[Leica] More misinterpretation

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>>
As a professional photographer, consummate technician, and artist, Mark
is absolutely at the top. I wish there was a way to bottle what Mark
has. I'd buy a freight train load!

Jim
<<<<<


And how is that in any way a pertinent response to the issue at hand? I
made no judgement whatsoever about Mark's photographic expertise,
skills, or work--nor would I, since I know nothing about those things. I
merely said that I often don't understand from his posted messages what
the hell he's geting at.

I had hoped to avoid a forensic analysis of this, but read this again:

>>>And although there's always room for Jello ...
Silver gelatin does not sound as good as Raspberry Jello.
Marshmallows or no marshmallows that's what I want to know?
Is that a class thing?
People should know what's in the emulsion and what that emulsion is
coated on
and so on but as Mike D. and Mike J. are saying if I may paraphrase:
pretentiousness is to be avoided at all costs. Close?
Let' em guess that's what I say! Let em eat palladium with no
marshmallows!<<<

Now, obviously, he's drawing some sort of metaphorical parallel between
photographic gelatin (use in film and black-and-white papers) and edible
gelatin. What exactly is the point of the parallel? They're both forms
of gelatin, yes, but what's the meaning of linking them together? He
extends the simile to note that marshmallows are often included in
Jello. What is the significance of that observation? He seems to relate
it to social class, somehow, but I'm unsure as to the reference. Is he
saying that the use of marshmallows in Jello is pretentious?
Unpretentious? Doesn't matter? This seems contradicted by the next
sentence, where he states that "people should know what's in the
emulsion and what that emulsion is coated on." Why is this related as a
clause to what follows? And did I in fact say anything about
pretentiousness? Actually, I didn't. Then, the "let 'em guess"
comment--who's "'em"? The people who should know what in the emulsion?
Mike D. and Mike J.? People who eat Jello? People who think it's a class
thing? And what should they guess--what the emulsion is coated on?
Whether pretentiousness should be avoided? Whether there are
marshmallows in the Jello?

And then where does palladium enter into this, and how and why is it
related to edible Jello? Is he suggesting "'em" should poison themselves
by eating an inedible metal salt, whoever "'em" is? What does this mean?
That they can go to hell? That they shouldn't eat Jello? That they
should? That some other condition pertains?

Then, try to read between the lines: i.e., decode the unstated
implications underneath the stated comments. What is he saying, exactly,
about me and Mike D.? About "'em"? About emulsions vis-a-vis Jello?

The meaning of the above-quoted passage, as English, is obviously
furtive. You may or may not want to come up with your own provisional
interpretation--that is, you may think you "get it"; but to me it comes
somewhere close to Chomsky's obervation that language can be grammatical
and syntactical while also being perfectly meaningless (he used some
sort of test phrase like "Eight green ideas sleep furiously" as
shorthand for the idea--I forget the actual phrase; I'm sure somebody
will fill us in). I wouldn't say any of this if I had ever observed Mark
writing clear, unambiguous, declarative English sentences. I haven't. I
think Mark is unclear when he is trying to be unclear, unclear when he's
trying to be clear, and unclear when he's unclear as to his intentions
regarding clarity. I think he would be well advised to
WORK
ON
IT.

But, at the same time, sorry, Mark, for picking this to death. As usual,
we tend to have to niggle over simple points like dogs worrying a bone.
All I said was that I sometimes don't understand what you're saying; and
all I really meant by that was that sometimes I don't understand what
you're saying. My statement wasn't intended to extend to your printing
skills, your professionalism, or the phase of the moon.

- --Mike