Cogno Wrote:
Highly inaccurate. Highly.<<
Speaking as a veteran Cogno Scienti appreciator, I took his
post as a humorous comment that wasn't judging the MWGT
article and was more pro than anti Boyd.
vpFae
"There are many areas of life where people can differ
in their beliefs and still have a great chance of success.
Mathematics is not one of them ..." - Cogno Scienti
Dear vpFae,
Reviewing the three words below, in the context that you've presented
them, I can now read the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm into Mr. Scienti
statement, which I overlooked previously.
I bow to your vastly superior knowledge of the author of the post, and
most sincerely apologize to Mr. Scienti for over reacting. I had
perceived his post as the start of a new avalanche of criticism
towards a respected author, who also is a friend of mine.
Sorry!
~Babe~
===============================================
Cogno Wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...> wrote:
Speaking as a veteran Cogno Scienti appreciator, I took his
post as a humorous comment that wasn't judging the MWGT article and
was more pro than anti Boyd.
vpFae
Pro-Boyd? Huh? How is that possible?
There is no doubt in my mind what Cogno meant. Responding
to the post about Linda's article Cogno wrote, "Highly inaccurate.
Highly." and nothing more. It is 100% clear to me that it is an
assessment of Linda's article.
And, no, it was not humorous.
On 8/1/07, vpFae <vpFae@cox.net> wrote:
Cogno Wrote:
>> Highly inaccurate. Highly.<<Speaking as a veteran Cogno Scienti appreciator, I took his
post as a humorous comment that wasn't judging the MWGT
article and was more pro than anti Boyd.vpFae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I took it as tongue in cheek, but I see humor almost everywhere. I think we
need to start enforcing the previously mentioned humor disclaimer. When
making a humorous post please notify the reader in the first sentence. It
will ruin the joke, but it is a small price to pay for order.
Chandler
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
vpFae
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:43 PM
To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Linda Boyd's MWGT Article - AUG 2007
Cogno Wrote:
Highly inaccurate. Highly.<<
Speaking as a veteran Cogno Scienti appreciator, I took his
post as a humorous comment that wasn't judging the MWGT
article and was more pro than anti Boyd.
vpFae
"There are many areas of life where people can differ
in their beliefs and still have a great chance of success.
Mathematics is not one of them ..." - Cogno Scienti
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
I don't find anything humorous about Cogno's post.
On 8/1/07, Chandler <omnibibulous1@comcast.net> wrote:
I took it as tongue in cheek, but I see humor almost everywhere. I think
we
need to start enforcing the previously mentioned humor disclaimer. When
making a humorous post please notify the reader in the first sentence. It
will ruin the joke, but it is a small price to pay for order.Chandler
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of vpFae
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:43 PM
To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Linda Boyd's MWGT Article - AUG 2007Cogno Wrote:
>> Highly inaccurate. Highly.<<Speaking as a veteran Cogno Scienti appreciator, I took his
post as a humorous comment that wasn't judging the MWGT
article and was more pro than anti Boyd.vpFae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Which doesn't mean it's not there.
On 8/1/07, Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't find anything humorous about Cogno's post.
This is an unusual day for me on vpFREE. I not only apologized to
Cogno Scienti, but I am now rethinking that apology. It has been
pointed out to me, privately, that Mr. Scienti was the same wit
who "congratulated" Linda on selling her "incorrect" (IHHO) strategy
to the masses, and wished that she would sell "millions" of SCs, so
that the likes of Mr. Scienti could profit from all the poor play that
resulted!
I now am inclined to agree with my original assessment of CS's
statement......more uncalled for and very sarcastic dissing of Linda!
Apology retracted!
~Babe~
========================================================
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@...> wrote:
Reviewing the three words below, in the context that you've presented
them, I can now read the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm into Mr. Scienti
statement, which I overlooked previously.
I bow to your vastly superior knowledge of the author of the post, and
most sincerely apologize to Mr. Scienti for over reacting. I had
perceived his post as the start of a new avalanche of criticism
towards a respected author, who also is a friend of mine.
That's a double negative.
On 8/1/07, King Fish <vpkingfish@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/1/07, Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't find anything humorous about Cogno's post.Which doesn't mean it's not there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You are correct, Babe.
No matter how anyone attempts to defend Cogno (by claiming
it was humor or anything else), the fact remains that his statement
("Highly inaccurate. Highly.") was a blatant dig against Linda Boyd.
