Spelling, Grammar and Usage

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by odinsgal88

He had a BA and Master's from Harvard, graduating with magna cum laude! I think he knew more about capitalization than the rest of us put together!

He didn't always mess around with the rules of grammar; when he did, it was to create a specific effect. "r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r", for example, was meant to give a visual effect of the movement of a grasshopper on the page and capital letters and commas would have broken the motions.

Excuse Lasher for His feeble attempt at sarcasm; maybe He needs more practice. Lash should have seen the beauty in the words "r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r" which described so marvelously the grasshopper's movement.

"Whimsical and experimental, E.E. Cummings was a popular American poet of the early 20th century. Cummings' first published work was his 1922 novel The Enormous Room, based on his time in a French prison camp during World War I. He became more widely known as an avant garde poet, thanks to his unconventional use of typography, syntax and sometimes scandalous (at the time) choices of words and topics. He had a fondness for scattering words unevenly across a page, and liked to spell his own name as e.e. cummings, leading generations of college students to remember him as the guy who didn't capitalize his own name."

It's a wonder everyone doesn't follow the example of old e.e. in writing in uncapitalized and abbreviated prose - it is so beautiful!

[Bev]

In case anyone wonders what the hell we're on about, here's a link to the poem. Can't copy and paste it because it loses the effect.

It's a wonder everyone doesn't follow the example of old e.e. in writing in uncapitalized and abbreviated prose - it is so beautiful!

I don't think it's all beautiful; just the above linked poem. Genius on many levels.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by odinsgal88

In case anyone wonders what the hell we're on about, here's a link to the poem. Can't copy and paste it because it loses the effect.

It's a wonder everyone doesn't follow the example of old e.e. in writing in uncapitalized and abbreviated prose - it is so beautiful!

I don't think it's all beautiful; just the above linked poem. Genius on many levels.

Crawfishing doesn't become you, sweetie.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Lasher

Crawfishing doesn't become you, sweetie.

That's why I don't do it. Please feel free to point out where I did.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by odinsgal88

e.e. cummings r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r

Tell me there are no aesthetics in that.


I rest my case.

Maybe Lasher should have just said "There are no esthetics in that."

You probably adore the poem "Howl" by the Jew, Allen Ginsberg, don't you?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Lasher

Wasn't Adolf Hitler a Catholic altar boy in his youth?

I don't know if he was an altar boy. He was raised Catholic. Most people are not bothered by contradictions; most people are not intelligent enough to perceive contradictions. See how many Catholics claim Hitler today. The Catholic church has a position on race, namely that it is something that can be taken into account, but nothing of vital importance. Oh yeah, and racism is a sin. I'm sure they didn't add the last part under pressure, just as I'm sure the former position is the result of careful thinking. A skeptic might observe that the average Catholic intellectual is likelier to spend a thousand pages discussing the finer of points of thing that dont exist than ten pages on something that's real and disturbingly ungodlike in its efficaciousness. Most Catholics are what can be fairly called spiritual reductionists. Man's existence as physical being interacting with others is too low a thing to interest them.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Lasher

Sorry to see the gist and nuance of my example escaped you Alex, but Lash still maintains his position on your "invention" of words.

I'm sure that's interesting to you, but not me.

BTW, would you explain just what you mean by "demoronicizing" being "aesthetically" correct?

'Demoronizing' sounds worse than 'demoronicizing.' It is less suggestive, less funny, hence wrong, artistically.

And does estheticism (preferred spelling)

That settles it - you have no ear for sound or eye for beauty. Esthetic is an ugly formulation compared to aesthetic.

It is true that the English language is in a state of constant revision and change, but for individuals such as you or me to presume to be the arbiters of what is correct is, indeed, presumptive, don't you think?

It's not revision and change. I invented the term for a specific comedic purpose. It doesn't fall into the category of common words used by common rules. Poetic license sacrifices rule-following to achieve effects. In this case the ordinary rules dont apply at all because the term in question is a coinage.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I don't know if he was an altar boy. He was raised Catholic. Most people are not bothered by contradictions; most people are not intelligent enough to perceive contradictions. See how many Catholics claim Hitler today. The Catholic church has a position on race, namely that it is something that can be taken into account, but nothing of vital importance. Oh yeah, and racism is a sin. I'm sure they didn't add the last part under pressure, just as I'm sure the former position is the result of careful thinking. A skeptic might observe that the average Catholic intellectual is likelier to spend a thousand pages discussing the finer of points of thing that dont exist than ten pages on something that's real and disturbingly ungodlike in its efficaciousness. Most Catholics are what can be fairly called spiritual reductionists. Man's existence as physical being interacting with others is too low a thing to interest them.

