Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

One More Chapter for Your Perusal

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
elanders - 09 Jan 2009 16:05 GMT
September 1761 – Return to Mecklenburg

 In September of 1761 a coterie of handpicked aristocrats were
dispatched to the German duchy of  Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Their duty was
to perform a proxy marriage then transport Princess Charlotte—the
princess, Queen Mother, the late king, and the Prince had settled on—to
London for her formal marriage and coronation as Queen Consort to George
III.

Not long after six coaches pulled in front of the Palace of
Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of
King's dragoons: 12 slim-waisted men bristling with sword, pistol, and
campaign gear.  Poor, Franz, the Duke's butler, looked out the window as
if the French Army was outside. The Duke came to the top of the stair
and called to him, "Franz, outside, quick!" Franz snapped to his
too-tall height, adjusted his alpine cap and flew out the door.
Somewhere in the room a woman gasped. The Duke whipped his head around
in search of the usurper. Seeing no one, he lost his patience: "Everyone
in front of me, now!" he commanded. Instantly the maids and attendants
came out of their hiding places. "We'll have none of this!" he
thundered. I won't stand for it!  And where is Frau Schwellenberg?”

"She's coming, Your grace."

The Duke looked at the woman. "You and Gertrude are supposed to be
outside assisting Franz!"

"Yes, my lord," said the two. And they flew out the door.

"Are the guest rooms ready?" the Duke wanted to know.

"Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."

"The dining room, then?"

"Yes, my lord, refreshments on each table, sir."

What else? The Duke asked himself. He knew there was something he was
forgetting, but try as he might, he couldn't think of it–then he thought
of it. "Maxim! Where's Maxim?"

"At the stables!" said a girl at the bottom of the stair.

"What is he doing there? Tell him to show the cavalry where  to water
their horses.  And he should set up a table with beer too – if  that
royal painter Shackleton is any measure, these Englishman will want ale
and plenty of it!"

"Yes, my lord," said the girl, and she flew out of the room.

The Duke was standing at the bend in the stairway where the upper stair
gives way to a wide landing. It was built wide to allow women in great
hoop petticoats sufficient space to turn before proceeding down the
lower stair. The Duke had stopped to inspect himself in the full-length
mirror. Also, it was here he’d make his welcoming speech as Franz led
the King's coterie in. At this instant, though, his main concern was the
cavalry outfit he was wearing. Along with the Prussian parade jacket,
high collar (which was beginning to choke him), blood red cuffs, gold
braiding hanging across his chest, and red campaign sash around his
stomach, it was of the utmost importance the saber at his waist be
tilted at a precise 90 degree angle if he was to affect the stance
Frederick the Great used after routing the French at Rossback.

The Duke adjusted all these things in the mirror and was pleased. He
reached down and adjusted the top cuff of his cavalry boots. One had to
be careful walking in these, the cuffs were large and meant for riding
not walking, and certainly not running up and down stairs.

"Would you like some wax, for your whiskers, sir?" came a voice from
downstairs.

“Wax?” The Duke looked at his whiskers. Yes, a bit of wax would be nice.

"Yes, girl, go fetch my wax! Run! Hurry!"

"I have it right here, sir" said the girl, offering the small tin in her
hand.

"Bring it up then–quickly!  We don't have all day, you know!"

The girl hurried up the stairs.

From the landing above him another voiced spoke: " Frederick, I’m ready."

It was  Princess Charlotte dressed in the wedding gown the King sent for
the proxy wedding.

"Good! Good!" said Duke Frederick. "And remember, stay right at the top
landing there, until you hear me say to Franz, 'Enter.'"

"Yes, Frederick."

Outside the gentlemen and ladies were alighting the coaches.

"Does anyone speak French?" called out Franz.

"We all speak French," said a lady with a giggle in her voice. "Would
you have anyone in the King of England's Court who did not?"

Franz went red in the face. "My apologies, My Lady. I only meant to say–"

"–One moment, sir. This is the castle of the King of Prussia, is it
not?" Lady Teasley asked.

"King of Prussia?” exclaimed Franz, suddenly alarmed. "But there must be
some mistake, Madam–this is the castle of the Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz."

Lady Teasley giggled.

"Pay her no mind, my good man," said Lord Anson taking Lady Teasley by
the arm. "She's driven several servants to the madhouse already with her
jests. But look here, man–are they ready for the proxy marriage inside?"

"Yes, My Lord, we are," said Franz, still not entirely recovered from
Lady Teasley's jest.

Lady Teasley was so sugary pretty little boys stared at her. Lady
Teasley played on her delicious looks by always dressing in taffeta,
lace, and jewelry that leaned toward precious stones of great color.
Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is
well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point of
the fashionable elite.  Arriving in their carriages or atop horses, they
took the circular road inside the park to show-off themselves. Gentlemen
and ladies of the younger sort displayed their horsemanship and if it
was particularly good,  mention of it would make the rounds of tea
parties for weeks. On the day in question, Lady Teasley came riding into
the park on a hired pony the same time the gentlemen had repaired to the
center of the park to talk and smoke. Whether planned or not what
happened next announced her entrance into society brilliantly. Just as
she was trotting past the section where the members of parliament stood,
she fell off her horse (some say slid) onto the ground exposing her lily
white legs to every man in eyesight. The collective gasp could be heard
all the way to Fleet Street.

Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately–without anyone
bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility going back
70 quarters. Bona fide or not, she was useful and that was the paramount
thing. In time she acquired her own supper box at the Vauxhall paid for
by a dozen admirers. More telling still, wherever there was a gathering
of any social significance no doorman could long refuse her. She'd slip
him a guinea, whisper a promise she had absolutely no intention of
keeping, then waltz by him as his ears smoked.

Admiral Anson turned back to the other members of the coterie, some
still stepping from the coaches. Anson was about sixty, and one of
England's greatest naval heroes. He wore a sword but had elected to wear
civilian attire rather than his admiral's uniform.

"Did we all make it?" he called to them.

"I think we lost Baroness Hamilton along the way," joked the Earl of
Harcourt as he helped the Baroness Hamilton out of the coach.

"Then we must go back and find her," said Baroness Hamilton. "For
without her we cannot continue."

Everyone chuckled at this.

"Look, here, lads, let's have some order about ourselves before we go
in, please!" called Admiral Anson.

“Aye! Aye! Admiral!”

The Captain of the dragoons, a 23-year old whose horsemanship Lady
Teasley had admired all the way from the wharf, rode up and saluted
Admiral Anson with his saber.

"Lord Admiral, sir, would you have us stand guard outside the door when
you go in, sir?"

Anson looked around. "Don't quite know, Captain. Getting your horses
watered is more important than that, I should think. Hold on." Anson
looked to Franz who was trying to explain something to Lady Teasley
without success. "Sir!" Lord Anson called. "A word with you." Franz
bowed to Lady Teasley and rushed over. He exchanged a few words with
Lord Anson who then turned to the Captain and gave him his instructions.

“A  minute, Capeeton!” Lady Teasley called to the young captain. “I left
my parasol in the coach. Be a dear and fetch it for me, would you?”

The young captain's face turned tomato red.

Lady Teasley giggled.

“Never mind that, Captain,” said Anson taking Lady Teasley by the arm
and tugging her along like a naughty child. “See to your men and horses.”

In a moment the coterie was assembled in this order: Baroness Hamilton,
Duchess of Ancaster,  Lady Teasley, the Earl of Harcourt–who would be
proxy groom for the King – Admiral Anson, and the four Ladies of the
Bedchamber taking up the rear. The ceremony would take place as soon as
the coterie walked in the door. Inside the Duke and Princess would be
ready for this, or at least such were their instructions. Admiral Anson
nodded at the group then signaled for his servant to bring the King's
Bible from his coach.

As was the ancient custom of a proxy marriage, the Earl of Harcourt was
holding the new Queen's crown on a purple pillow. Like Anson, Harcourt
was a military man who'd been in many campaigns. Harcourt was 30 with a
perfect Englishman's face and a temperament harsh and unforgiving made
so by the horrors seen on the battlefield. His first day in battle had
been his baptism of fire. Before that day he'd been a merry enough
fellow who saw only the milk of human kindness in everyone he met. Then
came his first cavalry charge where he ran up on four enemy infantryman
fleeing for their lives.  His training kicked in: he spurred his horse
and cut them down: first one, then the other, then the last two because
they couldn't run away fast enough. These men had posed no threat; they
wanted only to escape with their lives. He could have watched them run
and no one would have said an untoward word to him about it. He could
have spared them but didn't.  The unfortunate event turned him into a
cynic for the rest of his life–and worse, it turned him into a person
with no value for human life. But here's the rub: 30 years later at 60,
Harcourt died  trying to rescue a dog from a well.

 "Are we ready?" Anson asked everyone again. He had the Bible in his
hand now. Without waiting for an answer he looked to Franz who was now
standing at the palace door and called, "The King's Coterie is ready to
enter, sir!"

Franz saluted, opened the door, then announced in German, "The King’s
Coterie is ready to enter, Lord Duke Frederick!"

At the stair landing above Duke Frederick called down, "Enter then!" On
the landing above Duke Frederick out of sight, Princess Charlotte
prepared to descend. Franz looked outside to the coterie and echoed,
"Enter then!"

"Enter we shall!" called back Admiral Anson leading the group in.

At the top of the stair, Charlotte steeled her nerves. The lavish
wedding gown her betrothed, King George III, had sent, fitted her
perfectly for the seamstress sent several months earlier by him had made
sure of this. And now, although she and the King had not once laid eyes
upon each other, she would in a few moments become his wife and the
Queen of England … at least in proxy.

From the landing below, the Duke called up, "Charlotte, come down now,
they're here!"

And she came down just as the King's Coterie walked through the door.
She walked past the Duke down the flight of stairs beneath him to the
main floor. She came to a standstill in front of the coterie just as it
came to a standstill in front of her. She stared at them, they at her.
Lord Anson forgot his speech, Lord Harcourt's  mouth fell open, Lady
Hamilton's eyes popped, Lady Ancaster gasped. And then to add to perfect
surrealism of it all, Lady Teasley giggled.

Now the way things were supposed to happen is that Lord Anson was to
begin the proxy marriage ceremony on the spot. That's how such things
were done from time immemorial, or at least going back to William the
Conqueror. Indeed, at the very instant Princess Charlotte appeared
before them, the next thing uttered from Anson's lips should have been :

"I, Lord Anson, Vice-Admiralty of Great Britain in the powers vested in
me by George William Frederick, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke
and Elector of Hanover, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Duke of
Edinburgh, Marquess of Ely, Earl of Eltham, Viscount of Launceston,
Baron of Snowdon, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, do hereby present
his proxy in marriage to you the most serene Princess Charlotte Sophia
of Mecklenburg, the Earl of Harcourt…"

At which point, Anson would have paused and allowed the Earl of Harcourt
to take two steps forward, bow at the feet of the princess then stand
and offer up the crown on the purple pillow. But, so struck was Anson
with the features of the princess, words failed him, as in fact, words
failed everyone in the coterie, save the giggly Lady Teasley.

Indeed, it is not hard to imagine they'd all still be standing there
mouths agape hadn't the next extraordinary thing happened. At the top of
the stairs, Duke Frederick, instead of giving the speech he had
intended, rushed down the stairs to see why everyone was speechless.
This was ill-advised … at least at the rate of speed he chose. It was
the cavalry boots that did him in. The top cuffs meant for protecting
the knee from the flanks of the horse got caught-up–and so did the
Duke–sending him spilling down the stair heels over head like a circus
tumbler.

"Well done!" said Lady Hamilton without thinking.

"No, madam," came the Duke's pained voice from the floor. "Not well done."

Seeing the opportunity to stall he needed, Anson, bent down to the
fallen man and said, "Harcourt give me a hand—I  think he's hurt!"

"I am not hurt!" cried the Duke. And he tried to stand, but couldn't
because in his fall he had bent his saber around his leg. "It's this
saber. If you could help me unbend it from 'round my leg–"

Wisely, Lord Anson ignored this. He was, after all, vice admiral of the
most powerful navy in Europe and well knew how to think on his feet. In
a moment—on Anson's orders—Franz and another house servant were carrying
the protesting duke away from the foyer –  where the proxy marriage
should have been in progress—into the long dining hall next door, where
it could not.

"Put me down, Franz! I command you!"

"Hold him fast, Franz," countered Anson. "And, Lord Duke, I insist you
allow us to examine your wound before we proceed further."

"But it isn't a wound…it's nothing…if you could just help me unwrap the
saber from my legs."

"I've called for our surgeon. He'll be here in a moment."

"I don't need a surgeon!"

"Better safe than sorry."

