I'm afraid fm that you have used the word "prolix" as another extremely tedious assertion. I don't think it is reasonable to use such a word to describe my prose in general and it is hopeless to use it if you bear in mind the explication in my last post.
As you use it, merely as a term of abuse, with no evidence offered to sustain that usage, it would qualify, though only one word, as prolix itself.
Six letters to say nothing is definitely tediously long winded.
I'm sorry you seem to think that my amusement at my own composition is a weakness. Possibly it is due to your Puritan inheritance. And it is odd how you have never taken c.i. to task over his LOLs despite them having been coming down like snow at times. One thing you are not old boy is even handed.It was just the same with "get a room" and not being on topic. You seem to have an etiquette which varies depending on whether it is displayed by an anti-IDer or not.
But most people enjoy their own wit I have found. It seems natural. And the explanation of its usefulness I have explained. I would much rather read the works of someone who is tickled pink at the ideas he is giving words to than those who self evidently have an aggravating nerve in the vicinity of their lower colon.
I would never refer to someone else's writings as "prolix" because it implies that I have second guessed what was in his mind and I don't have enough confidence in my powers of clairvoyance to chance it but if I were ever to take such a chance I would choose those posts last night between your goodself and Setanta before much else I have read as examples.
You need to show what un-neccessary words I used in putting over the points I was making without reference to your approval of the points to show I was prolix or the reader may come to feel that what you mean by the word is anything of which you don't approve.
I thought my points were efficiently made and were thus incisive which,as you might know, is the opposite of prolix. You have used the word as a synonym of bullshit which, as we all know, again, for the umpteenth time,is anything you disagree with and it is this characteristic, which puts people off by grating on their nerves, that may well cause people to have negative feelings about science when it is a constant and seemingly irredeemable feature of a writer who goes into bat for science. Which,of course,you don't. You only go into bat for yourself.
Sludge lets out a big sigh of relief . . .
