The Amazing World of Books

"Bud Webster" <budwebster RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fmf2mvk1r95urhtn03gaaue9ti30vbtuvs@4ax.com...
> "Bob F." <nospam RemoveThis @yahoo.com> sez:
>
> >"michael adams" <mjadams25 RemoveThis @onetel.net.uk> wrote
> >> Ah look!
> >>
> >> Another turd floats to the surface, for its moment in the sun.
> >
> >You really shouldn't be so hard on yourself, you festering gob of
camel
> >vomit, you lickspittle, you inane drone, you toffee-nosed twit, you
> >suppurating pustule, you inflamed hemorrhoid, you turnip, you breath
of a
> >thousand rectums, you burning discharge, why I oughta....
>
> Now now, Bob. Remember your blood pressure.
>
> Besides, you left out "knucklehead."

....

Aw shucks you must have the 2nd edition of

"The Whimpering Sissies Book of Getting Even"

The one with the extra words!

Now arent you just the lucky one!



michael adams

....
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"Bud Webster" <budwebster RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4hf2mv02jn4m7r5otcfvlto9b1vfvumie6@4ax.com...
> "Bob F." <nospam RemoveThis @yahoo.com> sez:
>
> >Anyone missing a stick?
>
> Why, yes, Bob, I am indeed missing a stick. Now, where did I
> put....Oh, never mind, I found it. It's stuck up Michael
> Adams' ass.

....

He's already said that, you simpering moron.

Why are you simply repeating his own words back to him ?

So what are you exactly ?

Illiterate, retarded, or both ?




michael adams

....
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"John Yamamoto-Wilson" <john DeleteThis @rarebooksinjapan.com> wrote in message
news:bjr6m8$m3t2a$1@ID-169501.news.uni-berlin.de...
> paghat wrote:
>
> > irony is the art of saying the opposite of what you mean
>

> Not up to your usual standards, Paghat! Perhaps this kind of
> half-baked definition is to blame for the widely-believed idea that
> Americans don't "do" irony.

....

Or perhaps it would indicate that some of them at least, for all
their seeming "Americanness" are in fact rather better at it, than
you are yourself.

I'm sorry John, but you are the one who appears to be mistaken here,
in totally missing the intention behind Paghat's Post. As I read it
anyway, this purported definition of irony is simply a hollow pretext
which allows Paghat to direct this deliciously absurd suggestion
towards Alfred Armstrong -

" are you saying you're in love with Michael who is so wise &
well-tanned & a prancing stallion? "

You see John you really do have to work at these things. And I can
assure you that you don't normally find these sort of remarks being
made by somebody with no understanding of irony or of the absurd.

A familiarity with the Google Archive for this Group might instead
suggest a rather delicate line being drawn in the sand.

Because for someone who teaches Literature John, I do find myself
rather astonished by your alarming propensity toward literal mindedness
at every opportunity. And your seeming blindness towards poetic licence,
creative ambiguity, irony, and the use of metaphor generally. And this
resulting seeming inability of yours to distinguish betwen literal
meaning, and intention, at every turn.

Or to put it another way John, in the a world of the "Likely Lads"
you're much more likely to be counted as one of the Bobs, rather than
as one of Terrys.




Your reference to "the widely-believed idea that Americans don't "do"
irony." was also noted in passing John. And is, if I may say so, totally
unwarrented unless said in jest. Which is maybe for youreself and others
to judge.

Citing a generalisation of this kind when addressing *an individual* is
simply inexcusable unless that person, in this case Paghat is actually
claiming to be speaking as an American ..."As an American I think...."
Which Paghat clearly isn't. She's speaking as an individual person in
her own right and voicing her own opinions. And has the right to be
treated as such. Not simply treated as a member of some lumpen mass
upon which you wish to hang your loose generaliations.

In other words, Paghat's nationality has no relevence here. None
whatsover.