No … Duke Frederick didn’t like it one bit, but …  no matter all the
power he wielded in his tiny principality, the Duke was no match for the
cunning of Admiral Anson who – upon seeing Princess Charlotte–had
decided some serious discussion was in order before proceeding with the
proxy marriage.

Meanwhile, Lady Hamilton and Lady Ancaster took Charlotte by the hand
and led her back upstairs to her bed chamber. They too had sensed a
pause was needed before proceeding. Also, both ladies had worked with
Anson on Kingly business before (which, is why the Queen Mother chose
them) and had picked up by voice and inflection his reluctance to proceed.

"A momentary delay," Lady Hamilton said to the bewildered girl. "The
surgeon will attend to your brother and we'll commence straight-away …
My, my, this is a lovely bedchamber, is it not, Lady Ancaster?"

"Indeed—and are those portraits of your parents above your bed, Princess
Charlotte?" said Lady Ancaster pointing to the portraits on the wall.

"Yes, they are."

Both women dropped the girl's hands and went to the portraits. Baroness
Hamilton dug into her silk purse for her spectacles. "May we take them
down?"  she  asked, already unhooking one from the wall while Lady
Ancaster unhooked the other.

"Yes, you may."

The older woman took the portrait to the window so as to inspect it in
better light. "Very Corinthian-looking, to be sure … which makes me but
wonder, Lady Charlotte, about your grandparents …”

“My grandparents, madam?”

“Do you have portraits of them?”

"Yes, we do," said Charlotte.

"And your great–grandparents?" interjected Lady Ancaster.

"Great–grandparents, madam?" said Charlotte looking from one face to the
other, her own face now confused.

“Portraits of them?”

“Oh, yes, there are,” said Charlotte.

"Both sets."

“Both sets, madam?”

“Yes, portraits of each – going back to your great–grandparents.... Let
me see, that would be … gosh, how many portraits would that be, Lady
Hamilton?”

“Fourteen.”

“Yes, 14,  I think you're right.”

The girl shrugged. She didn't understand why they would want to see so
many portraits, but the ladies were nice and their French so wonderful
to hear. “I can do much better than that,” she said. “Our portrait room
has  portraits of 70 sets of ancestors. If you ladies would follow me,
please.”

Lady Hamilton's voice was an astonished whimper: “How perfectly sweet of
you.”

When the surgeon walked into the dining room Admiral Anson put him on
the Duke then took Harcourt by the arm and left. Franz caught up with
them at the door.  He was biting his lip and his hands were shaking.
"Gentlemen, is their something wrong?" he asked.

Anson pointed to where the Duke and Surgeon were. "See to your duke.
We'll be back directly.”

“But is there something wrong–”

Anson’s stare shut him up. “Yes, sir,” said Franz, and then he turned
and hurried away from the Englishmen.

Once outside, Anson and Harcourt got into the first coach. Anson locked
the door and closed the windows.

"Did you see her?" asked Anson.

"Of course I saw her. Do you think I'm blind?" answered the Harcourt.

"Not you–the royal painter, perhaps. That girl and the girl in his
painting are not the same person.”

"They never are,” said Harcourt. “Those damn royal painters—they don't
do likenesses; they do flattery art. You can't tell a thing about how
the subject actually looks from their silly portraits."

Anson looked his man in the face. It was an impossible situation, one
that could incite war between all Europe if not handled correctly.
Still, there were things that had to be said before the marriage
proceeded, things that if surfaced after the girl became queen might
warrant a charge of treason.

"Just to be clear, Harcourt. We're only discussing the difference in
appearance between the portrait and the girl, correct?"

"I beg your pardon?" said Harcourt immediately on guard.

Anson tried to bend the Harcourt to his iron gaze but could not.
Harcourt, although under his command today, was an accomplished military
man himself. "All I'm saying, Harcourt, is you don't see any other
reason for not proceeding, do you?"

 "Such as? ..."

"I'm not intimating there is a reason. I merely asked if you saw one, sir."

"But I already told you I do not, Admiral Anson."

"Of course you did, but–”  and here  Anson stopped because he suddenly
had a better idea: "Let me put it to your like this, Harcourt: what do
you understand your duties to be?"

Harcourt was waiting for this very question for it gave him the chance
to—for the record—extract himself from what was beginning to look like a
horrid mess.

"My duties, as you well know, Lord Anson, are to be the King's proxy in
marriage to the Princess Charlotte Sophia—per your directions."

Anson winced at the words per your directions. The Earl's position was
now crystal clear: he had no intention of discussing the girl's
extraordinary features, at least not without assurances such talk would
not come back to haunt him.

A tap came on the coach window. It was Baroness Hamilton. Anson opened
the door and let her in. "Sirs," said Lady Hamilton winded. "Where have
you been? I've been looking all over the castle for you."

"Have you been with the girl?" Anson asked.

"Yes, Lady Ancaster and I were in her bedchamber. She showed us
portraits of her parents and grandparents.

"Did she ...?" said Harcourt.

"They have a room where they keep them. The collection goes back 70
quarters, possibly longer."

Another tap came on the window. It was the Duke. He was not happy.

"Gentlemen, the sword is removed from around my leg. The Princess is
waiting. If you would follow me, please."

"One minute, sir," said Anson.

"But we are ready, sir!" said the Duke. “And the agreement says the
proxy marriage must take place as soon as you walk through the door …
which you've already done, sir!”

"I said one minute, sir!" said Anson slamming the window shut. He turned
to Harcourt and Lady Hamilton: "Bloody little Hun and his monkey-faced
sister!–" Anson didn't finish the sentence because the look of shock on
the Harcourt's and the Baroness's faces stopped him cold. Then the
tapping on the window came again, then the Duke's voice: "I have the
marriage contract in my hands, sir. It says the proxy marriage is to
take place immediately upon the arrival of the King's proxy–IMMEDIATELY!
..."
Amethyst Deceiver - 09 Jan 2009 16:29 GMT
> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> London for her formal marriage and coronation as Queen Consort to George
> III.

The second sentence makes no sense.

Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

Irwell - 09 Jan 2009 17:21 GMT
>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> The second sentence makes no sense.

But these are gems worthy of Monty Python.

"Are the guest rooms ready?" the Duke wanted to know.

"Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."

"The dining room, then?"

"Yes, my lord, refreshments on each table, sir."
elanders - 09 Jan 2009 18:05 GMT
>>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> "Yes, my lord, refreshments on each table, sir."

I confess, I don't see anything wrong with the above.

EG
Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2009 04:54 GMT
> >>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> I confess, I don't see anything wrong with the above.

That's Irwell's point.  You have a tin ear.

I read your original post on this thread in its entirety.  Your prose
style is -- how shall I put it? -- clunky.  It's not so much outright
wrong as it is simply off-key.

I recommend you stop all attempts at creative writing for at least six
months and spend your time reading the finest English prose you can
get your hands on.  If that doesn't do it, I recommend stopping again,
this time for good.

There's nothing wrong with a lack of talent.  I lack talent in so many
fields -- creative writing included -- that I doubt the remainder of
my life would suffice to enable me to list them all.  From what I've
read of your writing, you have no talent for it.  Consider trying
something else.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Starting the New Year off with a clang

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 05:57 GMT
>>>>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> read of your writing, you have no talent for it.  Consider trying
> something else.

You're confused, pal.

You've got some make-believe notion in your head about what good or
talented writing is. This explains why you deal in generalities --
"You're writing is 'clunky'" ... "find the finest English prose you can
get your hands on."

The finest English prose I can get my hands on ...?

Where do you think I'm at, on the Space Shuttle? There's no reason for
you to be vague on that point. In other words, you don't feel
comfortable naming some of the finest prose out there because, quite
frankly, you don't really understand why it's good, do you?

Likewise, "clunky" was a smokescreen. If you actually knew what you were
talking about you'd have taken a paragraph, stripped it, and told us why
it fails. But that was also too risky too, wasn't it?

Even your point about "talent" is out-of-kilter. And this is not to say
that I believe I don't have any, but to say the notion one must have a
inborn "talent" for writing is as wrong-headed as it gets.

And it's been going on for years: bright-eyed fellows like yourself who
for some reason would have us believe you know talent when you see it.
In fact, you're not a successful writer yourself no doubt because you've
convinced yourself you don't have "talent."

No matter, somehow you know talent when you see it and when you don't in
others. But, again, we shouldn't ask you get specific because ... well,
because it's not exactly something one can articulate, is it?

Too cosmic.

My novel does exactly what it intends to do. The story is rendered well.
  Everyone who's read the first three chapters wanted to know what
happened next. That was the goal; the goal was accomplished.

A plot, as you should know, is objective. It is not cosmic. It requires
no inborn ability to create. Even you can learn how to construct one.

Currently, there are many books on the market that explain how this is
done. The "Marshall Plan" is one that comes to mind. There's no magic in
this, no ingenious muse. You blueprint your novel the way you would
build a house, then you build the house.

In this respect, my first three chapters laid a solid foundation that
met every requirement a fictive piece asks ... except, perhaps, the
cosmic one you call talent.

In other words, had you discussed structure, characterization, dialogue,
 conflict, turning points, scenes, syntax, grammar, etc., we'd have an
objective way of evaluating your critique.

You didn't do this and I suspect the reason is, you can't do this ... well.

EG
elanders - 09 Jan 2009 18:16 GMT
>>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> "Yes, my lord, refreshments on each table, sir."

Unless you mean "Your Grace" instead of "my lord", I don't see a thing
wrong.

EG
Tasha Miller - 10 Jan 2009 10:55 GMT
> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."

Oh dear, how potentially splashy!

Elanders, have you read the Flashman books by George MacDonald Fraser? Or
any of  Eleanor Hibbert's books as Jean Plaidy, specifically her Georgian
Saga? I suspect I was in your target readership during my teens and I did
read a great deal of historical fiction at one time.  I am afraid the
chapters you have presented so far have been a struggle for me to read.
Some of that could probably be fixed by a good editor but I'd still be
distracted by the problems you are having with historical accuracy and the
story itself.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 12:04 GMT
>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I'd still be distracted by the problems you are having with historical
> accuracy and the story itself.

What problems of historical accuracy?

There are none.

I've explained the Queen Mother thing so there are none.

If you or anyone else disagree, please identify what you're talking about.

"Fresh chamber pots and water in each" doesn't mean water in the chamber
pots, it means water in the room. The fellow who pointed out his
misreading of it, set the entire NG on that ill-informed path.

It's dialogue. It's how the maid would respond to the question, "Are the
guestrooms ready?"

EG
LFS - 10 Jan 2009 12:49 GMT
>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> It's dialogue. It's how the maid would respond to the question, "Are the
> guestrooms ready?"

You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 14:41 GMT
>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?

Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you
think you're making.

Now either beat it or show us you're right.

EG
tony cooper - 10 Jan 2009 16:03 GMT
>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?
>Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you
>think you're making.
>
>Now either beat it or show us you're right.

She is a published author.  For US $175, you can purchase her book on
Amazon*.  Editors and a publishing house have accepted her writing.
That alone establishes that she's right, and that's as plain as the
nose on your face.

*I don't have a count of what journals or other publications she's
written for, but she does have at least one book on the market.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

LFS - 10 Jan 2009 16:53 GMT
>>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?
>> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> *I don't have a count of what journals or other publications she's
> written for, but she does have at least one book on the market.

I don't think that will cut any ice with this person, Tony. It clearly
takes an entirely different set of skills to write in this historical
farce genre, of which I confess to being hitherto completely unaware.

When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based on
my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world of
the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure that it
will be impeccably punctuated.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

the Omrud - 10 Jan 2009 18:23 GMT
> When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based on
> my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world of
> the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure that it
> will be impeccably punctuated.

That one's going straight on my Amazon list.

Signature

David

Amethyst Deceiver - 12 Jan 2009 15:48 GMT
> > When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based on
> > my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world of
> > the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure that it
> > will be impeccably punctuated.
>
> That one's going straight on my Amazon list.

I expect my copy to be signed.

Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

the Omrud - 12 Jan 2009 20:33 GMT
>>> When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based on
>>> my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I expect my copy to be signed.

You can sign it yourself - you'll be one of the characters.

Signature

David

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:46 GMT
>>>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?
>>> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure that it
> will be impeccably punctuated.

I'm not so sure.

I'd have placed a comma after "extracts"

Agreed...?

EG
LFS - 10 Jan 2009 19:10 GMT
>>>>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?
>>>> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Agreed...?

We have discussed this here before. Some think that there is no need for
a comma before "but". My personal usage varies. In this case, I don't
think that there is any doubt about the meaning of the sentence so no
clarifying comma is necessary.

Your "pretty little boys" needed one, though: have you worked out why yet?

