Discussion:
An Ode to a bot called Hanna
(too old to reply)
occam
2018-02-17 06:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)


There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd

<graceful bow>
s***@gmail.com
2018-02-17 06:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.

/dps
occam
2018-02-17 06:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
It's first attempt, so I suggest you run after it.
Tony Cooper
2018-02-17 07:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
/dps
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-02-17 07:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
/dps
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
That's better, but you're forgetting the weird use of [ ] and ( ),
which apparently have different meanings. I don't remember if it also
uses { }.
--
athel
Hen Hanna
2018-02-17 20:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
/dps
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
That's better, but you're forgetting the weird use of [ ] and ( ),
which apparently have different meanings. I don't remember if it also
uses { }.
--
athel
most of the time, he (HH) uses [] to
indicate [italic].


i dont get the last "Vanna"

someone who's eternally undeterminable
would get a [Grand Potato] as a prize. HH
Hen Hanna
2018-02-17 20:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
/dps
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
That's better, but you're forgetting the weird use of [ ] and ( ),
which apparently have different meanings. I don't remember if it also
uses { }.
--
athel
most of the time, he (HH) uses [] to
indicate [italic].
i dont get the last "Vanna"
someone who's eternally undeterminable
would get a [Grand Potato] as a prize. HH
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.

by Tony Cooper


i get it... i was going to write ...
the only Vanna i know is the Barbie-doll in...

that's great! that deserves more than
a Pat on the back. HH
Tony Cooper
2018-02-17 21:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:52:51 -0800 (PST), Hen Hanna
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Hen Hanna
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
/dps
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
That's better, but you're forgetting the weird use of [ ] and ( ),
which apparently have different meanings. I don't remember if it also
uses { }.
--
athel
most of the time, he (HH) uses [] to
indicate [italic].
i dont get the last "Vanna"
someone who's eternally undeterminable
would get a [Grand Potato] as a prize. HH
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
by Tony Cooper
i get it... i was going to write ...
the only Vanna i know is the Barbie-doll in...
that's great! that deserves more than
a Pat on the back. HH
Vanna White is very well-known in the US from being on the television
quiz show "Wheel of Fortune". She's been on the show as "hostess"
since 1982. Contestants try to guess word puzzles by asking for
letters to be added to the board. It's a very glitzy "hangman" game.

The "hostess" role is looking pretty and pointing to board.

It is her real name. She was born Vanna Marie Rosich, but her last
name was changed to White when she was an infant. Her parents were
divorced and her mother married Herbert White.

https://www.wheeloffortune.com/

The Barbie doll is a "Vanna White Limited Edition".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-17 22:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:52:51 -0800 (PST), Hen Hanna
Post by Hen Hanna
Post by Hen Hanna
Post by Tony Cooper
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
i dont get the last "Vanna"
i get it... i was going to write ...
the only Vanna i know is the Barbie-doll in...
that's great! that deserves more than
a Pat on the back. HH
Vanna White is very well-known in the US from being on the television
quiz show "Wheel of Fortune". She's been on the show as "hostess"
since 1982. Contestants try to guess word puzzles by asking for
letters to be added to the board. It's a very glitzy "hangman" game.
The "hostess" role is looking pretty and pointing to board.
Touching the contact on the letter panels to illuminate them. That replaced the
"turning" that is still sometimes invoked, many years ago.

She also models fashions -- she has never worn the same gown twice in more than
35 years of shows -- and exchanging banter with Pat Sajak during the closing
credits.
Post by Tony Cooper
It is her real name. She was born Vanna Marie Rosich, but her last
name was changed to White when she was an infant. Her parents were
divorced and her mother married Herbert White.
Ordinarily that would mean she was adopted by her stepfather.
Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.wheeloffortune.com/
The Barbie doll is a "Vanna White Limited Edition".
Snidely
2018-02-20 05:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
most of the time, he (HH) uses [] to
indicate [italic].
You do know that there is /already/ a convention for indicating
/italics/ on usenet, no?

/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-20 13:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Hen Hanna
most of the time, he (HH) uses [] to
indicate [italic].
You do know that there is /already/ a convention for indicating
/italics/ on usenet, no?
And _that's_ not it, because /phonemes/.
Tony Cooper
2018-02-18 00:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:26:04 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
/dps
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
That's better, but you're forgetting the weird use of [ ] and ( ),
which apparently have different meanings. I don't remember if it also
uses { }.
I read this group because there are many things discussed here that
are of interest to me. It is the price of admission that there are
also many things discussed that are of no interest to me.

Among the things that do not interest me:

...proper use of [ ] and { } and ( ).

...the proper format of a limerick.

...nasal vowel sounds. And, vowel and consonant sounds involving
other orifices and body parts.

...pronunciation guides by symbols

...most objections by PTD of anything I write.

...pronoun discomfort.

...most things written by anyone who employs bizarre formatting.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Richard Yates
2018-02-18 02:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:12:16 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:26:04 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
/dps
There once was a bot called Hen Hanna,
Whose formatting was straight as a banana.
Its posts were unreadable,
And its sex undeterminable,
So give me an "M" or maybe an "F", Vanna.
That's better, but you're forgetting the weird use of [ ] and ( ),
which apparently have different meanings. I don't remember if it also
uses { }.
I read this group because there are many things discussed here that
are of interest to me. It is the price of admission that there are
also many things discussed that are of no interest to me.
...proper use of [ ] and { } and ( ).
...the proper format of a limerick.
...nasal vowel sounds. And, vowel and consonant sounds involving
other orifices and body parts.
...pronunciation guides by symbols
...most objections by PTD of anything I write.
...pronoun discomfort.
...most things written by anyone who employs bizarre formatting.
You left out "...lists of things of no interest".
Mark Brader
2018-02-18 03:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tony Cooper
...proper use of [ ] and { } and ( ).
...the proper format of a limerick.
...nasal vowel sounds. And, vowel and consonant sounds involving
other orifices and body parts.
...pronunciation guides by symbols
...most objections by PTD of anything I write.
...pronoun discomfort.
...most things written by anyone who employs bizarre formatting.
You left out "...lists of things of no interest".
Well, unless they raise some points of English usage.