Whereas making observations about say, "Americans in general" to nobody
in particular, isn't being similarly offensive. Because many indiviuals
won't see themselves as "Americans" in that way, in any case. Indeed
they may very well hold a very similar view of their fellow Americans,
to those being expessed. And at least they are left with the choice of
opting themselves out of any such generalisation.





michael adams

horses for courses


....
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"John Yamamoto-Wilson" <john.DeleteThis@rarebooksinjapan.com> wrote in message
news:bjsicd$mf67t$1@ID-169501.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I wrote:
>
> > > Not up to your usual standards, Paghat! Perhaps this kind of
> > > half-baked definition is to blame for the widely-believed idea
that
> > > Americans don't "do" irony.
>
> Michael Adams replied:
>
> > Or perhaps it would indicate that some of them at least, for all
> > their seeming "Americanness" are in fact rather better at it, than
> > you are yourself.
>
> Oh, I don't doubt it. But what is the point of the word "seeming"
here? Do
> you mean they are not really American after all?

....

No it means that you should take care to distinguish between the
"Americanness" which is shared by all American Nationals such as Paghat
with the stereotypical "Ammericanness" which is rightly of wrongly
attributed to Americans by foreigners - politeness, brashness,
boastfulness, not all of them necessarily consistent with one another.

....
>
> > I'm sorry John, but you are the one who appears to be mistaken here,
> > in totally missing the intention behind Paghat's Post. As I read it
> > anyway, this purported definition of irony is simply a hollow
pretext
> > which allows Paghat to direct this deliciously absurd suggestion
> > towards Alfred Armstrong -
> >
> > " are you saying you're in love with Michael who is so wise &
> > well-tanned & a prancing stallion? "
> >
> > You see John you really do have to work at these things.
>
> Try working a little harder then, and see how ironic it is that
> you are jumping to Paghat's defence and calling her comments
"deliciously
> absurd".

....

Don't you find them deliciously absurd as well then?

That's the point!

I'm simply pointing out what I think is a more accurate
interpretation of her post. Something which you appear to
have singularly overlooked

....


> Could it be you are doing this because you perceive her as attacking
> Alfred Armstrong and, by implication, siding with you? Perhaps you
> should look a little deeper, my friend. There may be unplumbed depths
> of irony there that have eluded you.
>
> > A familiarity with the Google Archive for this Group might instead
> > suggest a rather delicate line being drawn in the sand.
>
> Do you really mean you've been digging into the archives to
> try and see what kind of a fool I've made of myself on previous
> occasions? Get a life, do!

....

What in heaven's name makes you think this has anything whatsoever
to do with you?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

You're the person who needs to get a life my friend!

When I start receiving totally unsolicited and vaguely sinister
emails, from a Poster on this Group, I naturally check up on the
person responsible in the Google Archive. And all was quite quickly
made plain to me. And this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with Mr Armstrong! Not from what I can see anyway.

I'd put it in big letters for you but HTML is rightly forbidden
on Usenet. As it consumes too many resources if nothing else.

I'm not on here to take sides with anyone. Just to talk about
books as it happens. But if need be I'm quite capable of looking
after myself thank you very much. Emails or no emails.

....



>
> > Because for someone who teaches Literature John, I do find myself
> > rather astonished by your alarming propensity
>
> Goodness! This could be serious!
>
> > toward literal mindedness at every opportunity.
> > And your seeming blindness towards poetic licence,
> > creative ambiguity, irony, and the use of metaphor generally.
> > And this resulting seeming inability of yours to distinguish between
> > literal meaning, and intention, at every turn.
>
> Oh, *that*! I thought you were actually onto something. No,
> you're quite right. I have this sense when reading your posts that
> some exquisite use of poetic license - or perhaps some masterfully
> creative ambiguity - is floating just beyond the grasp of my limited
> intellect, but what can I do? We can't all have your gifts.

....

You got there the end though didn't you, John? The curtain finally
fell away.

