Post by j***@zajuris.orgPost by deadrat....
/snips/- see thread's earlier postings for full context if interested/
....
De you ever read what you write? What the hell is "formal" esthetics?
The academic study of taste? The philosophy of taste?
The word "esthetics" standing alone has a variety different
colloquial and more formal meanings. As you know. And, yes - since
before and long after Aristotle, the study and teaching of esthetics
as a formal matter has been an important branch of philosophy, at
least for those who are interested and make the effort to educate
themselves, and there are Ph.D programs at a number of leading
universities - for example, at Columbia University - where the
requirements for an "esthetics" Ph.D are comparatively much more
rigorous and subtantive than, say, in anthropology and economics
departments. But the study of "formal" esthetics is not confined to a
philosophical study only of "taste" in the colloquial senses of that
word.
If it is true that you are unaware of this, so be it, although I
confess that I doubt that you are unaware of this
Your doubts are well founded. My questions were intended to illustrate
the ridiculousness of your trying to justify your redundant and awkward
style by appealing to "formal esthetics." Not least because your
writing violates every rule that Aristotle lays out for rhetoric.
Post by j***@zajuris.orgwhile you pretend
otherwise to indulge in verbal sparring for its own sake.
OK, somewhat guilty as charged.
Post by j***@zajuris.orgPost by deadratSo I won't argue against the gist of your criticism.
Except that you just did.
No, I did not and, except for a brief and only partial explanatory
comment below, still do not.
So you did not except where you did?
Post by j***@zajuris.orgHowever, and as I did say, neither this
news group thread nor news group postings more generally provide a
desirable and meaningful forum make arguments against the reasoning
component instead of mere conclusory bleat gist of your criticism.
Either you don't read misc.legal, or you can't tell that, in fact, that
forum rarely provides meaningful comments on legal issues.
Either you can't read for comprehension any better than you can write
for comprehension, or you don't know what the word "conclusory" means.
I expect no one but you knows what a "bleat gist" is.
Again, my comments do not go to the matter of your reasoning. You might
actually know what you're talking about, and your contributions might be
both enlightening and helpful. But who can tell what gems are buried in
your blizzard of verbiage and awkward construction?
Post by j***@zajuris.orgPost by deadratSome - undoubtedly including you - may criticize me as being too
prolix (for their or your taste) and maybe also more than a bit
perverse in news group posting since, except for an almost always
present this-would-be-shorter-if-I-had-more-time condition, how I say
what I say is deliberate.
So you think that your deliberation excuses your opacity?
This includes being able to express myself tersely when I choose.
Then by all means, so choose.
...
In your haste to assure me that you can write clearly, you write "may
ordinarily may easily" and use "remedies from," when the English idiom
is "rememdies for." Not necessarily encouraging.
This merely, and obviously, was a minor typographical error.
I'll take your word for that. But it's hard to tell in the confusion of
your writing, which slips are minor typographical errors and which are
deliberate unhelpful verbosity.
Post by j***@zajuris.orgPost by deadratBut if you can write clearly and directly, why not do so?
As I also said, I can do this and do this when I think it
appropriate, which not incidentally is often even if sometimes less so
in some new group postings.
When is it inappropriate to write clearly?
Post by j***@zajuris.orgI prefer not to explain, but: As most relevant to this thread as
initially framed by the original poster, suffice to say that reasons
to express what I did how I did are intended to slow down the reader
so that the person who makes the effort will understand as fully as
possible what is being said and why.
So you write in a convoluted manner so that your reader must read more
slowly and take more effort to understand you? This is like advocating
littering the highways with traffic hazards so that drivers will have to
slow down and drive more attentively.
Post by j***@zajuris.orgPost by deadrat... I People usually write for an audience beyond themselves
and are interested in how effective they are in communicating
their ideas to that audience. You are bad at that.
An ironic corollary as applied, about which you appear to be
clueless, is that, having read quite a few postings from others who
responded to many of your news group postings, you seem to have been
less than substantially successful in communicating to many of them
despite the fact that your postings generally are terse and logically
well organized.
Let's see if we can translate this into ordinary English. I'll give it
a first try: "It's ironic that your own postings confuse your
correspondents, although your responses are terse and logical. And you
seem unaware of this fact." How'd I do?
Well, in the first place a corollary is a statement that logically
follows immediately from a preceding argument. You've made no preceding
argument about my writing, so clearly "corollary" is another word you're
unfamiliar with. Secondly, may we have some evidence that my posts are
confusing to my correspondents. (I'm guessing that's what "less than
substantially successful in communicating" means.)
Of course it's entirely possible that I confuse more than I enlighten,
and I eagerly await the evidence for your claim. It's certainly true
that many people don't agree with what I write, but that's different.
Post by j***@zajuris.org(Probably not incidentally, there is reason to believe that the
original poster, to whom I primarily addressed my comments, basically
understands and has learned from this approach.)
I'd say there was no reason to believe that at all. Why would you think
that?
Post by j***@zajuris.orgPost by deadrat(In fairness to the original poster, he has claimed more than once
that he resides in a jurisdiction whose courts are tainted by severe
inefficiency and sometimes also by corruption.
Do you mean that the OP has repeatedly claimed that his courts are
inefficient and corrupt?
I mean that he has claimed more than once that his jurisdiction's
courts are tainted by severe inefficiency and sometimes also by
corruption.
Was that a yes or a no? Is "inefficient" different from "tainted by
severe inefficiency"?
Post by j***@zajuris.orgPost by deadratIt is just that he has never posted any facts that justify
concluding that he ever was "tricked" by an adverse party's abuse by
any judicial misconduct or, for that matter, by any rule of law
whereas his postings when he has posted what he contends are factual
particulars show that his lack of litigation success has resulted from
his own choices and conduct.)
Do you mean that the the failures of the OP in court arise from his
ignorance of the law and not from the underhanded operation of his
adversaries?
Actually, no. I mean that he has not how or even that he was
"tricked" and, while this thread did not provide the occasion for more
detail in this connection, I suggested on the basis of what was
suggested by his present posting and also by other of his postings
that his lack of litigation success has resulted from his own choices
and conduct - choices and conduct that resulted less from a certain
kind of ignorance, not ignorance more generally, which I and others
have addressed elsewhere.
So that's an actual no. In what manner do the two phrasings differ in
meaning?
Post by j***@zajuris.orgI am only slightly curious whether, as I guess, you will fail to
have the self-restraint to refrain from insisting on having the last
word between us about these matters in this by now tedious exchange
which has drifted far from the from the subjects that the original
poster claimed to interest him.
A couple of points:
I don't intend to be lectured on self-restrain by someone who cannot
control his own verbal excesses.
This exchange isn't about the original poster and his interests. It's
about your failings as a writer.
If you find my criticism too tedious to take seriously, then I'll just
have to find a way to soldier on with my life.
Finally, Brave Sir Robin, if you can't or don't feel like responding,
then don't. How could I possibly compel you to do otherwise?