ATTN: JMS, *grin*

[B5JMS Poster]

Subject: ATTN: JMS, *grin*
-----+-------------+--------------------------------------------------
 No. | DATE        |  FROM
-----+-------------+--------------------------------------------------
+  1: Aug 12, 1996: gharlane at ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
+  2: Aug 12, 1996: s-orso at staff.uiuc.edu (orso steven n)
*  3: Aug 12, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: gharlane at ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
Lines: 27

>------------------------------
> Date: 06 Aug 1996 21:30:48 -0700
> From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644 at compuserve.com>
> To: (blocked)
> Subject: War Without End
> Message-ID: <forum.sfmediaone.555019 at compuserve.com>
> References: <forum.sfmediaone.554580 at compuserve.com>
>
>      Actually, that would've been Delenn who finally got the repaired
> time stabalizer.  And no, I didn't write them at the same time, but I
> did a basic outline of what the follow-up (WWE) would be, so it'd all
> match up when the time came to show that half of the story.
>                                                                  jms
>------------------------------


Note that JMS is consistently hewing to his habitual spelling of 
"stabilize," and still as much at odds with English orthography
as he was in the pilot movie, where "re-established" appears on
a screen as "reastablished."  

Perhaps there have been some spelling drifts in the next three centuries,
and JMS spends so much time in the future that he has trouble with our 
local-present archaic English.....




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: s-orso at staff.uiuc.edu (orso steven n)
Lines: 38

gharlane at ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) writes:

>Note that JMS is consistently hewing to his habitual spelling of 
>"stabilize," and still as much at odds with English orthography
>as he was in the pilot movie, where "re-established" appears on
>a screen as "reastablished."  

>Perhaps there have been some spelling drifts in the next three centuries,
>and JMS spends so much time in the future that he has trouble with our
>local-present archaic English.....

Eliminate "consistently," which is redundant.  The notion of 
regularity is inherent in "hewing" and "habitual."

Eliminate the comma after "stabilize" because what follows the
conjunction is not an independent clause.  

Improve the flow of the first sentence by making the implicit 
parallelism explicit:  "and is still."

Consistency of tense is often a problem when one describes the 
the content of a literary work and the process by which it was
created.  I would prefer "appeared" to "appear" notwithstanding
the rule of thumb that favors the present tense for discussing
works of art that still exist.  I would also prefer "in which"
to "where."  (Reasonable sentients may differ on these matters.)

Eliminate "local-present."  It is an affected construction that
weakens the impact of "archaic" rather than enhancing it. 


***************************************************************************
***** s-orso at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ****** Every silver lining has a cloud. *****
***************************************************************************
************ "You have entirely too much time on your hands." *************
***************************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Lines: 60

"Perhaps there have been some spelling drifts in the next three centuries,
and JMS spends so much time in the future that he has trouble with our
local-present archaic English....."

I would point out that the phrase "local-present archaic English" is
ungrammatical and at odds with English useage.  You could say, "with our
current-day English which he finds archaic," but not what you've written
here, which implies that English is present only locally -- presumably
local to where you are, when in fact English is present in many parts of
the globe -- and that the present English is also archaic in fact, as
opposed to being perceived as such by me....

I could go on and on about this particular turn of phrase, because it's
ungrammatical on several levels, but this forum has better ways to spend
its time.

Note, however, that I could have done this with *many* of your posts,
which correct me or others on one word, while containing whole *phrases*
which violate the rules of grammar.

Which is what you do.

The difference is, I have manners and don't feel it's my god-given
responsibility to correct other people on their useage on-line.  

One could also offer a thought or two about the notion of "not seeing the
forest for the trees," correcting people on little word choices while
oneself applying incorrect phrases.  

One could also take exception with your notion that if you have made up
your mind about an issue, then that is the single and sole truth, and that
anyone who offers a contrary opinion is either stupid, or deliberately
misleading people, since there cannot possibly be reasonable differences
of opinion about such issues as gun control, there cannot be any
possibility of reading studies in different ways, there is Gharlane's way,
which is the Truth Eternal, and those who are deliberately stupid or
willfully misinformed.

There is a phrase in the bible, Gharlane: go and pluck the log out of your
own eye before you try and remove the splinter from someone else's.

You repeatedly use sloppy grammar, misuse the English language, and turn
its complexities on its head in order to support your political
positions...then have the audacity to correct the grammar and spelling of
others.  I don't do this to you, even though your messages provide
boundless opportunities for this.  Because I try to err in the direction
of politeness.

So may I suggest that, with your studies in grammar, spelling and syntax,
you consult a book of manners and expand your horizon in that area as
well.  And since you take umbrage whenever someone objects to your
advising them on grammar and other niceties, I'm confident that you will
not in any way argue with or be upset by this reply to you, since that
would be a direct contradiction to your own stance on being corrected.


 jms



-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages in this list go to the list
-*** maintainer, <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply
-*** elsewhere, adjust the "To" field.  The best way to reach JMS is to post
-*** to rastb5m, which can be done by sending email to <rastb5 at solon.com>.