Alex, it is Lasher's opinion that children should not be exposed to religion at all. Children are impressionable and naive little people who are easily molded to whatever sort of cult they are exposed. Little Adolf was undoubtedly made into an altar boy at either his parents' urging or that of the Church, with no acquiesence by the boy himself. That is the way virtually all children are introduced into the mysteries of religion. Lasher Himself was baptized in the Baptist church at the age of ten with entirely no knowledge or care about what He was really doing. It was just something the other kids were doing - a lark.

When a child attains maturity and is able to decide whether or not religion is for him, then is the time for the decision to be made. It is telling to note that most children do follow the religions they are steered into in their youth.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Lasher

Just how does esthetics relate to the written word? How can one judge one spelling of a word to be more beautiful than another?

It's not just the spelling. It's the sound, the number of syllables, the comedic/artistic/literary purpose or effect aimed at, the connotations evoked, the simple sound of the thing. Proper spelling and grammar are for conventional words used conventionally. Neither demoronize or demoronicize is a "real" word therefore conventional rules hardly apply. The only question is whether demoronicize achieves the effect intended.

Esthetics, by definition, refers to beauty. It is Lasher's opinion that words should be in a dictionary before they are acknowledged as viable, genuine parts of the English language,

Lasher obviously has no understanding of how languages or dictionaries are created. Dictionaries log words AFTER the fact of their creation and use by a man and then community which finds them effective. They are created out of whole cloth, and no Lashers -- purse-lipped pedants -- are consulted in their creation. Rather the Lashers job is to come in hundreds of years after the fact and scold those who aren't using these creations 'correctly.'

[Alex Linder]

There's also a meta-reason I favor playing with language: it reinforces the lesson I'm teaching White readers, namely that they need to be acutely conscious of the construction of everything put before them. Who created this term? What was his intent? Is there a concealed assumption? Is there an embodied agenda? What is the other side?

People tend to grant to words a reality that is undeserved. Words are just a way of making sense of real things. They can be used to conceal or mislead. The jews use them this way as a matter of couse, which, if you think about it, must in fact be their policy if their interests are opposed to ours. Whites need to learn to think like a larval Spielberg, sitting in a theater, wondering about the way the producer and the director put together their budget and arranged their effects.

War is waged through words before it ever becomes physical. Most whites are not even aware there is war going on. They just dumbly use whatever words are accepted by those around them. They are passive consumers, gulpers, of codes. Anything that breaks the hypnosis of the ordinary is worth doing. Each word, at least each political word, is a choice made by your enemy intended to deceive you.

[Joe_J.]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

It could be. I like the extra syllable for sound reasons and because it calls to mind an '80s workout involving steps and leg-warmers.

Off topic, Alex, but I like your 'fecophile' term for the faggots. However, when I use it, some people don't understand it due to the shitty educational system in the Kwa. For that reason, I suggest 'fecalphile'. People get that one a lot faster and they always get a laugh out of it.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by deathtozog

Off topic, Alex, but I like your 'fecophile' term for the faggots. However, when I use it, some people don't understand it due to the shitty educational system in the Kwa. For that reason, I suggest 'fecalphile'. People get that one a lot faster and they always get a laugh out of it.

Just as there is

no law save usage

there is

no argument against laughter.

So go with it.

[Alex Linder]

actually, deathtozog, i must have used fecophile as least as often to refer to jews as fags - for example the filmer apatow and sandler. an obsession with shit and shit humor needn't imply homosexuality alone

[Fred Streed]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

... an obsession with shit and shit humor needn't imply homosexuality alone...

It implies jew, which implies an obsession with feces, homosexuality, and everything else that is poisonous to life.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Lasher

Maybe Lasher should have just said "There are no esthetics in that."

You probably adore the poem "Howl" by the Jew, Allen Ginsberg, don't you?

Uh, no.

I don't knowingly read works by jewish authors and poets.