Perhaps it's my marked aversion to smileys. Who's to know?

....

> > Or to put it another way John, in the a world of the "Likely Lads"
> > you're much more likely to be counted as one of the Bobs, rather
than
> > as one of Terrys.
>
> Ooh! Now that's hitting below the belt! You utter cad! Well, I won't
take
> that sitting down! Why, in the world of Monty Python you wouldn't make
it as
> a dead parrot. In the world of Mr Bean you wouldn't make it as a teddy
bear.
> Even if they sedated you first. So there!

....

Atkinson you can have, as a fellow Northumbrian - or whatever, but only
as Blackadder....but only so long as you agree to be Baldrick. The
wonders
of modern technology eh.....Mr Bean in Japan.

....

>
> > Your reference to "the widely-believed idea that Americans don't
"do"
> > irony." was also noted in passing John. And is, if I may say so,
totally
> > unwarranted
>
> How so, old fruit? What's wrong with that?
>
> > Citing a generalisation of this kind when addressing *an individual*
is
> > simply inexcusable unless that person, in this case Paghat is
actually
> > claiming to be speaking as an American ..."As an American I
think...."
>
> Oh, I see.
>
> > Which Paghat clearly isn't. She's speaking as an individual person
in
> > her own right and voicing her own opinions. And has the right to be
> > treated as such. Not simply treated as a member of some lumpen mass
> > upon which you wish to hang your loose generaliations.
>
> Ah, right.
>
> > In other words, Paghat's nationality has no relevence here. None
> > whatsover.
>
> You mean the same way Jon didn't stand up and say "As a Norwegian I
> think..." and was speaking as an individual person, not as a member of
some
> lumpen mass, and hence his nationality had no relevance to the
discussion
> and it was simply inexcusable of you to say:
>
> >> Possibly your code of honour is different in Norway Mr
Stuest$B�M(B
>
...

No of course not. Because I'm suggesting a possibility concerning
Norwegians. Not making any assumptions about them.

The problem here was that Mr Stuestøl was seemingly unappreciative
of my need to stand up for myself, in the situation I found myself
in. I've never met any Norwegians, and for all I know it may be the
custom among Norwegians generally to brush off such insults with a
shrug of the shoulders. And so I was suggesting that maybe this might
explain Mr Stuestøl's seeming inability to recognise my situation. This
was simply a way to possibly clear up some possible misuderstanding. The
possibility that Norwegians in general, of which Mr Stuestøl is indeed
one, might tend to view these things rather differently.

If instead I'd turned around and said -

Not up to your usual standards Mr Stuestøl! Perhaps your seeming
indifference to the situation I found myself in, is to blame for the
widely-believed idea that Norwegians are a load of pushovers who
allow themselves to be insulted at every turn.

Spot the difference?




michael adams

....
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"michael adams" <mjadams25 RemoveThis @onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:bjs7jm$cquph$1@ID-206475.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> It's been welcome to have had this opportunity to explain myself
> further, and hopefuly this has cleared the air.
>
It did. No hard feelings.

> It would be patronising of me in the extreme, to congratulate you
> on your excellent English. But I do hope that my use of figurative
> expressions such as "cleared the air", which native English speakers
> use unthinkingly, didn't present you with any additional problems.
>
Patronising or not, thank you for the compliment.

Figurative expressions are seldom hard to understand when written. A lot of
them are international too. "Cleared the air" is "Renset luften" in
Norwegian, and it means exactly the same, both literally and figurative. No
worries.

If this were a language group, it could be an interesting thread, trying to
collect some common allusions and language flowers (which is the translation
of Norwegian "språkblomster", often used to describe figurative
expressions).

>
> all the best
>
>
Thank you. And the same to you Mr Adams.

