BG> anything by Burroughs, Verne, or H G Wells is eminently
BG> readable, as they all had wonderfully prosaic styles.
BL>                                       ^^^^^^^
BL> ROFL!!! Either you are being very sly, or
BL> you need to look up the meaning of "prosaic".

BG> I was actually quite serious, and was just about to tell
BG> you to go and fuck yourself, but decided to look it up
BG> just in case. And bugger me, it has an alternative meaning...

BG> Prosaic adj. 1. commonplace or dull, matter-of-fact or unimaginative.
BG>              2. having the character or spirit of prose as opposed to
BG>                 poetry, as verse or writing.

BG> In case you wondered, in its original context, mine is definition #2.

RS> Laurentian class pathetic faking I see. Must be infectious.

BG> I'm dead fucking serious.  Until the other day, I never
BG> even knew that prosaic had two totally opposite meanings.

RS> Yes, but that says sweet fuck all about the OTHER bit about you intended #2

BG> Nope, that #2 definition accurately describes my original intention,

Nope, you are engaging in pathetic faking. That one makes no sense in
your original, which your keep carefully deleting so no one can check.

BG> and I stand by it unreservedly.

You can stand wherever you like Bill, wont make
the pathetic faking any more convincing tho |-)

BG> Anyway, I demand a second opinion...  Frank ??  |-)

Who cares what Frank thinks, he is just a pathetic yuppie, mind totally
addled with all the chemicals he needs to get the day in a haze of.

RS> Your 'wonderfully prosaic' just plain doesnt fit #2, you are faking |-)

BG> Nope, you're the one who complains bitterly and incessantly about
BG> "anality", yet you won't even acknowledge that in its context,

Its bullshit Bill.

BG> mine is a perfectly valid (and correct) use of that word.

Yes, but it doesnt fit the original usage. Yes, its technically
correct, but the original comment is essentially meaningless. We
already know those were prose, so the 'wonderfully prosaic' makes no
sense at all in the context. QED, you are faking away your blooper.

BG> Ask Stew, he'll tell you the same thing.

Nope, he can pick faking very well indeed. And fakes himself too.

BG> Oh well, at least I can correctly spell obsession,
BG> indictment, fundamental, etc., etc., ad infinitum...  |-)

RS> And are anal enough to think it matters a stuff |-)

BG> Probably because to the vast majority of intelligent people, it does.

More pathetic faking. Just labelling your approach what intelligent
people do convinces no one Bill, just makes you look silly.

--- PQWK202