On 8/1/07, jackessiebabe <jackessiebabe@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is an unusual day for me on vpFREE. I not only apologized to
Cogno Scienti, but I am now rethinking that apology. It has been
pointed out to me, privately, that Mr. Scienti was the same wit
who "congratulated" Linda on selling her "incorrect" (IHHO) strategy
to the masses, and wished that she would sell "millions" of SCs, so
that the likes of Mr. Scienti could profit from all the poor play that
resulted!I now am inclined to agree with my original assessment of CS's
statement......more uncalled for and very sarcastic dissing of Linda!Apology retracted!
~Babe~
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@...> wrote:
Reviewing the three words below, in the context that you've presented
them, I can now read the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm into Mr. Scienti
statement, which I overlooked previously.I bow to your vastly superior knowledge of the author of the post, and
most sincerely apologize to Mr. Scienti for over reacting. I had
perceived his post as the start of a new avalanche of criticism
towards a respected author, who also is a friend of mine.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm not defending him, but you are passing your opinion as fact. Only Cogno
knows how he intended those 3 words.
Like you, however, I am in the group that thinks he was taking a pot-shot at
Linda.
On 8/1/07, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com> wrote:
You are correct, Babe.
No matter how anyone attempts to defend Cogno (by claiming
it was humor or anything else), the fact remains that his statement
("Highly inaccurate. Highly.") was a blatant dig against Linda Boyd.On 8/1/07, jackessiebabe <jackessiebabe@yahoo.com<jackessiebabe%40yahoo.com>> > wrote:
> This is an unusual day for me on vpFREE. I not only apologized to
> Cogno Scienti, but I am now rethinking that apology. It has been
> pointed out to me, privately, that Mr. Scienti was the same wit
> who "congratulated" Linda on selling her "incorrect" (IHHO) strategy
> to the masses, and wished that she would sell "millions" of SCs, so
> that the likes of Mr. Scienti could profit from all the poor play that
> resulted!
>
> I now am inclined to agree with my original assessment of CS's
> statement......more uncalled for and very sarcastic dissing of Linda!
>
> Apology retracted!
>
> ~Babe~
> ========================================================
> In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, "jackessiebabe"
<jackessiebabe@...> wrote:
>
> Reviewing the three words below, in the context that you've presented
> them, I can now read the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm into Mr. Scienti
> statement, which I overlooked previously.
>
> I bow to your vastly superior knowledge of the author of the post, and
> most sincerely apologize to Mr. Scienti for over reacting. I had
> perceived his post as the start of a new avalanche of criticism
> towards a respected author, who also is a friend of mine.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ken Kirschner wrote:
I'm not defending him, but you are passing your opinion as fact.
Only Cogno knows how he intended those 3 words.
That is, of course, the problem. I interpreted them as a slam; vpFae
put a positive spin on them. Based upon Cogno's past posts, I see
each call equally likely to be on the money. My guess is that Cogno's
having a good chuckle over the discussion.
Someone resurfaced the suggestion that such posts should include some
type of "disclaimer". I find that slightly insulting to the
intelligence of all concerned. A decent writer, in tossing in a
little backhanded wit, will provide just enough context to discern the
specific meaning (even if to just quote the snippet giving rise to the
thought). It's not necessary to bludgeon us with a footnote, entirely
blunting any humor.
But if a comment is intended to be funny, wry, or as gentle sarcasm,
it's careless not to provide the nominal context I suggest ... and if
there's room for an offensive interpretation (as in this case), it's rude.
- Harry
Right on Harry. On the subject of humor writing I recall an English
professor saying if the audience needs an explanation the piece needs
better writing. Of course, my English professor never had an audience
as anal as a group of video poker players.
Don
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote
Someone resurfaced the suggestion that such posts should include some
type of "disclaimer". I find that slightly insulting to the
intelligence of all concerned. A decent writer, in tossing in a
little backhanded wit, will provide just enough context to discern the
specific meaning <<<
Ken Kirschner wrote:
> I'm not defending him, but you are passing your opinion as fact.
> Only Cogno knows how he intended those 3 words.
Harry Porter replied:
That is, of course, the problem. I interpreted them as a slam; vpFae
put a positive spin on them. Based upon Cogno's past posts, I see
each call equally likely to be on the money. My guess is that Cogno's
having a good chuckle over the discussion.
I don't know about the spin, but I'm very comfortable in my belief
that LB wasn't the primary target of Cogno's "Highly inaccurate.
