Voodoo Archive 4
[ Read Responses | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]
Posted by Cyrus on 22 March 2002, at 8:52 p.m., in response to th4e issue remains that your criticism, posted by gehrig on 22 March 2002, at 1:48 a.m.
"the issue remains that your criticism was originally based on your inability to comprehend the posts."
Yes. There are several posts made by Clarke Cant which have yet to be deciphered - by anyone. If you are able to understand everything that Clark Cant has ever posted, you are truly a better man than me.
"maybe you've spun away from that."
Again with the personal jibe! It is indeed out of character. (Maybe it's catching up with you, finally.)
"that you have some miraculous ability to discern a posters "intent", from those same "unintelligible" posts flies in the face of logic. if you can't understand a post, how can you determine the posters intent ?"
What on earth are you talking about? There are posts by Clarke Cant that I fully understand (yes, folks, so sue me!), there are others I understand nothing at all and there are others in between. In the two latter categories, I can only make an educated guess as to what the author is saying. That's all there is to it.
...Am I writing in a language more complex than Clarke? Is that why you seem to misunderstand what I write?
"criticse any post on its technical merits, were you so able. to snivel that any post is too complex for you, thus questioning the "intent" author, is shallow. this is the crux of my observation."
Well, to use your terminology, if now you have 'spun' to only that "crux", we might be close to closure. Watch :
I have not criticised Cant's posts on their "technical merits". (And thanks for the implication that I'm unable to do this. Par for the course with your loss of composure.) I have merely pointed out the foolishness of many posters/acolytes around the web who are taken in by Cant's oftentimes unintelligible prose and mistake it for the Ten Commandments. That you choose to read too much into Cant's posts as well is not something to be ashamed, gehrig!.. You seem hell-bent on shaking off that impression.
Intent and how I "discern" it : I don't! Another one of your whoppers in this bagatelle. It is you who discerns intent where there's none! I am merely pointing out to our honorable visitor that this is not a painting, your Lordship, it's a sign by the toilet lady not to go in while she's tidying up the place. In other words, this was not intended to be high art. Cant's posts do not contain the infinite wisdom of the Dalai Lama just because they read like mangled Mandarin.
How can I make this more clear for you? I can't write in Mandarin.
The Voodoo Archive 4 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.