As to you saying there are no aesthetics in the cummings poem - maybe you should have just said that in the first place. Everyone's perception of brilliance and of crap is different. There's no harm in disagreeing.

[Horseman]

Originally Posted by Lasher

Just how does esthetics relate to the written word? How can one judge one spelling of a word to be more beautiful than another? Esthetics, by definition, refers to beauty. It is Lasher's opinion that words should be in a dictionary before they are acknowledged as viable, genuine parts of the English language, and not just corrupted, polyglot, inventions of someone who is unable to formulate his words in a coherent manner.

You're excused.

Like I said, no more analysis necessary - something is either aesthetically pleasing or not. If one is not able to discern aesthetics, then all the discussing it or analyzing it isn't going to help them out.

[Joe_J.]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

actually, deathtozog, i must have used fecophile as least as often to refer to jews as fags - for example the filmer apatow and sandler. an obsession with shit and shit humor needn't imply homosexuality alone

Jews and shit are a natural combination, so that would make sense. Jews' obsession with shit is another natural combo.

Going back through the old Goyfire shows has been interesting. Your rant about homos in #40 was good. I directed our resident fecophile, Witzgall, to it. The other thing that was funny was you guys going over the story of the nigger in England that gave several White women AIDS in the same Goyfire. So, I wonder, with the great dynamic you guys had, will there be other shows in the future with Chain, Agis and some of the other guys?

You should see some traffic uptick as I have been linking to VNN over on incogman's blog. incog never gives the jew a moment to rest.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Horseman

Like I said, no more analysis necessary - something is either aesthetically pleasing or not. If one is not able to discern aesthetics, then all the discussing it or analyzing it isn't going to help them out.

So you aren't willing to deign to try and explain to the proletarian masses just what is meant by "aesthetically pleasing" words? Shame on you for withholding your vast intellect from us, the needy, old sport!

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I'm sure that's interesting to you, but not me.

Lasher is sorry. He was unaware of what interests you, old sport, and He will try and glean through more stringent observation just what He can post that will stimulate and invigorate your interest.
===========
'Demoronizing' sounds worse than 'demoronicizing.' It is less suggestive, less funny, hence wrong, artistically.

Isn't that just your own, subjective, simplistic opinion, old sport? Why should your opinion apply to every other person. Come on and admit it, you want to force your own opinions on us all, don't you?
================

That settles it - you have no ear for sound or eye for beauty. Esthetic is an ugly formulation compared to aesthetic.

On the contrary, old sport, Lasher is a graduate of the High Museum of Art School of Fine Arts in Atlanta, Georgia.
Again, your opinion of what is, or is not, esthetical is subjective, and matters only to you.
================


It's not revision and change. I invented the term for a specific comedic purpose. It doesn't fall into the category of common words used by common rules. Poetic license sacrifices rule-following to achieve effects. In this case the ordinary rules dont apply at all because the term in question is a coinage.

Sorry, Lasher wasn't aware this was a comedy forum. He will try and follow the rules more closely in the future.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

It's not just the spelling. It's the sound, the number of syllables, the comedic/artistic/literary purpose or effect aimed at, the connotations evoked, the simple sound of the thing. Proper spelling and grammar are for conventional words used conventionally. Neither demoronize or demoronicize is a "real" word therefore conventional rules hardly apply. The only question is whether demoronicize achieves the effect intended.

What effect was intended? As you say, proper spelling and grammar are for conventional words used conventionally, just as proper perspective and composition are used for conventional art. When one begins to make up one's own rules for perspective and composition, the picture, or whatever form of art, assumes the twisted and degenerate form of what we call "modern" art, which is the forte of the Jewish culture-destroyers we oppose; n'est ce-pas?

Lasher obviously has no understanding of how languages or dictionaries are created. Dictionaries log words AFTER the fact of their creation and use by a man and then community which finds them effective. They are created out of whole cloth, and no Lashers -- purse-lipped pedants -- are consulted in their creation. Rather the Lashers job is to come in hundreds of years after the fact and scold those who aren't using these creations 'correctly.'

Oh, Mr. Linder, you disappoint Lasher with your sinking to ad hominum attacks. Lash has not resorted to any such tactics, because Lasher is a gentleman who would never attack a compatriot with such childish name-calling simply because He couldn't cope.