Highly." comment.
Also, I don't believe that Cogno has any personal axes to grind
and that any perceived target of Cogno's humor in one instance
is necessarily a target in another.
I don't care to speculate any further on this thread, but do want
to correct an error in my earlier post. I referred to Cogno's post
as "his" post and didn't change it to "Cogno's" post as I intended.
AFAIK, Cogno's gender has never been established on vpFREE.
vpFae
don_boats wrote:
Of course, my English professor never had an audience as anal as a
group of video poker players.
Now there's context aplenty!
(Personally, I "resemble" that remark)
- H.
Actually it isn't. It's a rhetorical device known as litotes. Your criticism
was highly inaccurate.
Cogno
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Luke Fuller
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 7:20 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Linda Boyd's MWGT Article - AUG 2007
That's a double negative.
On 8/1/07, King Fish <vpkingfish@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/1/07, Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't find anything humorous about Cogno's post.Which doesn't mean it's not there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
vpFae wrote:
I don't know about the spin, but I'm very comfortable in my belief
that LB wasn't the primary target of Cogno's "Highly inaccurate.
Highly." comment.
Would you believe that I think I've finally "got" Cogno's target.
(Can't say that I'm SURE I have 
Given his particular bend in humor, I'm now likewise "comfortable".
That said, there was an ambiguity here for which one take was far from
consistent with the general good spirit here. I find it regrettable,
at best.
- H.
Throughout graduate school I kept handy a dictionary, a thesaurus,
and a style guide (or manual of style).
The latter ensured I conformed to acceptable forms of written speech
so that I would be understood clearly. The former two ensured that
my writing was both accurate and interesting.
In the years since I have drawn on this experience in my written
communications, but I never dreamed that I would need all these
references (and then some) to enjoy a simple chat group --
especially one hosted by an organization named "YAHOO!"
Perhaps the arbiters of this august group will publish a style guide
of their own so that we may exchange ideas and opinions properly?
Or maybe we'll just all begin speaking in plain language and
assuming that others take what we say for face value? One or the
other.
I'll just sit back and watch the rest of this thread, because as
Yogi Berra said; "You can see a lot by just observing".
vpFae wrote:
I don't care to speculate any further on this thread, but do want
to correct an error in my earlier post. I referred to Cogno's post
as "his" post and didn't change it to "Cogno's" post as I intended.
AFAIK, Cogno's gender has never been established on vpFREE.
I don't know Cogno's gender as well. However, to avoid monotonous use
of anyone's handle, I'll likely default to a male pronoun when needed
-- anything else, such as "it" is awkward.
FWIW, I have doubts about God's gender (on rare occasion, his
existence). You can look for me to use he/him/his as an occasional
substitute as well.)
I've seen one amusing suggestion for handling indefinite gender --
She/He/It ... with an acronym that was demonstrated to be very handy.
- H.
Not a fan of The Onion, I take it, Harry? Am I a victim of my own subtlety
or just a bad writer? The only thing worse than a disclaimer before a
humerous comment is needing to explain the joke after it is made.
Chandler
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Harry Porter
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:52 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: On Second Thought…Was: Linda Boyd's MWGT
Article - AUG 2007
Someone resurfaced the suggestion that such posts should include some
type of "disclaimer". I find that slightly insulting to the
intelligence of all concerned. A decent writer, in tossing in a
little backhanded wit, will provide just enough context to discern the
specific meaning (even if to just quote the snippet giving rise to the
thought). It's not necessary to bludgeon us with a footnote, entirely
blunting any humor.
The thing about humor is sometimes it's not funny... for all sorts
of reasons.
Chandler
I don't find anything humorous about Cogno's post.
>
> I took it as tongue in cheek, but I see humor almost
everywhere. I think
> we
> need to start enforcing the previously mentioned humor
disclaimer. When
> making a humorous post please notify the reader in the first
sentence. It
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:
On 8/1/07, Chandler <omnibibulous1@...> wrote:
> will ruin the joke, but it is a small price to pay for order.
>
> Chandler
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of vpFae
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:43 PM
> To: vpFREE@...
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Linda Boyd's MWGT Article - AUG 2007
>
> Cogno Wrote:
> >> Highly inaccurate. Highly.<<
>
> Speaking as a veteran Cogno Scienti appreciator, I took his
> post as a humorous comment that wasn't judging the MWGT
> article and was more pro than anti Boyd.
>
> vpFae[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]