I fell behind on everything the last two days. I haven't even updated BTD. Tomorrow, hopefully.
I was gone most of Tuesday. Yesterday I laid around doing little, if anything. I did watch The Love Guru. It was funny, but not Mike Myers' best. I give it a 3 star rating.
Apparently nobody liked the ABC UFO special. At least nobody I have heard from or seen post anything. Not surprising, it did suck. Was it better than nothing? I somehow doubt it.
Is Alfred Lehmberg verbose? I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it sucked would suffice, but why not say it with style? Anyone can say the ABC UFO Special sucked -- see I just said it and for the second time.
5 comments:
Still, "impaired by too many words" stings when I perceive them almost like shamanic allies bouncing around me like bejeweled baskets or hyperspace elves, you know? I have such a respect for words, and convey a respect through them to others. Too, I've noticed that when these words are employed in service to someone verbosity is not alluded too, eh?
Not that big a deal, but sheesh... knowuttamean, Verne?
Perhaps some see it as though you are granting ABC too much respect by using more than a few words?
I wouldn't agree, but I don't necessarily think the statement was meant to cut at you, but rather ABC.
"Basket_balls_," I meant, all deference to Terence
—hallowed be his name— but seriously, it just seemed a little needless, and a needless distraction, too.
My fault entirely, I could just as easily have let it slide and didn't... still...
...don't get me wrong, he gets to say "verbose" or any other damn thing, you know? I am not above criticism even as the provenance of criticism is interesting...
Though the instance in this case seemed so needlessly discorporating and apart from a cooperation regarding an obvious shared goal; why pick that particular moment for digressing divergence?
Wait! I know what it is! The writer is a mondo stealth disinformation agent, an enemy mole cleverly infiltrated to rile the "Sasquatch" guy for a little sputter and rant-age masquerading as a soar and a cleave, eh? Ding!
Only, know this. My report is that my reportage is not of me as much as it is through me, eh? You take it the way you want, but to me it's from hyperspace.
Point is I won't further explore the provenance of a criticism inappropriate, even if true, you know?
In cooperation, see, we are better employed exploring how aware we are of a media over-glutted with disrespecting treatments to the news so brain-dead they can not be tolerated even as a joke.
Finally, whatever my words are in application, they are first respectful to the sensibilities of the reader who does not use how something is said as an excuse to avoid what is being said, again, not from me so much but through me, still.
Onward in the spirit of respect and intelligent fellowship, eh?
Absolutely!
Certain things strike a cord and words come flowing out unbidden. Nothing wrong with that and after all it is only one person's opinion as to it being too much. Didn't seem so to me and I imagine that is the case with most.
Post a Comment