On 11/29/05, Philip Hart <philiph at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Davdi Silverrock wrote: > > > I would prefer my own preferences, of course, since my idiosyncrasies > > and eccentricities are more correct than anyone else's [1]. > > > Beware conflating what is and what should be, assuming the latter exists. Speaking of "should be"s, well, there *should be* some way of signalling facetiousness and humor. I understand that some use a strange and outlandish construction involving a concatenation of a colon (or semicolon), hyphen, and right-parenthesis (or capital D), in exactly that sequence, but I understand that this is deprecated by some authorities, which is hardly surprizing. I mean, really now. In the absence of such a construction, well, all that one can hope is that the tautological outrageousness of a particular statement is indeed its own signal of facetiousness. > Anyway, you're as qualified a person to decide this as anyone short of > SKZB or maybe Mark Mandel, and the latter seems to be away and I don't > trust the Former. > Oh, bah. It is to induce blushing, I nearly think.