Well, don't look for apostrophe-usage help from a woman who writes: "When love, respect and appreciation are openly expressed, a happy home is it's own rewards."
Did you read the comments? They've got a commenter coming out with gems like:
I'm saying that a woman who initiates sex is a whore because she is selling herself spiritually for sexual gratification....
Men are different. They are by nature more agressive than woman and therefore are wired to be the pursuer in sexual relations. That's just the way it is. Men shouldn't have have to deal with their wife's using spiritual whorefare to try to take over yet another male role in our society.
She's got to be trolling for comedy effect. No one sincere could come up with something as wonderful as 'spiritual whorefare'.
Holy spiritual fuck that's some bad grammar.
However, the main cause of family problems today is our self-centeredness...Man is putty in the hands of the woman he loves....God made women verbal creatures, which can frustrate men with an overwhelming amount of talk.
I'll stop there. I'm sure there'd be more if I kept reading.
'spiritual whorefare'.
Seriously great. There must be a way to use this in everyday life. Or, at least, we should make 'Smasher form a band called "Spiritual Whorefare."
OK, I'm curious. Jon' appears to be a real conventional beauty. You gents would hit that, right?
She's got to be trolling for comedy effect.
Sadly, Yes! Dig also this et seq. OTOH, she puts a lot of energy into it.
You gents would hit that, right?
Having read a number of Marie Jon' columns (she's a fave over at S,N!), sure. I'd hit that. With a baseball bat.
In my most cynical moments, I read conservative cultural commenters and think about how easy it would be to write that sort of shit.
Start from received first principles. Process whatever particular instance that came today through them. Denounce or praise as appropriate. Tart the language up with a Buckley-esque SAT word and a witty paradox or two.
Voila! Career supported by right-wing blowhards! (Extra points if you can be "counter-intuitive" with a minoritarian identity-affiliation.)
Then I remember how shitty I'd feel about that and get mad, but, God, the temptation must be overwhelming for a lot of smart people. I'm not including the staff of New York Press there, most of whom fell for that temptation but aren't smart people. Some of the NY Sun people count, though.
Not irrelevant to this rant: what absolute havok fucking po-mo nihilist Jef/f Gold/st/ein has been wreaking over at ObWi. Don't look, it's ugly.
Whose columns, apo? I'm not following 9.
Don't look, it's ugly.
Any thread specifically? Or just all over?
J-Mo, has anyone besides Libertarian Girl actually done this? I agree, I think it would be ridiculously easy to climb the ranks of the right blogosphere. Another route involves an encyclopaedic knowledge of classical warfare, and little else.
10: Is he wreaking it by proxy, with the debate between Mona and Slart, or has he showed up in person? 'cause he seems like he's a walking violation of the posting rules.
And Jack, if you'd been reading Marie you'd know that the witty paradox is just not necessary.
Damn, Marie Jon' sure is a piece of work! Check out her xenophobic masterpiece "Mr. President, with all due respect, you are no Congressman Tom Tancredo".
I thought Libertarian Girl was just faking being a hot girl, not faking being a Libertarian.
The person who wrote the "spiritual whorefare" comment also wrote How To Be A Good Christian Wife. I think the whole persona has to be a joke, and a great one. But if it's not, I don't care. I refuse to give up "spiritual whorefare."
10: Ah, there he is. This strikes me as right, except that it doesn't seem necessary to advert to his notion of postmodernism as opposed to, well, lots of other not nice things I could say about him. Here's a start. And his constant use of "unserious" shows that he aspires to be an intellectual bully, if he only could back it up.
It's been proxy, but he showed up once everyone was bloodied and tired of the debate. Now it's going again. (The Shelby Steele thread.)
Marie Jon' is a small-scale instance of what I'm talking about. She's not going very far until she actually learns to write a sentence. The NY Sun is all over this shit--yay, attack Columbia professors for offhand reported comments on the front page at any opportunity! That Atlas Shrugged twit got an interview with John Bolton, ferchissakes (they deserve each other). The Wall Street Journal published that stupid and quasi-genocidal Steele op-ed; somebody hired the completely asinine K-Lo. NRO was advertising an internship gig in NYC this summer; I'm sure it was unpaid, otherwise I might have been sickly tempted. I'd probably have been very good at it.
Good find at your second link, Matt.
I'll stop now. Just venting. Sorry everyone.
Calarule #532:
If your name has an gratuitous apopstrophe, I have grounds to ignore everything that you say.
Calarule #532:
If your name has an gratuitous apopstrophe, I have grounds to ignore everything that you say.
Calarule #533:
Fuck, a*.
