Campagnolo components and the Tour...

In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:49:39 -0600, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:24:02 GMT, Jasper Janssen
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:51:48 -0600, wrote:

There's little evidence, however, that a computer would have
improved Jane Austen's productivity. Word processors have a
bad habit of encouraging people to spend time cutting,
pasting, inserting, and deleting (which is not the same as
writing).

So books that are actually edited are bad. Check.

Anyone who thinks that computerized typing is the key to
increasing a good writer's output should look into the
habits of Anthony Trollope, who regularly put in three hours
in the morning writing some 47 thick novels and a number of
other books before going off to run a large portion of the
British postal system for his day job.

Have you ever tried doing a collaboration between two authors before
email? Just didn't work.

Dear Jasper,

Er, numerous writing teams would disagree with you.

Ellery Queen

Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position to be in close
physical proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.

Now, if I were to rewrite `close physical proximity' for
you, _that_ would be pedantry.

--
Michael Press
The rest of the world.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:10:14 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote:

Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position to be in close
physical proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.

Now, if I were to rewrite `close physical proximity' for
you, _that_ would be pedantry.

Why exactly, and to what, would you rewrite it?

Jasper

In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:10:14 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote:

Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position to be in close
physical proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.

Now, if I were to rewrite `close physical proximity' for
you, _that_ would be pedantry.

Why exactly, and to what, would you rewrite it?

Why? Matters of style are not for me to comment upon.

Were I in a relationship as a pedant (obsolete usage
meaning a schoolmaster) I would say that `proximity' means
nearness in space and time; and that it is enough to say

`Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position
to be in proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery,
certainly.'

or

`Well, yes, but only when the members were in proximity. I
believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.'

or even

`Well, yes, but only when the members were proximate. I
believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.'

--
Michael Press

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 05:04:54 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:10:14 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote:

Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position to be in close
physical proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.

Now, if I were to rewrite `close physical proximity' for
you, _that_ would be pedantry.

Why exactly, and to what, would you rewrite it?

Why? Matters of style are not for me to comment upon.

Were I in a relationship as a pedant (obsolete usage
meaning a schoolmaster) I would say that `proximity' means
nearness in space and time; and that it is enough to say

So you feel that both close and physical are unnecessary modifiers? That
wouldn't be so much pedantic as just plain wrong. Proximity says only
'nearness' and does *not* specify whether in space or time, let alone
both. That would be because it's a direct import into english from Latin
proximitas, proximitatis, which my Latin dictionary informs me derives
from the superior form of 'prope', close (therefore, from closest), but
even in Roman times had morphed into meaning, well, proximity, ie,
nearness.

Nowadays, it is possible to use 'proximity' to make a statement about
relative positions within networks -- whether those be telephone,
telegraph, mail, internet, or family relations -- and therefore specifying
*physical* proximity than any of the others is far from superfluous.

In a similar way, 'proximity' and its ancestors have for millennia been
used in sentences that indicate just *how* close someone or something
(unlike, say, proximate or proximal), therefore specifying 'close' is not
excessive.


Try to outpedant me, will you?

Jasper

In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote:

[...]

Try to outpedant me, will you?

Where do you get that? It was in a different thread that
you said I was pedantic, a characterization that I did not
and do not now accept. Nowhere until now have you
intimated that you mean to hold the pedantic high ground;
ground that I have never contested.

--
Michael Press