Bob, at 16:20 on Jun 12 1995, you wrote to Frank Malcolm...

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

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

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

Quite correct.  I'd never even heard it used before, in that context.

BL> The problem is with "wonderfully" as much as anything. He
could have 
BL> said "distinctive prosaic styles" and got away with it.

No, because the meaning which I'd (correctly) attributed to the word, is
actually _enhanced_ by the addition of "wonderfully".  IOW, there
was really nothing to get away with.  The Macquarie makes that quite clear
too.

BL> Knowing Bill's pride in English, I could not resist the chance to
BL> stir him, and it worked better than I expected. I was right: he did
BL> need to look up the meaning of prosaic,

And a damn good thing too IMO.  I really couldn't understand your initial
comments re "sly digs" etc, and rather than pissing me off, I
actually appreciate your indirectly adding to my knowledge-base.

BL> but Rod has gone off as usual, misunderstanding everything and arguing 
BL> about 
BL> something different and calling Bill a liar, of all things. ROFL.

No, Rod called me a "pathetic faker", I think you'll find. 
Which, I suppose, is much the same thing anyway.  As I often tell Robert
when threatening him with some hideous form of punishment for misbehaving
(or breathing too loudly, or whatever), I DO NOT tell lies.  And he knows
it too.  |-)

BL> I reckon I deserve a 9.6 for stirring... 

Will you settle for a .38 perhaps ?  :)

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

I still disagree (what a surprise!).  As described in my Macquarie, there
was nothing at all wrong with my original comment.  The only thing wrong is
the fact that it has generated around 100Kb of rebuttals and denials.  :)

BL> He looked it up like I said... and I got him! He, he, he.

Says he, conveniently forgetting that the second interpretation is exactly
what I meant anyway.  So no, I'm not annoyed at all.  You bastard!

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq 3.10 alpha