[1] I think the word before "anything" there can only be "to".

[2] The use of ellipses in place of bullets seems very odd to me.
Writing in ASCII, I'd typically use stars or possibly hyphens.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Here I sit, ego the size of a planet..."
***@vex.net | --Steve Summit (after Douglas Adams)

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Richard Yates
2018-02-18 14:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tony Cooper
...proper use of [ ] and { } and ( ).
...the proper format of a limerick.
...nasal vowel sounds. And, vowel and consonant sounds involving
other orifices and body parts.
...pronunciation guides by symbols
...most objections by PTD of anything I write.
...pronoun discomfort.
...most things written by anyone who employs bizarre formatting.
You left out "...lists of things of no interest".
Well, unless they raise some points of English usage.
[1] I think the word before "anything" there can only be "to".
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
Post by Mark Brader
[2] The use of ellipses in place of bullets seems very odd to me.
Writing in ASCII, I'd typically use stars or possibly hyphens.
Perhaps Tony will also include "...bullets vs. ellipses" in his list.
Mark Brader
2018-02-18 21:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Mark Brader
[1] I think the word before "anything" there can only be "to".
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
If it was an error, I agree.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "He is even more important than my cat,
***@vex.net | which is saying something." --Flash Wilson
Tony Cooper
2018-02-18 21:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Mark Brader
[1] I think the word before "anything" there can only be "to".
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
If it was an error, I agree.
Mark, you do tend to snip too rigorously. When you snip the sentence
being questioned, and retain only the comment about the sentence, it's
wrongity-wrong-wrong.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2018-02-18 21:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Yates
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
If it was an error, I agree.
Mark, you do tend to snip too rigorously. When you snip the sentence
being questioned, and retain only the comment about the sentence, it's
wrongity-wrong-wrong.
No; I was responding only to the comment, not the original sentence.
If you want to read the original sentence, you know where to find it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "As long as that blue light is on, the
***@vex.net computer is safe." -- Hot Millions
Tony Cooper
2018-02-18 21:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Yates
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
If it was an error, I agree.
Mark, you do tend to snip too rigorously. When you snip the sentence
being questioned, and retain only the comment about the sentence, it's
wrongity-wrong-wrong.
No; I was responding only to the comment, not the original sentence.
If you want to read the original sentence, you know where to find it.
A response suitable for White House press conferences, but not for the
likes of you.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2018-02-18 23:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
A response suitable for White House press conferences, but not for the
likes of you.
I likes to be sorry you feel that way.
--
Mark Brader | The situation will continue to deteriorate until we [get]
***@vex.net | an effective governing authority... When that wonderful
Toronto | day finally comes, we will once again resent the stupid
| laws [they] will inevitably hold over us. --Mark Crispin
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-19 10:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Yates
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
If it was an error, I agree.
Mark, you do tend to snip too rigorously. When you snip the sentence
being questioned, and retain only the comment about the sentence, it's
wrongity-wrong-wrong.
No; I was responding only to the comment, not the original sentence.
If you want to read the original sentence, you know where to find it.
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
You also mess up the attributions in the process.

See above, where Richard Yates, Mark Brader, and Tony Cooper
all have the same quote top level.
This makes it impossible to see who said what in response to what.
(without having to do a search for it)

In language context is all important,
and your false ways of quoting systematically destroys it.

More generally, you shouldn't mess with other people's text
by dragging parts out of it.
Quote, or don't quote, but don't edit.

So, PLEASE don't do it that way,

Jan
John Dunlop
2018-02-19 12:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you
would all follow Mark's example of quoting only what is directly
relevant. I find it a nuisance to have to scroll through screenfuls of
distantly related material, often of a completely different subject.
Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
--
John
Paul Carmichael
2018-02-19 12:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you would all follow
Mark's example of quoting only what is directly relevant. I find it a nuisance to have to
scroll through screenfuls of distantly related material, often of a completely different
subject. Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
It is a problem in this ng. People leave in pages of irrelevant stuff when replying to one
line. Generally, barring cascades, having to scroll down at all puts me right off.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-19 13:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you would all follow
Mark's example of quoting only what is directly relevant. I find it a nuisance to have to
scroll through screenfuls of distantly related material, often of a completely different
subject. Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
It is a problem in this ng. People leave in pages of irrelevant stuff when replying to one
line. Generally, barring cascades, having to scroll down at all puts me right off.
Then use Google Groups, which usually conceals all material above the first new line.
It becomes a link "click here to see quoted material."
Paul Carmichael
2018-02-19 17:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Carmichael
It is a problem in this ng. People leave in pages of irrelevant stuff when replying to one
line. Generally, barring cascades, having to scroll down at all puts me right off.
Then use Google Groups, which usually conceals all material above the first new line.
It becomes a link "click here to see quoted material."
I don't want to use that. I don't like it one bit. (I do use it when on the move)

Generally, if I have to scroll down to see a reply, I simply move on to the next.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-19 21:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Carmichael
It is a problem in this ng. People leave in pages of irrelevant stuff when replying to one
line. Generally, barring cascades, having to scroll down at all puts me right off.
Then use Google Groups, which usually conceals all material above the first new line.
It becomes a link "click here to see quoted material."
I don't want to use that. I don't like it one bit. (I do use it when on the move)
You raised a problem. A solution exists. If you prefer suffering with the
problem, fine.
Post by Paul Carmichael
Generally, if I have to scroll down to see a reply, I simply move on to the next.
Then use GG.
Paul Carmichael
2018-02-20 08:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Carmichael
It is a problem in this ng. People leave in pages of irrelevant stuff when replying to one
line. Generally, barring cascades, having to scroll down at all puts me right off.
Then use Google Groups, which usually conceals all material above the first new line.
It becomes a link "click here to see quoted material."
I don't want to use that. I don't like it one bit. (I do use it when on the move)
You raised a problem. A solution exists. If you prefer suffering with the
problem, fine.
Post by Paul Carmichael
Generally, if I have to scroll down to see a reply, I simply move on to the next.
Then use GG.
No. The "solution" is that people learn to respect the conventions.