I have no idea why an ellipsis would ever be needed before a question mark.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 19:25 GMT
>>>>>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?
>>>>> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> I have no idea why an ellipsis would ever be needed before a question mark.

No, and that's  because unlike me, you see a comma error as an
opportunity to play "let's drive the author crazy".

I told you the sentence didn't require one and if you thought it did,
tell me where.

Rather than tell me where, you've written at least 20 posts on the
question where you don't.

Is that the way you brits have fun?

EG
CDB - 11 Jan 2009 03:57 GMT
[comma comma too down down]

> I told you the sentence didn't require one and if you thought it
> did, tell me where.

> Rather than tell me where, you've written at least 20 posts on the
> question where you don't.

> Is that the way you brits have fun?

Of course it is.  Haven't you figured out yet that you're being toyed
with?  Plaything.  Disposable plaything.
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2009 11:39 GMT
>[comma comma too down down]
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Of course it is.  Haven't you figured out yet that you're being toyed
>with?  Plaything.  Disposable plaything.

That is a totally unacceptable way to refer to a fellow human being,
no matter how irritating he has been. After all, no one asked you to
read his or her posts. You should apologize, in my opinion.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

CDB - 11 Jan 2009 14:38 GMT
>> [comma comma too down down]

>>> I told you the sentence didn't require one and if you thought it
>>> did, tell me where.

>>> Rather than tell me where, you've written at least 20 posts on the
>>> question where you don't.

>>> Is that the way you brits have fun?

>> Of course it is.  Haven't you figured out yet that you're being
>> toyed with?  Plaything.  Disposable plaything.

> That is a totally unacceptable way to refer to a fellow human being,
> no matter how irritating he has been. After all, no one asked you to
> read his or her posts. You should apologize, in my opinion.

I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, and anyway I plead fair comment.  Even
though the truth is hard, it wasn't fair to let elanders keep coming
to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of.
I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:57 GMT
>>> [comma comma too down down]
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of.
> I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.

When you two fellows have something witty to say, let me know then I'll
jump in.

EG
Frank ess - 11 Jan 2009 23:57 GMT
>>> [comma comma too down down]
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of.
> I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.

I believe you have the shoe on the wrong foot. It is a demonstrable
fact that the posters here are kind, generous, and capable. They have
no need to toy with such as your "plaything"; if anything, they are
victims of their own kindness, allowing elanders the pleasure of their
attention, withdrawal of which will cause him to melt into a puddle of
brown-sugar water.

Signature

Frank "Better a Whooshee than a Sticky-foot Lizard" ess

CDB - 12 Jan 2009 00:12 GMT
>>>> [comma comma too down down]

>>>>> I told you the sentence didn't require one and if you thought it
>>>>> did, tell me where.

>>>>> Rather than tell me where, you've written at least 20 posts on
>>>>> the question where you don't Is that the way you brits have fun?

>>>> Of course it is.  Haven't you figured out yet that you're being
>>>> toyed with?  Plaything.  Disposable plaything.

>>> That is a totally unacceptable way to refer to a fellow human
>>> being,
>>> no matter how irritating he has been. After all, no one asked you
>>> to
>>> read his or her posts. You should apologize, in my opinion.

>> I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, and anyway I plead fair comment.  Even
>> though the truth is hard, it wasn't fair to let elanders keep
>> coming to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made
>> sport of. I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.

> I believe you have the shoe on the wrong foot. It is a demonstrable
> fact that the posters here are kind, generous, and capable. They
> have no need to toy with such as your "plaything"; if anything,
> they are victims of their own kindness, allowing elanders the
> pleasure of their attention, withdrawal of which will cause him to
> melt into a puddle of brown-sugar water.

Oh, sure, the Americans.  But the Brits are plaything him like a
catnip mouse.

I was watching an episode of _Animal Precinct_ last night, about the
activities of the NY ASPCA.  After looking into the treatment of a
small poodle by his indigent owner, and deciding that all the dog
needed was a haircut which they could provide, the agent walked off
with a deadpan line about their new friend; so I guess Americans do do
irony, just a different variety of it: a kind of comment on the irony
of fate, which is indeed what they use the word to mean.  And I love
that New York accent.
elanders - 12 Jan 2009 00:22 GMT
>>>> [comma comma too down down]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> withdrawal of which will cause him to melt into a puddle of brown-sugar
> water.

Get the f__k out of here.

Where do you people come from?

And what do you do for a living deliver newspapers?

Probably the closest you'll ever get to being published.

EG
Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:22 GMT
> I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, and anyway I plead fair comment.  Even
> though the truth is hard, it wasn't fair to let elanders keep coming
> to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of.
> I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.

It seems rather disingenuous to describe elanders as "innocent".

Signature

Lew

CDB - 12 Jan 2009 15:00 GMT
>> I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, and anyway I plead fair comment.  Even
>> though the truth is hard, it wasn't fair to let elanders keep
>> coming to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made
>> sport of. I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.

> It seems rather disingenuous to describe elanders as "innocent".

"Kind", was how I thought of it.  Kinder than "silly", anyway.  But
maybe I was wrong: it's an old word for "innocent", and "silly sheep"
brings our new friend back on topic.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IrcZEZ1bOJsC&pg=PA427&dq
=%22silly+sheep%22
http://tinyurl.com/9wy74j
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2009 10:02 GMT
>>> [comma comma too down down]
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of.
>I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.

Now I think I see where you're coming from. I misread you, thinking
you were launching a rather cruel attack when you wrote "Disposable
plaything". Let's forget about it, CDB, OK?
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

CDB - 12 Jan 2009 15:21 GMT
[elanders]

>>>> [...]  Disposable plaything.

>>> That is a totally unacceptable way to refer to a fellow human
>>> being, no matter how irritating he has been. [...]

>> I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, [...]

> Now I think I see where you're coming from. I misread you, thinking
> you were launching a rather cruel attack when you wrote "Disposable
> plaything". Let's forget about it, CDB, OK?

Done.
Lew - 11 Jan 2009 01:23 GMT
LFS wrote:
>> When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based
>> on my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world
>> of the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure
>> that it will be impeccably punctuated.

> I'm not so sure.
>
> I'd have placed a comma after "extracts"
>
> Agreed...?

No.  The comma there is not required, although it is common, at least in some
style guides.

<http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm>
> Use a comma + a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so)
> to connect two independent clauses ...
> Contending that the coordinating conjunction is adequate separation,
> some writers will leave out the comma in a sentence with short,
> balanced independent clauses

At worst you can say that there are two schools of thought here.

Signature

Lew

Skitt - 11 Jan 2009 01:49 GMT
> LFS wrote:

>>> When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based
>>> on my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> At worst you can say that there are two schools of thought here.

You left out the final sentence of advice in the reference paragraph:
    If there is ever any doubt, however, use the comma,
   as it is always correct in this situation.

I'd use a comma.  I have plenty of them.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:39 GMT
>>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?
>> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Amazon*.  Editors and a publishing house have accepted her writing.
> That alone establishes that she's right ...

It does not.

And why are you interrupting when grown folks are talking, Tony?

EG
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2009 11:31 GMT
<snip>

>> What problems of historical accuracy?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?

Are you referring to the unnecessary comma after "misreading of it"
and the missing one after "Queen Mother thing"?
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 16:03 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Are you referring to the unnecessary comma after "misreading of it"
> and the missing one after "Queen Mother thing"?

No, Chuck. We're talking about how commas are used outside of Dublin.

No comma is required after "Queen Mother thing", it's just your delirium
tremens kicking in again that makes you think so. And the comma after
"misreading" is required because it's where the introductory clause ends.

EG
Skitt - 11 Jan 2009 19:25 GMT
>>>> I've explained the Queen Mother thing so there are none.

<snip>

>>>> "Fresh chamber pots and water in each" doesn't mean water in the
>>>> chamber pots, it means water in the room. The fellow who pointed
>>>> out his misreading of it, set the entire NG on that ill-informed
>>>> path.

<snip>

> No comma is required after "Queen Mother thing", [...]

A comma there is optional but never wrong.

> And the comma after "misreading" is required because it's where the
> introductory clause ends.

Say what?  Grammar English's Famous Rule of Punctuation: Never use only one
comma between a subject and its verb. "Believing completely and positively
in oneself is essential for success." [Although readers might pause after
the word "oneself," there is no reason to put a comma there.]

Ref.: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
Signature

Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Don Phillipson - 10 Jan 2009 17:00 GMT
> What problems of historical accuracy?
> There are none. . . .
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It's dialogue. It's how the maid would respond to the question, "Are the
> guestrooms ready?"

The main complaint is anachronism, which can be either
material (e.g. a foyer in a castle or palace) or social as in
this case.   Dukes did not ask their household staff
whether guests' rooms are ready.   This was the task of
the duke's butler or steward: and the duke asks no such
questions because he is confident in his steward (and the
steward knows he would be dismissed immediately if
anything was unready.)

Maidservants in 1760 appeared only when summoned (i.e. did
not stand in the hall awaiting orders:  that was what footmen did).
Maids were spoken to only by senior staff (butler and housekeeper)
(except only for maids or valets assigned personally to individual
family members or guests.)

Making a duke behave in 1760 like the manager of a Holiday
Inn in 1960 is a double anachronism, one of speech, the
other of social (household) organization.  One of the most
enjoyable aspects of being a duke 250 years ago was the
expectation that everything you wanted would be ready instantly
without your even having to give an order.

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 12:12 GMT
>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I'd still be distracted by the problems you are having with historical
> accuracy and the story itself.

Oh, and please, no bleeding heart stepping in to scold me about how I
asked for criticism and now I'm rejecting it. Asking for criticism
doesn't mean I can't comment on the criticism.

And by the way, there's an art to critique.

For example, Tasha, when you say you have a problem with the story
itself--what is the author supposed to get from that? Is he supposed to
look at the tea leaves in his cup for a clue to what you mean?

Or maybe ask his astrologer?

EG
Tasha Miller - 11 Jan 2009 00:44 GMT
>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> And by the way, there's an art to critique.

Well, I'm quite sure I don't possess it so we can probably agree on that, at
least. I am commenting as a reader and not as a writer.

> For example, Tasha, when you say you have a problem with the story
> itself--what is the author supposed to get from that? Is he supposed
> to look at the tea leaves in his cup for a clue to what you mean?

Other posters have covered your style and historical problems so there's no
need for me to comment on those unless it is something that does stand out.
As well as the more obvious ambiguous ordering in your sentence I thought
you might have used the term chamber pot when you meant ewer or water jug.
I thought that was possible because your other errors in word usage have
made that a reasonable explanation.  (No, I'm not going to list them, that's
been done already by others.)

The most engaging aspect to your writing for me has been how unintentionally
funny it is. You spend far too much time on often incorrect and trivial
details and very little on the actual story line. In my opinion your story
is simply turgid.

I recently read a collection of short stories by Ian Rankin (a successful
genre writer) and in his introduction he mentioned paring down one of his
stories from its original novella length. It is my experience as a reader
than good writers write tightly. I certainly don't write tightly but neither
do you and you're the one writing a book.

> Or maybe ask his astrologer?

As I keep suggesting, if you are going to write within a genre, read widely
within it first and learn the rules.
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 01:31 GMT
>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> As I keep suggesting, if you are going to write within a genre, read
> widely within it first and learn the rules.

Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.

I you deal in cliches. Your entire non-critique, critique is derivative,
the sort of thing I'm sure you've rolled out here time and time again
tweaking it a little each time for each newby.

It's weak-minded and derivative, as I say, and has absolutely nothing to
do with the excepts I've presented here -- nothing.

Now try and wrap your little head around this: the people in this news
group are not writers. At best, they're fact checkers, anonymous clerks,
the kind of people who work in publishing houses as readers for a little
over minimum wage.

And I really hate to bust your bubble, but if you're going to make a
career of kissing a.s, at least have some idea of whose a.s you're kissing.

EG
Sara Lorimer - 11 Jan 2009 04:27 GMT
> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.

I don't know why you care so much about who's been professionally
published and who hasn't, but since it's important to you: I've seen
several published writers here say that your work needs help.

Signature

SML

tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 05:05 GMT
>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.
>
>I don't know why you care so much about who's been professionally
>published and who hasn't, but since it's important to you: I've seen
>several published writers here say that your work needs help.

And, of course, although you are to modest to proclaim yourself one,
you are a published author.  Different genres, but the point is that
you have written books that have been accepted by publishers and
purchased by readers.  A goal that I doubt will be reached by
elanders.

I own books written by two other aue people.  I have one of Truly's
books and one of Rey's books.  I've never found one of James's books,
but he is probably the most prolific and successful writer in the
group. ("In" including those who are, or have been, aue regulars)
Still writing for British television, I think.  Brian has a book out,
or will soon have a book out.  Laura has at least one book on the
shelves.

elander has the same chance of getting published as Sis does of
marrying.  

