Rod, at 20:34 on Jun 13 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

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.

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.

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

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.

Well tell Frank then, not me.  I'm quite capable of conducting my own
discussions, and at least Frank doesn't patronise everybody else.

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 |-)

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

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.

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

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.

Oh crap, look up "prose", then tell me why you think Verne and
Wells wrote in that style.  They didn't write prose Rod, they wrote in a
prosaic manner, and there's a fucking huge difference, even if you're
incapable of seeing it.  Indeed, you're the very last person who should be
correcting others' English.

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.

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

BG> So you're saying that I can't describe the works of the likes of
BG> Wells, Verne, Dickens etc as "prosaic", although
"prose-like" is OK?

RS> Yeah, he has fucked that up. Hi Dave.

Pathetic coat-trailling Rod.  Fools nobody.  |-)

BG> If so, I shall do a Rod, thumb my nose at convention,
BG> and do it anyway.  :)

RS> Ah, but you were faking away like mad 

Utter bullshit again Rod.

RS> trying to claim that you were using an accepted dictionary definition, just 
RS> didnt realise there were two different ones.

So what?  I don't profess to be perfect, unlike yourself.  Must be awfully
bloody boring for you, not being able to learn anything new...

RS> Pity you werent using either.

More crap.  The second definition was correct, and if you still claim
otherwise, I think you're simply arguing for the sake of doing so.

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

Are derogatory and condescending comments such as these really necessary? 
You claim in another message that I'm back on the nasty-pills, but perhaps
you should have a good hard long look at your own attitude before you start
criticising those of others.  Any wonder Bob gets pissed off with you...

Your messages are starting to become awfully prosaic (def #1).  |-)

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq 3.10 alpha