was quite 
successful in generating its own amusement). As this may come as close to a positive 
point as we shall share, this is where I shall be content to close. I'm afraid I will never 
match the openings of E.B. White, nor close as pithily as Wiggenstein.

Lyn

  

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at a...> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:20:37AM -0000, kumayama wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hello Sean,
> > 
> > What Jolly fun, my third public post and I'm held to account with a word I"m not sure 
really 
> > exists--i.e., your line, "snip egregrious top-posting." Seems a "word" of that spelling 
gets 
> > used occasionally, yet I've never really found it in a respected dictionary (say the OED, 
at 
> > least my worn old muti-volume set). 
> > 
> > So being my inquisitive self, I say, "Self, just what did Sean mean to say about my 
posting? 
> > Ah, why not go to the source and ask." So, taking my self's advice to Self, I shall ask, 
just 
> > what did you intend to convey in finding my "top-posting" egregrious? TIA for any 
> > enlightenment you may bestow.  
> 
> Adding the entire message you are replying to without specific relationship to
> the points you are making wastes my bandwidth. I am also forced to perform
> major editing on your email in order to reply. I could have used the phrase
> 'bloody annoying' but 'egregrious' was more entertaining at least for myself.
> 
> > But on to your more expansive comments. Frankly, you illustrate why I found Kneasy's 
> > comments refreshing. I shan't go too far into this as I don't have the interest or time,  
and 
> > Kneasy has already made his own reply in defence (or was it just explanation?). I 
guess I'm 
> > a simpleton at heart, and perhaps a bit of a detective (and thus why I'm a 
> > neuropsychologist and not a Jungian analyst). 
> 
> But you did 'go far into this'. At length. To satisfy Kneasy's curiosity, I
> merely wondered why everyone retreats the moment anyone goes 'metathinking'. I
> thought perhaps it disturbed them, hence the word. Judging by the vast
> silence, perhaps they're merely asleep. The suggestion that the possibility of
> authorial meglomania is sufficient warning that we shouldn't stray from canon
> is frankly hilarious and I will close the subject by merely noting that the
> art is there for everyone to make anything they like from it. Within
> copyright-infringment guidelines of course.
> 
> -- 
> "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."