| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Kater Moggin" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 07:16:41 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
(Shrug) Whatever.
Whatever is that you're full of crap in arguing that Sokal
shows Barthes is "pure crap, through and through" in
_Fashionable Nonsense_, since B isn't even one of the people he
critiques in the book.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
.
|
|
| User: "Santa Claus" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
01 Apr 2004 09:58:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 01:16:41 +0000, Kater Moggin wrote:
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
(Shrug) Whatever.
Whatever is that you're full of crap in arguing that Sokal
shows Barthes is "pure crap, through and through" in _Fashionable
Nonsense_, since B isn't even one of the people he critiques in the book.
Oh my, my! Getting touchy are we? Let's see if we can put it crystal
clear for you.
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
3) I don't give a damn about Barthes. Hey, maybe what he pens is not even
similar to the nonsensical writings of the authors criticized by Sokal.
Happy now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
01 Apr 2004 06:57:07 PM |
|
|
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
Let's see if we can put it crystal clear for you.
You were very clear the first time. Responding to Henry's
remarks about "Lacan, Barthes, etc.," you claimed Sokal
showed they publish "pure crap, through and through" -- but you
were talking pure crap, through and through, since Sokal's
book skips over Barthes, and he wisely suspends judgment on the
folks he does address.
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Sokal's hoax is an exercise in science appreciation. It's
something like _The Tao of Physics_ or _The Dancing Wu-Li
Masters_, with Lacan and Irigarary substituting for Lao Tzu and
the waltzing Buddhists.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santa Claus" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
02 Apr 2004 09:15:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:57:07 +0000, Kater Moggin wrote:
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
Let's see if we can put it crystal clear for you.
You were very clear the first time. Responding to Henry's
remarks about "Lacan, Barthes, etc.," you claimed Sokal showed they
publish "pure crap, through and through" -- but you were talking pure
crap, through and through, since Sokal's book skips over Barthes, and he
wisely suspends judgment on the folks he does address.
Again, whatever. If you are in love with Barthes then so be it.
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap. 2) Such
crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Sokal's hoax is an exercise in science appreciation. It's
something like _The Tao of Physics_ or _The Dancing Wu-Li Masters_, with
Lacan and Irigarary substituting for Lao Tzu and the waltzing Buddhists.
Do you agree with what I claim in 1) and 2) above? Yes or no?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
03 Apr 2004 02:14:01 AM |
|
|
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
Again, whatever.
Whatever is that you're full of crap in arguing that Sokal
shows Barthes is "pure crap, through and through" in
_Fashionable Nonsense_, since B isn't even one of the people he
critiques in the book, and he doesn't make that accusation
about the people he _does_ criticize. Like I said, he suspends
judgment on their work as a whole.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santa Claus" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
03 Apr 2004 10:51:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:14:01 +0000, Kater Moggin wrote:
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
Again, whatever.
Whatever is that you're full of crap in arguing that Sokal
shows Barthes is "pure crap, through and through" in _Fashionable
Nonsense_, since B isn't even one of the people he critiques in the book,
and he doesn't make that accusation about the people he _does_ criticize.
Like I said, he suspends judgment on their work as a whole.
Are you a real person, or just a chat-bot? You seem to be focusing on a
single issue, to wit, whether or not Barthes writes junk, which I don't
care about one way or the other. If you think he doesn't then good for you
- I don't mind. And, if it is going to make you happy, if at some
point I implied/claimed/suggested/asserted that Sokal shows that Barthes
writes junk, I hereby publicly retract from such implication/claim/
suggestion/assertion, acknowledging that Sokal passes no judgement on this
author.
I would though be interested to learn what you have to say about the
question I asked in my previous posting, which the Net gremlins
have mysteriously omitted in your reply. Have no fear, for here it comes
again:
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Do you agree with 1) and 2) above?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
06 Apr 2004 07:27:25 AM |
|
|
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
point I implied/claimed/suggested/asserted that Sokal shows that Barthes
writes junk, I hereby publicly retract from such implication/claim/
suggestion/assertion, acknowledging that Sokal passes no judgement on this
author.