"Spiritual Whorefare" would be a great name for some kind of cross-dressing metal band a la The NY Dolls or the Six Inch Killaz.
Really, given how different men and women are, in what we want from love, in how we communicate, in what we're interested in, the only reasonable solution is for everyone to just go ahead and embrace homosexuality.
Comments like 22, while generally fine around here, in this case are deprecated.
(21: Is D'Brickashaw Ferguson OK?)
24: "homosexuality" s/b "Homobonus"
24: "for everyone to just go ahead and embrace homosexuality" s/b "spiritual whorefare"
I didn't even think to ask the powers that be for a draft thread. On such a thread I would have linked Chuck Klosterman's superlative interrogation of Houston's draft pick: "Obviously, this decision is wolf-face crazy. It's the kind of decision you make when you are drunk, and on cocaine, and on deadline, and on fire."
'Smasher, I would have said the same. But I once read something or other that Klosterman wrote about the NBA, and from that I learned it is probably wise policy to always disagree with Klosterman.
Calarule #534:
I think apopstrophes are even WORSE.
(D-bricka-whatnow?)
I don't know about Klosterman's unorthodox basketball opinions; I'm guessing from context it's something Ogged agrees with?
I don't remember. Also, I find his writing style irritating. And I'll be astonished if Bush is as remarkable as Barry Sanders.
But I don't pretend to understand the Texans' pick.
Well, they do have Domanick Davis, who put up pretty damn good numbers despite running behind the worst O-line in the NFL and no passing game to stretch defenses to give him room. And at 26, he still has lots of miles left on the wheels for a lot less money than Bush was going to cost.
So I can kinda see passing on Bush, but Williams was still a pretty surprising top pick.
I don't get why everyone's so hyped up about Bush, either. He's never shown that he has endurance. Sure, he's never had to—he was wily enough to dance around every defender he played in the NCAA. But that's not going to be the case in the NFL. I don't think people are asking the right questions about Bush: Can he carry defenders? Can he pick up yards after the hit?
If your name has an gratuitous apopstrophe, I have grounds to ignore everything that you say.
How can you be sure that the "apopstrophe" is superfluous?
I can see passing on Bush, too, but the thing to do then is trade the pick and take on two O-line guys. There was a great short article in Atlantic Monthly about declining returns as you move up in the draft.
Is it just me, or has this thread grown really dull?
It's the late-afternoon EST lull. Well, that and the football.
38 seems right -- if they'd been able to pull a Jets and get D'Brick and Mangold, that would've really filled a lot of needs. OTOH, insider-types were saying that the Texans weren't getting any great offers for the #1 overall.
As for endurance, they're saying that the Saints will use McAllister in a LenDale White role, so that might keep Bush durable. I was hoping White might fall all the way to the Steelers' second-round pick, but it was not to be.
I am of course talking entirely ex recta.
"And now, a man with three buttocks..."
40: Yeah, I was thinking it was just the football.
"Recta" could be a singular. (Imagine a macron on that "a".)
Is it just me, or has B gotten really dull?
Thanks for the defense, b-wo! And I really like to think of it as singular, because there are some WANKERS in philosophy of language who insist on talking about indirect and direct speech reports in terms of oratio obliqua and oratio recta.
Isn't 2d declension neuter ablative spelled with an 'o'? Or am I grammatically lost again?
(I shouldn't make snide comments about other people's Latin -- mine is so hopelessly lost. Occasionally I look at my Wheelock on the shelf, and debate attempting to relearn it. And then I fall asleep.)
Though the only relevant hit for "ex recta" is me.
I actually assumed that it was a typo -- that you'd accidentally anagrammed the second word.
You want dull? Okay. My boyfriend gets home in probably an hour or so. In the meantime, should I:
1. Go return the overdue dvds and rent something else? And also return something I bought to the store while I'm out? And maybe buy some more cigarettes?
2. Take a shower? I'm not really dirty, and I wouldn't care, but I'm kinda schlumpy today. I can't decide if that's good, on the grounds that "our relationship has advanced to the point where I can be schlumpy and it's okay," or bad, on the grounds that I don't see him often and I should make some kind of, you know, effort.
3. Clean up a bit, do the dishes, put on some laundry? All my underwear is dirty. And it would be a kind thing to do.
4. Write the blog post I'm "supposed" to write today? I find myself distinctly uninterested in it.
Help me, oh invisible friends. Lest I spend the next hour sitting on my ass web-surfing, typing up the phone line, and smoking. As I've done the last hour.
