Post by patrick boyd[multiple snips...]
Post by John W. KennedyYou come in here with your off-topic, sniggering, dirty-little-boy
attempts at humor, forge documents, pretend to be multiple people, and
generally act like someone who shows up at a "Star Trek" convention to
ask William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy to read your K/S fanfic. Your
emotional age is clearly somewhere around 12, and you have a high
opinion of your own intelligence that is largely unjustified.
No wonder you still live in your parents' basement. Every time you try
to interact with live people, you get beaten up, and you can't figure
out why.
And it also appears that you're incurable.
*PLONK*
I don't wish to be critical or anything old chap, but you could have
saved yourself a lot of trouble by just not talking to him in the first
place.
The whole sodomy concept would be so utterly out of context to the
literature of the period that it really does not to deserve to be
dignified with a response.
Just my opinion.
I know, I know.... But he introduced it slowly, building up his
phantasy, piece by piece, in order to counter my arguments, and I grew
up in an age when it was an accepted dramatic convention that hysterics
need to be slapped, and that they will then recover themselves as a
matter of course; I've never quite escaped the influence of that
particular myth.
And his faux-Malory, though spoilt by ridiculous notions of grammar,
inappropriateness in the century to which he attributes it, and, as you
say, the matter itself, /does/ display a surprising sensitivity to prose
style. Many who know 15th-century English flawlessly would nevertheless
fail to get the rhythms and general P.O.V. as right as he does.
But, as I say, he's clearly incurable.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"