I prefer to just ignore posters that are too lazy to snip. Problem solved.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
occam
2018-02-20 12:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Carmichael
It is a problem in this ng. People leave in pages of irrelevant stuff when replying to one
line. Generally, barring cascades, having to scroll down at all puts me right off.
Then use Google Groups, which usually conceals all material above the first new line.
It becomes a link "click here to see quoted material."
I don't want to use that. I don't like it one bit. (I do use it when on the move)
You raised a problem. A solution exists. If you prefer suffering with the
problem, fine.
Ahem... some of us here think that the 'solution' of using GG is a
problem itself, which has to be endured just like a problem. This is why
most posters here use special newsreaders.
Quinn C
2018-02-19 19:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you would all follow
Mark's example of quoting only what is directly relevant. I find it a nuisance to have to
scroll through screenfuls of distantly related material, often of a completely different
subject. Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
It is a problem in this ng. People leave in pages of irrelevant stuff when replying to one
line. Generally, barring cascades, having to scroll down at all puts me right off.
Then use Google Groups, which usually conceals all material above the first new line.
It becomes a link "click here to see quoted material."
I can easily have that in my newsreader, too (by pressing q), but no
quote is usually not enough context (unless I have just read the
message answered to), so most of the time, I'd have to open it anyway.

People have written scripts for my newsreader to suppress quotes beyond
a configurable number of > signs, but that should really not be on the
shoulders of the reader.
--
The only BS around here is butternut squash, one of the dozens of
varieties of squash I grow. I hope you like squash.
-- Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, S01E10
LFS
2018-02-19 12:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you
would all follow Mark's example of quoting only what is directly
relevant. I find it a nuisance to have to scroll through screenfuls of
distantly related material, often of a completely different subject.
Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
+1
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Katy Jennison
2018-02-19 14:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you
would all follow Mark's example of quoting only what is directly
relevant. I find it a nuisance to have to scroll through screenfuls of
distantly related material, often of a completely different subject.
Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
+1
Yes; I'm far more likely to get annoyed by the unnecessary screeds than
by too much snippage. Depending on who the poster is, I frequently
scroll down anyway, but I do sometimes want to scream "Snip, dammit!".
--
Katy Jennison
HVS
2018-02-19 16:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by John Dunlop
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you
would all follow Mark's example of quoting only what is directly
relevant. I find it a nuisance to have to scroll through screenfuls of
distantly related material, often of a completely different subject.
Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
+1
Yes; I'm far more likely to get annoyed by the unnecessary screeds than
by too much snippage. Depending on who the poster is, I frequently
scroll down anyway, but I do sometimes want to scream "Snip, dammit!".
I mentioned this when I started reading AUE after a few years' absence --
it was a very noticeable (and unwelcome) change since the earlier days.

Could this perhaps have to do with posting from tablets and smart phones?

I use Xnews on my desktop, but an Android reader (Groundhog) on my phone
and tablet. When posting with Groundhog I can either quote everything, or
choose which text to keep, but selecting the text is a bit of a faff --
each line has to be ticked individually (rather than highlighting/deleting
blocks of text), and reformatting is even more fiddly -- and it's tempting
just to choose "quote all" and have done with it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Paul Carmichael
2018-02-19 17:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
Post by Katy Jennison
Yes; I'm far more likely to get annoyed by the unnecessary screeds than
by too much snippage. Depending on who the poster is, I frequently
scroll down anyway, but I do sometimes want to scream "Snip, dammit!".
I mentioned this when I started reading AUE after a few years' absence --
it was a very noticeable (and unwelcome) change since the earlier days.
Could this perhaps have to do with posting from tablets and smart phones?
Partly that and partly that google thing.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
HVS
2018-02-19 17:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by HVS
Post by Katy Jennison
Yes; I'm far more likely to get annoyed by the unnecessary screeds than
by too much snippage. Depending on who the poster is, I frequently
scroll down anyway, but I do sometimes want to scream "Snip, dammit!".
I mentioned this when I started reading AUE after a few years' absence --
it was a very noticeable (and unwelcome) change since the earlier days.
Could this perhaps have to do with posting from tablets and smart phones?
Partly that and partly that google thing.
Ah; yes - I keep forgetting about that.

Not having used the Google interface, does it make selective quoting
difficult or fiddly, or is it just that the users don't know traditional
Usenet conventions?
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Snidely
2018-02-19 20:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by HVS
Post by Katy Jennison
Yes; I'm far more likely to get annoyed by the unnecessary screeds than
by too much snippage. Depending on who the poster is, I frequently
scroll down anyway, but I do sometimes want to scream "Snip, dammit!".
I mentioned this when I started reading AUE after a few years' absence --
it was a very noticeable (and unwelcome) change since the earlier days.
Could this perhaps have to do with posting from tablets and smart phones?
Partly that and partly that google thing.
Ah; yes - I keep forgetting about that.
Not having used the Google interface, does it make selective quoting
difficult or fiddly, or is it just that the users don't know traditional
Usenet conventions?
It's not fiddly nor is it difficult, and there are many examples of GG
posts that apply snippage as appropriate.

All posters need training at some point in their careen.

/dps
--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
Default User
2018-02-19 21:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by HVS
Not having used the Google interface, does it make selective
quoting difficult or fiddly, or is it just that the users don't
know traditional Usenet conventions?
It's not fiddly nor is it difficult, and there are many examples of
GG posts that apply snippage as appropriate.
It's fairly straightforward. The quoted material is in a text-edit box.

Considering the number of people on this newsgroup that use other
newsreaders and don't seem to believe in trimming, it doesn't seem to
be fair to pick on GG users.