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 08:40 GMT
>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> elander has the same chance of getting published as Sis does of
> marrying.  

Odd.

You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.

Is there not enough room here to list them all?

EG
tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 13:19 GMT
>You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.
>
>Is there not enough room here to list them all?

I worked for the _Indianapolis Times_, a Scripps-Howard newspaper,for
a little over a year as an assistant to the writer of a restaurant
reviewer.  I believe this tops your experience as a reporter for a
Virgin Islands free shopper.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:48 GMT
>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> reviewer.  I believe this tops your experience as a reporter for a
> Virgin Islands free shopper.

No, I was a full-fledge news reporter.

Assistant to the restaurant reviewer...?

What did you do -- carry his doggy bags for him?

EG
tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 16:01 GMT
>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>What did you do

Nothing important.  You asked, I told.

> -- carry his doggy bags for him?

What does a full-flege do?  Groom his plumage?

Do I sense a "whoosh" flying in for a landing?
 

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

LFS - 11 Jan 2009 16:10 GMT
>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Do I sense a "whoosh" flying in for a landing?
>  

"The whooshing round here has been so intense that I'm wearing hat, coat
and gloves to type this", she observed, coldly.

Obaue: I *like* that final comma but it may not be strictly necessary.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

HVS - 11 Jan 2009 16:21 GMT
On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote

>>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your
>>>>> own, Tony.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Obaue: I *like* that final comma but it may not be strictly
> necessary.

"It changes the nuance", he suggested subtly.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Robin Bignall - 11 Jan 2009 22:00 GMT
>>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>"The whooshing round here has been so intense that I'm wearing hat, coat
>and gloves to type this", she observed, coldly.

"Are you wearing a bodice under that lot?" I ask, lasciviously.

>Obaue: I *like* that final comma but it may not be strictly necessary.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

HVS - 11 Jan 2009 22:09 GMT
On 11 Jan 2009, Robin Bignall wrote

>>>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your
>>>>>> own, Tony.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>>
> "Are you wearing a bodice under that lot?" I ask, lasciviously.

"No," he replied, theatrically.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:12 GMT
>>>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>>
> "Are you wearing a bodice under that lot?" I ask, lasciviously.

<Dick Emery> Oh, you are awful... but I like you!

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 16:42 GMT
>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Do I sense a "whoosh" flying in for a landing?
>  

Ok, full-fledged.

First writing error I've made.

Keep in mind, I responding to 20 people at once.

EG
Amethyst Deceiver - 12 Jan 2009 16:00 GMT
> > What does a full-flege do?  Groom his plumage?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> First writing error I've made.

Well, the first that you've noticed.
Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

Arcadian Rises - 11 Jan 2009 10:40 GMT
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:27:57 -0800, SL...@DELETEcolumbia.edu (Sara
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> And, of course, although you are to modest to proclaim yourself one,
> you are a published author.

What's so modest about it?

And what's the big deal about being a published author, nowadays, when
everybody &his brother can become a published author? It's easier than
going through medical school and a lot less glorious than saving
lives.

When every year brings at least 30,000 of new published authors, the
decent thing to do is not to clutter the overcrowded market. Better go
blogging than asking your friends for meaningful Amazon reviews.

�>
> I own books written by two other aue people. �I have one of Truly's
> books and one of Rey's books. �I've never found one of James's books,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> or will soon have a book out. �Laura has at least one book on the
> shelves.

Never read any of the above, but I read on this forum several aue
contributors  with a real gift for words. None of them brags about
being a published author, although some might have done the obligatory
academic publishing.

> elander has the same chance of getting published as Sis does of
> marrying. �

Perhaps both are better off maintaining their status quo.
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2009 12:07 GMT
<snip>

>I've never found one of James's books,
>but he is probably the most prolific and successful writer in the
>group. ("In" including those who are, or have been, aue regulars)
>Still writing for British television, I think.

You must not have looked very hard. Here's a list of 166 of his books,
any one of which you can buy:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywor
ds=James+Follett


Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 13:20 GMT
><snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>any one of which you can buy:
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywor
ds=James+Follett

My book shopping is done in the Orlando used-book stores.    
Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2009 10:07 GMT
>><snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>My book shopping is done in the Orlando used-book stores.    

Oh my. I'll say no more.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 08:36 GMT
>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.
>
> I don't know why you care so much about who's been professionally
> published and who hasn't, but since it's important to you: I've seen
> several published writers here say that your work needs help.

Name one.

EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 10:31 GMT
>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Name one.

Two: Sara. Me.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Mike Page - 11 Jan 2009 11:57 GMT
>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Two: Sara. Me.

And this one concurs.

Signature

Mike Page
Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.

Athel Cornish-Bowden - 11 Jan 2009 18:42 GMT
>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>
> And this one concurs.

as does this one.

Signature

athel

Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:31 GMT
>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
> And this one concurs.

So do I, except I think it is beyond it.

Signature

Lew

HVS - 11 Jan 2009 12:01 GMT
On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote

>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>>> You're just joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Two: Sara. Me.

And if written-to-order books and articles count -- as they seem to
as far as our ex-hack's "bibliography" is concerned -- I'd guess that
a lot of the AUE regulars have been published numerous times.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 13:22 GMT
>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Two: Sara. Me.

Not counting Rey?  

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

LFS - 11 Jan 2009 13:29 GMT
>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Not counting Rey?  

Since Sara and I had already been outed, this seemed a more than
adequate response in numerical terms. But, as Harvey as pointed out,
many posters here have seen their work published in a variety of
different forms. elanders [1] has yet to specify further criteria
relating to publication eg Amazon ranking, book reviews, journal
ranking, font size, type of paper.

[1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

HVS - 11 Jan 2009 13:58 GMT
On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote

> But, as Harvey as pointed
> out, many posters here have seen their work published in a
> variety of different forms. elanders [1] has yet to specify
> further criteria relating to publication eg Amazon ranking,

My (commissioned) book from 1991 on Romney Marsh churches apparently
stands proudly today at rank number 1,643,034 on amazon.co.uk.

When I meet the guy at 1,643,035, he's gonna feel the lash of my
triumphalism, I tell ya'.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

LFS - 11 Jan 2009 14:37 GMT
> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> When I meet the guy at 1,643,035, he's gonna feel the lash of my
> triumphalism, I tell ya'.

My sole authored effort is at 1,955,621. But Prof Page and I hit the
heights above you at 1,556,155.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Athel Cornish-Bowden - 11 Jan 2009 18:52 GMT
>> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> My sole authored effort is at 1,955,621. But Prof Page and I hit the
> heights above you at 1,556,155.

Ha. If we're being triumphalist, then my best effort is at 100,264 (it
would be nice to be in five figures, but honesty compels...). However,
that's not a book likely to interest anyone here. The only one that
conceivably might is languishing at 981,753. The first time I could
afford to buy a (used) car (other than a cast-off bought cheaply from
my parents) it was on the one-year proceeds from a book.

Signature

athel

Frank ess - 11 Jan 2009 23:44 GMT
>>> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> cheaply from my parents) it was on the one-year proceeds from a
> book.

Naturally my twenty-four years'-worth of works-for-hire aren't
eligible, nor is my 400+-page Web "presence", but there is a photo of
me in action in Amazon USA #27,611.

Signature

Frank "Grasping at Straws" ess

Nick - 11 Jan 2009 14:54 GMT
> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> When I meet the guy at 1,643,035, he's gonna feel the lash of my
> triumphalism, I tell ya'.

I'm a co-author of "Exploring Gloucestershire's Industrial Heritage",
which doesn't even appear on Amazon.   Then there's my thesis, of
course (if 4 copies counts as "published", and a lot of internal
writing for work.

I suspect a lot of people write things - instruction manuals, proposals,
minutes, whatever - for their employers that get read by at least as
many people than many filler articles in small newspapers.  I'm also
pretty sure that it's more important that they are readable and clear as
well.
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:55 GMT
>> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> pretty sure that it's more important that they are readable and clear as
> well.

What I'm getting here, Nick, is that like you and Laura, this group is
made up of benchwarmers.

EG
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 16:02 GMT
On 11 Jan 2009, elanders wrote

>>> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> What I'm getting here, Nick, is that like you and Laura, this
> group is made up of benchwarmers.

Unlike them, you've refused to cite anything specific you've had
published, and the only possible conclusion is that you haven't
even made it to the bench yet.

Come back and let us know when you've actually managed to get
something traceable in print;  who knows -- we might even let you
warm the bench for a little while.
Sara Lorimer - 12 Jan 2009 15:23 GMT

> My (commissioned) book from 1991 on Romney Marsh churches apparently
> stands proudly today at rank number 1,643,034 on amazon.co.uk.
>
> When I meet the guy at 1,643,035, he's gonna feel the lash of my
> triumphalism, I tell ya'.

*Looks down at Harvey from the windy heights of spot 1,065,162*

Signature

SML

HVS - 12 Jan 2009 15:37 GMT
On 12 Jan 2009, Sara Lorimer wrote

>  
>> My (commissioned) book from 1991 on Romney Marsh churches
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> *Looks down at Harvey from the windy heights of spot 1,065,162*

I yam suitably 'umbled, I yam.  

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:52 GMT
>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> [1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd.

Imagine you book has a title?

Do you plan to name that title?

EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 16:05 GMT
>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're
>>>>>>> just
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Imagine you book has a title?

It certainly does.

> Do you plan to name that title?

No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 16:40 GMT
>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're
>>>>>>>> just
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills.

You're 15 minutes are over, Laura.

Beat it.

EG
billrigby@hotmail.com - 13 Jan 2009 18:43 GMT
[...]
> > No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills.
>
> You're 15 minutes are over, Laura.

I'm surprised no-one has yet commented on elanders' second actual
writing mistake.

Will.
tony cooper - 13 Jan 2009 19:16 GMT
>[...]
>> > No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>I'm surprised no-one has yet commented on elanders' second actual
>writing mistake.

I think that the interest has waned.  He has become too boring to
bother about.  

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 11 Jan 2009 17:08 GMT
>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're
>>>>>>>> just
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills.

According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an author
includes one in German about radiology.
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiral-CT-Laura-F-Spira/dp/3131357428/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8
&s=books&qid=1231693585&sr=1-3
>
or http://tinyurl.com/9z2hh9

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robin Bignall - 11 Jan 2009 22:11 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're
>>>>>>>>> just
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
><http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiral-CT-Laura-F-Spira/dp/3131357428/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8
&s=books&qid=1231693585&sr=1-3
>
>or http://tinyurl.com/9z2hh9

Laura's "The Secret Life of Elizabeth the First's Chartered
Accountant" has it all: history, romance, bodice-ripping, mystery,
financial skullduggery, galleons, treasure and balling with Sir
Walter.  Can't wait to see it in print.
[I think he means "bowling". Ed.]
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Mike Lyle - 11 Jan 2009 22:49 GMT
[...]

> Laura's "The Secret Life of Elizabeth the First's Chartered
> Accountant" has it all: history, romance, bodice-ripping, mystery,
> financial skullduggery, galleons, treasure and balling with Sir
> Walter.  Can't wait to see it in print.
> [I think he means "bowling". Ed.]

"No, that was Drake," he said, ducking.

Signature

Mike.

Leslie Danks - 11 Jan 2009 22:55 GMT
> [...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> "No, that was Drake," he said, ducking.

Huh? Ducking with Sir Walter? Who was shooting at them?

Signature

Les (BrE)

Robert Lieblich - 12 Jan 2009 04:33 GMT
> > [...]
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Huh? Ducking with Sir Walter? Who was shooting at them?

Dich Cheney.

He gets around.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
But there's no truth to the rumor that Cheney played Darth Vader in
Star Wars

Athel Cornish-Bowden - 12 Jan 2009 06:36 GMT
>> [...]
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> "Huh? Ducking with Sir Walter? Who was shooting at them? "

Fired off Les
Signature

athel

LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:56 GMT
> [...]
>> Laura's "The Secret Life of Elizabeth the First's Chartered
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> "No, that was Drake," he said, ducking.

<applause>

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Mike Lyle - 11 Jan 2009 23:03 GMT
>> [...]
>>> Laura's "The Secret Life of Elizabeth the First's Chartered
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> <applause>

"We thank you. You have been a great audience," he boomed majestically.

Signature

Mike.

Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:37 GMT
>>> "No, that was Drake," he said, ducking.

"I wish I were that quick," he said swiftly.

Signature

Lew

Robin Bignall - 12 Jan 2009 21:39 GMT
>[...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>"No, that was Drake," he said, ducking.

