[AusRace] Advice

[L.B.Loveday]

Peter,

Uncharacteristically sloppy (IMO) - I should have said ".... in relation to "a pact with the devil".

I genuinely took it that you were writing seriously - as I've explained I take things at face value unless outrageous; your first sentence was serious, I presume, your second one outrageous, and I took the 3rd to be serious (I'd not heard of PR's comment at that time). 

I figure you are a pagan, so was a little surprised at your words, but for all I know you may believe in the Devil, although your failure to capitalise would cast doubt on that except you also failed to capitalise "catholic", which then has a very different meaning to Catholic - grammar can be important, and if I did not know Duff was Catholic, it would have been reasonable to think you meant catholic.

L

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Faulks [mailto:faulksp at iinet.net.au]
Sent: Sunday, 17 January 2010 9:18 AM
To: L.B.Loveday
Subject: RE: [AusRace] Advice


Len,


"Your original post did not contain, to me, any indication of
facetiousness, frivolity or use of persiflage"


My original post was:
-----------------------
Oh, you are a cynic John.

I'm sure they have a desperate need for thoroughbred management experts
in the area at the moment.

What I want to know is why a good catholic boy would go to a country
that has a pact with the devil?
------------------------

So are you telling me you think that I seriously believe that the
Haitians have a desperate need for thoroughbred management experts? Or
did you get that one?




On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 19:37 +1100, L.B.Loveday wrote:
> We concur on that; no adverbial either. But we can make them up:
> persiflageous and persiflageously. Their meaning is readily understood
> - more readily, to me anyway, than working out whether a post is
> genuine or persiflageous.
> 
> Fun? You have fun fooling people? Childish to my way of thinking; I
> never did it even as a child. 
> 
> Gulfs have two sides, and I prefer the maxim "Sarcasm is the lowest
> form of wit", which would place the sarcastic one well below the one
> (s)he has "fun" with.
> 
> If there are two (or more) possible meanings, why would one choose
> other than the plain reading?  
> 
> What's the other half of this "fun"? 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Faulks [mailto:faulksp at iinet.net.au]
> Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2010 7:21 PM
> To: faulksp at iinet.net.au; 'AusRace Mailing List'; 'L . B . Loveday'
> Subject: RE: [AusRace] Advice
> 
> 
> That's half the fun Len...
> 
> Sarchasm (n) The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the
> person who doesn't get it.
> 
> 
> As far as I can make out (but I'm no expert at all), there is no
> adjectival form of the word persiflage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat Jan 16 18:43 , "L.B.Loveday"  sent:
> 
> >I've never come to grips with the use sarcasm, facetiousness, and so
> on.
> >
> >I write what I mean, and presume that others do. How is one supposed
> to know when another is serious or being facetious? 
> >
> >In a face-to-face, it may be discerned by body language; in a written
> correspondence with a friend or well-known non-friend, I may pick up
> the nuance by means of association. But how on earth (or in hell) can
> I be expected to know you are being facetious? Your original post did
> not contain, to me, any indication of facetiousness, frivolity or use
> of persiflage (come on, is there an adjectival form?); you used
> persiflage in your subsequent post.



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4778 (20100116) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com