Terrestrial comments from Will Schryver thread

[_Buffalo]

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'm sorry, are you trying to brag about reading Larry Niven as a kid? Really? :D

[_Buffalo]

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.

Exactly. I don't know much about Droopy - is he a high school grad who has just tried to pick up some education on his own without going to college? Because that would explain his writing style.

[_harmony]

Indeed, I think I've been excommunicogitated from Mormondiscussion.com!

Good word!

[_Buffalo]

No, Wade. Not even for nuance and metering.

My question was a test to see who really knows what they are talking about when it comes to writing in general. I am sorry to have to report that you failed the test. Better luck next time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, your writing would give even a high school gym teacher nightmares - and not because it was over his head.

[_Buffalo]

Yeah, I don't care, but postmodern writing is notorious for being unnecessarily dense. So at least this made me chuckle.

Laugh yourself into near catatonia Delusion, because I did no postmodern writing at all, and never will. I wrote a thesis paper of the philosophy of Michael Foucault, not an imitation of postmodern verbiage. It was philosophical writing, which is what I said it was.

You tend to use what appears to sound to you like sophisticated vocabulary poorly.

I'm just devastated...

You often use a lot of redundant words and phrases. Years ago you would misuse jargon and more complicated vocabulary so consistently that it was more sad than annoying. To your credit, you have improved this significantly. But you still err enough that it doesn't come across well. You also often will opt for the "fancy" word over a more plain one when the plain one would communicate your idea more clearly.

Mortified...

You frequently try to shoehorn in intellectual sounding references when they are awkward or irrelevant.

Cut to the quick...

On top of that, most of your posts are far more bluster than they are content. You have a habit of being frequently wrong - really wrong - and tend to project your faults and the faults of those you support onto objects of criticism.

This is a true therapeutic cleansing...

All this together makes you look like someone desperately trying to sound learned when you aren't. There are very good writers here. Look at how they write.

My soul crieth out...

Case in point. I realize so nakedly criticizing you this way, especially when what I'm saying is true, is a rough thing for me to do. I wouldn't feel comfortable with it if not for your tendency to be a condescending jerk. I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you about our relative brain power.

For a number of years now, I and others have waded through your self satisfied, intellectually convoluted mutterings and, unfortunately perhaps, responded to you seriously at times, thus giving the impression that you'd said something intellectually substantive and worth engaging.

I remember Daniel simply giving up discussing anything with you as far back as the mid 2000s because of your long winded, obfuscatory ramblings and snobbish intellectual posturing.

Nothing, it seems, has changed.

Say what you will about Droopy, but he does a great impression of DCP. It's almost satire.

[_Buffalo]

Actually, to think is a very broad category encompassing:

1. To have or formulate in the mind.
2. To reason about or reflect on; ponder.
3. To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering. thinking what to do.
4. To judge or regard; look upon.
5. To believe; suppose.
6. To expect; hope.
7. To intend.
8. To call to mind; remember.
9. To visualize; imagine
10. To devise or evolve; invent
11To bring into a given condition by mental preoccupation.
12. To concentrate one's thoughts on
13. To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.
14. To weigh or consider an idea.

Etc.

To cogitate connotes a similar body of elements, but its fundamental definition is much more severely circumscribed:

1. To take careful thought or think carefully about; ponder.

So by saying "to think and cogitate," I encompass a wide range of mental activities (thinking) while at the same time focusing on intellectual rigor, depth, and detail (cogitation) with the other term.

Again, above 7th or 8th grade, this would probably not be much of a point of contention. Nor would it be much of a point if I were not both a TBM apologist and settled conservative/libertarian whose views of pretty much everything provoke contention and conflict here no matter what the subject matter.

I think I mentioned that no one is impressed by your ability to use a thesaurus, especially when you misuse it. The same applies to your mastery of looking things up in the dictionary.

[_Buffalo]

So by saying "to think and cogitate," I encompass a wide range of mental activities (thinking) while at the same time focusing on intellectual rigor, depth, and detail (cogitation) with the other term.

Yes: hence why it's redundant. It's like saying that you ate and consumed your lunch today, or that you read and perused your copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Exactly. It's the kind of error you'd find in a freshman essay where the writer is trying to pad his writing for maximum word count.

[_wenglund]

"Cogitate" has a more precise and specific meaning, Wade. If that's what Droopy meant, that's what he should have said. Saying, "think and cogitate" doesn't express "nuance" at all. It just litters the expression with imprecision.

Again, you fail....to understand. The nuance is in the subtle difference in meanings between the words "think" and "cogitate."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, your writing would give even a high school gym teacher nightmares - and not because it was over his head.

I have no reason to think that you would be in a position to know. You're just some guy posting anonymously as a buffalo. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

"Cogitate" has a more precise and specific meaning, Wade. If that's what Droopy meant, that's what he should have said. Saying, "think and cogitate" doesn't express "nuance" at all. It just litters the expression with imprecision.

Again, you fail....to understand. The nuance is in the subtle difference in meanings between the words "think" and "cogitate."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you're talking nonsense. As has already been pointed out, the expression is redundant. You wouldn't say, "I pitched and threw the baseball" or "I ran and sprinted out the door" or "I drank and imbibed the Diet Coke." There isn't really a "subtle difference in meanings" between "cogitate" and "think". One is simply more specific than the other. So it begs the question: why toss in both the general and the more specific term? It's like saying, "the building was both tall and 120 stories high." If you want to call this a stylistically praiseworthy nuance, be my guest. But that doesn't change the basic fact that it's an inarticulate way of expressing an idea.