I'm only repeating Mr. King's complaint. And since this audience is reluctant to part with their adverbs it did seem worth saying.

And since this audience is reluctant to part with their adverbs it did seem worth saying.

You said you weren't advocating abolishing them completely, like your poetry teacher. And most of us -- I thought -- said that we know overuse of them is lazy and bad writing, but that we're okay with using them occasionally. It's a non-argument.

I'm only repeating Mr. King's complaint.

Nonsense. You weren't *only* repeating his complaint; you prefaced it by asking, I assume not rhetorically:

Do people not get why there's an objection to reliance on adverbs?

And then spelling it out for your audience (via Mr. King), who already got it.

And since this audience is reluctant to part with their adverbs

Different people like different shit.

And most of us -- I thought -- said that we know overuse of them is lazy and bad writing, but that we're okay with using them occasionally. It's a non-argument.

That wasn't my sense of it at all. Jilli disagreed directly. As did Connie. Tep's objection was more than a minor demurrer. Your stance was more mediated but that wasn't the tenor of it.

Jilli certainly didn't say she wanted to use them with abandon. And we were all responding to your teacher's opinion no one should ever use them.

I like adverbs sometimes. And that's all I have left to say on this, I think. Except what Tep said:

Different people like different shit.

Of all my faults, I think that liking adverbs is the one I am perhaps least ashamed of.

Seriously, what the hell? Who cares if someone likes adverbs?

Except what Tep said:

I was quoting our own Jesse, wise woman that she is.

Jesse is wise! She gave me a character name tonight!

Jesse wins the internets. Victoriously.

you prefaced it by asking, I assume not rhetorically:

Do people not get why there's an objection to reliance on adverbs?

Because nobody had voiced any alliance with the notion that there was a good reason to rein in adverbs. There was active disagreement with that notion.

Different people like different shit.

If you think that this is simply a matter of personal preference then I don't get why you're getting huffy. It just sounds to me like you're arguing both sides:

1) Of course you know why too many adverbs is a sign of weak construction. It's presumptuous of me to say so when it's understood by this audience.

2) It's not a necessary or useful standard. Your advocacy is debatable.

I don't know which of these arguments you're supporting.

Because nobody had voiced any alliance with the notion that there was a good reason to rein in adverbs.

Do they need to?

I don't get why you're getting huffy.

Because being lectured as though I'm a 12-year-old learning how to write descriptively -- or being lectured on How To Appreciate Great Writing -- irritates me just a skosh, seeing as how I'm neither 12 nor an idiot.

I don't know which of these arguments you're supporting.

You misunderstand me.

Of course you know why too many adverbs is a sign of weak construction. It's presumptuous of me to say so when it's understood by this audience.

Actually, I know why others may hold the belief that too many adverbs are bad. And it is presumptuous of you to say so when it's understood by this audience, none of whom are 12.

It's not a necessary or useful standard.

Very true.

Your advocacy is debatable.

You advocate whatever you like. It's not going to change my opinion.