Kent Gunn wrote:I simply thought your harangue against their writing abilities that had a writing error in it was funny, it struck me as unintentional whimsy.
Oh, well. Ha. Ha. I was discussing a publication. If you want to discuss me, perhaps you should start another thread?
Kent Gunn wrote:Apparently you don't see the humor. When I run into a jerk, like myself online, I can't see the humor either.
Too much information. I'm not interested in you. No offense, etc.
Correcting other people's grammar or spelling is puerile and beneath even a cheap-shot artist like me. I'll refrain in the future. It adds nothing to the discussion.
Get on with it. Spit it out. These circular self-analytical digressions are painful.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the writers and the content in the Magic Menu.
Exactly. No more needs to be said. If you're intending to go on with more self-analysis or analysis of who or what you think I am and whether I am entitled to post a comment, stow it. You must have me confused with someone who could give a [censored].
I have not made a careful enough review of the material to weigh in with my meaningless opinion. Your carping about the previous incarnation's content while the lads are trying to resurrect a magazine seems, to me, petty. Since they've got new writers why not read the first issue. If it's as bad as you think it is going to be, then post a scathing review.
Again, the spelling crack was out of line. I'm a mean-spirited old man, stuck in Albuquerque for the weekend.
I'm going to buy at least the first issue of The Magic Menu. I subscribe to only one magic magazine these days. Hmmmm . . . which one. Genii, of course. I can affort a copy of the new Sisti rag. If it's any good, to my tinted mind, I'll weigh in again with my meaningless opinion.
Finished giving yourself an intervention? Like I said, you should have stopped at an acknowledgment that I'm entitled to my opinion. This thread isn't about you or me in a personal sense.
PS. If you're going to quote Twain, get the right book. He used the line about chloroform when he was writing about the Book of Mormon in Roughing It. Are you putting this stuff in your posts as a trap for me? WTF.
The quote was on my mind because I heard Christopher Hitchens specifically attribute it as being in reference to Eddy at a recent lecture. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... ems_to.php
I've just done a Google search and found people online correcting Hitchen's misattribution. Bully for you. I'm certainly no expert on Mormonism or Christian Science, so I'll defer to your scholarship. It appears that I took Hitchens' word on blind faith. Now there's an irony for you.
I know this is like their and they're. But you are not the intellectual you would like people to think you are. I'm not either.
Because I have a low but honestly held opinion of third rate magic magazine, you have the balls to make judgments on my intellect? While you waste your time defending magazines you haven't read, I'll continue to listen to lectures by the Hitch. Intellectual enough for you? Meanwhile, you can shove your ad hominem attempts to shut down free opinion up your ass.
But don't let this tough love get you down, Sparky. I like you the cut of your jib.