Brian
HVS
2018-02-20 11:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by Snidely
Post by HVS
Not having used the Google interface, does it make selective
quoting difficult or fiddly, or is it just that the users don't
know traditional Usenet conventions?
It's not fiddly nor is it difficult, and there are many examples of
GG posts that apply snippage as appropriate.
It's fairly straightforward. The quoted material is in a text-edit box.
Considering the number of people on this newsgroup that use other
newsreaders and don't seem to believe in trimming, it doesn't seem to
be fair to pick on GG users.
Fair enough; as mentioned, I'm not familiar at all with the interface, and
only noticed the slings 'n' arrows shot towards it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-19 21:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by HVS
Post by Katy Jennison
Yes; I'm far more likely to get annoyed by the unnecessary screeds than
by too much snippage. Depending on who the poster is, I frequently
scroll down anyway, but I do sometimes want to scream "Snip, dammit!".
I mentioned this when I started reading AUE after a few years' absence --
it was a very noticeable (and unwelcome) change since the earlier days.
Could this perhaps have to do with posting from tablets and smart phones?
Partly that and partly that google thing.
Ah; yes - I keep forgetting about that.
Not having used the Google interface, does it make selective quoting
difficult or fiddly, or is it just that the users don't know traditional
Usenet conventions?
Perfectly simple. To select something (just like in Word), either click at the
beginning and drag, or click at the beginning and shift-click at the end. I
think I once checked that you can select non-contiguous text with ctrl-click.
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-19 16:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you
would all follow Mark's example of quoting only what is directly
relevant.
But he doesn't. Mark deliberately snips essential context.
A sentence should NEVER be quoted without also giving at least
the sentence it is a reaction to.

And deliberately falsifying quote depth (which Mark also does regularly)
is an unforgivable sin.
Post by John Dunlop
I find it a nuisance to have to scroll through screenfuls of
distantly related material, often of a completely different subject.
Watch for the occcurence of [snip] in some of my postings.
Post by John Dunlop
Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
Agreed, but it must show all directly relevant postings
that went before, unfalsified, and with correct attributions.
Other people's text must NEVER be copy/pasted,

Jan
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-02-19 17:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by John Dunlop
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you
would all follow Mark's example of quoting only what is directly
relevant.
But he doesn't. Mark deliberately snips essential context.
A sentence should NEVER be quoted without also giving at least
the sentence it is a reaction to.
And deliberately falsifying quote depth (which Mark also does regularly)
is an unforgivable sin.
Post by John Dunlop
I find it a nuisance to have to scroll through screenfuls of
distantly related material, often of a completely different subject.
Watch for the occcurence of [snip] in some of my postings.
Post by John Dunlop
Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
Agreed, but it must show all directly relevant postings
that went before, unfalsified, and with correct attributions.
Other people's text must NEVER be copy/pasted,
Who died and made you King of Usenet?
Tony Cooper
2018-02-19 19:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
But he doesn't. Mark deliberately snips essential context.
A sentence should NEVER be quoted without also giving at least
the sentence it is a reaction to.
Snipping is a "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" thing. One porridge
was too hot, one porridge was too cold, and one porridge was just
right. Mark's snippage often "too hot" or "too cold" as this one was.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-20 10:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by J. J. Lodder
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
No, it's you, Tony and many others here who quote too much. I wish you
would all follow Mark's example of quoting only what is directly
relevant. I find it a nuisance to have to scroll through screenfuls of
distantly related material, often of a completely different subject.
Your post does not need to be a record of the entire thread.
Arguably yes. (but I do snip regularly)
It may be an consequence of having an adequate newsclient.
(it colours text by quote level, and the spacebar scrolls)
One tends to forget that others may be handicapped
by having a less adequate one.

However, Tony and I, and most others here,
don't falsify the past by selective editing.

Mark does,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-20 13:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
However, Tony and I, and most others here,
don't falsify the past by selective editing.
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
Tony Cooper
2018-02-20 14:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:32:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
However, Tony and I, and most others here,
don't falsify the past by selective editing.
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.

Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of those
questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-20 15:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:32:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
However, Tony and I, and most others here,
don't falsify the past by selective editing.
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.
No, it's called evading uncomfortable questions.
Post by Tony Cooper
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of those
questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
You of all people are not qualified to decide what should be ignored.
CDB
2018-02-20 17:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
However, Tony and I, and most others here, don't falsify the
past by selective editing.
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies
to when he has no answer to what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.
No, it's called evading uncomfortable questions.
Post by Tony Cooper
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of
those questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
You of all people are not qualified to decide what should be
ignored.
Should we elect somebody?

Poetry has turned to practical matters, so I want to state my position
on snippage. I consider it almost every time, and do it (when
convenient) to eliminate lines that are unconnected with my response. I
have a fairly inclusive view of what is relevant, so it may sometimes
seem to some people that I don't snip enough. Tough noogies: it seems to
me that they snip too much.

In these arguments about procedure (snipping, attribution lists, whom
one is allowed to respond to) I have seen again and again that the chief
source of contention is the difference in newsclients or other software
used, each poster pushing for the rules that go best with that poster's
equipment and reading habits.

I have my own set of those: my habit of cleaning up attributions to make
them readable stems from my interest, when reading, in knowing who said
what. I read messages here in their order of arrival, and my memory
often needs to be refreshed if the preceding post came in a day or more
earlier.

Mark B's attribution practice has been mentioned: I complained a time or
two about that, but stopped when I saw he didn't give a damn. Now I
remove the accumulated attribution marks from his "poster labels"
whenever I reply to him, and leave the post otherwise as it is. I think
they're marginally readable that way.

