If I missed your “mirth,” perhaps the problem was with the writing, not the reader.
Dave Land (D-CA)

Hey Dave, thanks for reading and responding? You don’t get off that easy when your passive-aggressive writing fails the same transparency check an inkstain would pass.

“perhaps the problem was with the writing,” you ask? Lovely.

Let me break down how thoroughly you failed a basic comprehension task here, Dave:

  1. I quoted a line from the article: “I’m also a little puzzled that a simple text editor can make them furious.” That’s what we start with. No one worth considering was actually, literally frothing at the mouth over this cute scrap of code. The article is written with some amount of tongue thoroughly in the cheek.
  2. I responded in kind, to match the fun-poking tone of the article so as not to miss the level of dialogue it was intended to encompass (one hardly enters into a comedian’s skit on gun violence with statistics on the number of children killed by guns each year, does one? Perhaps I’d better answer that one for you: no, because that would be tilting at windmills and ruining what chance the comedy itself had of working its effect).
  3. To wit, in case you were wondering what side of the debate I was on, this came forth: “ those weird bearded guys with thick-rimmed glasses in the english geneds you survived.” Emphasis mine, lest you miss the not-so-subtle jab directed at those who would sneer over their noses at English geneds.
  4. To wit: “they weren’t being ironic — that’s how they actually felt about the oxford comma.” How would I know that unless I was one, Dave? Better yet, how did you not cotton onto this by now?
  5. Finally, the only snippet you seem to have actually read: “you want to change the very fabric of their chosen medium?” Bad joke about the site we’re writing on here aside, blatant hyperbole mirrors the imagined mouth-frothers posited in the original work, to bring the image back and seat the tone firmly in the same comedic tense as its parent work.

You have a degree in writing and editing [not reading] — a BS, it seems fortuitously called— from Carnegie-Mellon University. You “honed your craft” (that’s quite possibly one of the most tired cliches I think a writer can possibly put to paper, physical or otherwise) using writing exercises, which, for the sake of brevity rather than tooting our own horn, can be grouped nicely under the umbrella of Constrained Writing (it’s a thing; you didn’t need to waste so many words tossing around the poetry terminology you recalled from the 100-level course you took in the discipline — indeed, pointing out it was a tradition rather than your own invention would have saved you the embarrassment of undue self-aggrandizement while simultaneously helping your rhetorical stance to better footing).

Do you remember what your writing professors — if they were any good, that is — told you was the most important thing about becoming a good writer?

“If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have the time (or the tools) to write. Simple as that.” -Stephen King

Hear, hear. You should have read the comment, Dave.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.