--
Jon Fredrik Stuestøl
Norway
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

> >Anyone missing a stick?
> >
> > Why, yes, Bob, I am indeed missing a stick. Now, where did I
> > put....Oh, never mind, I found it. It's stuck up Michael
> > Adams' ass.
>
> ...
>
> He's already said that, you simpering moron.
>
> Why are you simply repeating his own words back to him ?
>
> So what are you exactly ?
>
> Illiterate, retarded, or both ?

> michael adams
>
> ...


Perhaps correct?
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"Tom" <sabran.TakeThisOut@lintern-mole.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bjsprt$88h$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >Anyone missing a stick?
> > >
> > > Why, yes, Bob, I am indeed missing a stick. Now, where did I
> > > put....Oh, never mind, I found it. It's stuck up Michael
> > > Adams' ass.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > He's already said that, you simpering moron.
> >
> > Why are you simply repeating his own words back to him ?
> >
> > So what are you exactly ?
> >
> > Illiterate, retarded, or both ?
>
> > michael adams
> >
> > ...
>
>
> Perhaps correct?


Sold any more books recently at a vast profit, have you?

How absolutly thrilling for you!

Lift any rock and the slugs all come sliding out eventually. Desparate
for their little bit of recognition. But they soon shrink away again if
they can sense anyone coming.

Now back under your stone.

boo!


michael adams




>
>
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

> > > >Anyone missing a stick?
> > > >
> > > > Why, yes, Bob, I am indeed missing a stick. Now, where did I
> > > > put....Oh, never mind, I found it. It's stuck up Michael
> > > > Adams' ass.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > He's already said that, you simpering moron.
> > >
> > > Why are you simply repeating his own words back to him ?
> > >
> > > So what are you exactly ?
> > >
> > > Illiterate, retarded, or both ?
> >
> > > michael adams
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> >
> > Perhaps correct?
>
>
> Sold any more books recently at a vast profit, have you?
>

Yes, it's called capitalism - and selling book is surely one of the more
interesting ways of doing it.

> How absolutly thrilling for you!
>
> Lift any rock and the slugs all come sliding out eventually. Desparate
> for their little bit of recognition. But they soon shrink away again if
> they can sense anyone coming.
>
> Now back under your stone.
>
> boo!
>
>
> michael adams
>

Michael - surely it is you who strives for recognition - since the beginning
of your presence in this newsgroup (Google groups appears to suggest this
was the 10th June 2003) you have bawled your views to us at every opotunity.
The group is now, in my opinion, less enjoyable as a whole. Whilst it was at
first amusing to banter with you, it is now mind-numbingly boring.

Quit thinking that you are inherantly superior to everyone - and end this
infernal habit of addressing others in a patronising way.

I will not be drawn - this will be my last post on this topic.

Tom L-M
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"Tom" <sabran.TakeThisOut@lintern-mole.fsnet.co.uk> sez:


>Quit thinking that you are inherantly superior to everyone - and end this
>infernal habit of addressing others in a patronising way.


Tom, Adams thinks he's a wit. He's half-right.



"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow
words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways
to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
--James D. Nicoll
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"Tom" <sabran DeleteThis @lintern-mole.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bjt00l$1hb$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...>

> and end this infernal habit of addressing others in a patronising
way.
>

Oh right! So *you're* trying to tell me how to behave, and you've
got the brass-neck to describe *me* as patronising ?

Oxfam shops don't suit you, my posts don't suit you.

Precisely what is it, you spoiled little brat, that makes you think
that the world should be run to suit your own personal convenience ?

....

> I will not be drawn - this will be my last post on this topic.

....

Well thank heaven for that!

Having to listen to any more of your bleating, you conceited
little pillock, would probably be more than most ordinary mortals
could reasonably be expected to bear.

Oh and here's a bit of sage advice for you, Sonny.

Before too loudly accusing others of anything, it's always best
to have a good look in the mirror yourself.

Now why don't you just quietly slide back under that stone you
just slid out from.




michael adams

....
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"Bud Webster" <budwebster DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d7h4mvcmiggd1vlk33cb3mjk5o3jh331h0@4ax.com...

