NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/arts/books/23361

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 4.0 KB | 102 lines

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!sugar!claird
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: Judith Mth that collections of
    local peak-climbing moves will get us adequately
    close to our global optimum.
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- [phone]
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:43:14 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 90

z
Tom Peters and some business journalists give the impression
that CPI is in the little things:  one lone operative in the
Rockies hiring a helicopter to get the parcel through, one
production team voting to rationalize its break schedule.  I
suspect there's some rugged-individualist Americana in this.
At the same time, I know how easy it is to abstract my work-table
illumination problem to the point where we'd have a fantastic ROI,
but we're unable to accomplish anything definite ("no, this is
Expires:
References: <[e-mail] really
need to provide adequate lighting for all the welders--no, we
have to make sure that lclaird
Caitlin
tm
trn
nn   R

[e-mail]
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- [phone]
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Maddox) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cameron Laird) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Campin) writes:
>>>[e-mail] quoted Tom Maddox:
>>>> I'm much more concerned with whether people are being interesting, witty,
>>>> enlightening, provocative.  In short, when it comes to public exchanges of
>>>> the written word, I would hold up Oscar Wilde or Dorothy Parker as exemplars
>>>> rather than Miss Manners.
>>Am I reading a different Miss Manners than everyone else? I
>>regard her as with O. Wilde and D. Parker, not against.
>
>    Perhaps so.  I withdraw the implication that Miss Manners is not
>witty.
>
>>Maybe *that*'s the fundamental r.a.b. problem:  the nasty
>>posters here have forgotten that great wit needs constraints--
>>for example, those of grammatical elegance, superficial
>>courtesy, objective correlatives, and so on--to be at its best.
>
>    And maybe not.  While your presciption for "great wit" is both
>concise and superficially plausible, it is suitable more to some idealized
>18th century drawing room than to a late 20th century computer newsgroup.
>
>    And in any case, both Dorothy Parker and Oscar Wilde could be
>discourteous when they felt the situation called for it.  For instance,
>Ms. Parker's remarks in the guest book at Hearst Castle--I can't guarantee
>the accuracy of the quote, which goes something like:
>
>    Upon my honor,
>    I saw a madonna
>    Above the door
>    Of the private whore
>    Of the world's biggest son of a bitch . . .
>
>Or words to that effect--which, no matter how you construe them, will not
>count as superficially polite.
>
>    In fact, the whole notion of holding up anyone in particular as
>exemplary for posting to r.a.b. suddenly strikes me as ludicrous.  Given the
>actual _dramatis personae_ here--their incredible diversity of education,
>talent, diction, etc.--any such attempt can only be repressive.  So I'll
>withdraw not only Miss Manners but also Mr. Wilde and Ms. Parker (though
>I'll keep my high regard for them).
>
>>>I'd hold them up as exemplars, too.  People who produced a small output
>>>with every superfluous word excised.  I suspect that Parker's collected
>>>short stories amount to fewer words than some posters put out here in a
>>>year.
>
>    We are not writing short stories here, I would remind Mr. Campin.
>More suitable grounds for comparison would be the cut-and-slash that
>apparently characterized Parker & Co. in more informal venues, from letters
>to conversation.
>--
>                Tom Maddox
>                    [e-mail]
>    "That's a bird bone, chair, Bob.  I don't know if I should sit there."
>                Tom Waits


--

Cameron Laird
[e-mail] ([e-mail])    [phone]
[e-mail] ([e-mail])      [phone]