Is the United States headed for war with China?

[_Symmachus]

Isn't this Iambic Pentameter right here?

or a major topic, or even a significant topic.

I do not want that. I do not appreciate that.

No.

[_Jersey Girl]

Isn't this Iambic Pentameter right here?

or a major topic, or even a significant topic.

I do not want that. I do not appreciate that.

No.

Are you sure about that?

ETA: Whatever it is, that's how DCP writes. And I'm right. Totally right.

[_Dr Moore]

Jersey Girl: kudos. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Since we’re on the topic, what’s the deal with Xi Jinpeterson bringing up Qanon? He seems to of late been referencing it a bit. Is Xi Jinpeterson a 4channer?!?!

- Doc

[_Mormonicious]

No. China is just waiting out the November Elections. They understand that economically they are at the advantage.

Hell China alone holds $1.10 trillion in bonds from the US. So why go to war, just present the notes for payment, even with the penalties for early surrender. What would the US do, print money to pay it, thus destroying the US economy?

No China can wait until a reasonable leader is in the White House.

[_Symmachus]

No.

Are you sure about that?

ETA: Whatever it is, that's how DCP writes. And I'm right. Totally right.

Yes. I am sure you are not looking at iambic pentameter. I am sure that you are right, too.

I will bold the giveaway that you are dealing with Daniel Peterson:

I really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY don't want your country (China) to be the principal topic of conversation here, or a major topic, or even a significant topic.

This is for many reasons, including considerations of both sanity and sanitation. You are also aware that I entered into an agreement with one of your advisors that I would attempt to tamp down tendencies for war to erupt between the United States and your regrettable country. I intend to keep that agreement. Indeed, I have kept it, in the sense that (as always) my policies very rarely even mention your unfortunate country. They focus on other matters. But your appearances here, and those of other emigrés from your country -- and, believe me, I can easily understand why you're desperately feeling the need for a better place! -- tend to call attention to your deplorable country and, quite understandably, to remind its victims here of its undesirable existence. I do not want that. I do not appreciate that.

Peterson's most prominent and constant tic is a tendency to insert adverbial phrases after the beginning of a subordinate clause, inserting them parenthetically, inverting their usual order in the sentence pattern, or needlessly isolating them by commas as if they were appositives when they are not. It has the effect of constant interruption in the flow of the sentence. It is a common feature of 19th periodic style, which was a byproduct of an education in the Greek and Latin classics. A periodic sentence, in simple terms, is one that begins a thought but goes a long way around before the thought is completed at the end of the sentence because numerous subordinate clauses will intervene, each adding information to round out the thought which will have some cue at the end of the sentences that links it back to the beginning (hence "periodic," which means "a circuit" or a "course" like a running track). Someone like G. K. Chesterton writes this way, and Peterson mentions him quite a bit. I get the feeling that Peterson imagines himself a sort of Mormon version of Chesterton, perhaps in more ways than one (weigh the comparison yourself, dear reader). Since Peterson does not have that deep classical education, or at any rate does not display it in the way he writes (as even classicists don't), one gets the feeling that he is imitating the feel of it by creating this sense of delay through overuse of commas and adverbial phrases that are just fluff.

Watch what happens to the first paragraph when I apply that same tic:

Peterson's most prominent tic is, constantly, a tendency to insert, after the beginning of a subordinate clause, adverbial phrases, parenthetically, inverting their usual order in the sentence pattern, or, as if they were appositives, isolating them by commas, when they are not.

[_moksha]

Isn't this Iambic Pentameter right here?

or a major topic, or even a significant topic.

I do not want that. I do not appreciate that.

Could it be a stylized form of Provonian Chiasmus?

[_Jersey Girl]

No. China is just waiting out the November Elections. They understand that economically they are at the advantage.

Hell China alone holds $1.10 trillion in bonds from the US. So why go to war, just present the notes for payment, even with the penalties for early surrender. What would the US do, print money to pay it, thus destroying the US economy?

No China can wait until a reasonable leader is in the White House.

Chump.

[_Symmachus]

Isn't this Iambic Pentameter right here?

or a major topic, or even a significant topic.

I do not want that. I do not appreciate that.

Could it be a stylized form of Provonian Chiasmus?

Before you chiasm all of your keyboard: no. On the other hand, it's certainly Hebraic in its parallelism: A + A in first line, B + B in second line. Mashallah!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Peterson's most prominent and constant tic is a tendency to insert adverbial phrases after the beginning of a subordinate clause, inserting them parenthetically, inverting their usual order in the sentence pattern, or needlessly isolating them by commas as if they were appositives when they are not. It has the effect of constant interruption in the flow of the sentence. It is a common feature of 19th periodic style, which was a byproduct of an education in the Greek and Latin classics. A periodic sentence, in simple terms, is one that begins a thought but goes a long way around before the thought is completed at the end of the sentence because numerous subordinate clauses will intervene, each adding information to round out the thought which will have some cue at the end of the sentences that links it back to the beginning (hence "periodic," which means "a circuit" or a "course" like a running track). Someone like G. K. Chesterton writes this way, and Peterson mentions him quite a bit. I get the feeling that Peterson imagines himself a sort of Mormon version of Chesterton, perhaps in more ways than one (weigh the comparison yourself, dear reader). Since Peterson does not have that deep classical education, or at any rate does not display it in the way he writes (as even classicists don't), one gets the feeling that he is imitating the feel of it by creating this sense of delay through overuse of commas and adverbial phrases that are just fluff.

Watch what happens to the first paragraph when I apply that same tic:

Peterson's most prominent tic is, constantly, a tendency to insert, after the beginning of a subordinate clause, adverbial phrases, parenthetically, inverting their usual order in the sentence pattern, or, as if they were appositives, isolating them by commas, when they are not.

LOL! This is priceless. Thanks, Symmachus!

As for this:

I get the feeling that Peterson imagines himself a sort of Mormon version of Chesterton, perhaps in more ways than one (weigh the comparison yourself, dear reader).

Ouch. Though at least it's nicer than calling people "cockroaches."