There was me, trying to contrast the one watching galleons float on
the sea with the other watching his cloak float on a puddle.  In the
first case it led to the destruction of the Armada, while in the
second it led to, er, what, if she really was the Virgin Queen?
Possibly, in frustration during his time in the Tower, he invented the
bicycle.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:52 GMT
>>>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're
>>>>>>>>>> just
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Walter.  Can't wait to see it in print.
> [I think he means "bowling". Ed.]

<makes note> I have yet to finish "All Human Life is There: the secrets
of a Usenet newsgroup". I'm halfway through the seventy-third appendix,
provisionally entitled "The Half Life of a Troll", which contains some
complex statistical analysis investigating the correlation between a
range of variables, including the guise in which the troll appears, the
number of whooshes the troll elicits, the steepness of the descent into
invective and the creativity of the invective, as measured on the
Maledicta scale. This will enable the computation of the average length
of time taken for RRs to lose patience and the construction of a finely
calibrated automatic posting device which will insert, in any thread
initiated by a troll, a Godwin-type post to end the thread.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Robert Lieblich - 12 Jan 2009 04:34 GMT
[ ... ]

> <makes note> I have yet to finish "All Human Life is There: the secrets
> of a Usenet newsgroup". I'm halfway through the seventy-third appendix,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> calibrated automatic posting device which will insert, in any thread
> initiated by a troll, a Godwin-type post to end the thread.

Adolf Hitler.

Next!
Roland Hutchinson - 12 Jan 2009 05:06 GMT
> [ ... ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Next!

It doesn't work that way.  You have to say that a troll is _like_ Adolf
Hitler.

Oops!  That's gone and done it.

Sorry, Squire.

Signature

Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 22:22 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're
>>>>>>>>> just
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiral-CT-Laura-F-Spira/dp/3131357428/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8
&s=books&qid=1231693585&sr=1-3
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/9z2hh9

Radiology ...!

That's actually worse than a cook book.

Hahahahaha......

A regular Gertrude Stein in scrubs.

Say, Laura, if I buy a copy for my coffee table, will you xray it for me
and sign it?

the xray, I mean.

Bahahahaha....

EG
R H Draney - 12 Jan 2009 06:42 GMT
elanders filted:

>Radiology ...!
>
>That's actually worse than a cook book.

Make up your mind; I have to know how to adjust the chair....r

Signature

"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"

LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:29 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're
>>>>>>>>> just
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiral-CT-Laura-F-Spira/dp/3131357428/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8
&s=books&qid=1231693585&sr=1-3
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/9z2hh9

Odd, that. I see that another of my (genuine) jointly authored
publications is apparently unavailable, which is odd as it was only
published a couple of months ago.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

the Omrud - 11 Jan 2009 22:38 GMT
>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an author
>> includes one in German about radiology.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> publications is apparently unavailable, which is odd as it was only
> published a couple of months ago.

I think it sold out following its selection as Richard and Judy's "Book
of the Week".

Signature

David

LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:56 GMT
>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an
>>> author
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I think it sold out following its selection as Richard and Judy's "Book
> of the Week".

News just in: an updated edition is being rushed out to coincide with
the release of the film version. Appearing at your local Odeon very
soon:  "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and the US: Insights
from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Consultations".

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

the Omrud - 11 Jan 2009 23:14 GMT
>>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an
>>>> author
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> soon:  "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and the US: Insights
> from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Consultations".

Damn.  I had forgotten, until that paragraph, that I know a little of
the details of your area of expertise, insofar as it relates to my own work.

Signature

David

LFS - 12 Jan 2009 06:21 GMT
>>>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an
>>>>> author
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> the details of your area of expertise, insofar as it relates to my own
> work.

Yes, I'd probably find a chat with you about internal control issues
quite useful at some point.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

the Omrud - 12 Jan 2009 09:00 GMT
>>>>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an
>>>>>> author
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Yes, I'd probably find a chat with you about internal control issues
> quite useful at some point.

So now you're a gastroenterologist?

I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford.
Signature

David

LFS - 12 Jan 2009 09:10 GMT
> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford.

Oh, do, we could organise a boink. Don't suppose you'll be anywhere near
here this coming Friday? Katy J and I have plans to meet up. Will anyone
else be about?

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

the Omrud - 12 Jan 2009 09:36 GMT
>> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford.
>
> Oh, do, we could organise a boink. Don't suppose you'll be anywhere near
> here this coming Friday? Katy J and I have plans to meet up. Will anyone
> else be about?

This Friday?  No, sorry, theatre booked in Manchester so I'm staying in
the North West.  Have fun.

Signature

David

Mike Lyle - 12 Jan 2009 17:29 GMT
>>> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> This Friday?  No, sorry, theatre booked in Manchester so I'm staying
> in the North West.  Have fun.

Are you planning lunch or evening?

Signature

Mike.

Wood Avens - 12 Jan 2009 18:35 GMT
>>>> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Are you planning lunch or evening?

In Oxford, on Friday?  Lunch.  We'd love you to join us.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Mike Lyle - 12 Jan 2009 23:04 GMT
>>>>> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> In Oxford, on Friday?  Lunch.  We'd love you to join us.

I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break somewhere
reliably parkable would be juste le billet. Have you anywhere in mind?

Signature

Mike.

LFS - 12 Jan 2009 23:20 GMT
> I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break somewhere
> reliably parkable would be juste le billet. Have you anywhere in mind?

Yes, indeedy - Quod in the High, 12 noon. Set lunch, 2 courses for a tenner.
http://www.quod.co.uk/main/food/set-lunch/

There's parking for hotel guests, you might like to give them a call and
see if it extends to the restaurant - otherwise the Park and Ride is best.

Great! Anyone else up for it? The shy and reclusive Mr D? Wolffs?

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Wood Avens - 13 Jan 2009 09:10 GMT
>> I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break somewhere
>> reliably parkable would be juste le billet. Have you anywhere in mind?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Great! Anyone else up for it? The shy and reclusive Mr D? Wolffs?

Another parking option is the St Clements car park, behind the Angel &
Greyhound pub where we've had boinks in the past.  The Quod is five
minutes walk or so from there, across Magdalen Bridge and along the
High on the south side.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Paul Wolff - 13 Jan 2009 10:07 GMT
>Mike Lyle wrote:
>>  I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Great! Anyone else up for it? The shy and reclusive Mr D? Wolffs?

Hmm.  Hang on six hours more for a really, really late lunch, and a free
glass of wine may be ours:

       Join us for the set lunch menu between 6 - 7pm and enjoy a glass
       of house white or red on us.

I asked at a pub the other day if they served their "Sunday Lunch" on
any other day of the week, and the proprietor seemed to think it a silly
question.  But it wasn't half as silly as their not lighting the bar
fire until 2pm on a frosty New Year's Eve.

Still thinking.  Is booking needed?
Signature

Paul

LFS - 14 Jan 2009 09:32 GMT
>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>  I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Still thinking.  Is booking needed?

If there are more than three of us, it may be advisable.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Paul Wolff - 14 Jan 2009 10:46 GMT
>Paul Wolff wrote:
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>If there are more than three of us, it may be advisable.

Then count me in, please.  I shall number one.
Signature

Paul

LFS - 14 Jan 2009 11:04 GMT
>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>>
> Then count me in, please.  I shall number one.

OK, we're up to four, I think. Unless I am informed of additions to, or
subtractions from, that number by 9 am GMT tomorrow, I'll book
accordingly for 12 noon on Friday.

Please don't bring chocolate.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Mike Lyle - 14 Jan 2009 12:34 GMT
>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Please don't bring chocolate.

OK, no chocolate: I've eaten most of the Christmas whack, anyhow. I'll
number /three/, having invited a couple of congenial friends: the cliché
expert and her husband.

Signature

Mike.

LFS - 14 Jan 2009 15:15 GMT
I'll
> number /three/, having invited a couple of congenial friends: the cliché
> expert and her husband.

Cliché expert? An expert in devising them or spotting them? Dear me, I
shall have to be careful...
Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

tony cooper - 14 Jan 2009 15:40 GMT
>I'll
>> number /three/, having invited a couple of congenial friends: the cliché
>> expert and her husband.
>
>Cliché expert? An expert in devising them or spotting them? Dear me, I
>shall have to be careful...

You'll have to watch your p's and q's.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

HVS - 14 Jan 2009 16:01 GMT
On 14 Jan 2009, tony cooper wrote

>> I'll
>>> number /three/, having invited a couple of congenial friends:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> You'll have to watch your p's and q's.

It'll be like walking on egg-shells; everyone will be as nervous as a
cat on a hot tin roof.

Anything could happen -- and probably will!

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Mike Lyle - 14 Jan 2009 19:56 GMT
> On 14 Jan 2009, tony cooper wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Anything could happen -- and probably will!

As long as nobody says they avoid clichés like the plague: I think
she'd lost count of people telling her that before even the first
edition was ready for press. I wonder if "Don't mention the war!" is a
cliché...

Signature

Mike.

HVS - 11 Jan 2009 23:18 GMT
On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote

>>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are
>>>> the/an author
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> the US: Insights from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley
> Consultations".

I read that as the "Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Constellations".

[Memo to self: clean glasses in morning.]

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

LFS - 12 Jan 2009 06:24 GMT
> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> [Memo to self: clean glasses in morning.]

I have no doubt that, to some people, Nigel Turnbull, John Sarbanes and
Michael Oxley are all stars.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Mike Lyle - 12 Jan 2009 17:01 GMT
> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote

[...]>>
>> News just in: an updated edition is being rushed out to coincide
>> with the release of the film version.

I liked the cartoon version best. The musical was crap, though: they
should have let you do the lyrics. Mike Page's daughter Elaine was
pretty good, mind you.

>> Appearing at your local
>> Odeon very soon:  "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> [Memo to self: clean glasses in morning.]

X-thread note. Wear glasses into the shower. Plus point: you can't
really help cleaning them. Minus point: you can now see that the
bathroom wants cleaning too.

Signature

Mike.

LFS - 12 Jan 2009 17:29 GMT
>> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> should have let you do the lyrics. Mike Page's daughter Elaine was
> pretty good, mind you.

<giggle>

>>> Appearing at your local
>>> Odeon very soon:  "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> really help cleaning them. Minus point: you can now see that the
> bathroom wants cleaning too.

Do be careful. I had a terrifying moment recently when I stepped into
the shower and found myself blinded as a white mist covered my eyes:
after several seconds of panic, which felt like hours, I realised that I
was still wearing my glasses.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 11 Jan 2009 23:21 GMT
>>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an
>>>> author
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>soon:  "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and the US: Insights
>from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Consultations".

I wonder how that will fare against the competition from:

   _I Did You My Way_, by Bernard Madoff.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Lieblich - 12 Jan 2009 04:36 GMT
[ ... ]

> News just in: an updated edition is being rushed out to coincide with
> the release of the film version. Appearing at your local Odeon very
> soon:  "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and the US: Insights
> from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Consultations".

Dammit, Laura, the very title is a spoiler.

Do you do autographs with dedications?

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Your ardent disciple

LFS - 12 Jan 2009 06:40 GMT
> [ ... ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Do you do autographs with dedications?

Anything for you, Bob.

If you're at all interested, you can read it here:
http://www.icas.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=5775

The help of aue posters is formally acknowledged in
Page, M and Spira, L.F (2009)  ‘Economia, or a Woman in a Man’s World’
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(1) 146-160

This one has pictures, too. Unfortunately I can't provide a web link but
I'm happy to send a copy to  interested parties.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Amethyst Deceiver - 12 Jan 2009 16:08 GMT
> > [ ... ]
> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> This one has pictures, too. Unfortunately I can't provide a web link but
> I'm happy to send a copy to  interested parties.

I've got a link, but I'm not sure if it's Manchester only.

Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 22:47 GMT
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:05:52 +0000, LFS
>> <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> publications is apparently unavailable, which is odd as it was only
> published a couple of months ago.

Don't give up quite yet, Laura.

Oprah might call.

EG
Frank ess - 11 Jan 2009 23:28 GMT
[ ... ]

> [1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd.

I'm getting some kind of sticky-toed lizard image.

Signature

Frank ess

Skitt - 11 Jan 2009 23:50 GMT

>> [1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd.
>
> I'm getting some kind of sticky-toed lizard image.

I'm thinking of antelope hunters.

Signature

Skitt, drawing from experiences in these places:
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/places.html

Irwell - 12 Jan 2009 03:31 GMT
>  
>>> [1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd.
>>
>> I'm getting some kind of sticky-toed lizard image.
>
> I'm thinking of antelope hunters.

Eland is often used in crosswords, maybe that is why elanders
has a hard on for Bob.
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:50 GMT
>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Two: Sara. Me.

Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura.

EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 15:58 GMT
>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
>>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura.

I see you are refining your criteria as I predicted but our published
works do not fall into that genre - a pity, as it can be lucrative.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:47 GMT
elanders wrote:
>> Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura.

> I see you are refining your criteria as I predicted but our published
> works do not fall into that genre - a pity, as it can be lucrative.

Why don't cookbooks count?  Do they not need to be grammatically correct?
Clearly written?  Engaging?

Consider the classic /Joy of Cooking/ [1], or the /James Beard Cookbook/,
which are extremely well written.  And there are any number of thematic
cookbooks, such as /Dishing Up Vermont/,
<http://www.northshire.com/siteinfo/bookinfo/9781603420259/0/>,
which deliver entertaining biographies or regional anecdotes in addition to
the recipes.  It takes a good writer to make a good cookbook.

[1] described by Craig Claiborne of the NY Times as "a masterpiece of clarity".

Signature

Lew

Athel Cornish-Bowden - 12 Jan 2009 06:43 GMT
> elanders wrote:
>>> Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Consider the classic /Joy of Cooking/ [1], or the /James Beard Cookbook/,

Nice to know that James Beard is still appreciated. Such cooking as I
ever learned came from his book, way back in 1968.

Signature

athel

Irwell - 12 Jan 2009 16:21 GMT
>> elanders wrote:
>>>> Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Nice to know that James Beard is still appreciated. Such cooking as I
> ever learned came from his book, way back in 1968.

We worked our way through 'Beard on Bread' but have found the bread machine
a lot easier.
Arcadian Rises - 11 Jan 2009 16:00 GMT
> >>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
> >>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not even Alexandre Dumas' cookbook and culinary encyclopedia?
Tasha Miller - 11 Jan 2009 06:05 GMT
>>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> career of kissing a.s, at least have some idea of whose a.s you're
> kissing.

Well, you certainly know how to construct a non sequitur. Well done!
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 08:42 GMT
>>>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
>
> Well, you certainly know how to construct a non sequitur. Well done!

Better quit while you're ahead, Tasha.

Your nose is beginning to turn brown.

EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 09:50 GMT
[in response to some very sensible comments from Tasha]

> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just
> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.

Wrong.

> I you deal in cliches. Your entire non-critique, critique is derivative,
> the sort of thing I'm sure you've rolled out here time and time again
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Now try and wrap your little head around this: the people in this news
> group are not writers.

Wrong.

At best, they're fact checkers, anonymous clerks,
> the kind of people who work in publishing houses as readers for a little
> over minimum wage.
>
> And I really hate to bust your bubble, but if you're going to make a
> career of kissing a.s, at least have some idea of whose a.s you're kissing.

As far as I can tell, from dipping in and out of the various threads you
have launched, there is little evidence available about the "published
writer" status of any of the posters. You now seem to be arguing that
any critical comment is only of value if the commentator has this
status. As you have been made aware, I am a published writer, yet you
choose to dismiss my views. There are others here, who have taken the
time and trouble to respond to you, who are also published writers but
see no need to offer credentials because this is an unmoderated
newsgroup and anyone can post, read, respond or ignore according to
their whim.

You have chosen to expose your work here. Those responding to your posts
have done so for all sorts of reasons. Some have offered thoughtful and
serious responses but you have not seen fit to thank them. Some have
responded less seriously, offering a less tolerant critique of your
work. And many regular posters have ignored you completely. If you were
serious about seeking helpful feedback, you would have thanked those who
have provided you with material to improve your work and taken the
opportunity to engage with those posters rather more positively. There
are newsgroups and web communities specifically devoted to writing:
these would be more appropriate arenas for the type of critique that you
may be seeking. However, your behaviour here suggests that you are not
at all serious about this.

If you aspire to be a published writer, you will certainly find that
editors and publishers will not be prepared to engage with you unless
you play the game according to their rules. Your behaviour here may
reflect the deliberate adoption of a newsgroup persona: if not, I would
suggest that, in addition to improving your writing, you will need to
modify your behaviour.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 10:15 GMT
> [in response to some very sensible comments from Tasha]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> suggest that, in addition to improving your writing, you will need to
> modify your behaviour.

What have you published, madam?

And spare me your wailing and gnashing of teeth.

A simple title will do.

EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 10:36 GMT
> What have you published, madam?
>
> And spare me your wailing and gnashing of teeth.
>
> A simple title will do.

Do your own research, it'll be good practice for your future writing
career.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 16:38 GMT
>> What have you published, madam?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Do your own research, it'll be good practice for your future writing
> career.

Hahahaha...

You're a joke.

EG
Arcadian Rises - 11 Jan 2009 10:50 GMT
[...]

> If you aspire to be a published writer, you will certainly find that
> editors and publishers will not be prepared to engage with you unless
> you play the game according to their rules. Your behaviour here may
> reflect the deliberate adoption of a newsgroup persona: if not, I would
> suggest that, in addition to improving your writing, you will need to
> modify your behaviour.

In other words, don't try to emulate Mark Twain or Henry Miller, but
the huge army of brown nosers who know how to play politics in order
to see their prose printed.

> --
> Laura
> (emulate St. George for email)
Robert Lieblich - 11 Jan 2009 16:16 GMT
> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> the huge army of brown nosers who know how to play politics in order
> to see their prose printed.

This is grossly unfair, AR, and you should know that.  Civility is not
brown-nosing, and "f.ck you" (to quote one of elanders's pithier
retorts) is not civility.

Geniuses get to make their own rules, as the likes of Einstein,
Wagner, and Pollock demonstrate.  The rest of us can try to emulate
them, but it won't get us anywhere.

I have been uncivil to elanders, as he has to me, but neither of us
expects anything from the other -- aside from incivility -- and
neither will get anything.  Including satisfaction.

And both you and I have better things to do than this.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Furrfui

Roland Hutchinson - 12 Jan 2009 05:11 GMT
> Geniuses get to make their own rules, as the likes of Einstein,
> Wagner, and Pollock demonstrate.

Now that's one heck of a law firm.

Signature

Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

Robert Lieblich - 12 Jan 2009 05:43 GMT
> > Geniuses get to make their own rules, as the likes of Einstein,
> > Wagner, and Pollock demonstrate.
>
> Now that's one heck of a law firm.

I was an associate back in the day.  It was hell to pay when Pollock
went to court.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
They paid us in operas and paintings (if only)

Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2009 11:57 GMT
>>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>>
>Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Instead of writing the invective we're beginning to expect from you,
you should thank Tasha for her constructive comments on your writing
attempts, especially since they can use all the help they can get. But
continue with your nonsense, elanders, and you'll soon find yourself
without a readership in this group.

<snip>
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:45 GMT
>>>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>>>> Oh dear, how potentially splashy!
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> <snip>

I've been waiting for you to kill file me, Chuck.

What are you waiting for?

EG
Roland Hutchinson - 10 Jan 2009 14:12 GMT
>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>
> Oh dear, how potentially splashy!

It would, after all, be the height of studied rudeness to ask one's guests
to make water for themselves.

Signature

Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 14:51 GMT
>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>> Oh dear, how potentially splashy!
>
> It would, after all, be the height of studied rudeness to ask one's guests
> to make water for themselves.
> In

Here's the passage:

"Are the rooms ready?"

"Yes, My Lord, fresh chamber pots and water in each."

In other words, bereft of wit, you chowder heads removed the first
sentence to take the sentence out of context.

You're poking fun at an error of your own design--masturbating.

Consider:

"Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."

Same structure. Anything wrong with it?

EG
Leslie Danks - 10 Jan 2009 15:20 GMT
[...]

> Consider:
>
> "Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."
>
> Same structure. Anything wrong with it?

This has two possible meanings, just as the original sentence did. If it's
deliberate and done for laughs, there's nothing wrong with either of them.
If it's not deliberate, some readers will laugh anyway; others will trip
over it. My guess is that you know that anyway and are simply trolling. If
you don't know, and seriously believe the sentence is OK, I suggest you try
your hand at something different -- an evening course in welding, for
example.

Signature

Les (BrE)

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 15:40 GMT
> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> your hand at something different -- an evening course in welding, for
> example.

Tell me, if you're making a point about the passage, why do you
eliminate the context?

This requires me to put it back in context every time I reply.

Here's the passage:

------------------------------------>

"Are the guestrooms ready?

"Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."

------------------------------------->

Now maybe you're talking about a Brit thing, because in the states
there's nothing wrong with the exchange. It's not ambiguous. The meaning
of the second speaker is known at once. It's how we talk.

We don't say, "Yes, there are fresh towels in each room and soap in each
room."

It's not how we talk.

Actually, I don't think it's how you talk either.

EG
Leslie Danks - 10 Jan 2009 16:54 GMT
>> [...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Tell me, if you're making a point about the passage, why do you
> eliminate the context?

Sorry, Old Bean -- got a bit carried away with the pinking shears.

> This requires me to put it back in context every time I reply.

Worse things have happened at sea. And, in any case, you know the context, I
know the context and anyone else following this part of the thread up to
now will also know the context.

> Here's the passage:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Actually, I don't think it's how you talk either.

Well, of course it isn't -- and, incidentally, you get a couple of extra
points for cunningly replacing "chamber pots and water" with "soap and
towels", which is a much less risible example of this type of ambiguity.
It's still ambiguous, though. I would prefer:

"Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each room."

It just takes one extra word, it removes the problem, and I doubt that it
would scare away many of your putative readers.

Signature

Les (BrE)

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:51 GMT
>>> [...]
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> It just takes one extra word, it removes the problem, and I doubt that it
> would scare away many of your putative readers.

This is silliness, it truly is, and you fellows need to stop.

There's nothing wrong with that sentence.

EG
Lew - 10 Jan 2009 22:54 GMT
>>> ------------------------------------>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't think it's how you talk either.

Leslie Danks wrote:
>> Well, of course it isn't -- and, incidentally, you get a couple of extra
>> points for cunningly replacing "chamber pots and water" with "soap and
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> It just takes one extra word, it removes the problem, and I doubt that it
>> would scare away many of your putative readers.

> This is silliness, it truly is, and you fellows need to stop.
>
> There's nothing wrong with that sentence.

Actually, the referent for "each" is ambiguous in that it could be either
"towels" or "guestrooms".  It's similar to,

"Are the dinner places set?"
"Yes, my Lord, fresh glasses and a cocktail in each."

When the context was "guestrooms" and "chamber pots", the ambiguity was less
easily resolved by the context and much funnier.

Signature

Lew

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 01:09 GMT
>>>> ------------------------------------>
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> When the context was "guestrooms" and "chamber pots", the ambiguity was
> less easily resolved by the context and much funnier.

There wasn't a thing wrong with the original text.

I'm keeping it.

Let's  move on.

EG
Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2009 19:05 GMT
> >> [...]
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> It just takes one extra word, it removes the problem, and I doubt that it
> would scare away many of your putative readers.

I have left all the context in place.

My objection -- based solely on my own experience, of course, as if
there was something else I could draw on -- is that the maid is
unlikely to say anything beyond "Yes, my lort."  Period.   On top of
which, I find it hard to believe that the lord of the manor would be
checking the condition of the guest rooms with the maid.  He should
have staff for that and should be ablt to take it for granted that all
is as it should be -- although I must concede that the author is
entitled to populate the household as eccentrically as he wishes.

Look, elanders, it's clear that you came here for approbation and are
trying to persuade us of your virtues by argumentation because you are
unable to demonstrate them in your prose.  Okay, you're entitled to
feel that we're all a bunch of ignorant misantrhopes and you are the
Shakespeare of the historical romance.  Just don't expect us to agree
with you merely because you say so.

I've had some experience of editing and publication myself.  A good
editor, if he or she could be assed to do the job, might be able to
save you from yourself, but I doubt that you could actually persuade
one to bother.  Left to your own devices. if you can't do any better
than you've done so far, you might as well give up all hope of
publication.  If you want to write for your own amusement, don't let
us get in your way, but don't expect us to tell you we like what we
obviously do not like.

