vpFREE2 Forums

Linda Boyd's MWGT Article - AUG 2007

#21

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

--- 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 (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

#22

cmayhem2001 wrote:

Not a fan of The Onion, I take it, Harry?

What can I say -- I'm a natural "straight man". (Ask Bev, if you have
any doubts ... well, maybe that's not such a good idea)

Thanks for the referral; I haven't stumbled on it before. I'm going
to have fun perusing.

- H.

#23

fact. Only Cogno knows how he intended those 3 words.

···

In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Kirschner" <ken.kirschner@...> wrote:

I'm not defending him, but you are passing your opinion as

=======================================
I don't think so, Ken. I may be EXPRESSING my opinion, as we ALL do
on this board, but where do you read "passing my opinion as fact"? If you review the pertinent sentences, from my past post, I doubt that you can really attribute that conclusion to what I wrote.

Unless you believe that "re-thinking" (my apology) and "inclined to
agree" (with my original assessment that CS's post was dissing
Linda) are such strong pronouncements that I'm stating them
as "fact".

Like you, however, I am in the group that thinks he was

taking a pot-shot at Linda.

Of course, no one knows the real answer except the author of the
post. Since he choses not to clarify the meaning of his statement,
I guess we will all remain in suspense.......or continue to draw our
own conclusions.

~Babe~

Babe wrote (previously): ..... but I am now rethinking that
apology..........

........ I now am inclined to agree with my original assessment of
CS's statement......more uncalled for and very sarcastic dissing of
Linda!.........................

#24

"Ken Kirschner" <ken.kirschner@...> wrote:

···

Only Cogno knows how he intended those 3 words.

=======================================

Since he choses not to clarify the meaning of his statement,
I guess we will all remain in suspense.......or continue to draw our
own conclusions. ~Babe~

Since nobody knows, including me, I guess that his moniker is a scramble
for:

In Cognito CES (or CSE, ECS, ESC......)

And he's having a great laugh at our expense, punching buttons.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#25

Inaccurate??? Personally, I don't think is's not accurate :wink:
Occasionally, something can be two things and both descriptions are
accurate.

Dick

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
wrote:

Actually it isn't. It's a rhetorical device known as litotes. Your

criticism

was highly inaccurate.

Cogno

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On

Behalf Of

···

-----Original Message-----
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@...> wrote:
>
> On 8/1/07, Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@...> 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

#26

Cogno's statement below is inaccurate. If anyone looks up
the meaning of litotes, they will see that King Fish's comment
("Which doesn't mean it's not there") is NOT a form of litotes.

I think Cogno's only reason for posting these messages (like
"Highly inaccurate. Highly.") is to stir things up around here.

And....it's working.

···

On 8/1/07, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually it isn't. It's a rhetorical device known as litotes. Your
criticism
was highly inaccurate.

Cogno

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.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]

#27

Jackie,

I did not reply to your post, I replied to Curtis Rich's. I have nothing
against what you said.

Curtis Rich said: "...the fact remains that [Cogno's] statement was a
blatant dig against Linda Boyd." Since he cannot know if that was the
intent, he is passing his opinion as fact.

Ken

···

On 8/2/07, jackessiebabe <jackessiebabe@yahoo.com> wrote:

  In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, "Ken Kirschner" <
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.

I don't think so, Ken. I may be EXPRESSING my opinion, as we ALL do
on this board, but where do you read "passing my opinion as fact"? > > If you review the pertinent sentences, from my past post, I doubt > that you can really attribute that conclusion to what I wrote.

Unless you believe that "re-thinking" (my apology) and "inclined to
agree" (with my original assessment that CS's post was dissing
Linda) are such strong pronouncements that I'm stating them
as "fact".

>>>>>>>>>>Like you, however, I am in the group that thinks he was
taking a pot-shot at Linda.

Of course, no one knows the real answer except the author of the
post. Since he choses not to clarify the meaning of his statement,
I guess we will all remain in suspense.......or continue to draw our
own conclusions.

~Babe~

Babe wrote (previously): ..... but I am now rethinking that
apology..........

........ I now am inclined to agree with my original assessment of
CS's statement......more uncalled for and very sarcastic dissing of
Linda!.........................

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#28

Ken,

My messages about Cogno's remarks are not opinions.
They are facts.

Fact: Cogno said, "highly inaccurate" regarding Linda Boyd's
article.

When Cogno posted "highly inaccurate" that's what he meant.
If he meant something else, he would have wrote something
else.

Fact: Cogno's words were dig.

To say that I cannot know if Cogno's statement was a dig is
ridiculous. I do not need to know what was going on in Cogno's
head ("the intent") to know that his remark was anti-Boyd.

Fact: You said, "Since he cannot know if that was the intent, he is
passing his opinion as fact."

I don't need to know what what going on in your head ("your
intent") to know what you mean. If you meant something else,
you would have wrote something else.

I'm surprised that this has not been moved to FREEvpFREE
by now.

Curtis

···

On 8/2/07, Ken Kirschner <ken.kirschner@gmail.com> wrote:

Jackie,

I did not reply to your post, I replied to Curtis Rich's. I have nothing
against what you said.

Curtis Rich said: "...the fact remains that [Cogno's] statement was a
blatant dig against Linda Boyd." Since he cannot know if that was the
intent, he is passing his opinion as fact.

Ken

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]