BG> anything by Burroughs, Verne, or H G Wells is eminently
 BG> readable, as they all had wonderfully prosaic styles.

 BL> ROFL!!! Either you are being very sly, or you need to
 BL> look up the meaning of "prosaic".
 
 BG> In case you wondered, in its original context, mine is
 BG> definition #2.

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

  If you say a novelist has a "prosaic style," it can only mean that
he is as dull as dishwater, but Bill's use of "wonderfully" made it
just as clear that he intended the technical meaning of "prosaic," and
that he did not know the other, more common interpretation.

  The problem is with "wonderfully" as much as anything. He could have 
said "distinctive prosaic styles" and got away with it.
 
  Knowing Bill's pride in English, I could not resist the chance to
stir him, and it worked better than I expected. I was right: he did
need to look up the meaning of prosaic, but Rod has gone off as usual,
misunderstanding everything and arguing about something different and 
calling Bill a liar, of all things. ROFL.

  I reckon I deserve a 9.6 for stirring... 

  To me, it was quite obvious that Bill meant the technical sense of 
"prosaic," that his usage was wrong as written, but that everything he
has said since is honest... even that he was going to tell me to get 
fucked until he looked it up. That was what made it such a good stir. 
He looked it up like I said... and I got him! He, he, he.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---