Just for laughs, here's a cursory crituque of one paragraph from your
thread-opener:

Not long after [add comma] six coaches arrived ["pulled" should be
"pulled up," which means "arrived" so why not just say "arrived"?] in
front of the Palace of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.  Accompanying the six
coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons [Were they in the coaches
or alongside? If the latter -- and that's what the preceding paragraph
suggests -- they were accompanying those in the coaches, not the
coaches.  (And they must have been awfully tired.)  Synechdoche need
not be stretch to cover this.]  : twelve [prefereable to "12"]
slim-waisted men bristling ["Bristle" implies some sort of
aggressiveness.  I'd say "wearing," which is neutral. Surely they
weren't arriving to attack the palace.]  with sword, pistol, and
campaign gear.  Poor, [It's early in 2009, but this is a strong
contender for dumbest comma of the year] Franz, the Duke's butler,
[Ah, he does have a staff to give orders to the maid]  looked out the
window as if the French Army was outside.  [He may have reacted as if
the French Army was outside, but he didn't "look," in the sense of
"fasten eyes on" that way.  He could have "looked" that way in the
sense of facial expression, but then he wouldn't be "look"ing out a
window.  You've jumbled two senses of the word.]  The Duke came to the
top of the stair and called to him, "Franz, outside, quick!"  [How
about "Franz -- Outside! Quick!"?] Franz snapped to his too-tall
height, [The cliche is "snapped to attention."  Tinkering with it only
makes things worse.  Also, have we already established that Franz is
"too tall" (a cousin of Ed Jones, perhaps)?  If we have, then "full
height", if you must mention his height, is preferable.  If not,
putting it here distracts from the action; the reader wonders how tall
is "too tall," and how can one be "too tall".  Does Franz bang his
head on door lintels?]  adjusted his alpine cap and flew out the door.
["Flew."  Pure cliche. Almost any other verb would be preferable.
Also, if he's "snapped to [attention]", how can he fly out the door.
I envision a basketball player doing a rapid goose-step.] Somewhere in
the room [What room? all the action so far has been outside or at the
door. The next sentence makes clear that the gasp came from behind the
duke.  Say that.] a woman gasped.   The Duke whipped his head around
[cliche] in search of the usurper. [What makes the gasper a usurper?
There's no setup for this.  A partial repair would be putting
something in the preceding sentence.  Try "As Franz ran out, the duke
heard an unexpected gasp behind him."  I'm not sure you can tell the
gender of a gasper merely from the gasp, and it isn't necessary for
what follows, so I've omitted it.] Seeing no one, he lost his
patience:  [Show, don't tell.  How about "Seeing no one, he roared:]
"Everyone in front of me, now!"  {Surely this is not what he roared.
He's the duke of a German castle, not S. Epatha Merkerson.] he
commanded. Instantly the maids and attendants came out of their hiding
places. [Why were they in hiding places?  Is this common behavior for
the servants in German castles?  Of is the point that neither we nor
the duke expected them to be hiding? If so, this is a bit late to be
finding out.] "We'll have none of this!" he thundered.  [Tom Swift,
anyone?]  I won't stand for it!  And where is Frau Schwellenberg?”

Okay, some of the missing info may appear in a previous chapter, but
somehow I doubt it.  The principal point remains intact -- you have a
tin ear.  Your writing is off-key.  You don't have to agree with me on
this, or on any of my critiques, but I don't have to agree with you
that you are the land-based version of Patrick O'Brian -- and I don't.

But enough.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Wasting his time (again)

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 20:12 GMT
>>>> [...]
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 135 lines]
>
> But enough.

Bob, you weren't doing editing, you were doing stand-up. The closest you
came to a genuine edit is the Tom Swiftie, but even there, you showed
you don't know the full rule about Tom Swifties.

Everything else was a set-up looking for a punchline, a punchline never
delivered -- not once.

Well, that has no more to do with editing than spam has to do with steak.

I write "six coaches pulled in front of the palace" and you say, no --
it should be "arrived in front of the palace."

Why, Bob?

Because "pulled should be pulled-up and pulled up means arrived."

Of course "pulled" is a perfectly fine verb that transmits an imagine
that links to the coach and horses, but you would have me kill that
imagery and replace it with a word that tells us only that they got there.

Then you say "pulled" is wrong anyway and should be "pulled up." Why do
you say that, Bob? You really don't know, do you? It sounds glib enough.
Is that why you believe "pulled" should be "pulled-up", Bob?

And here's another one of your gems, Bob:

>looked out the
> window as if the French Army was outside.  [He may have reacted as if
> the French Army was outside, but he didn't "look," in the sense of
> "fasten eyes on" that way.  He could have "looked" that way in the
> sense of facial expression, but then he wouldn't be "look"ing out a
> window.  You've jumbled two senses of the word.]

Honestly, Bob, what in the world are you talking about?

I wrote "He looked out the window..." and your edit is, "but he din't
'look,' in the sense of 'fasten eyes on'"

What...?

You go on Bob:
------------------------------------
He could have "looked" that way in sense of facial expression, but then
he wouldn't be 'look'ing out a window. You've jumbled two senses of the
word"
-------------------------------------

My, God, Bob, what on earth are you talking about? Were you sniffling
glue when you wrote that? It makes no sense. It's complete jabbberwocky.

The Duke looked out the window. That's a basic as a sentence gets. And
how does "fasten his eyes on" come into discussion? Where'd you get that
from? The only place I can thing of is the textbook edit that warns you
shouldn't write "he put his eyes on..." but that's something completely
different, Bob.

Every other "edit" you made is just as farcical as the one directly
above -- completely worthless.

My recommendation to you, Bob, is that you don't post -- or edit -- when
you're field testing Hallucinogens.

ED
Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2009 21:19 GMT
[Snip all context.  If you care, you can find it.]

> Bob, you weren't doing editing, you were doing stand-up. The closest you
> came to a genuine edit is the Tom Swiftie, but even there, you showed
> you don't know the full rule about Tom Swifties.

Of course, I do.  Yours was no Tom Swiftie.  It was merely so
ludicrous that it put me in mind of Tom Swifties.

> Everything else was a set-up looking for a punchline, a punchline never
> delivered -- not once.

You ask for sperific instances, then complain when you get them.

> Well, that has no more to do with editing than spam has to do with steak.

Do you have any idea what a book editor does?

> I write "six coaches pulled in front of the palace" and you say, no --
> it should be "arrived in front of the palace."
>
> Why, Bob?
>
> Because "pulled should be pulled-up and pulled up means arrived."

Absolutely so.

> Of course "pulled" is a perfectly fine verb that transmits an imagine
> that links to the coach and horses, but you would have me kill that
> imagery and replace it with a word that tells us only that they got there.

Coaches do not pull -- intranstive.  That's a matter of English
idiom.  Horses pull coaches. coaches "pull up."  Coaches can "pull" in
the transitive only.   As between "arrive" and "pull up," I prefer
"arrive."  You don't have to tell us, or even suggests, that coaches
are pulled by horses -- no one expects them to be pushed by gerbils
You have simply missed a point of idiom.

> Then you say "pulled" is wrong anyway and should be "pulled up." Why do
> you say that, Bob? You really don't know, do you? It sounds glib enough.
> Is that why you believe "pulled" should be "pulled-up", Bob?

Because intransitive "pull" is unidiomatic with "coaches." That's why.

> And here's another one of your gems, Bob:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Honestly, Bob, what in the world are you talking about?

If I say "John looked at the picture," that's one sense of "look."  He
is seeing something.  If I say "John looked as if he had seen a
ghost," that's another sense of "look."  He is being seen (if not in
actuality, then by the reader).  You jumble these two sense. You have
him "look out the window" and "look as if the French Army was outside"
-- but you use "look" only once.  The result is that the one use of
the word has to carry two inconsistent meanings.  You could have
written "He looked out the window and reacted as if the French Army
was outside."  No award-winner, but at least it's accurate.

> Were you sniffling
> glue when you wrote that? It makes no sense. It's complete jabbberwocky.

If you aren't prepared to pay attention, wny do you ask for specifics.

> The Duke looked out the window. That's a basic as a sentence gets.

Nothing wrong with it -- until he then looks as if the French Army had
arrived.

> And
> how does "fasten his eyes on" come into discussion? Where'd you get that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Every other "edit" you made is just as farcical as the one directly
> above -- completely worthless.

So when you complain of conclusions and ask for specifics, you ignore
the specifics and express conclusions.

> My recommendation to you, Bob, is that you don't post -- or edit -- when
> you're field testing Hallucinogens.

"Field-testing" needs a comma, and there's no need to capitalize
"Hallucinogens." I'd also replace "don't" with "not."  That aside,
it's clear that you're playing "Heads I win, tails you lose."  Those
who tell you you're a lousy writer are criticized for not explaining
in detail.  Those who give you details are critiicized by you in
conclusory form.

I predict that you will never be paid a cent for any of your fiction
and that you will still be overcompensated.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Feh!

elanders - 10 Jan 2009 22:42 GMT
> [Snip all context.  If you care, you can find it.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Of course, I do.  Yours was no Tom Swiftie.  It was merely so
> ludicrous that it put me in mind of Tom Swifties.

First of all in the strict sense, a Tom Swiftie is only adverbs ending
in ly. Secondly, the second part of the rule says if you don't over do
it, there are times you can get away with it.

Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. I use them far
more infrequently, but yes, sometimes I do use them. In the instance you
cite it was George II. I wanted him to come across as a farcical
character. The action is pretty intense and I thought I could get away
with it.

Are you aware of a work of fiction that doesn't contain some Tom
Swifties?  But then you'd have rejected Harry Potter for them, huh?

"We'll have none of this!" he thundered.

>> Everything else was a set-up looking for a punchline, a punchline never
>> delivered -- not once.
>
> You ask for sperific instances, then complain when you get them.

Your edits are weak-minded and you often miss context. In the scene with
the Tom Swiftie, the King is the only one with them. That should have
told you I was going for effect, but it did not.

>  
>> Well, that has no more to do with editing than spam has to do with steak.
>
> Do you have any idea what a book editor does?

I know it has nothing to do with what you've done.

>> I write "six coaches pulled in front of the palace" and you say, no --
>> it should be "arrived in front of the palace."
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Absolutely so.

Absolutely not.

Here's a link with thousands of instances of pulled being used precisely
the way I use it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pulled

What about "the train pulled into the station."
"the car pulled in front of the station"

>> Of course "pulled" is a perfectly fine verb that transmits an imagine
>> that links to the coach and horses, but you would have me kill that
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> are pulled by horses -- no one expects them to be pushed by gerbils
> You have simply missed a point of idiom.

But "pulled" is also an idiom.

Google "pulled in front".

Indeed, pulled is one of the most frequently used idioms we have -- he
pulled a fast one... pulled the wool over my eyes ... pull his career
down ... he has no pull...

We don't say "the horses pulled in front of the palace" no more than we
say "the engine pulled in front of the places" Google it and it returns
nothing.

>> Then you say "pulled" is wrong anyway and should be "pulled up." Why do
>> you say that, Bob? You really don't know, do you? It sounds glib enough.
>> Is that why you believe "pulled" should be "pulled-up", Bob?
>
> Because intransitive "pull" is unidiomatic with "coaches." That's why.

No it's not. It's said all the time -- the carriage pulled in front ...
the coach pulled in front ... the car pulled in front ... the coach
pulled ahead ... the driver pulled ahead ... the red wagon pulled ahead
... and so on.

>> And here's another one of your gems, Bob:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> written "He looked out the window and reacted as if the French Army
> was outside."  No award-winner, but at least it's accurate.

Ok, that's a little bit better, and had you explained it like that, I'd
have got your drift. But "fasten eyes on" makes no sense at all.

That said, "he looked out the window as if the French Army was outside"
is serviceable. It's also idiomatic. I've heard this and you've heard
this and people say it all the time. Directly above you make an argument
for the idiomatic use of words and expressions, here you say it's a
fatal error.

You should try to be consistent.

>> Were you sniffling
>> glue when you wrote that? It makes no sense. It's complete jabbberwocky.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> in detail.  Those who give you details are critiicized by you in
> conclusory form.

Field testing does not need a comma ... or for that matter, the hyphen
you give it, Bob. And there's no need to capitalize "heads". And  learn
how to spell criticize, Bob. Honestly, if you're going to hold yourself
forth as a writing guru, at least edit your own work.

And I probably am a lousy writer, but not because of any of the reasons
you gave. Your edits are useless, fella. You take language and idioms by
the ankles and shake them until things fall to the ground. That's not
skill, Bob; it's not editing either. It's masturbation, and any fool can
do that.

And I'll prove this. Post some of your fiction here and watch as I
red-pencil the same kind of silliness you do.

Go ahead. Post it right here, Bob.

> I predict that you will never be paid a cent for any of your fiction
> and that you will still be overcompensated.

Gee, of course I hope you're wrong, but tell us about your bona fides,
Bob. Why should  anyone place a dime's worth of store in anything you
have to say about writing?

Are you published ...?

EG
Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2009 23:29 GMT
[ ... ]

> And I'll prove this. Post some of your fiction here and watch as I
> red-pencil the same kind of silliness you do.
>
> Go ahead. Post it right here, Bob.