You followed up a post regarding "Lacan, Barthes, etc." in
Sokal's book by claiming he embarrassed "these fellows" by
showing they publish "pure crap, through and through." But the
embarrassment was yours, since Barthes isn't one of his
targets in the book, and he cautiously suspends judgment on the
people he does criticize.
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Do you agree with 1) and 2) above?
Been over this. To repeat, Sokal's hoax is an exercise in
science appreciation, akin to _The Tao of Physics_ or _The
Dancing Wu-Li Masters_, but with Lacan and Irigaray standing in
for Lao-Tzu and the Buddha.
That's easily distinguishable from all sortsa pomo writing.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
07 Apr 2004 04:29:48 AM |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message news:<moggin-5838B7.08264906042004@netnews.comcast.net>...
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
point I implied/claimed/suggested/asserted that Sokal shows that Barthes
writes junk, I hereby publicly retract from such implication/claim/
suggestion/assertion, acknowledging that Sokal passes no judgement on this
author.
You followed up a post regarding "Lacan, Barthes, etc." in
Sokal's book by claiming he embarrassed "these fellows" by
showing they publish "pure crap, through and through." But the
embarrassment was yours, since Barthes isn't one of his
targets in the book, and he cautiously suspends judgment on the
people he does criticize.
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Do you agree with 1) and 2) above?
Been over this. To repeat, Sokal's hoax is an exercise in
science appreciation, akin to _The Tao of Physics_ or _The
Dancing Wu-Li Masters_, but with Lacan and Irigaray standing in
for Lao-Tzu and the Buddha.
So who stands in for Sarfatti?
That's easily distinguishable from all sortsa pomo writing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolleston" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
07 Apr 2004 08:44:23 AM |
|
|
Richard Herring wrote:
So who stands in for Sarfatti?
All verbal expression is driven by lexical p.d: The word density
of the head is greater than that of the extracranial world.
An utterance may be prolonged by connecting the head to a
word battery (a dictionary). I suggest you do that. Your
dribblings are limited to the point of pointlessness.
R.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santa Claus" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
06 Apr 2004 09:26:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:27:25 +0000, Kater Moggin wrote:
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
point I implied/claimed/suggested/asserted that Sokal shows that Barthes
writes junk, I hereby publicly retract from such implication/claim/
suggestion/assertion, acknowledging that Sokal passes no judgement on
this author.
You followed up a post regarding "Lacan, Barthes, etc." in
Sokal's book by claiming he embarrassed "these fellows" by showing they
publish "pure crap, through and through." But the embarrassment was
yours, since Barthes isn't one of his targets in the book, and he
cautiously suspends judgment on the people he does criticize.
So you are a chat bot!
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Do you agree with 1) and 2) above?
Been over this.
You've been over nothing, which is of course what one would expect from
mindless chat box. These are two very specific questions, with unambiguous
answers that show what we all already know, to wit, that the
postmodernism emperor has no clothes, and it probably is one of the most
ridiculous movements ever.
To repeat, Sokal's hoax is an exercise in science appreciation,
Sokal hoax shows that you can put together a thoroughly nonsensical
article using scientific verbiage, and get it published in a certain
magazine that is specialized in publishing - well, such material.
akin to _The Tao of Physics_ or _The Dancing Wu-Li Masters_, but with
Lacan and Irigaray standing in for Lao-Tzu and the Buddha.
That's easily distinguishable from all sortsa pomo writing.
You guys are so funny! Still, carry on with your junk: you certainly
provide entertainment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
06 Apr 2004 04:21:28 PM |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:
You followed up a post regarding "Lacan, Barthes, etc." in
Sokal's book by claiming he embarrassed "these fellows" by
showing they publish "pure crap, through and through." But the
embarrassment was yours, since Barthes isn't one of his
targets in the book, and he cautiously suspends judgment on the
people he does criticize.
