(urth) SRD on obscurity

[pthwndxrclzp]

Sorry, I left off what is probably the most important part of what I wanted
to say.

Thanks, Dan'l, for your words of apology, which were greatly appreciated.
For my part, I certainly didn't need to nastily hurl out my opinions like
buckshot for what was I'm sure at least in part my own gratification as much
as for any group edification. My apologies right back at you.

On 6/9/06, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp <aquastor at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah, so let me get this straight. Anyone who disagrees
> >  with your opinions on literary quality is a child?
>
> No; but I do think that anyone who confuses "writer I
> don't like" with "egregiously untalented," or confuses
> their personal opinions with facts ("Donaldson's early
> prose is mind-numbingly unreadable" as opposed to
> "I find Donaldson's early prose mind-numbingly unreadable")
> has a bit of semantic maturing to do.
>
> Nonetheless, I should not have written my previous
> comment in such a blatantly insulting manner, and I
> apologize for that.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060609/91661bfd/attachment-0005.htm>