The arbitrariness of number of negatives did cross my mind. The comment about zodiac's sentence being overcomplicated remains though. Perhaps a better criticism would be that if the sentence were an equation it would require further simplification.

I disagree with you on the bow'ls thing. Consider the sentence: "It is sunny." It doesn't contain any 'negatives' in your sense of the word. But it is semantically identical to: "It is not overcast." Does that mean it contains a negative? No. The fact that "bow'ls" can mean "incorrect" doesn't mean you're being redundant if you say "It is not bow'ls". Your use of "incorrect" as the interpretation of "bow'ls" is slightly arbitrary as far as the number of 'negatives' is concerned. You could equally interpret "bow'ls" as meaning "positively bumcombe!". That doesn't have any 'negatives'. Do you get what I'm saying?

My use of one referring to 'anybody who wanted to comprehend the sentence' is perfectly valid. I suggest if you believe the use of 'one' and other pomposities on this site is to make the writer appear scholarly then it is you who are the dim. 'That Roger Ebert is anything other than ass hat is bow'ls' can reasonably be translated as 'that Roger Ebert is not (negative) ass hat is incorrect'. Your use of bow'ls is only ever used when you disagree with a statement. It is therefore logical through induction to assume that your understanding of bow'ls is 'I believe that to be incorrect.' Final point. I could tell you I studied reason and argument and got a first for the module, but a more chilling reposte to your boast would be that we have a doctor on this site. And his name is doug.

Bestill your wobbling, sagging jowls: Ne'er ever have I heard such bow'ls! An Gentleman, of sound descent, Would ne'er his poor sole torment With brogueish cloggs of sullied leather, Nor Wellingtons (save, in wet weather). Sturdy shoes, though they may be, An Gentleman's foot gets no reprieve: So long as blood runs through his veins He'll wear a brace of exquisite poulaines!

Any gentleman worth his salt, Would not the Wellington exalt, Knowing they're for the tenant farmer, To act as gumboot, pigshit armour. His lordship does not condescend, To wear boots you can bend, Prefering the stiffness of a brown shoe, Coated in a patterned tatoo.

You may think that you are "en vogue" On account of sporting a brand new brogue; But the gentleman cares not for fashion. In fact, he hates it with a passion; For he knows 'tis just for gays Who skip around the town for days Whilst wearing brogues and pink carnations And suffering from rectal complications. The gentleman likes to wear a "Welly" Whether in Singapore or fair New Delhi. There's nothing that him more perplexes Than the fashion for brogues 'mongst hemasexes.

Wellington boots are an abomination, Making clear your lowly station, And upon further investigation, It appears your overly fond of masturbation, And of homsexual orientation, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Do not from the Wellington boot draw inspiration, No, Nay, Nor for education, Unless bearing brogued decoration.

What the hell do you think English is written in, if not alternating vowels and consonants? I propose that you just heard something about haikus somewhere and decided you'd splatter it anywhere haikus were involved without thinking really hard about whether it made any sense. In fact, I double-dare you to find me a haiku (transliterated, if possible) which demonstrates a skillful use of an alternating "vowel-consonant pattern". If it's the case - as it might be for all I know - that Japanese is intrinsically more alternatingly vowelly-consonanty than English, then what the fuck do you expect? That anyone who wants to write a haiku should write it in Japanese? Hey, what a magnificent idea!!!!!! PS-"this ebbing story of hope for an unlikely romance" is fucking beautiful.

"whether the statement 'Kenneth Tynan was a good critic' is true" is not what we were questioning. We were questioning whether "The best poets are surely the best critics." That whole sentence is improperly phrased, ungrammatical, and needlessly ambiguous. You might just have said, "As regards the statement 'Kenneth Tynan was a good critic', your 'is bow'ls' means approximately the same thing as 'is not true' (or some other such negation)." At any rate, this is still not the case. "Is bow'ls" is an affirmative statement, simply describing the condition of being like a bow'l, I imagine. And you don't know how to use "one" correctly. You just think it makes you sound kind of scholarly and hard to argue with, when it really just makes you sound pretty dim. "Anything other than ass hat" is not what I said. Please, try to quote me correctly. As far as I can remember from undergrad Intro to Logic and Proof (Course Average: a respectable B+), the converse of something is not negative. And what you're talking about isn't really a converse, anyway, so just shut up.