Author: Roger
Date: 21:14:58 02/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2000 at 20:47:12, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On February 05, 2000 at 20:13:54, James Robertson wrote: > >>>This must be the ugliest post made on this subject tonight. The second ugliest >>>is your "satirical" post (look up your dictionary to see what "satire" means). >>>By all means defend it. >> >>The definition of satire is (Funk and Wagnalls) "1. The use of sarcasm, irony, >>or wit in exposing abuses or follies; ridicule. 2. A written composition in >>which vice, folly, etc. is held up to ridicule." >> >>Doesn't my post fit into those categories? I personally think it was witty, but >>even if you disagree with that you can't deny it is sarcastic. You may not agree >>your action was abuse or a folly, but isn't exposing it as such what satire is >>all about? :) >> >>James > >I didn't get that from it. To me it just seemed sarcastic, serious, and pissed >off, not that it matters much. There were a lot of upset people this morning. > >bruce There is, of course, such a thing as righteous anger, where you are pissed off and you damn well have a right to be. Not that you said anything else, Bruce, but I think this is an important point to make. Roger
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.