Sorry, fella.  I don't write fiction, nor do I pretend to.  What I
write on usenet is intended as casual conversation, so of course it
could be vastly improved by good editing.  But that would require
someone other than me to do the editing, and that's plainly
impracticable.  It's not as if I'm trying to peddle the stuff to
anyone as literature.  As best I can recall, I've never tried to sell
a piece of prose to anyone for any reason.

As for whether what I'm doing is silliness, I suppose that depends on
how you think the reader will react.  I'm a reader, and I reacted, but
of course you are free to treat me as a pathological case and ignore
me -- which seems to be what, for the most part, you are doing.
Either we talk past one another or we simply disagree.  Neither is
much fun beyond small doses.

> > I predict that you will never be paid a cent for any of your fiction
> > and that you will still be overcompensated.
>
> Gee, of course I hope you're wrong, but tell us about your bona fides,
> Bob. Why should  anyone place a dime's worth of store in anything you
> have to say about writing?

If they think I know what I'm talking about, they will.  If not, they
won't.  I've been posting to AUE for more than ten years, so there's
plenty of evidence. Again, though, most of that is cursory and
off-the-cuff.  I'd try harder if I were trying to sell something.

> Are you published ...?

Actually, yes, but not in any sense particularly relevant here.
Here's a teaser:
<http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/sschooner/Memorex2.html>.  I've also
sold some crossword puzzles for publication, but that was before the
triumph of the Web, and none seem to be online.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Harmless drudge

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 01:06 GMT
> [ ... ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> sold some crossword puzzles for publication, but that was before the
> triumph of the Web, and none seem to be online.

Oh, Gawd.

I followed the link.

You're even more pathetic than I thought.

EG
Sara Lorimer - 11 Jan 2009 04:27 GMT
> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.

Does she? I can't remember any, and they tend to stick out. Could you
point some out to me, please?

Signature

SML

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 09:01 GMT
>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
>
> Does she? I can't remember any, and they tend to stick out. Could you
> point some out to me, please?

Exactly.

A well-done Tom Swiftie is hardly noticed.

But try it like this: do you know of any best-selling writing who
doesn't use Tom Swifties?

EB
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 10:30 GMT
>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> But try it like this: do you know of any best-selling writing who
> doesn't use Tom Swifties?

Obaue: "Writer...who", "writing...which"

Yes, indeed. I've just read "Scarpetta" by Patricia Cornwell, second in
the NYT best selling hardback fiction list this week. Not a Tom Swifty
to be seen.

Anyway, that's not how it works. Sara asked you for an example to
support your assertion.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

the Omrud - 11 Jan 2009 10:47 GMT
>> A well-done Tom Swiftie is hardly noticed.
>>
>> But try it like this: do you know of any best-selling writing who
>> doesn't use Tom Swifties?
>
> Obaue: "Writer...who", "writing...which"

TCE: "Writing ... that".

Signature

David

elanders - 11 Jan 2009 12:13 GMT
>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Anyway, that's not how it works. Sara asked you for an example to
> support your assertion.

Was she serious?

Of course Rowling uses them, but let's make a *real* point here.

Let's look at Gertrude Stern's use of them. Here are a few lifted from
one chapter of Stein's "Three Lives"

"Oh! Oh!" groaned Miss Mathilda.
"But Anna," argued Miss Mathilda
"Oh, Anna!" cried little Jane running back into the house,
"We never use them in the
summer, Miss Jane," she said thickly.

"Miss Mary!" cried Anna running to her mistress and supporting all her
helpless weight back in the chair.

"There's ma now," cried Julia in an uneasy triumph
_______________________________________________________________

And you'll recall, Stein taught Hemingway how to write.

Look, the point is this: anything is fine if done well.

EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 13:19 GMT
>>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Look, the point is this: anything is fine if done well.

Ah. Say no more. My suspicions have been confirmed.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

HVS - 11 Jan 2009 13:49 GMT
On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote

>>>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>> "We never use them in the
>> summer, Miss Jane," she said thickly.

-snip-

> Ah. Say no more. My suspicions have been confirmed.

"One should never use Swifties in the summer", he temporised.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Sara Lorimer - 12 Jan 2009 15:29 GMT
> > Anyway, that's not how it works. Sara asked you for an example to
> > support your assertion.
>
> Was she serious?

Yes. To me, a Tom Swifty is something along the lines of "'I've dropped
my toothpaste,' Tom said crestfallenly."

I don't remember seeing any of those in the Harry Potter books. I'm
wondering if I missed them, or if Tom Swifties are something else to
you.

Signature

SML

elanders - 12 Jan 2009 16:52 GMT
>>> Anyway, that's not how it works. Sara asked you for an example to
>>> support your assertion.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> wondering if I missed them, or if Tom Swifties are something else to
> you.

I don't know. I don't even care.

All I know is, I use "he/she said" 95% of the time which is far more
than Gertrude Stein and a whole lot of other distinguished authors do.

EG
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2009 10:35 GMT
>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> A well-done Tom Swiftie is hardly noticed.

Hardly worth bothering then.

Signature

David

Robert Lieblich - 11 Jan 2009 16:51 GMT
> >>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Hardly worth bothering then.

I dunno, David.  Maybe the idea is to bury them where the rabble read
right past them but the cognoscenti detect them and gasp in
admiration.  Of course, that's damned tough to do.  Of course, there's
always Gertrude Stern (sic).

I note also that elanders is flexible in his definition of "Tom
Swiftie."  None of his examples in this thread is a "Tom Swiftie" by
strict definition.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Not so swift himself

HVS - 11 Jan 2009 16:58 GMT
On 11 Jan 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote

>>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Swiftie."  None of his examples in this thread is a "Tom
> Swiftie" by strict definition.

"None of those examples is a Tom Swiftie even if you stretch the
definition", he said expansively.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 17:27 GMT
>On 11 Jan 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>"None of those examples is a Tom Swiftie even if you stretch the
>definition", he said expansively.

"Your point is well-taken", he said sharply.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:57 GMT
Robert Lieblich wrote
>>> I note also that elanders is flexible in his definition of "Tom
>>> Swiftie."  None of his examples in this thread is a "Tom
>>> Swiftie" by strict definition.

HVS wrote:
>> "None of those examples is a Tom Swiftie even if you stretch the
>> definition", he said expansively.

> "Your point is well-taken", he said sharply.

"elander's examples were a bunch of crap," he pooh-poohed.

Signature

Lew

elanders - 12 Jan 2009 02:28 GMT
> On 11 Jan 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> "None of those examples is a Tom Swiftie even if you stretch the
> definition", he said expansively.

Who gives a flying fatman?

Call it a friggin' Tom Slowee, for all I care.

The point is, if you think it's the best thing to stick in, stick it in.

It's not all that important.

You novel is not going to be wrecked because of it.

That's all.

EG
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 21:32 GMT
>>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter.
>>>> Does she? I can't remember any, and they tend to stick out. Could you
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Swiftie."  None of his examples in this thread is a "Tom Swiftie" by
> strict definition.

You should talk about flexibility, Bob. You made about 25 edits on my
except none of which you're apparently interested in defending. I've set
up a thread for you to do that, but you've yet to respond.

Your problem is you don't know the difference between an error and a
stylistic preference.

For example, I wrote:

"Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons"

Your edit was:

"Were they in the coaches or alongside? If the latter -- and that's what
the preceding paragraph suggests -- they were accompanying those in the
coaches, not the coaches."

Well, that's ridiculous, Bob. It takes our colloquial use of language
and tortures it into something it was never meant to be -- a pool of
words to be inserted into crossword puzzles.

We don't write "accompanying the people in the motorcade" we write

"Accompanying the motorcade was a detachment of motorcycle police."
http://tinyurl.com/6tu2do

In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as
doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not.

---------------------------------------------------->

Here's another example of your wrongheadedness:

I wrote --

"12 slim-waisted men bristling with sword, pistol, and
campaign gear ..."

Your edit:

"Bristle" implies some sort of aggressiveness.  I'd say "wearing," which
is neutral. Surely they weren't arriving to attack the palace.

----------------------------------------------------->

Wrong, Bob.

Their purpose has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were
armed to the teeth. Again, your edit is just wrongheaded.

Also, for reasons unclear, you told me to get rid of "12" and write it out.

Again -- wrong, Bob.

And in every edit following these you do the same thing -- replace what
I've written for no other reason than you were able to find an
alternative you preferred.

Well, that's not editing; that's a guy trying to write my book for me.

Finally, here's something else that's not editing: cheap shots.

I wrote:

"Poor, Franz was looking ..."

Obviously, the comma after poor is a typo.

Not in your book, Crossword Puzzle Bob. In your book it's the "dumbest
comma of the year!"

--------------------------------------------->
Bob's edit:

 Poor, [It's early in 2009, but this is a strong
contender for dumbest comma of the year]
---------------------------------------------->

Ironically enough, right after making this claim, you gave us a sentence
with three of your own typos.

But wait ... Crossword Bob was just getting warmed up ...

Once he figured he had everybody's attention, he gave us this gem:

------------------------------------------------->
I recommend you stop all attempts at creative writing for at least six
months and spend your time reading the finest English prose you can
get your hands on.  If that doesn't do it, I recommend stopping again,
this time for good.

There's nothing wrong with a lack of talent.  I lack talent in so many
fields -- creative writing included -- that I doubt the remainder of
my life would suffice to enable me to list them all.  From what I've
read of your writing, you have no talent for it.  Consider trying
something else.
------------------------------------------------->

Can you imagine that?

He gets every edit absolutely wrong, has never penned as much as a love
letter in his life, and yet has the nerve to give the kind of pompous
speech Ezra Pound would have had too much humility to give to the worst
hack writer of all time.

Honestly, Bob, since you've never studied plot, characterization,
dialogue, action, narrative, etc ... since you know zero about these
things, what are you doing pontificating on fiction?

You have no expertise in the field. You've admitted this yourself -- so
why are you holding yourself forth as a guru?

And how long have you been pulling this crap around here?

How long have you been telling young writers their writing sucks and
should try something else?

How long, Crossword Bob?

EG
CDB - 10 Jan 2009 15:59 GMT
>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>> Oh dear, how potentially splashy!

>> It would, after all, be the height of studied rudeness to ask
>> one's guests to make water for themselves.

> Here's the passage:

> "Are the rooms ready?"

> "Yes, My Lord, fresh chamber pots and water in each."

> In other words, bereft of wit, you chowder heads removed the first
> sentence to take the sentence out of context.

> You're poking fun at an error of your own design--masturbating.

> Consider:

> "Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."

> Same structure. Anything wrong with it?

In a constructive spirit, for once: reigning dukes don't inquire after
the state of the towels.  They have someone who does, and, if
preparations are lacking, several someones who will suffer for it; but
they themselves assume that all is in readiness, if they think about
it at all, as they do not.

I understand that this is not a serious objection, since your target
demographic doesn't know or care about sociological or historical
accuracy, even of the amateurish kind of which I am capable.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:52 GMT
>>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
>>>> Oh dear, how potentially splashy!
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> demographic doesn't know or care about sociological or historical
> accuracy, even of the amateurish kind of which I am capable.

Another fellow made this point and it's  a good one.

Don't know why I had to pull teeth to get you guys to start making
quality observations like the above.

EG
Arcadian Rises - 10 Jan 2009 15:03 GMT
[...]

> read more �

Yes Sir!

I cannot believe that at least 5 distinguished aue contributors, in a
collective pavlovian reaction, jumped to peruse your prose.

And no, EG, there is no punch line.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 15:44 GMT
> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> And no, EG, there is no punch line.

I can't believe five distinguished aue contributors have not been able
to articulate why the following passage is poorly constructed:

------------------------------------>

"Are the guestrooms ready?

"Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."

------------------------------------->

EG
Arcadian Rises - 10 Jan 2009 18:03 GMT
> > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I can't believe five distinguished aue contributors have not been able
> to articulate why the following passage is poorly constructed:

Why don't you take it up with your editors? Perhaps they will
recommend an expert to answer all your questions you can afford.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:53 GMT
>>> [...]
>>>> read more
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Why don't you take it up with your editors? Perhaps they will
> recommend an expert to answer all your questions you can afford.

Why don't you go to hell?

EG
Irwell - 10 Jan 2009 23:18 GMT
>>>> [...]
>>>>> read more
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> EG

Where is that pretty chamber maid(made)?
Stoke-0n-Trent, or is she taking the piss?
CDB - 11 Jan 2009 04:16 GMT
[contumely]

>> Why don't you take it up with your editors? Perhaps they will
>> recommend an expert to answer all your questions you can afford.

> Why don't you go to hell?

Wandering vaguely the other day, I was struck by the thought that to
give someone "the Devil down below" might have been a way of avoiding
"Hell", at a time when that word was considered too strong for the
ears of the genteel.  CTAlert, and all that.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.