To save all the need to read many repetitive posts, I've consolidated
them here for your dining and dancing pleasure. Note the similarity of
tone and imagery. What is the name of that activity with kids sitting in
a circle all doing pretty much the same thing. Oh the name escapes me...

Actually a decent display of vocabulary, not bad grammar, imagery a
little thin, cliches a bit overdone. Still, promising.

No, seriously...

Pastorio
-------------------------
Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> Oh, my. I have to say I'm a tad disappointed in you, Bobbo. In your
> frantic haste to toss back what must've seemed to you a witty retort,
> you failed to consider the possibility that someone else's frame of
> reference might not only encompass yours, but also extend beyond it,
> in this case well past minor character actors and cult movies.
> Still, I'm going to help you out here, Bobbo, because I'm your friend
> and I hate to see you continue to parade your ignorance for all and
> sundry to see as if today was Pride Day for the Slow-Witted and
> Culturally Destitute.
>
> 1. Long before those shiny colorful movies that have so thoroughly
> arrested your attention, people told stories of all kinds, both fact
> and fiction, in what we grown-ups like to call "periodicals."
>
> 2. The father of diminutive actor Wallace Shawn was the editor of one
> such periodical, in which regularly appeared bits of badly mangled
> prose under the heading "Block that Metaphor."

I didn't know that William Shawn was Wallace's father. Took me this
prompt. But, you missed the point of my comment.

> That's all the time I had set aside today for remedial instruction,
> so I'm unable to tell you the title of the periodical. I expect
> you'll soon be scurrying over to google to complete this small
> portion of your lessons.

To which Barb wrote from her position of intellectual superiority and
self-thrilling erudition:

> IOW, you were actually *complimenting* Bobbo by making that
> comparison. How typical of him that he would completely miss the
> point.

WHOOOOOOSH

Kevin went on to write, apropos a different twist in his knickers:

> You keep mispelling "pompous asses" in a variety of inventive ways in
> some vain attempt to align yourself with a group of people you
> obviously feel are your social and intellectual betters, but whom
> have thus far failed to clutch you nurturingly to their collective
> breast.

<LOL> Take a breath, Kev. The screen will still be there...

> Kinda sad, really.
>
> Here's a hint: Using a bit of jargon such as "subcutaneous
> inflammation" doesn't make me a physician.

Clearly not. However, my using "mouthfeel" is a professional usage
because it's from a field in which I am a professional, and have been
for a few decades.

> The noise will go away once you stop moving your lips when you read.

Puhleeze.

> PS: Thanks to your appearance here, I better understand the audience
> for those ads in the back of "Bon Appetit," the ones touting a
> "Getaway Cooking Weekend with Chef [insert manufactured celebrity
> d'jour]."

To which Barb opined from her Olympian post:

> Probably the same ones who thought "Sideways" was a rilly meaningful
> fillum with a lot of profound insights and sophisticated humor.

To which the suddenly sober-seeming Kevin replied with a sudden eclat of
effete japery, demonstrating that same puckish sense of humor so
endearing to all and sundry. Really:

> Plus also by watching it you can learn a lot about what wines go with
> what kinds of food and stuff. Or, as the noted food and wine critic
> Navin Johnson once said, "Why, do you realize that in the past two
> short months we have acquired the sophistication it takes some people
> a lifetime to acquire? Come on, let's toast!"

To which Barb offered her seriously approved humor, removing her glasses
for additional emphasis like those guys in the aspirin commercials:

> I was at Trader Joe's earlier today and, while waiting in line,
> enjoyed the sendup of wine snobbery in their goofy, wine-critic-style
> descriptions of the "varietal" chocolate bars. My favorite was the
> one with "a hint of tobacco."

And Kevin went on to write: (we could almost see the furrowed brow and
leather elbow patches)

> A month or two ago, "Cook's Illustrated" ran just such an article --
> quite seriously -- about various brands of chocolate, though without
> referring to them as "varietal." What saved it from insipidness was
> the advice about which brands might be better suited for certain
> types of cooking.

insipidity... insipiditude... insipidence... insipience...

Kevin also wrote this rollicking next part:

> Oh, my. My, my, my.
>
> Shirley by now the Usernet has come up with a label for this kind of
> bottom-of-the-barrel lameocity. What does one call someone so
> utterly bereft of imagination and wit that he is reduced to merely
> repackaging -- verbatim -- the rebukes, admonitions, insults, and
> dismissive verbal size-10 Doc Martens in the ass hurled his way, then
> flinging them back like a deranged chimp with a fistful of feces?
>
> I suppose "Bob" will do.
>
> Bob, I'm always interested in discussing English grammar and
> punctuation, as are many of the others in these here froups. So other
> than the coordinating conjunction that Barbara obviously failed to
> delete as she edited her post, what exactly is incorrect about the
> grammar and punctuation of the two sentences you quoted? Just so
> there's no ambiguity, I'm referring to the two sentences you quoted
> when you were pulling a Bob by demonstrating that you are so utterly
> bereft of imagination and wit that you are reduced to merely
> repackaging -- verbatim -- the rebukes, admonitions, insults, and
> dismissive verbal size-10 Doc Martens in the ass hurled your way,
> then flinging them back like a deranged chimp with a fistful of
> feces. Those two.

<LOL> It was too ferocious a PKB to let ride. Her stomping, flouncing
prose made it all the better. Guilty pleasure.

And still more, using those cutesy conventions used by the initiates;
the "innards," as we say:

> I wondered what happened to Bill Palmer. When did he start psoting to
> the cooking froups?

> Barb sneered, delicately pinioning herself to that wax tablet, wings
spread:
> Free tip: When your attempts at being patronizing and superior make
> you look like such a fool, it makes you look even more foolish when
> you try to be even more patronizing. Try another technique.
>
> That is, unless you're only out to impress yourself. In which case,
> I'm sure the self-congratulations are their own reward. BW

> To which Dave vainly offered to help Barb by compounding her sneer,
offering a thudding suckup and an analytical capacity only exceeded by
the rubber plant in my living room:
> But! If he were only out to impress himself? Surely he could do this
> in the privacy of his own home, rather than on Usenet where hundreds
> (if not thousands) of sites would display his attempt to the world?
> No, he's trying to impress others. Unfortunately, his superior
> hauteur contains not even a hint of humor, self-knowledge, or
> self-deprecation, as far as I've seen anyway (I'm not a r.f.c
> inhabitant, so have only seen the feet he's been putting in
> his mouth over here.)
>
> Dave "less > more" DeLaney

A fitting ending to a frayed panoply of delicate, self-congratulatory
sneers and lamentably ordinary jabs. Less > more explains it all.
Triumph of form over substance.

HAND. NO. Wait. Have a terrific day. One of the best days you've ever
had. Better still, have the best day you've ever had. Anything is too
good for you. And I mean that most sincerely.

No, seriously...

Pastorio