An unfortunate juxtaposition of interests rectified?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

meh, whatever. its an extraordinary story and it was worth posting

---

Agreed. It fit with j2 as well.

Call it logical liberal group bashing.

The story was a good one and it still shows those liberal groups in bad light.

Would it have been posted by j2 if it showed conservative groups in a bad light?

I think not. :dry:

Good article but I'm not surprised by the topic starter. I even think, in this instance, that those liberal groups were dumb shits. It's only logical no matter who opened my eyes to it.

Just for amusement jp, this is a quote from the "blog" of Joe Scarborough who is actually not too shoddy a commentator...just to show you where Busy and I are coming from.

feb. 21st 2005

Quote:

---

You may be asking yourself why a former Republican Congressman would be telling Democrats that they can gain power through the power of moderation.

It's because I know their national leaders will be too stupid to take it.

---

:rolleyes:
source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparsely

more people might be interetsted in your opinion/article if you didn't post it fucking bright blue text.

---

I'll cop to the blue bit, and brightness is in the eye of the beholder; you supplied the "fucking" all by yourself.

I must learn more about this phenomenon you refer to as "interetsted"; tell me-is this your own invention?

Rolls right trippingly off the tongue, doesn't it? ;)

B-

Describe for me, if you would, this "hive" thingie you mentioned?

Is it that you see me as a "worker", or a subscriber to a herd mentality, or group-think, and, if so, precisely what group, pray?

It seems I am, for the most part (and as usual), alone here-although, to be fair to you all, I am an army of one, and given the variety of forces arrayed against me, I see perfectly well how you might become hostage to misperception. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparsely

more people might be interetsted in your opinion/article if you didn't post it fucking bright blue text.

---

:lol:

Despite the misspelling still the best post in The Boring Tomb for quite some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

The Boring Tomb

---

:lol: :lol:

Dammit, where were you when they were naming this place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'll cop to the blue bit, and brightness is in the eye of the beholder; you supplied the "fucking" all by yourself.

I must learn more about this phenomenon you refer to as "interetsted"; tell me-is this your own invention?

Rolls right trippingly off the tongue, doesn't it? ;)

B-

Describe for me, if you would, this "hive" thingie you mentioned?

Is it that you see me as a "worker", or a subscriber to a herd mentality, or group-think, and, if so, precisely what group, pray?

It seems I am, for the most part (and as usual), alone here-although, to be fair to you all, I am an army of one, and given the variety of forces arrayed against me, I see perfectly well how you might become hostage to misperception. :)

---

Now what are you on about? :huh:

You say I suffer from the same indepedent thought, which sounds like an oxymoron, and I say I'm not part of a hive-mind. Where did you come into the equation?

You were simply called on something rather simple. If your aim was for us to see the logic in your article...Bravo...we got it. We also saw something else in the article that's undeniably there.

Whoever wants to deny the health of a child due to their privacy is a dipshit. I don't care if it's a conservindeplibergreenwhateverthefuck. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Sorry to chime in on these "semantics" but both meanings for whit and wit fit.
However, JP's whit fits better in the article's sentence when looking at past contextual usage of the word.
Still I say, "So the fuck what!!!". I normally see this from JPaul or maybe even manker. Did anyone look at the article's verb conjugation and also spellcheck the motherfucker too!!! :dry:

---

:dry:

I rarely make a serious comment on grammar. However, I do like a trivial exchange now and again.

In this case it's clear that the author misused the word wit. The nature of this mistake is such that it is undetectable in the spoken word and would be almost impalpable to all but the most discerning of readers when presented in text - hence the consternation it's caused. It's the grammatical equivilent of chlamydia.

In my opinion JP is quite correct in his first assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

:dry:

I rarely make a serious comment on grammar. However, I do like a trivial exchange now and again.

In this case it's clear that the author misused the word wit. The nature of this mistake is such that it is undetectable in the spoken word and would be almost impalpable to all but the most discerning of readers when presented in text - hence the consternation it's caused. It's the grammatical equivilent of chlamydia.

In my opinion JP is quite correct in his first assertion.

---

Yup, that's why I said "maybe even manker". You usually are joshing about it.

Again I must come back to, "So the fuck what!!!", on the "wit" doohicky though.
It's a speck of dust on a continent of an article. :dry: JP was correct about something that was really nothing in context.

The password is:

NITPICKER