> "Tom" <sabran DeleteThis @lintern-mole.fsnet.co.uk> sez:
>
>
> >Quit thinking that you are inherantly superior to everyone - and end this
> >infernal habit of addressing others in a patronising way.
>
>
> Tom, Adams thinks he's a wit. He's half-right.

If you're running out of material I've got a signed first of "2000 More Insults"
in the basement somewhere. I could let you have it cheap.
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"fundoc" <fundoc.DeleteThis@nycap.rr.com> sez:


>If you're running out of material I've got a signed first of "2000 More Insults"
>in the basement somewhere. I could let you have it cheap.

Hmmm, I dunno. What kind of shape is the jacket in?



"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow
words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways
to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
--James D. Nicoll
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books 

"John Yamamoto-Wilson" <john RemoveThis @rarebooksinjapan.com> wrote in message
news:bjv1jq$n073j$1@ID-169501.news.uni-berlin.de...

> Goodbye, troll.

I very much doubt if you'd recognise a Troll, if he was staring
you in the face John.

So don't try and duck out of it.

This whole businees started with my politely requesting another
poster to exclude certain material from his posts in acordance with
the NewsGroup Charter.

But I can certainly recognise Spammers who are themselves flagrantly
in violation of the NewsGroup Charter .

Stones and greenhouse raedily spring to mind here I think.

i.e

1.3 What Kind of Posts are Inappropriate?
Want to buy ...
For sale ...
For auction ...
For trade …
Visit my commercial website.

end quote:



By for instance posting with links to the following:


SALE CATALOGUES:

MAIN CATALOGUES:

WESTERN BOOKS: ALPHABETICISED CATALOGUE PART ONE (A-L)
WESTERN BOOKS: ALPHABETICISED CATALOGUE PART TWO (M-Z)
These catalogues are a really mixed bag. Basically, they
consist of anything and everything of interest I've
turned up while looking for other things (see "Books I
am collecting", below). High points include a first
edition/first issue of Dickens, A Christmas Carol
("Stave 1" and all other issue points correct), and an
early edition (1802) of Wordsworth's Lyrical Ballads,
but there should be something for all tastes - and
all pockets - here.

JAPANALIA 1: OLDER JAPANESE BOOKS (pre-Showa).

JAPANALIA 2: MODERN FIRST EDITIONS (in Japanese).

JAPANALIA 3: JAPANESE MANGA (mostly in Japanese).

JAPANALIA 4: FIRST EDITIONS IN JAPANESE OF WESTERN WRITERS

JAPANALIA 5: BOOKS ABOUT/RELATING TO JAPAN (in English)


ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON Down to the last few items.

A FIFTEENTH CENTURY BOOK OF HOURS One of about a thousand
or so books of hours held in private collections around the
world.

....

So who exactly do you think you're fooling John?

If you want to Post because you're intesested in books and
you like to offer advice, then Post. And advertise your link
to your catalogues, which are quite clearly commercial, through
the normal channels. Either that, or put the purely informative
element on another URL and continue Posting that to the NewsGroup
as before.

The presumption being that if it wasn't to your advatage to post
a link to your catalogues on the NewsGroup you wouldn't continue
to do so anyway.

While if on the other hand there's no actual benefit accruing from
your posting the link to the catalogues on the NewsGroup, then
there'd be no real reason for you not simply removing it, anyway.

If however you're only willing to Post on the Newgroup because it
offers you the bonus of free advertising, unlike many other posters
who willingly contribute their expertise on a wide range of topics
to the NewsGroup for nothing, then you're quite clearly in in flagrant
violation of the NewsGroup Charter. It really is as simple as that.

You see John, its probably unwise to try and be too dimissive of
people, when you're so very clearly in the wrong.

Thank You





michael adams.

....
 >> Stay informed about: The Amazing World of Books