Re: Fishing for Fools
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:16 pm
Here's a tip if you're going to write anything. Use spaces between a full-stop and the following sentence; preferably after commas as well.
Page 1 of 2
Re: Fishing for Fools
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:22 pm
You should give him mikes addy
Re: Fishing for Fools
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:26 pm
hj is better at constructing paragraphs, while Mike has better punctuation. I think they may just make it - together.
Re: Fishing for Fools
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:34 pm
I've still not read Mike's book yet, so it would be unfair to comment.
I saw something about severing an arm, which made me laugh, but I'm in the middle of 'Tom Jones' -not a Welsh singer's autobiography- by Henry Fielding and I must say it is rather good.
I saw something about severing an arm, which made me laugh, but I'm in the middle of 'Tom Jones' -not a Welsh singer's autobiography- by Henry Fielding and I must say it is rather good.
Re: Fishing for Fools
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:41 pm
Mike, on more than a few occasions, has mentioned Cannabis as responsible for just about every bit of creative work over the last 400 years, and so I would have to assume that he follows his own mantra, and was 'as high as a kite' whilst writing.
Re: Fishing for Fools
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:56 pm
Sam, Sam, you are missing the point here. This guy is a superior uber-intelligent being toying with us.
He deliberately laid those minor grammatical errors as a trap into which you would- and have- fallen into, and he now has a full psychological profile of you which defines your* every facet.
He has now deduced that you are astute and obsevant who likes the written word well presented and logically structured.
He has now produced a flowchart that will anticipate your responses to test out his story. It is simply a box at the top, above which there is underlined bold text ("I type something on a public Internet forum in a room for idle conversation)"arrowed and pointing into this box.
The box inside has the text: "Do I get a response?", with yes/no arrows coming out at either side. "Yes" leads to another box stating "Regular person engaging in act of conversation" with another arrow coming out, stating 'proceed' pointing to a circle at the bottom of the page stating therein "do you get on?". Another yes/no arrow set: "Yes" leads to "something in common; rational, inteligent being and possible friend". "No" is a heavy, bold arrow, annotated "Idiot cunt. Possibly justify with' the 'Book I'm Writing' as defence measure" and leads back to the beginning of the flowchart.
"No" after the first junction, leads to an ellpse with four bullet points inside:
" -Nobody present or interested in subject matter;
-Callous ignorance through spite;
-I may be defective as a person or may be contempuosly regarded as a bit of a twat
-i'm just too far ahead of this lot. They can't lace my boots!"
Out of the top of this ellipse is another bold arrow pointing to the start of the flowchart, annotated "Try again with another subject and/or tone"
He's too far above us, Sam. He probably second-guessed my own devious trap on line 5 as it was written: not to mention all the other wee pitfalls and traps I have laid that I don't actually have any fucking knowledge of. He has me sussed and knows i rarely use the preview, maybe 1 in 5, with a predilection for emphasing the need for an edit function. Damn.
He fell into my own response-based ruse earlier on. I now know that his book 'Fishing For Fools' if it reaches it's final draft through taunting us mere minions, will be heavily edited by the only interested publisher, 'Puffin Pre-Skools', to become a national hit as 'Pingu and The Injured Seal Mystery'.
Anticipate that you twunt?
He deliberately laid those minor grammatical errors as a trap into which you would- and have- fallen into, and he now has a full psychological profile of you which defines your* every facet.
He has now deduced that you are astute and obsevant who likes the written word well presented and logically structured.
He has now produced a flowchart that will anticipate your responses to test out his story. It is simply a box at the top, above which there is underlined bold text ("I type something on a public Internet forum in a room for idle conversation)"arrowed and pointing into this box.
The box inside has the text: "Do I get a response?", with yes/no arrows coming out at either side. "Yes" leads to another box stating "Regular person engaging in act of conversation" with another arrow coming out, stating 'proceed' pointing to a circle at the bottom of the page stating therein "do you get on?". Another yes/no arrow set: "Yes" leads to "something in common; rational, inteligent being and possible friend". "No" is a heavy, bold arrow, annotated "Idiot cunt. Possibly justify with' the 'Book I'm Writing' as defence measure" and leads back to the beginning of the flowchart.
"No" after the first junction, leads to an ellpse with four bullet points inside:
" -Nobody present or interested in subject matter;
-Callous ignorance through spite;
-I may be defective as a person or may be contempuosly regarded as a bit of a twat
-i'm just too far ahead of this lot. They can't lace my boots!"
Out of the top of this ellipse is another bold arrow pointing to the start of the flowchart, annotated "Try again with another subject and/or tone"
He's too far above us, Sam. He probably second-guessed my own devious trap on line 5 as it was written: not to mention all the other wee pitfalls and traps I have laid that I don't actually have any fucking knowledge of. He has me sussed and knows i rarely use the preview, maybe 1 in 5, with a predilection for emphasing the need for an edit function. Damn.
He fell into my own response-based ruse earlier on. I now know that his book 'Fishing For Fools' if it reaches it's final draft through taunting us mere minions, will be heavily edited by the only interested publisher, 'Puffin Pre-Skools', to become a national hit as 'Pingu and The Injured Seal Mystery'.
Anticipate that you twunt?