I'm just glad they have things like this now. I shudder to think what my brothers are learning. I can guarantee I had a more honest and comprehensive class at my Catholic school back in the day than they're getting from today's public schools.
Is that a reference to your previous comment about there being a secret or prank behind a commenter's handle, which I was just unable to find because I couldn't remember the phrasing of?
This error message,"In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience" prevents me from correcting "their" to "there"
I'm not sure I understand the confusion. I accuse SB of pretending, then he says "Pretense? I wouldn't have it in me," with it's double meaning of "I wouldn't pretend" and "I wouldn't let Labs put his 29" cock in me." What are you talking about?
I believe that a quick Google of the key terms, restricted to site:unfogged.com, will clear up what 21 is about. (31 was an awesome example of whatever that figure of speech is, Becks. Could it be... Praeteriteo?)
And with "Praeteriteo," I believe this thread reaches the Chandrasekhar limit at which the in-joke density becomes so great that no comment can escape.
I think that either I didn't need to write "it" because "phrasing of" must refer back to "previous comment" or that "it" would not have been enough, since "it" could refer to the phrasing of "secret or prank" or the "commenter's handle." Either way I didn't need to write "it" to save 16. I'm semi-serious about 16 being ok w/o "it" but will demur.
Those last three words? There's an in-joke for you.
My reasoning--and this is really quite silly--is that "which" is the object either of "find" or of "of" (the last one), but not both, and so "of" needs an object.
At the Mineshaft! (sorry, couldn't figure out another way to work an in-joke in.)
I followed the link. The linked comment appears to suggest the implausibility of an Unfogged hoax's underlying the identity of Matthew Yglesias (he who errs in inverse proportion to his dancing the Fontana banana fandango).
But it seemed that your linked comment (35 if that thread) was meant ironically, thus suggesting that there had already been an elaborate hoax involving an Unfogged commenter's identity.
If you only meant to suggest that it was the sort of thing that would happen, I'm going to cry, so if that is what you meant I think you ought to concoct an elaborate hoax involving an Unfogged commenter's identity and then reveal it to me. You can borrow my time machine if it would help.
Chopper in Comment 50 in that thread read it the same way as Weiner explains in 38, and I did too. Non-response from SB is reasonble (though frustrating), unless we're talking about the oh so open secret which I already alluded to in 21.
Were I SB, I would point out that "35 if that thread" makes no sense. Like I said, people are going soft here, which I guess is a good thing and to be pushed along.
Jesus Christ, you guys were busy last night. SB, I only hope that at some point, many years in the future, that which confuses the rest of us dullards is revealed.
My current theory: you are Ex. Your commenting upon ogged's blog has rekindled your passion. However, ogged's case of Koro has left you unable to rekindle your physical passion, so you make love over the Internets, using only your minds.
What has taken its toll on Maya Angelou is decades of writing god-awful, clunky, artless, college freshman quality poetry. Or, perhaps more accurately, being exposed to it has taken its toll on me.
SB has consistently commented from at least one locale which is not the ex's current living area; however, SB could simply be routing SB's traffic through said locale.
You know, if you don't at least tell me whether I was right about what your original comment meant, I'm going to change my hints about your identity to "Debbie Gibson or Huey Lewis." (I promise not to ask any more questions about what you meant, in case I was wrong, so you don't have to worry about setting a precedent where you reveal yourself by no-commenting after a series of denials.)
I should say that it's fun guessing, but if Standpipe wants to remain a mystery, then by all means standpipeself should do so. I hope you'll forgive me for being curious--I'm the sort who to this day will open Christmas presents days in advance and then reseal them, rather than wait to be surprised. It's troublesome for me when a sharp knife and some tape aren't the solution to a mystery.
Oh, I agree with 64, and absolutely don't think Standpipe should reveal anything about Standpipeself unless Standpipe wants to. If the mysterious original comment had to do with an open secret, though, I will sleep better knowing that I am in on it.
And since I'm a little bitch, I should say that you misused the reflexive (substitute ordinary pronouns and you'll see). And that the Vikings aren't looking so hot.
In re the reflexive: sure. I just wanted to type "standpipeself" and was too lazy to figure out a more graceful way of doing it.
In re the Vikes: oh, Christ. Tell me about it. Key injuries, poor coaching, a quarterback who has mysteriously lost the ability to see open receivers...
Between the Packers, Vikes, Bears, and Lions, it's hard to say who sucks most. The NFC North is a swirling vortex of Teh Suck. A combined 3-11, and 2 of those three wins are from NFC North teams playing each other.
The division champ might only need 6 wins this year.
Re 71: Hell, if the division teams each split their series with the other teams, and then one team wins a game outside the division, it might only take 4 games.
I may have mentioned this before, but re: 69, that Barthes essay is really awful. Here's the argument: there are important things to the interpretation of a text other than the author's intent. Here's the conclusion: the author's intent means nothing. It's teh suxx.