I'm not going to make any non-negotiable demands, but I think it might
help if people who dislike aspects of others' messages simply cleaned
them up to their own taste in replying.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-20 19:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
I read messages here in their order of arrival, and my memory
often needs to be refreshed if the preceding post came in a day or more
earlier.
The way GG does it seems when I go to a newsgroup's listings, I'm presented
with a window containing the headers of the _threads_ to which something has
been added since my last visit, the one with the most recent addition at the
top. I click on the lowest bolded one -- the one to which something I haven't
read was added longest ago -- and it takes me to the first unread message in
that thread (or to the first one I've starred for some reason), and then I see
the responses to it. Within the thread, I view messages in the order received
rather than in threaded order. Not very often are several subthreads productive
simultaneously, so it's not confusing. But I can see that viewing each _message_
in the entire newsgroup unthreaded in order of receipt, as some seem to say
they have to do it, could be disconcerting.
Post by CDB
Mark B's attribution practice has been mentioned: I complained a time or
two about that, but stopped when I saw he didn't give a damn. Now I
remove the accumulated attribution marks from his "poster labels"
whenever I reply to him, and leave the post otherwise as it is. I think
they're marginally readable that way.
I repair them whenever possible, but sometimes they're irreparable.
Ken Blake
2018-02-20 16:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:30:03 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:32:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of those
questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
I ignore them all, because he's killfiled here. I think I've said it
before, but if we would all killfile him, ignoring his posts would be
much easier, and we wouldn't have to read his posts when they are
quoted by others.

Moreover, if he never got any replies, he would soon get bored posting
here and go away.
CDB
2018-02-20 17:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to
when he has no answer to what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated
for here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of
those questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
I ignore them all, because he's killfiled here. I think I've said it
before, but if we would all killfile him, ignoring his posts would
be much easier, and we wouldn't have to read his posts when they are
quoted by others.
Moreover, if he never got any replies, he would soon get bored
posting here and go away.
The new fragility here amazes me. I find some of Peter's posts
unpleasant to read -- the ones that he fires from the barricades
especially -- and others acceptable, interesting, worth considering and
replying to. He may have a point about being read only in what is left
by posters who dispute with him. He and I have perfectly normal
exchanges that often don't require a reply and so may not be seen by
many, even by those who have not yet killfiled me.

When I open a post -- from anyone -- and find it unpleasant, I skim and
skip, unless I intend to reply to it. Surely that is enough to save
anyone's sanity.
Ken Blake
2018-02-20 18:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to
when he has no answer to what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated
for here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of
those questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
I ignore them all, because he's killfiled here. I think I've said it
before, but if we would all killfile him, ignoring his posts would
be much easier, and we wouldn't have to read his posts when they are
quoted by others.
Moreover, if he never got any replies, he would soon get bored
posting here and go away.
The new fragility here amazes me. I find some of Peter's posts
unpleasant to read -- the ones that he fires from the barricades
especially -- and others acceptable, interesting, worth considering and
replying to.
There may be some like that; I don't know. But I'm not at all
interested in taking the time to read them all to find out which is
which. I already spend too much time on Usenet.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-20 20:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by CDB
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to
when he has no answer to what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated
for here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of
those questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
I ignore them all, because he's killfiled here. I think I've said it
before, but if we would all killfile him, ignoring his posts would
be much easier, and we wouldn't have to read his posts when they are
quoted by others.
Moreover, if he never got any replies, he would soon get bored
posting here and go away.
The new fragility here amazes me. I find some of Peter's posts
unpleasant to read -- the ones that he fires from the barricades
especially -- and others acceptable, interesting, worth considering and
replying to.
There may be some like that; I don't know.
Then stop complaining -- and lying.
Post by Ken Blake
But I'm not at all
interested in taking the time to read them all to find out which is
which.
Then stop complaining -- and lying.
Post by Ken Blake
I already spend too much time on Usenet.
An amount of time that seems to have expanded exponentially in recent weeks.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-20 19:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to
when he has no answer to what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated
for here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of
those questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
I ignore them all, because he's killfiled here. I think I've said it
before, but if we would all killfile him, ignoring his posts would
be much easier, and we wouldn't have to read his posts when they are
quoted by others.
Moreover, if he never got any replies, he would soon get bored
posting here and go away.
The new fragility here amazes me. I find some of Peter's posts
unpleasant to read -- the ones that he fires from the barricades
(barricades get erected for a reason)
Post by CDB
especially -- and others acceptable, interesting, worth considering and
replying to. He may have a point about being read only in what is left
by posters who dispute with him. He and I have perfectly normal
exchanges that often don't require a reply and so may not be seen by
many, even by those who have not yet killfiled me.
Why would anyone do such a thing?
CDB
2018-02-20 20:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Coventry is lovely this time of year]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
The new fragility here amazes me. I find some of Peter's posts
unpleasant to read -- the ones that he fires from the barricades
(barricades get erected for a reason)
Post by CDB
especially -- and others acceptable, interesting, worth
considering and replying to. He may have a point about being read
only in what is left by posters who dispute with him. He and I
have perfectly normal exchanges that often don't require a reply
and so may not be seen by many, even by those who have not yet
killfiled me.
Why would anyone do such a thing?
I usually speak my mind, and I make a lot of ironic jokes. That's bound
to offend some people.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-20 19:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:30:03 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:32:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Splork! Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of those
questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
I ignore them all, because he's killfiled here. I think I've said it
before, but if we would all killfile him, ignoring his posts would be
much easier, and we wouldn't have to read his posts when they are
quoted by others.
Which you don't do, because they are not quoted by others. They are excerpted
by others.

You choose to wallow in your ignorance of what I _actually_ post, which is
very different from the excerpts you see.
Post by Ken Blake
Moreover, if he never got any replies, he would soon get bored posting
here and go away.
Really? Mistakes will be pointed out. You made one yesterday when you didn't
realize that BrE "wait on" = AmE "wait for."
Katy Jennison
2018-02-20 17:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:32:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of those
questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
Yes. That's what snipping is for. What's the point of including all
sorts of stuff which you're not going to reply to?
--
Katy Jennison
Mack A. Damia
2018-02-20 17:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:10:12 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:32:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of those
questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
Yes. That's what snipping is for. What's the point of including all
sorts of stuff which you're not going to reply to?
We have discussed this before.

By snipping, you are allowing others to decide what is important.
David Kleinecke
2018-02-20 18:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:10:12 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:32:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of those
questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
Yes. That's what snipping is for. What's the point of including all
sorts of stuff which you're not going to reply to?
We have discussed this before.
By snipping, you are allowing others to decide what is important.
I usually started reading by skipping to the new part of
the post. Half the time that is all I ever read. But I can't
always understand the new part without some context so I read
backwards until the new part makes sense. I appreciate it when
there is nothing else in the post.

