NON-DELIVERY of: Re: Humor, Dr. Suess

[Lotus -dot- M -dot- a -dot- i -dot- l -dot- Exchange -at- TESSPO-VA -dot- SMTRW -dot- LANGATE -dot- SPRINT -dot- COM]

--TSaMUI5geXBZH1hhjMw2JD1tI3I4IJkA
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


                           Delivery Failure Report

                               Your document:
                             Re: Humor, Dr. Suess
                         could not be delivered to:
                   Ronni Perry -at- CRWMS at DL-Notes -at- DL_CCMAIL
                                  because:
                   MailEx0010: cc:Mail user name too long.
                                Routing path:
                           DLLN2,DLLN2,DLLN2,DLLN2


                          ________________________




--TSaMUI5geXBZH1hhjMw2JD1tI3I4IJkA
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

RFC-822-Headers:
Comments: To: DODWriter -at- aol -dot- com
Comments: cc: TECHWR-L -at- VM1 -dot- ucc -dot- okstate -dot- edu

--TSaMUI5geXBZH1hhjMw2JD1tI3I4IJkA
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Hi Richard - although I've seen this before, I still got a good laugh
reading >it again.  Thanks for remembering technical writing doesn't have
to be ALL >seriousness and grammar.


Carla--

You've gently made the telling point that not every post needs to be brand
new. Some things bear repeating. Some things don't, but if they're repeated
anyway, so what? How many points are repeated daily (keeping the Department
of Redundancy Department in business) in threads that elicit a simultaneity
of nearly identical responses? A click or two of the mouse and they're
gone, what's the problem?

The truth that Arlen and some other list heavies apparently miss is that
many of their own contributions are not terribly original either. Writers
have held and articulated comparable views well before this list's
redundancy of Arlens came along.  Many views touted as original and
therefore worthy were learned from someone/somewhere else; the
self-proclaimed arbiters of the list are repeating them world without end
to writers who've doubtless heard them before.

It could be argued that at least Arlen thought up his contribution himself
whereas Richard knew he was repeating someone else. Big deal again. Makes
no difference to the reader. If he's never heard it before he thinks of it
as original (even if not originated by the contributor). If he has, he
thinks it's unoriginal. Either way, he may not care: originality no more
guarantees value than unoriginality necessarily subverts it.

Richard's intentions were just as good as Arlen's just as Arlen's ignorance
of what preceded him was just as broad as Richard's. For any of us, our
knowledge is an island surrounded by the vast ocean of the unknown. And
there are always people who live beyond our knowledge, who one way or
another know more than we do. It's just some of them are wise enough not to
make an issue of it.

Thanks for your kindness to Richard--and the rest of us.

--
steve wax                                 stevewx -at- eskimo -dot- com
-------------------------------------------------------------
After the final no there comes a yes
and on that yes the future world depends.  --Wallace Stevens

--TSaMUI5geXBZH1hhjMw2JD1tI3I4IJkA--