Laundry -- no clean underwear sucks. And whichever of a shower (not so much for schlumph-avoidance as because, hey, who doesn't like taking a shower?) or going to return DVDs is more practically compatible with laundry.
re: 39-51
See, this is what you get for being mean to baa and me. No one to get in exciting arguments with, forcing you to hang out listlessly debating the declension of Latin nouns.
Do the dishes, take a shower, and don't bother with underwear. That's my advice, anyway. Now I'm going to follow it.
don't bother with underwear.
Washing or wearing? The latter is generally considered a nice gesture. Indeed, some guys would enjoy both courses of action.
Actually, I'm going to stop listlessly debating Latin grammar and go home. But I'm sure I can think of something to fight about tomorrow. (Hmmm.... Republicans want global warming because of a fiendish plot to buy up land that will become costal property...)
Oh, the *sexy* underwear is still clean. It's the practical stuff I wear for schlumping around and running errands that needs washing.
Um, I feel the need to clarify: *some* of the sexy underwear is still clean.
costal property
Yes, we want to buy it while its cheapal and sell it when it's costal. The invisible hand of the market shall provide.
[I realize the idiocy of Unfogged's worst speller mocking LB's typo, but it is such a rare occurance, I had to take my shot. Either that, or I have just made an ass of myself because "costal" is a word]
it is such a rare occurance
Blam!
As for B's dilemma, look to the main post. WWMJ'D?
[I realize the idiocy of Unfogged's worst speller mocking LB's typo, but it is such a rare occurance, I had to take my shot. Either that, or I have just made an ass of myself because "costal" is a word]
It is a word, but it means "having to do with the ribs".
It's rare to find land that will become costal property, although I guess the dust from which Adam's ribs were formed would qualify.
Unfogged's worst speller
Michael and Yglesias are going to kick your ass after gym class, poser.
Michael and Yglesias are going to kick your ass after gym class, poser.
Them and what Army? I bow to no man (or woman or child--I think my seven year old spells better than I) in terms of my illiteracy.
Seriously, dude, you're not even close to Yglesias. We once had a long thread about his poor spelling.
Put it this way, Ideal: MY's name is actually "Matthew Iglesias."
56: Well, given how many of the red states are in-land, you might be onto something with the global warming. We should make like Weiner and ask cui bona? *hides*
37: If it's replacing a syllable that's normally a schwa or an 'ay' sound (Jeanette to J'net), usually.
Funny—the hip thing to do these days is the spelling bee at the bar. One night Sausegly and I were unsuccessful in procuring tix for a friend's theatrical performance, so we entered ourselves in the bar's spelling bee instead, and, well, Yglesias . . . let's say that it might be the first time an emcee has interrupted a speller mid-word with, "Sorry, you're not really even close."
Not that I did much better. I first-rounded out on "fughetta."
Well, given how many of the red states are in-land, you might be onto something with the global warming.
My boyfriend once wondered the same thing aloud. It is quite true that if global warming came into full flower tomorrow, the blue states would be gone (and so would some of the purple-trending red ones).
re: 65, 66, 68, 69
OK. Fine. I surender.
Funny—the hip thing to do these days is the spelling bee at the bar.
You know, when I read this on Wonkette, I thought it was a joke. Washington really is Nerdville? (I should move there.)
Keep in mind that Mississippi, Alabama and Texas are mostly low-lying and coastal. I suspect that blue states tend to be littoral because big cities are often ports.
How is a spelling bee any nerdier than the classic bar trivia night (of which I am a partisan)? It's just less traditional.
61: Is not costal property then the land on which Arthur Bryant's stands?
(Example carefully chosen so as to piss off everyone, unless L. is still reading.)
And, 73, Texas mostly low-lying and coastal? Not by land area. Some of the big cities are somewhat inland as well.
I meant by population, although almost the entire state is indeed low-lying. The biggest city is coastal, and the other big cities aren't very far inland.
Guess it depends on how you define "far" -- Dallas is way inland and San Antone and Austin are at least 100 miles inland. Still, a rise in the sea level would probably affect life.
Thanks for the defense, b-wo! And I really like to think of it as singular, because there are some WANKERS in philosophy of language who insist on talking about indirect and direct speech reports in terms of oratio obliqua and oratio recta.
Well, Weiner, in "oratio recta" the "recta" is singular nominative; in "ex recta(macron)" it would be singular ablative. In other words, you may have chanced into something correct, but your procedure was completely wrong.
If you want to talk out of your rectum, it would be "e recto" (or maybe "ex recto", I can't actually remember when to use "ex" instead of "e").
There's life in Texas? I've never seen any sings of it.