I for one always make only one comment per post even if I see
multiple places that need comment. I see no harm in replying
multiple times to the same post.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-02-20 20:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:10:12 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:32:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Tony Cooper routinely removes parts of what he replies to when he has no answer to
what was in those parts.
That's called "snipping". It's exactly what is being advocated for
here.
Not all questions or points made have merit or are deserving of
response. You, more than anyone else here - are the source of those
questions and points that should rightfully be ignored.
Yes. That's what snipping is for. What's the point of including all
sorts of stuff which you're not going to reply to?
We have discussed this before.
By snipping, you are allowing others to decide what is important.
By not snipping you're falsely claiming that everything is important.
Not that your statement makes any sense anyway. If I snip, I'm
deciding what's important, nobody else. Pertinence is all!
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-20 20:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
By snipping, you are allowing others to decide what is important.
You seem to have omitted a "not."
Quinn C
2018-02-19 23:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Yates
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
If it was an error, I agree.
Mark, you do tend to snip too rigorously. When you snip the sentence
being questioned, and retain only the comment about the sentence, it's
wrongity-wrong-wrong.
No; I was responding only to the comment, not the original sentence.
If you want to read the original sentence, you know where to find it.
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
You also mess up the attributions in the process.
See above, where Richard Yates, Mark Brader, and Tony Cooper
all have the same quote top level.
No they don't.
Post by J. J. Lodder
This makes it impossible to see who said what in response to what.
(without having to do a search for it)
Maybe the unusual format makes you doubt whether there was further
editing, but that is a possibility in any format. You seem to be
counting on laziness to determine truth. Dangerous.
--
It gets hot in Raleigh, but Texas! I don't know why anybody
lives here, honestly.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.220
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-20 10:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Yates
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
If it was an error, I agree.
Mark, you do tend to snip too rigorously. When you snip the sentence
being questioned, and retain only the comment about the sentence, it's
wrongity-wrong-wrong.
No; I was responding only to the comment, not the original sentence.
If you want to read the original sentence, you know where to find it.
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
You also mess up the attributions in the process.
See above, where Richard Yates, Mark Brader, and Tony Cooper
all have the same quote top level.
No they don't.
Look above at the attributions.
They are obviously falsified.
In an honest thread record no two authors
can have the same depth of attribution.
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
This makes it impossible to see who said what in response to what.
(without having to do a search for it)
Maybe the unusual format makes you doubt whether there was further
editing, but that is a possibility in any format. You seem to be
counting on laziness to determine truth. Dangerous.
Complete nonsense.
It isn't people who don't want to look for the truth who are a danger.
It is people (like you and Mark) who deliberately hide it.
(in the hope that people won't spot their falsifications)

Again, deleting no longer relevant parts is fine,
editing the past is a usenet crime,
as is removing relevant context,

Jan
Quinn C
2018-02-20 17:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Yates
I took it as a simple error unworthy of an "oy!".
If it was an error, I agree.
Mark, you do tend to snip too rigorously. When you snip the sentence
being questioned, and retain only the comment about the sentence, it's
wrongity-wrong-wrong.
No; I was responding only to the comment, not the original sentence.
If you want to read the original sentence, you know where to find it.
Dear Mark, I think Tony is right in this.
You Do tend to snip too much.
You also mess up the attributions in the process.
See above, where Richard Yates, Mark Brader, and Tony Cooper
all have the same quote top level.
No they don't.
Look above at the attributions.
They are obviously falsified.
In an honest thread record no two authors
can have the same depth of attribution.
And they haven't. Currently, up there, their quotes have 7, 6 and 5
chevrons, respectively. That may be too many for you to count - I know
people who understand mathematics often have difficulty with
arithmetics.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Complete nonsense.
It isn't people who don't want to look for the truth who are a danger.
It is people (like you and Mark) who deliberately hide it.
(in the hope that people won't spot their falsifications)
Ask your doctor about paranoia.

How do I even come into this? I'm only against you because I'm not for
you.
--
Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-18 04:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
...most objections by PTD of anything I write.
You sure love to argue and defend every mistake you make.
LFS
2018-02-18 05:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:26:04 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
I read this group because there are many things discussed here that
are of interest to me. It is the price of admission that there are
also many things discussed that are of no interest to me.
...proper use of [ ] and { } and ( ).
...the proper format of a limerick.
...nasal vowel sounds. And, vowel and consonant sounds involving
other orifices and body parts.
...pronunciation guides by symbols
...most objections by PTD of anything I write.
I think that should be "to", not "of".
Post by Tony Cooper
...pronoun discomfort.
...most things written by anyone who employs bizarre formatting.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
occam
2018-02-17 08:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
Take#2

There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "hosanna!"
Ken Blake
2018-02-17 19:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Take#2
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "hosanna!"
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Whose scansion and rhyme were absolutely terrible
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "hosanna!"
Snidely
2018-02-19 20:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Just this Saturday, occam explained that ...
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
My apologies, your grace, it escapes me.
Take#2
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "hosanna!"
I think the subsidence is getting deeper.

/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-17 10:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (well, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself duly pluck'd
<graceful bow>
There once was a bot named Hen Hannah,
who incurred the wrath of Rey Amah.
for her weird indentation
defied regularisation
She really does try [but she just cannah]

Jan
occam
2018-02-18 08:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Second and final offering:

Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
Peter Young
2018-02-18 09:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
<applause>

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
LFS
2018-02-18 09:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
In this abomination of a thread, I have yet to see a limerick that scans
properly. If you insist on engaging in abuse, I suggest you stick to prose.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
HVS
2018-02-18 11:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
In this abomination of a thread, I have yet to see a limerick that scans
properly. If you insist on engaging in abuse, I suggest you stick to prose.
+1 - given the nature of this group I've been surprised that they've
scanned so badly. (And also that they're neither particularly funny
nor rude. (I know those attributes aren't necessary, but my
favourites are invariably one or the other.)

