Terrestrial comments from Will Schryver thread

[Guest]

They're patterning their language after the kind of writing Fair puts out - argumentum verbosium with a strong dose of clumsy pedantry.

For all those in the intellectual Lollypop Guild here, I'm not "imitating" anybody at FAIR or FARMS, except and to the degree that good, intellectually mature, creative, and engaging writing has a body of components or elements that are common to all good writing of such a kind.

My own literary and intellectual pedigree goes back well into childhood, and my own style is not imitative, but my own.

It is what is is, and its not going to change.

At somewhere between 10 -13 years of age, I was reading "hard" SF (Larry Niven, James Blish, Poul Anderson, Frank Herbert, Emil Petaja, A.E. Van Vogt etc.) and adult Heroic Fantasy (Burroughs, Howard, Carter, Moorcock etc.).

I learned to think, write, and express myself by reading, as a child and on into young adulthood, the mature thinking and writing of others.

For those of you who get much of your literary style and depth of thought from CNN Headline News, the Huffington Post, People and Cosmopolitan, please bear with folks like Me, Wade, and Will, as we walk amongst you.

We only mean well.

[_Droopy]

Well, I see that perhaps my presence here has taken some of the heat and focus off of Will.

If I can be of any further service, please let me know.

[_Runtu]

I do not place any degree of adherence, accuracy, or truthfulness in Buffalo's perceptions (or claims of his perceptions) of my intelligence or intellect. It is a report, as the definition says, of "doubtful veracity."

The usage is wrong, Loran. You don't place "veracity" in something; you place trust, faith, credence, whatever, in the veracity of something.

I meant "veracity" because I meant to convey that Buffalo's claims regarding me are not accurate or truthful.

Which would be fine had you used the correct English usage. You did not.

See Chap.
See Chap run.
See Chap type on the keyboard.
See Chap spill Captain Morgan on the keyboard and short out the keyboard.
See Jane smack Chap over the head with smoking keyboard.
See a stream of misogynistic profanity flow from Chap's lips with great veracity.
See Chap run.

Your mocking aside, I sincerely wish you would rethink your approach to the written word. Just repeat until it sinks in: Vigorous writing is concise.

[_Trevor]

...please bear with folks like Me, Wade, and Will, as we walk amongst you.

We only mean well.

Even though I don't read any of the publications you deride, I'll include myself among those who will better endeavor to bear with you well-meaning chaps.

[Guest]

I do not place any degree of adherence, accuracy, or truthfulness in Buffalo's perceptions (or claims of his perceptions) of my intelligence or intellect. It is a report, as the definition says, of "doubtful veracity."

The usage is wrong, Loran. You don't place "veracity" in something; you place trust, faith, credence, whatever, in the veracity of something.

I meant "veracity" because I meant to convey that Buffalo's claims regarding me are not accurate or truthful.

Which would be fine had you used the correct English usage. You did not.

See Chap.
See Chap run.
See Chap type on the keyboard.
See Chap spill Captain Morgan on the keyboard and short out the keyboard.
See Jane smack Chap over the head with smoking keyboard.
See a stream of misogynistic profanity flow from Chap's lips with great veracity.
See Chap run.

Your mocking aside, I sincerely wish you would rethink your approach to the written word. Just repeat until it sinks in: Vigorous writing is concise.

Just couldn't help yourself, could you? The English language is flexible and complex enough to support small deviations from lexical orthodoxy.

The usage works conceptually, and that's really all that matters.

Now, I don't place much veracity in you criticism here; that is, I don't see in it, or ascribe to it, an accurate, correct, or truthful perspective of my use of the term veracity.

To say "I don't see any veracity in," or "That is of dubious veracity," is different in only trivial degree from saying that one places veracity in, ascribes veracity to, or sees the veracity of something in such and such a manner.

The usage is wrong, Loran. You don't place "veracity" in something; you place trust, faith, credence, whatever, in the veracity of something.

In other words, I cannot place a quality of adherence or accuracy regarding an assertion in an assertion, but can only place another quality within veracity itself.

