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

FM> That's not actually 2 meanings, it's 2 interpretations of
FM> one meaning - unimaginative (etc) like prose, cf poetry.
FM> (Although I've seen some pretty unimaginative poetry :-))

BG> Dunno, that's not the way I'd read definition #1 at all.

RS> Yeah, he has had a massive brain fart on that one.

BG> Or it could be that his COD actually says so.  You don't know that.

I really cant see how those two very different meanings
can be considered as two interpretations of one meaning.
And if the COD really does say that, its a dud on that word.

BG> If they meant "like prose", they should have said so, the whole
BG> point being that I don't find prose unimaginative or dull at all
BG> (in general; as you say, there is certainly some unimaginative
BG> poetry about). Matter-of-fact just doesn't fit at all though.

RS> Yep, his claim is crap.

BG> Well tell Frank then, not me.

No thanks, he is quite capable of reading the messages in a thread
which arent personally addressed to him. It was convenient to comment on
his bit without a separate message. If you dont like that, stiff shit.

BG> I'm quite capable of conducting my own discussions,
BG> and at least Frank doesn't patronise everybody else.

Still at the nasty pills I see, I didnt curl up and die for some reason |-)

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

FM> In its original context you meant to use the word "prose",
not "prosaic".

RS> Thats crap too. It makes no sense, 'anything by blah blah
RS> is wonderfully prosey'. Makes no sense to say that Frank.

RS> You just fucked up completely what 'prosaic' means
RS> and wont admit it and are faking away like mad |-)

BG> Funny how you only ever have brain-farts, while the rest of us
BG> are all pathetic fakers and liars.  Wears thin after a while Rod.

Stiff shit Bill, your resort to the nasty
pills can wear a bit thin at times too Bill.

BG> Let's just say that I mean "prose" (and still do) in
BG> its adjectival form.  As in "prose-like", for example.

RS> No thank, still makes no sense to use the form of words you did.

BG> That's pretty rich, coming from somebody who fakes away his own
BG> spelling inadequacies by calling them "language evolutions".

I dont on the distinctively different stuff like the use of 'sillys'
instead of 'sillies', I have said repeatedly that I just choose to
do it that way coz I think it makes sense and its mildly amusing that
it causes the anals to choke on their coffee every time they see one.

What I did say was that some OTHER stuff is the language changing,
as any living language does. Like 'mother in laws' instead instead
of 'mothers in law'. I notice that Johnny Howard actually did the
same thing in his speech on the republic, saying 'governor generals'
instead of the more technically correct 'governors general'. I could
just picture the silly old farts that like his monarchist approach
going positively apoplectic at the obscenity |-)

RS> You could certainly say that those all have wonderful styles, and
RS> add some adjective describing in what way they are wonderful. But
RS> it makes no sense at all to say they are prose, we already know that.

BG> Oh crap, look up "prose",

No thanks, *I* actually know what it means |-)

BG> then tell me why you think Verne and Wells wrote in that style.

They wrote prose. They dont have a prosaic style in
the sense of the first bit of the MAC definition above.

BG> They didn't write prose Rod,

Fraid so.

BG> they wrote in a prosaic manner, and there's a fucking
BG> huge difference, even if you're incapable of seeing it.

Poor Bill.

BG> Indeed, you're the very last person who
BG> should be correcting others' English.

I wasnt correcting your english, just remarking on your pathetic faking.

BG> Not my fault if the Macquarie and COD are wrong. Indeed,
BG> I'd be interested to know what your COD has to say about that.

RS> It says you are faking and convincing no one.

BG> Same typical "reasoned response" which we've come to
expect these days.

it was a joke Joyce, was the SOH bypass painful Bill ?

RS> Notice poor old Bob has gone back into his rat hole |-)

BG> Are derogatory and condescending comments such as these really necessary?

Who gives a shit whats necessary Bill ?  I sure dont. And I certainly
wont be taking the slightest notice of any preaching from YOU on how
to write email either, you are hardly some paragon of virtue are you ? |-)

BG> You claim in another message that I'm back on the nasty-pills,

Indeed, its dead obvious, has been for a week or two.

BG> but perhaps you should have a good hard long look at your
BG> own attitude before you start criticising those of others.

No thanks, I find it more amusing to point
out pathetic faking when I see pathetic faking |-)

I've deleted the rest of your nasty comments, for some reason they
didnt cause me to curl up and die, not enough voltage or something,
try harder boy |-)  <--- smiley for the SOH challenged.

--- PQWK202