Here's a try:

There's a poster in here - "Hen Hanna"
Whose posts are worth less than a tanner
Some say "She's a bot!"
And others "He's not!"
But bother to care less? I cannae.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-18 13:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by LFS
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
In this abomination of a thread, I have yet to see a limerick that
scans
Post by LFS
properly. If you insist on engaging in abuse, I suggest you stick
to prose.
+1 - given the nature of this group I've been surprised that they've
scanned so badly. (And also that they're neither particularly funny
nor rude. (I know those attributes aren't necessary, but my
favourites are invariably one or the other.)
There's a poster in here - "Hen Hanna"
Whose posts are worth less than a tanner
Some say "She's a bot!"
And others "He's not!"
But bother to care less? I cannae.
Needs one more syllable in the first line (change the hyphen, which should be a dash,
to "called"), but this is designed to annoy the rhotic Anglophone who assumes that Scots
"-ae" is [ej] whereas to work here, it must be [@].
Katy Jennison
2018-02-18 13:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by LFS
In this abomination of a thread, I have yet to see a limerick that
scans
Post by LFS
properly. If you insist on engaging in abuse, I suggest you stick
to prose.
+1 - given the nature of this group I've been surprised that they've
scanned so badly. (And also that they're neither particularly funny nor
rude.  (I know those attributes aren't necessary, but my favourites are
invariably one or the other.)
I rather liked Jan's, which seemed to me to capture several of the
unique characteristics of Hen Hanna's posting style. In case Jan's has
Post by LFS
There once was a bot named Hen Hannah,
who incurred the wrath of Rey Amah.
for her weird indentation
defied regularisation
She really does try [but she just cannah]
--
Katy Jennison
HVS
2018-02-18 14:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:23:21 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:51:31 +0000, LFS
Post by LFS
In this abomination of a thread, I have yet to see a limerick that
scans
Post by LFS
properly. If you insist on engaging in abuse, I suggest you
stick
Post by Katy Jennison
to prose.
+1 - given the nature of this group I've been surprised that
they've
Post by Katy Jennison
scanned so badly. (And also that they're neither particularly funny nor
rude.  (I know those attributes aren't necessary, but my
favourites are
Post by Katy Jennison
invariably one or the other.)
I rather liked Jan's, which seemed to me to capture several of the
unique characteristics of Hen Hanna's posting style. In case Jan's has
There once was a bot named Hen Hannah,
who incurred the wrath of Rey Amah.
for her weird indentation
defied regularisation
She really does try [but she just cannah]
Yes, good - but to my ear there's one too many syllables in the final
line. (I'd drop the "just".)
Katy Jennison
2018-02-18 18:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:23:21 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:51:31 +0000, LFS
Post by LFS
Post by LFS
In this abomination of a thread, I have yet to see a limerick
that
Post by Katy Jennison
scans
Post by LFS
properly. If you insist on engaging in abuse, I suggest you
stick
Post by Katy Jennison
to prose.
Post by LFS
+1 - given the nature of this group I've been surprised that
they've
Post by Katy Jennison
scanned so badly. (And also that they're neither particularly
funny nor
Post by Katy Jennison
rude.  (I know those attributes aren't necessary, but my
favourites are
Post by Katy Jennison
invariably one or the other.)
I rather liked Jan's, which seemed to me to capture several of the
unique characteristics of Hen Hanna's posting style.  In case Jan's
has
Post by Katy Jennison
 >     There once was a bot named Hen Hannah,
 >        who incurred     the wrath of Rey Amah.
 >   for her weird    indentation
 > defied               regularisation
 >     She really does  try    [but she just cannah]
Yes, good - but to my ear there's one too many syllables in the final
line.  (I'd drop the "just".)
Indeed, but I took that as one of the unique characteristics which were
being replicated.
--
Katy Jennison
HVS
2018-02-18 18:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:52:54 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:23:21 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:51:31 +0000, LFS
Post by LFS
Post by LFS
In this abomination of a thread, I have yet to see a
limerick
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
that
Post by Katy Jennison
scans
Post by LFS
properly. If you insist on engaging in abuse, I suggest you
stick
Post by Katy Jennison
to prose.
Post by LFS
+1 - given the nature of this group I've been surprised that
they've
Post by Katy Jennison
scanned so badly. (And also that they're neither particularly
funny nor
Post by Katy Jennison
rude.  (I know those attributes aren't necessary, but my
favourites are
Post by Katy Jennison
invariably one or the other.)
I rather liked Jan's, which seemed to me to capture several of the
unique characteristics of Hen Hanna's posting style.  In case Jan's
has
Post by Katy Jennison
 >     There once was a bot named Hen Hannah,
 >        who incurred     the wrath of Rey Amah.
 >   for her weird    indentation
 > defied               regularisation
 >     She really does  try    [but she just cannah]
Yes, good - but to my ear there's one too many syllables in the final
line.  (I'd drop the "just".)
Indeed, but I took that as one of the unique characteristics which were
being replicated.
Fair nuff; hadn't thought of that.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-18 13:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
Quite aside from the lousy scansion, this raises a legitimate point: how many here say ['spijsijz] and how many say ['spijSijz]? (For those who
refuse to use phonetic notation, that's sort of "SPEE-seez" versus "SPEE-sheez.")