Santa Claus <santa@NorthPole.gov>:
So
So you're the umpteenth victim of Sokal's Trojan hoax. He
keeps hauling 'em in.
nothing
Oh? Let's see. I explained to you that Barthes isn't one
of Sokal's targets in his book, that S doesn't claim the
people who he _does_ criticize are just "pure crap, through and
through" -- he suspends judgment on their work taken as a
whole -- and that his hoax is far more like _The Tao of Physics_
than like most pomo writing.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jacques Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
06 Apr 2004 09:27:06 AM |
|
|
Santa Claus wrote:
You've been over nothing, which is of course what one would expect from
mindless chat box. These are two very specific questions, with unambiguous
answers that show what we all already know, to wit, that the
postmodernism emperor has no clothes
Sir! the postmodernism emperor does have clothes. A peacock feather
up his bum comes immediately to the mind.
and it probably is one of the most
ridiculous movements ever.
Well, yes. But the situationists were not bad at it either.
I knew a situationist 40 years ago when I was doing Chinese
aux Langues O. René Viennet was the name. I believe he became
a big shot in the situationist movement. Not too difficult,
seeing there must be all ... what ... four of them?
akin to _The Tao of Physics_ or _The Dancing Wu-Li Masters_, but with
Lacan and Irigaray standing in for Lao-Tzu and the Buddha.
That's easily distinguishable from all sortsa pomo writing.
You guys are so funny! Still, carry on with your junk: you certainly
provide entertainment.
I think "pomo" was a typo for "porno". Social Text _is_ distinguishable
from porno writing, you know. Well, let me qualify that. For most of
us. But for some, it has the same physiological effect. Otherwise
Social Text wouldn't have any readers.
(I've left alt.bible in the Newsgroups line, because of the Song
of Songs. If that is not porno writing, then I don't know what
is).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "smw" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 04:49:41 PM |
|
|
Santa Claus wrote:
perhaps I can help out...
I would though be interested to learn what you have to say about the
question I asked in my previous posting, which the Net gremlins
have mysteriously omitted in your reply. Have no fear, for here it comes
again:
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
Nope -- Sokal has shown that the editors of Social Text are naive when
it comes to science/scientists
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Wrong -- it can be distinguished. Kristeva, Baudrillard, et.al. aren't
physicists, don't write about science, and submit their work in good faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JJS" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 08:23:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:49:41 +0000, smw wrote:
Santa Claus wrote:
perhaps I can help out...
I would though be interested to learn what you have to say about the
question I asked in my previous posting, which the Net gremlins have
mysteriously omitted in your reply. Have no fear, for here it comes
again:
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
Nope -- Sokal has shown that the editors of Social Text are naive when
it comes to science/scientists
How so? The fact that Sokal is a scientist has no relevance here. What is
relevant is the fact that what he submitted is nonsensical - and the
editors of Social Text couldn't see through it, presumably because it was
indistinguishable from the stuff they usually get anyway.
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Wrong -- it can be distinguished.
Is that so? How come that editors of Social Text couldn't? After all,
they are experts on that kind of material.
Kristeva, Baudrillard, et.al. aren't physicists,
No kidding!
don't write about science,
They do use scientific terms in a nonsensical way.
and submit their work in good faith.
Maybe, or maybe not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "smw" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 09:07:15 PM |
|
|
JJS wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:49:41 +0000, smw wrote:
Santa Claus wrote:
perhaps I can help out...
I would though be interested to learn what you have to say about the
question I asked in my previous posting, which the Net gremlins have
mysteriously omitted in your reply. Have no fear, for here it comes
again:
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
Nope -- Sokal has shown that the editors of Social Text are naive when
it comes to science/scientists
How so? The fact that Sokal is a scientist has no relevance here.
Yeah, it does. _Social Text_ was tickled to have a bona fide physicst on
board. And they got slammed, and a good thing, too. Thing is, it says
absolutely nothing about the quality of the work of Kristeva etc.
