Message boards : Number crunching : Blast from the past ...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile Paul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 545
Credit: 148,912
RAC: 0
Message 21037 - Posted: 20 Jan 2009, 5:04:32 UTC

While looking through my old e-mails I ran across this that I wrote back in August 2005:

This space in the original page was formerly occupied by a three word neutral statement that at least one person found pejorative, and upon reflection I decided that they were correct that it is absolutely true that saying that a person might contain or might not contain any of the following qualities, hence:

<li>Stating that some people are &quot;full&quot; does indeed draw attention to the fact that some people may indeed have more of some substance or capability inside than others and this would tend to indicate that some unfortunates are somehow less than others with their lack of a complete and total quantity of what ever &quot;it&quot; is that we are measuring or discussing. Therefore, bringing up unfair and reprehensible comparisons to the &quot;full&quot;-challenged individuals shall not be tolerated.</li>
<li>Moreover, the despicable use of the word &quot;of&quot; which as you know from your dictionary, when used in conjunction with a person does indicate that this word is &quot;used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, or reason by which a person or thing is actuated or impelled&quot; Webster\'s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged; &copy;1976, Page 1565, lower center column and this does tend to lend itself to the possibilities that one individual may have a less than sterling derivation than some other persons. Henceforth I shall endeavor to cast no aspersions or to impugn any living or dead persons quality of their &quot;of&quot; in any statement.</li>
<li>Also, &quot;it&quot; is unjustly harsh. So, hence forth, never again will I make the rude statement that you or any other person has any &quot;it&quot;-ness associated with them, under any circumstances.
</li>

And let it be stated with firm conviction that I shall always endeavor to eschew obfuscation of missives with an ocular directed in such a manner that aspersions of a negative bent shall be lumbering towards the mitigation of attribution thereby transmuting inverted approbation communiquÈs, and therefore capsizing those notional non-positive edicts; rendering them impotent, with negated impact, and in all cases when presented by the obstreperous, afflicted by pedanticism, those with impugnable motivations or those with improsperous linguistic wherewithal, those expropriators even those that evince unprepossessing mien, or even those infatuated with a polysyllabic obscurantist style; and henceforth and hereafter are less than able to portend a diminution in the positive acclaim acknowledged, in all probability, within any less than favorable circumstances; with presumably a full intent to ensure that any repetition of duplication shall also not impact or render moot any and all engendering of any positive, negative, or neutral duplicity, complicity, or connivance on the part of the aforementioned authors, their aspirations and potentially lubricious and monomaniacal pursuit of the muse with any restraints mitigated by a non-negative application of a modicum of effervescent humoristic epistle development imparted under deprecation with full intent to circumvent non-indirect application of defenestration with the conjectural intent to stifle luminarist gossamer drollness, which, by fortuitous divination will not not-fail engendering solicitude and expurgation.
<p />
Furthermore; I know you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what your read is not what I meant.


ID: 21037 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odd-Rod

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 04
Posts: 10
Credit: 999,973
RAC: 41
Message 21058 - Posted: 20 Jan 2009, 17:58:30 UTC - in response to Message 21037.  

Furthermore; I know you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what your read is not what I meant.


Yep, that about sums it up!

By the way:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Thanks for a great laugh!
Rod

ID: 21058 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : Blast from the past ...


©2024 CERN