[I just searched the archives, I left a comment saying very similar things back in May.]
I so should have known not to click on that at work.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 12:12 PM
Not that it wasn't labeled, I just overlooked it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 12:12 PM
LB--you need to get head phones.
"civilized countries like ours" with a Texas accent. That was hilarious.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 12:18 PM
I give it my seal of approval.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 12:31 PM
Gave up after ten minutes of loading got only a fifth of the way through. Um, possibly you might want to consider noting something isn't for dialup?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 8:28 PM
I would, but no one uses dialup anymore, Gary.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 8:32 PM
I'm just glad they have things like this now. I shudder to think what my brothers are learning. I can guarantee I had a more honest and comprehensive class at my Catholic school back in the day than they're getting from today's public schools.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 9:51 PM
Thank goodness for internet porn.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 9:52 PM
Feeling sleepy?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 9:59 PM
Not in months.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:02 PM
Try disguising yourself as Matthew Yglesias.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:13 PM
I think you misuderstand the physiological factors.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:14 PM
I think you discount the possibility of reacharounds.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:17 PM
Now you're pretending that you've never been sodomized by Labs?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:21 PM
Pretense? I wouldn't have it in me.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:32 PM
Is that a reference to your previous comment about there being a secret or prank behind a commenter's handle, which I was just unable to find because I couldn't remember the phrasing of?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:36 PM
In you, out of you; over time, there's not much difference.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:37 PM
In the long run, we are all sodomized by Fontana Labs.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:39 PM
Is what I'm saying.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:40 PM
16: This one. But is "commenter" the mot juste? (This is an attempt to find out if I know what SB's talking about.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:43 PM
Is their a thread about this person mentioning cuban sandwiches and dross? Because I thought SB was talking about something more mysterious.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:49 PM
This error message,"In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience" prevents me from correcting "their" to "there"
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:51 PM
That is the person I was thinking of. And perhaps SB was. SB is a mysterious consortium.
(Since I feel people here are going soft, I was going to say that I believe 16 should have an "it" at the end of it, but now I'm just depressed.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:52 PM
Perhaps SB was thinking of someone more mysterious, I meant. And 22 lifts my spirits to the heights again! 17 should have an "it" at the end of it.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:54 PM
FUCK. "17" should be "16," obviously.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:54 PM
I'm not sure I understand the confusion. I accuse SB of pretending, then he says "Pretense? I wouldn't have it in me," with it's double meaning of "I wouldn't pretend" and "I wouldn't let Labs put his 29" cock in me." What are you talking about?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:55 PM
"it", apparently
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:57 PM
I have no idea what either of you are talking about. I am talking about Labs' impetus.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:57 PM
"Either of you" means w/d and Weiner, not ogged and Becks.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:59 PM
Follow the link in 20, SB!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:00 PM
I know. I'm so confused by what's going on that I can't even sort things out enough to make a Yglesias/Labs/cuban sandwich joke.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:01 PM
I believe that a quick Google of the key terms, restricted to site:unfogged.com, will clear up what 21 is about. (31 was an awesome example of whatever that figure of speech is, Becks. Could it be... Praeteriteo?)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:04 PM
And with "Praeteriteo," I believe this thread reaches the Chandrasekhar limit at which the in-joke density becomes so great that no comment can escape.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:06 PM
Which is a shame, because I was looking forward to SB's explaining Standpipeself about the comment linked in 20.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:07 PM
I think that either I didn't need to write "it" because "phrasing of" must refer back to "previous comment" or that "it" would not have been enough, since "it" could refer to the phrasing of "secret or prank" or the "commenter's handle." Either way I didn't need to write "it" to save 16. I'm semi-serious about 16 being ok w/o "it" but will demur.
Those last three words? There's an in-joke for you.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:08 PM
My reasoning--and this is really quite silly--is that "which" is the object either of "find" or of "of" (the last one), but not both, and so "of" needs an object.
At the Mineshaft! (sorry, couldn't figure out another way to work an in-joke in.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:13 PM
I followed the link. The linked comment appears to suggest the implausibility of an Unfogged hoax's underlying the identity of Matthew Yglesias (he who errs in inverse proportion to his dancing the Fontana banana fandango).
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:15 PM
But it seemed that your linked comment (35 if that thread) was meant ironically, thus suggesting that there had already been an elaborate hoax involving an Unfogged commenter's identity.