What is
relevant is the fact that what he submitted is nonsensical - and the
editors of Social Text couldn't see through it, presumably because it was
indistinguishable from the stuff they usually get anyway.
Can't follow. I'd say, presumably because it wasn't. So?
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Wrong -- it can be distinguished.
Is that so? How come that editors of Social Text couldn't? After all,
they are experts on that kind of material.
I'm not aware that they billed Sokal as the next Kristeva. You?
Kristeva, Baudrillard, et.al. aren't physicists,
No kidding!
don't write about science,
They do use scientific terms in a nonsensical way.
So, you're an expert on Kristeva and Baudrillard? Do tell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "benlizross" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
06 Apr 2004 06:00:22 AM |
|
|
smw wrote:
JJS wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:49:41 +0000, smw wrote:
Santa Claus wrote:
perhaps I can help out...
I would though be interested to learn what you have to say about the
question I asked in my previous posting, which the Net gremlins have
mysteriously omitted in your reply. Have no fear, for here it comes
again:
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
Nope -- Sokal has shown that the editors of Social Text are naive when
it comes to science/scientists
How so? The fact that Sokal is a scientist has no relevance here.
Yeah, it does. _Social Text_ was tickled to have a bona fide physicst on
board. And they got slammed, and a good thing, too. Thing is, it says
absolutely nothing about the quality of the work of Kristeva etc.
What is
relevant is the fact that what he submitted is nonsensical - and the
editors of Social Text couldn't see through it, presumably because it was
indistinguishable from the stuff they usually get anyway.
Can't follow. I'd say, presumably because it wasn't. So?
2) Such crap is indistinguishable from the the stuff produced by
postmodern figures like Kristeva, Baudrillard and others.
Wrong -- it can be distinguished.
Is that so? How come that editors of Social Text couldn't? After all,
they are experts on that kind of material.
I'm not aware that they billed Sokal as the next Kristeva. You?
Who was the previous Kristeva? Is it like the Dalai Lama?
Ross Clark
Kristeva, Baudrillard, et.al. aren't physicists,
No kidding!
don't write about science,
They do use scientific terms in a nonsensical way.
So, you're an expert on Kristeva and Baudrillard? Do tell.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Harter" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 11:49:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 01:23:12 GMT, JJS <JJS@yoyodyne.net> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:49:41 +0000, smw wrote:
[snip]
1) Sokal shows that Social Text has published nonsensical crap.
Indisputable. Sokal's article was nonsensical crap and Social Text
published it.
Nope -- Sokal has shown that the editors of Social Text are naive when
it comes to science/scientists
Too generous - the editors of Social Text were (and I fancy stil are)
so puffed up in their self-consequence that the thought of their being
an object of mockery did not occur to them until the world's laughter
rang in their ears.
How so? The fact that Sokal is a scientist has no relevance here. What is
relevant is the fact that what he submitted is nonsensical - and the
editors of Social Text couldn't see through it, presumably because it was
indistinguishable from the stuff they usually get anyway.
How would you know? It is quite clear that you haven't read any issue
of _Social Text_, that you know nothing about the material in that
journal, and that your criticism and claims are grounded in a profound
ignorance of that which you are commenting on.
In point of fact Sokal's article was quite unlike the stuff they
usually published.
followups set rec.arts.books
Richard Harter,
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
A university is what a college becomes when the faculty
loses interest in students. - John Ciardi
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jacques Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 05:39:12 PM |
|
|
smw wrote:
Nope -- Sokal has shown that the editors of Social Text are naive when
it comes to science/scientists
"Naive" I like the word. It conjures up a picture
of wide-eyed little kiddies with strawberry jam
on their faces.
Wrong -- it can be distinguished. Kristeva, Baudrillard, et.al. aren't
physicists, don't write about science, and submit their work in good faith.
