"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> George M. Middius > wrote:
>>>> MiNe 109 said to ****-for-Brains:
>>>>>>> Are you sure that's what he meant?
>>>> Why don't you explain it to us in detail, Stephen?
>>>>> What you're sure of? No thanks.
>>>> I think we should make a list.
>>>> 1. Everybody who has ever argued with Krooger is a proven liar.
>>>> Also, everybody who may ever argue with Krooger in the future is a
>>>> proven liar.
>>> 2. The enemy of my enemy is my... wait, they're all my enemies.
>> 3. A fool and his foolishness are never parted.
> Not bad for a first try at Krooglish.
Since everything I write defines what Krooglish is, there are no first
tries. Each and every expression that is posted is a true and finished
product.
>You've got the fractured
> aphorism, but it's weakened by redundantly ascribing foolishness to a
> fool.
That isn't the point. The point is obviously way over your head, Stephen.
Hint, look at "...are never parted". If you think for a couple of weeks even
you might get it. I'll explain it further, below. So don't explode quite
yet.
>Also, the grammar follows the original too closely.
Which is strongly related to the point. The closer you follow the original,
the greater the surprise when you enter the fractured zone. The
"foolishness" slips by because it resembles the word fool. So the listener
is caught almost totally unawares when the word "never" comes by. The
surprise hits about 0.3 seconds after the period for a person with IQ 115 or
above. Job well done if I do say so myself.
> Mix it up, and add some typos for emphasis.
Only necessary when there isn't enough brilliance. Judging by the shade of
green apparent in your writing Stephen, there was plenty of brilliance. But
this is me writing, so what do you expect?
> 3. Like a fool and his mOney arn't parted, lOts! LOL! ;-(
Yecch! and oh by the way, highly derivative. I'd say try again Stephen but
based on past experience you aren't capable of anything better so stuff it.
> Or you could testify ironically, like Steve Martin:
> 4. I believe in equality, equality for everyone, no matter how stupid
> they are, or how much better I am than they are.
Did Steve actually make this up? He's quoted as saying it, but he doesn't
employ writers, does he?
<add ironic tone of voice towards the end of the sentence and imagine a very
big grin.>
> Make it Orwellian: Doctorates bad! PhDs better!
Good one but Orwell was a pro. Actually Orwell never was. "George Orwell"
was a pseudonym for Eric Arthur Blair. No matter, this aphorism seems to be
operative among my kids. PhDs yes (2), Doctors no (0).
> You could paraphrase yourself, but clean it up and make it punchy:
> 5. When a man reaches a certain age, nothing kick-starts the libido
> like buying the wife a station wagon.
Google doesn't find it on the web. Does that mean it's original? Sounds like
Jack Benny. If it's original , the *Doctor* (or is that PhD or is that
perpetual PhD candidate?) should cure himself. It's out of date - replace
"station wagon" with "minivan" See guidance, above...
;-)