But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
Peter Young
2018-02-18 14:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
how many here say ['spijsijz] and how many say ['spijSijz]? (For those
who
refuse to use phonetic notation, that's sort of "SPEE-seez" versus "SPEE-sheez.")
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Richard Yates
2018-02-18 14:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
how many here say ['spijsijz] and how many say ['spijSijz]? (For those
who
refuse to use phonetic notation, that's sort of "SPEE-seez" versus "SPEE-sheez.")
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
musika
2018-02-18 17:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
No, that's American. Here it would normally be PEE-siz.
--
Ray
UK
HVS
2018-02-18 18:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by musika
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
No, that's American. Here it would normally be PEE-siz.
Indeed, but I'm with Richard. I've never heard "pieces" pronounced anywhere
as PEE-seez (that is, to rhyme with "species").
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-02-18 18:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
Post by musika
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
No, that's American. Here it would normally be PEE-siz.
Indeed, but I'm with Richard. I've never heard "pieces" pronounced anywhere
as PEE-seez (that is, to rhyme with "species").
Nor have I.
--
athel
Ken Blake
2018-02-18 22:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
Post by musika
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
No, that's American. Here it would normally be PEE-siz.
Indeed, but I'm with Richard. I've never heard "pieces" pronounced anywhere
as PEE-seez (that is, to rhyme with "species").
Nor have I, but as far as I'm concerned, PEE-seez doesn't rhyme with
"species." I pronounce "species" SPEE-shees.
RH Draney
2018-02-19 00:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Nor have I, but as far as I'm concerned, PEE-seez doesn't rhyme with
"species." I pronounce "species" SPEE-shees.
Referring back to a recent bit of wordplay, I pronounce it as you do
when it means "a sort or type of something", but as "SPEE-sees" when it
means "two or more kinds of currency"....r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-18 20:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by musika
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
No, that's American. Here it would normally be PEE-siz.
Once again we hear the British li ... er, fallacy that Americans do not distinguish shwa
from barred-i. It's the British phonologists who don't allow for both phonemes.

Nonetheless, is musika-Ray saying that "species" and "feces" _do_ sound like "specious"
and "facetious"?

Peter Y claimed either one or the other, and "one" has now been ruled out.
Ken Blake
2018-02-18 22:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by musika
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
No, that's American. Here it would normally be PEE-siz.
I'm American, and PEE-siz is the way I say it.
musika
2018-02-18 23:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
No, that's American. Here it would normally be PEE-siz.
I'm American, and PEE-siz is the way I say it.
I didn't say that PEE-siz wasn't American.
--
Ray
UK
Snidely
2018-02-19 20:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
PEEseez? Really? Not PEEsuhz?
No, that's American. Here it would normally be PEE-siz.
I'm American, and PEE-siz is the way I say it.
I didn't say that PEE-siz wasn't American.
We'll have to ask Joe McCarthy about that, now won't we?

Mine is more "PEES @s"

/dps "oh, was I mixing notations?"
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-18 14:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
how many here say ['spijsijz] and how many say ['spijSijz]? (For those
who
refuse to use phonetic notation, that's sort of "SPEE-seez" versus "SPEE-sheez.")
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
Do you then make "species" like "specious," and "feces" like "facetious," or do you make
"pieces" like "PEE-seez"?
Paul Carmichael
2018-02-19 09:37:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But no one actually rhymes "pieces" with "species" and "feces," do they?
I do, and I would have thought the majority of BrE speakers would too!
I say pEEsiz and speesheez, so no.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
John Dunlop
2018-02-19 08:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
A poster named occam not Ockham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
With a hard-on for fowl
And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
--
John
John Dunlop
2018-02-19 09:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by occam
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
A poster named occam not Ockham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
With a hard-on for fowl
And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
Drat. Apparently "Ockham" isn't pronounced that way. I've been saying it
wrong all this time.
--
John
John Dunlop
2018-02-19 09:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by John Dunlop
Post by occam
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
A poster named occam not Ockham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
With a hard-on for fowl
And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
Drat. Apparently "Ockham" isn't pronounced that way. I've been saying it
wrong all this time.
Second and final offering:

A poster named occam from Oakham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
With a hard-on for fowl
And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
--
John
occam
2018-02-19 09:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by John Dunlop
Post by John Dunlop
Post by occam
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
   Her formatting was atrocious
   Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
A poster named occam not Ockham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
    With a hard-on for fowl
    And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
Drat. Apparently "Ockham" isn't pronounced that way. I've been saying it
wrong all this time.
A poster named occam from Oakham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
   With a hard-on for fowl
   And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
I have already conceded the fact that I am not cut out to write limericks.

I think it is time you did the same, on the grounds then "choke 'im"
does not rhyme "Oakham" which does not rhyme with "hokum". Otherwise,
continue as you were. <smile>
John Dunlop
2018-02-19 09:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by occam
Post by John Dunlop
A poster named occam from Oakham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
   With a hard-on for fowl
   And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
I have already conceded the fact that I am not cut out to write limericks.
I think it is time you did the same, on the grounds then "choke 'im"
does not rhyme "Oakham" which does not rhyme with "hokum". Otherwise,
continue as you were. <smile>
Says the man who rhymes "species", "feces" and "pieces"!
--
John
Peter Young
2018-02-19 17:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by John Dunlop
Post by occam
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
A poster named occam not Ockham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
With a hard-on for fowl
And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
Drat. Apparently "Ockham" isn't pronounced that way. I've been saying it
wrong all this time.
That would be Oakham, innit?

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
HVS
2018-02-19 17:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Dunlop
Post by John Dunlop
Post by occam
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
A poster named occam not Ockham
Wrote verse of most horrible hokum.
With a hard-on for fowl
And an old paper towel
He clutched his wee chicken to choke 'im.
Drat. Apparently "Ockham" isn't pronounced that way. I've been saying it
wrong all this time.
That would be Oakham, innit?
Certainly fits better (although they're basically the same word).

Could use "oakum", but that's probably a bit obscure these days.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
John Dunlop
2018-02-19 19:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Dunlop
Drat. Apparently "Ockham" isn't pronounced that way. I've been
saying it wrong all this time.
That would be Oakham, innit?
Aye. My excuse for mixing them up is that in the local dialect words
like "block" can have the GOAT vowel.
--
Joke
Snidely
2018-02-19 20:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by occam
An Ode to a Bot called Hanna
(well, more of a limerick)
There was a bot called Hen Hanna
Who craved to rhyme (sorta, kinda)
She cluck'd and she cluck'd, until one day
She found herself truly pluck'd
That was her fate, praise "Hosanna!"
Hanna was a Hen of unknown species
Who scattered her thoughts like they were faeces
Her formatting was atrocious
Which drew comments ferocious
Confounding any sense of the pieces.
You do appear confounded.

/dps
--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
Loading...