Recently a critic who used slanderous comments in a most interesting way attacked the number one online article writer of all time. First, the critic made a wild accusation requiring a response from the Internet's most prolific author then posted a comment indicating that he needs to reply in brevity. Thus attempting to win the debate by not allowing an adequate response by stating:
?P.S. Responding with 1000 words also isn't necessary here and also does not mean you're a brilliant writer. Ever here the term, 'brevity is the soul of wit?' Probably not.?
Of course the Online internet writer having written some 1.9 million words in nearly 4000 articles, is not worried about the amount it takes to reply stating:
For your information Nancy, what on Earth makes you think that I am aspiring to be ?a brilliant writer?? I got a D+ in Journalism in Junior High, the only ?D? I ever received in all my school. I am not a writer or an author; it is only a means to an ends for me. I'll make my responses as long as I want thank you very much. BTW - I turned those answers into articles, as killing a single bird by becoming a single stone, is foolish. As far as your ?brevity? comment; I cannot be made to consider clich's or cute little sayings from a third party by others attempting to make a point or propel a thought, besides your use of the saying is not good in your debate and shows a lack of understanding of that quote, as you use it out of context. Indeed I distinctively remember my Kindergarten teacher using that saying. Sure I know about brevity; ?I am,? read this.?
http://ezinearticles.com/?I-Am&id=132519
The critic losing the battle of her slanderous attack was shown as weak and of such small intellect, she was unable to respond. Therefore the New Tactic of Slanderous Internet Blog Posters, did not work as in they were cut down in an instant like a beer can hit by a Semi Truck. Consider this in 2006.
