liz3564 wrote:No, it just means you prefer opera to Musical Theater.
Actually, I'm not sure that I do. I really, really like Les Misérables -- I hope it won't offend the Scratches that I cite the title in the French! -- and a fair number of other musicals. And there are quite a few operas that I find relatively uninteresting or, anyway, dislike for some reason or another.
But I don't drink Bordeaux, so you can pretty well write me off in either case as an uncultured rube.
Les Miserables is the best - better than Saturday's Warrior
Saying that one can experience a great degree of cultural fullness without alcohol or tea than you or Gad has experience with it in no way indicates removing those things would not change the culture "whatsoever."
I wonder if this would be considered a 'grievous' grammar error in Mak's rule book, as well? Mak?
edited to add: Or just grievously poor writing?
Last edited by Google Desktop on Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
gramps wrote:I wonder if this would be considered a 'grievous' grammar error in Mak's rule book, as well? Mak?
edited to add: Or just grievously poor writing?
There's nothing wrong with the sentence. It's bulky, but not inappropriately so. You're wasting your time if you intend to try to assert grammatical superiority to me.
gramps wrote:I wonder if this would be considered a 'grievous' grammar error in Mak's rule book, as well? Mak?
edited to add: Or just grievously poor writing?
There's nothing wrong with the sentence. It's bulky, but not inappropriately so. You're wasting your time if you intend to try to assert grammatical superiority to me.
When is a sentence bulky and when is a sentence inappropriately so? Do you have a rule for that, as well?
I am still waiting for the rule on the grievous spelling error.
edited to add: You are the one taking the superiority route. I am just wondering if you can really live up to your own standards. I have never attacked someone, as you have, for their spelling or grammar. You seem to do it as a matter of course. What is up with that? Do you think it helps you win arguments or something?
Last edited by Google Desktop on Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
I think that this thread itself is becoming a profound commentary on Dr. Robbers's thesis. In addition to the cuisine- and beverage-related "deficiencies" that have already been sketched out, we can also clearly see how allegiance to the Brethren has grieviously injured the apologists' grasp of humor. They fail to see how funny and absurd it is to have a "24 oz. plastic cup of Dr. Pepper fizzing away at the edge of the plate" in a fine dining restaurant. They are so grimly humorless about all of this that Maklelan is fleeing the thread in an outraged panic, and Dr. Peterson is making absurd comparisons between Mormons, Muslims, and Jews. So: you can add self-reflexive humor to the list of cultural areas in which the apologists are seriously deficient.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Wow, maklelan has been a tourist! If that is not cultured, then I do not know what is!
Cultured is calling a Mormon apologist a chamcha or a kooja. Cultured is having read the Divine Comedy, the Song of Roland, the Nibelungenlied (the only part of German culture worth knowing), and the Shahnameh (among other classics.) Cultured is recognizing Joseph Smith was a charlatan.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
Doctor Scratch wrote:I think that this thread itself is becoming a profound commentary on Dr. Robbers's thesis. In addition to the cuisine- and beverage-related "deficiencies" that have already been sketched out, we can also clearly see how allegiance to the Brethren has grieviously injured the apologists' grasp of humor. They fail to see how funny and absurd it is to have a "24 oz. plastic cup of Dr. Pepper fizzing away at the edge of the plate" in a fine dining restaurant. They are so grimly humorless about all of this that Maklelan is fleeing the thread in an outraged panic, and Dr. Peterson is making absurd comparisons between Mormons, Muslims, and Jews. So: you can add self-reflexive humor to the list of cultural areas in which the apologists are seriously deficient.
LOL. Agreed. 'Grimly humorless' is right.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
gramps wrote:edited to add: You are the one taking the superiority route.
Because I know far more about grammar than you.
gramps wrote:I am just wondering if you can really live up to your own standards. I have never attacked someone, as you have, for their spelling or grammar.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of belittling people for a perceived lack of culture and then misspelling the word "restaurant."
gramps wrote:You seem to do it as a matter of course. What is up with that? Do you think it helps you win arguments or something?
No more than bitching about it wins arguments for you. Again, in a thread designed to chide Mormons for not being as cultured as Doc would like, he undermines that thesis when he misspells an incredibly common word.