This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by bendigeidfran

Wel, I can't find the strength to read Will again, plus my up arrow points at 90* to the vertical. I don't want to scroll into the wall - that way lies almost certain peril. So I'll try and remember both things he said. You check for me.

Did he say there should be more grammar? Pretend he did. The greater the rules, the less the role of the creator. This is why computer programmers only write haikus. Which are very rarely poetry. That may be a bit of a generalization, but I think you'll find it correct in at least 100% of cases.

Did he say the Self-deprecating 'Others have said' or similar? It's not clear, since he can't write very well, and shows no appreciation of what grammar or words are, but did he sort of say he might be as 'difficult' as Shakes and Nabokov? That would at least make his article hilarious. He can't be deprecated enough.

Now number of woids what there is, compared to number of woids Self knows = he knows approx f all. That is not something to boast about. He is but wiki-clever. The field is levelled, and he's panicking we'll measure by reasoning ability. Or poetics.

He was also not nearly nasty enough about Damien. What was the 'shock' value again? Is it art? It's much more than that. The very birth of anatomy by the sound of it. Is he a townie? Do cows have insides?

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:47:09 UTC | #937006