I just think the term, and the manner in which it was used can be born by the language, and it works, for all intents.

You might want to look here:

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/veracity

Just for one example:

i have more personal vanity than modesty, and twice as much veracity as the two put together.

Now, if one can have veracity, then clearly veracity can be placed within that person. Or, if statements, assertions and arguments can said to have the property of veracity, then it must be the case that this property can also be absent. We can therefore say that we place, or do not place - ascribe or deny - veracity as properties of and within linguistic constructions of various kinds.

Well, at least if Wade and I can derail this thread from the Will Schryver witch burning to a hyena snapping orgy of intellectual One-upmanship aimed at our intelligence and education, perhaps we have served our purpose.

Now, let's get back to Prop 8...

[_Runtu]

Just couldn't help yourself, could you? The English language is flexible and complex enough to support small deviations from lexical orthodoxy.

The usage works conceptually, and that's really all that matters.

Now, I don't place much veracity in you criticism here; that is, I don't see in it, or ascribe to it, an accurate, correct, or truthful perspective of my use of the term veracity.

Well, at least if Wade and I can derail this thread from the Will Schryver witch burning to a hyena snapping orgy of intellectual One-upmanship aimed at our intelligence and education, perhaps we have served our purpose.

Now, let's get back to Prop 8...

I've refrained entirely from commenting on the current discussion of Will's posts, so it's inaccurate to suggest I'm part of any witch hunt or hyena pack. I am not interested in the least in this topic.

But, no, I couldn't resist commenting on your prose because, as both a writer and a writing instructor, I often feel compelled to help people improve their writing skills. I have consistently offered the same advice to you, and you have just as consistently taken it as some sort of mean-spirited insult. Oh, well. Most writers know to distinguish their writing from their person. A critique of a piece of writing, or even a writing style, is not a personal attack.

If nothing else, please read Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" or Joseph Williams's "Style: Toward Clarity and Grace." You will do yourself a world of good as a writer, and maybe I'll stop trying to help you write better.

[_Droopy]

But, no, I couldn't resist commenting on your prose because, as both a writer and a writing instructor, I often feel compelled to help people improve their writing skills. I have consistently offered the same advice to you, and you have just as consistently taken it as some sort of mean-spirited insult. Oh, well. Most writers know to distinguish their writing from their person. A critique of a piece of writing, or even a writing style, is not a personal attack.

Go back and read my above post again, as I expanded it a bit, and don't try to correct my writing style.

I'll throw you to the hyenas.

[_Doctor Scratch]

My own literary and intellectual pedigree goes back well into childhood, and my own style is not imitative, but my own.

It is what is is, and its not going to change.

At somewhere between 10 -13 years of age, I was reading "hard" SF (Larry Niven, James Blish, Poul Anderson, Frank Herbert, Emil Petaja, A.E. Van Vogt etc.) and adult Heroic Fantasy (Burroughs, Howard, Carter, Moorcock etc.)

]

It doesn't really surprise me, Droopy, to learn that your "literary and intellectual pedigree" is based on your childhood reading of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Somethings never change, eh? Did you get your politics from Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein?

[_Runtu]

Go back and read my above post again, as I expanded it a bit, and don't try to correct my writing style.

I'll throw you to the hyenas.

I read your post. Saying something works conceptually is not the same as saying it's correct English. English is about conventions and expectations, and when you violate either, the message you are trying to communicate is obscured.

I know you think I'm being arrogant or pedantic "correcting" your writing style. I know, I am not your teacher, and you haven't asked me to help, so I won't anymore. I had a student once at BYU who took every critique I offered, even on rough drafts, as a terrible insult. He rejected any and all suggestions to fix problems in style, grammar, and organization; he got a C in my class. It wasn't because my ego was wrapped up in his taking my advice, but had he listened to me, he would have been a clearer and more effective writer. Obviously, I'm not grading you, but you remind me of him.

[_Trevor]

Go back and read my above post again, as I expanded it a bit, and don't try to correct my writing style.

I'll throw you to the hyenas.

Droopy, no one with any taste or talent for writing would say that you write better than Runtu. No one.