Therefore any piece of meaningless crap submitted in
good faith has its place in Social Text as long
as it's not about science, and is not written by
physicists. I couldn't have put it more aptly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "smw" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 06:12:59 PM |
|
|
Jacques Guy wrote:
smw wrote:
Nope -- Sokal has shown that the editors of Social Text are naive when
it comes to science/scientists
"Naive" I like the word. It conjures up a picture
of wide-eyed little kiddies with strawberry jam
on their faces.
Wrong -- it can be distinguished. Kristeva, Baudrillard, et.al. aren't
physicists, don't write about science, and submit their work in good faith.
Therefore any piece of meaningless crap submitted in
good faith has its place in Social Text as long
as it's not about science, and is not written by
physicists. I couldn't have put it more aptly.
you're a terrible bore, man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jacques Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 07:22:11 PM |
|
|
smw wrote:
you're a terrible bore, man.
I couldn't agree more. Punching holes
in your travesties of an argument is,
definitely and by dictionary definition,
_boring_. And it is a terrible thing
to witness those dreadful holes suddenly
revealed in one's fairy-floss web of
lies and deceptions. So yes, I am
a terrible bore, thank you Sir.
.
|
|
|
| User: "smw" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 09:05:01 PM |
|
|
Jacques Guy wrote:
smw wrote:
you're a terrible bore, man.
I couldn't agree more.
And they say there's no consensus on rab.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel Vriezen" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
15 Apr 2004 05:01:30 AM |
|
|
Jacques Guy wrote:
smw wrote:
you're a terrible bore, man.
I couldn't agree more. Punching holes
in your travesties of an argument is,
definitely and by dictionary definition,
_boring_. And it is a terrible thing
to witness those dreadful holes suddenly
revealed in one's fairy-floss web of
lies and deceptions. So yes, I am
a terrible bore, thank you Sir.
Wow, you really convinced me of something or other there!
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
--
....nur mittelmaessige Auffuehrungen koennen mich retten! Vollstaendig
gute muessen die Leute verrueckt machen...
- R. Wagner
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rolleston" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
05 Apr 2004 08:15:33 PM |
|
|
Jacques Guy wrote:
smw wrote:
you're a terrible bore, man.
I couldn't agree more. Punching holes
in your travesties of an argument is,
definitely and by dictionary definition,
_boring_. And it is a terrible thing
to witness those dreadful holes suddenly
revealed in one's fairy-floss web of
lies and deceptions. So yes, I am
a terrible bore, thank you Sir.
No, no, a lot of noes [1], you have it all wrong. It's in code like
"send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance".
Hence, therefore and thus: bore man by concatenation yields boreman,
to the ear indistinguishable from Boorman, a.k.a. Martin Boorman, nazi
criminal. He's saying you're a nauseatingly nasty nazi. Unless, that
is, I'm overanalyzing *yet* again. (Shuffles off in embarrassment.)
R.
[1] Martial
Tongilianus habet nasum: scio, non nego.
Sed iam nil praeter nasum Tongilianus habet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter T. Daniels" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
06 Apr 2004 07:07:19 AM |
|
|
Rolleston wrote:
Hence, therefore and thus: bore man by concatenation yields boreman,
to the ear indistinguishable from Boorman, a.k.a. Martin Boorman, nazi
criminal. He's saying you're a nauseatingly nasty nazi. Unless, that
is, I'm overanalyzing *yet* again. (Shuffles off in embarrassment.)
The Nazi was Borman. Boorman could be John Boorman, director of *Hope
and Glory* and many other films. "Boorman" does not rhyme with "Borman"
and "boreman."
--
Peter T. Daniels
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolleston" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" |
06 Apr 2004 08:44:35 AM |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
The Nazi was Borman.
Point accepted. While we're on the subject of errors, you might
like to have a look at these recent words of yours:
"Which is why I don't understand the furore hear each
New Year about the Vienna concert ..."
"Boorman" does not rhyme with "Borman" and "boreman."
"boorman" and "boreman" do indeed rhyme. In fact, in the
writer's voice (my voice) they sound identical.
R.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