If you only meant to suggest that it was the sort of thing that would happen, I'm going to cry, so if that is what you meant I think you ought to concoct an elaborate hoax involving an Unfogged commenter's identity and then reveal it to me. You can borrow my time machine if it would help.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:19 PM
I think SB would do well not to respond to 38 at all.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:22 PM
I like peanut butter.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:23 PM
You're not the only one.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:25 PM
There are several of us?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:26 PM
Chopper in Comment 50 in that thread read it the same way as Weiner explains in 38, and I did too. Non-response from SB is reasonble (though frustrating), unless we're talking about the oh so open secret which I already alluded to in 21.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:26 PM
Were I SB, I would point out that "35 if that thread" makes no sense. Like I said, people are going soft here, which I guess is a good thing and to be pushed along.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:26 PM
Assuming SB does what I think SB is about to do, it's a good thing we all know about that the problem with affirming the consequent.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:30 PM
This is related to Rove nominating Miers, isn't it?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:31 PM
I actually wrote "about that the." That is screwed up. I'm done for the night.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:32 PM
And puberty, Smasher.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:33 PM
Soft is the new hard.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:35 PM
Where once were diamonds, flaccid.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:36 PM
And so age takes its toll on Maya Angelou.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:46 PM
I'm too tired for this.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:08 AM
Jesus Christ, you guys were busy last night. SB, I only hope that at some point, many years in the future, that which confuses the rest of us dullards is revealed.
My current theory: you are Ex. Your commenting upon ogged's blog has rekindled your passion. However, ogged's case of Koro has left you unable to rekindle your physical passion, so you make love over the Internets, using only your minds.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 6:50 AM
I'm so confused by what's going on that I can't even sort things out enough to make a Yglesias/Labs/cuban sandwich joke.
Two kinds of pork in one sandwich? Melty gooey white stuff?
Yeah, there's no joke there.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 6:52 AM
And so age takes its toll on Maya Angelou.
What has taken its toll on Maya Angelou is decades of writing god-awful, clunky, artless, college freshman quality poetry. Or, perhaps more accurately, being exposed to it has taken its toll on me.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:15 AM
You know, the theory in 53 occurred to me too. 39 (and Ogged's mad IP skillz) suggests that Ogged may know who SB is.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:22 AM
And the thread goes dead! Clearly they're hiding something....
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 10:20 AM
This is very confusing. Matt, what did you mean by asking whether "commenter" was LMJ?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 10:54 AM
SB has consistently commented from at least one locale which is not the ex's current living area; however, SB could simply be routing SB's traffic through said locale.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 11:13 AM
Wolfson! I happen to know some facts concerning SB's identity (hint: either Lucy Mangan or Ian Crocker), but I'm not about to post them. Discretion.
SB, I was wondering whether "coblogger" might be more appropriate.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 11:23 AM
Oh, gotcha.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 11:37 AM
Ben—no harm done.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 11:42 AM
You know, if you don't at least tell me whether I was right about what your original comment meant, I'm going to change my hints about your identity to "Debbie Gibson or Huey Lewis." (I promise not to ask any more questions about what you meant, in case I was wrong, so you don't have to worry about setting a precedent where you reveal yourself by no-commenting after a series of denials.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 11:58 AM
I should say that it's fun guessing, but if Standpipe wants to remain a mystery, then by all means standpipeself should do so. I hope you'll forgive me for being curious--I'm the sort who to this day will open Christmas presents days in advance and then reseal them, rather than wait to be surprised. It's troublesome for me when a sharp knife and some tape aren't the solution to a mystery.
Or are they?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:17 PM
Oh, I agree with 64, and absolutely don't think Standpipe should reveal anything about Standpipeself unless Standpipe wants to. If the mysterious original comment had to do with an open secret, though, I will sleep better knowing that I am in on it.
And since I'm a little bitch, I should say that you misused the reflexive (substitute ordinary pronouns and you'll see). And that the Vikings aren't looking so hot.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:25 PM
In re the reflexive: sure. I just wanted to type "standpipeself" and was too lazy to figure out a more graceful way of doing it.
In re the Vikes: oh, Christ. Tell me about it. Key injuries, poor coaching, a quarterback who has mysteriously lost the ability to see open receivers...
Ah well. At least the Packers suck more.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:29 PM
and since the steelers didn't play this week, I'm really courting disaster by talking trash. (Debbie Lewis: You are not off the hook.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:35 PM
You know who Bush should appoint to lead FEMA. Brett Favre. He is one immune from criticism 0-4 quarterback.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:38 PM
I'm the author, Matt. I'm dead.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:42 PM
It's Jean-Luc Petard!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:44 PM
Ah well. At least the Packers suck more.
Between the Packers, Vikes, Bears, and Lions, it's hard to say who sucks most. The NFC North is a swirling vortex of Teh Suck. A combined 3-11, and 2 of those three wins are from NFC North teams playing each other.
The division champ might only need 6 wins this year.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:45 PM
Re 69: Standpipe is Bela Lugosi!
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:47 PM
Re 71: Hell, if the division teams each split their series with the other teams, and then one team wins a game outside the division, it might only take 4 games.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 12:48 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but re: 69, that Barthes essay is really awful. Here's the argument: there are important things to the interpretation of a text other than the author's intent. Here's the conclusion: the author's intent means nothing. It's teh suxx.
[I just searched the archives, I left a comment saying very similar things back in May.]
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 2:29 PM