Arthur Bryant's was good, but not mind-blowingly good. It had been really built up before I went.
I concede that Dallas is pretty far inland, but 100 miles is definitely not "far" in Texas. Here's a PDF of Texas elevations--all the major cities except El Paso are quite low.
In other words, you may have chanced into something correct, but your procedure was completely wrong.
Gettier!
How is that a Gettier case? Or if it is, why isn't this?
Some dogs have collars
Some collared things have fleas
Therefore, some dogs have fleas.
Incorrect procedure resulting in a correct conclusion.
(Example carefully chosen so as to piss off everyone, unless L. is still reading.)
Still here!
In Central America, Samuel L. Jackson is known as Samuel "The" Jackson.
Whereas the Gettier cases I'm familiar with are more like:
Weiner drives a Ford
Fords are American cars
Therefore, Weiner drives an American car
when in fact, Weiner drives a Chevy. Here the inference is valid (whereas in 85 it isn't), but one of the premises happens to be false.
Is a Gettier case, essentially, a valid inference from a false premise to a correct conclusion?
One of our most virile presidents was Lyndon Johnson, or, as he was known to his Mexican whores, LBJ.
89 is overly simplistic. You have to have a good reason to believe that Weiner drives a Ford. Normally this is something like you saw him driving the Ford and he told you he owned it, but then just before you announced that Weiner drives an American car, he traded his Ford for a chevy.
You have to have a good reason to believe that Weiner drives a Ford. Normally this is something like you saw him driving the Ford and he told you he owned it, but then just before you announced that Weiner drives an American car, he traded his Ford for a chevy.
Yeah, whatever.
If Harry S. Truman and Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, could Lyndon B. Johnson?
Um:
Smith has a justified belief that "Jones owns a Ford". Smith therefore (justifiably) concludes (by the rule of disjunction introduction) that "Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Barcelona", even though Smith has no knowledge whatsoever about the location of Brown. In fact, Jones does not own a Ford, but by sheer coincidence, Brown really is in Barcelona. Again, Smith had a belief that was true and justified, but not knowledge.
One doesn't really believe disjuncts.
If any of you academics have cable, Penn & Teller: Bullshit! is explaining why college is, ahem, bullshit.
w/d is right: It is a Gettier case if my I am justified in believing that ex recta makes sense, based on oratio recta. Which I'm probably not, since I should know that Latin is tricky. So, to change 90, it's a valid inference from a false but justified belief to a true conclusion. (But there are lots of other kinds of Gettier case that don't fit that pattern; in general it's any true justified belief that doesn't count as knowledge.)
The really interesting bit here is teo's claim that 100 miles isn't far in Texas. Because that's the sort of thing that's often said, but you know, even if the distance from Pittsburgh to Erie is a much greater proportion of the distance across PA than the distance from Lubbock to Amarillo is of the distance across TX, I still have to cross [almost] as much fucking ground to get there. And when I do, I'm in Amarillo.
So a global-warming-caused flood in Texas would destroy Weiner's Ford (or is it a chevy)?
You guys lost me.
Weiner's Ford (or is it a chevy)?
Neither. Weiner has a secret Kia.
Ohhhhhhhhhh! And Tia, therefore, dries a Weiner (or is it a weiner)?
102: typo, but it's better that way.
105: Is this something you have to concentrate to accomplish, or does it just happen to everybody in a certain radius?
I'm actually of the opinion that 100 miles isn't far anywhere, although traffic and road conditions can make it seem a lot farther. And relative distance does matter; when you drive 100 miles from Lubbock in any direction, you're still really fucking far from anything, whereas if you're in Pittsburgh you're only a few hundred miles from lots of other cities.
Also, Texas really is big: El Paso to Houston is 800 miles, and you're still not all the way across the state.
I find the idea of a state in which a person could drive all day and still not escape vaguely unsettling.
So, what do we think? Not nearly as artful as apo's discovery, I think. And wasn't "Sex Bomb" a Flipper song?
108: When I studied in Spain, all the other kids (mostly from other European and Middle Eastern countries) mocked me for expressing distance in terms of time (e.g., "I live two hours from Washington, D.C."), and they chalked it up to my Amurickan upbringing.
"The sun has riz, the sun has set, and here we iz, in Texas yet."
I'm told that people from NYC make fun of upstaters for expressing distance in terms of time. They presumably think it should be expressed in blocks.
111: I figured it must be a recently acquired talent.
95: Harry Truman rather famously spelled his middle initial without a following period.
110: "Sex Bomb" is (or "was") indeed a Flipper song.
110: I don't think figure skaters are supposed to look like that. Also: wow.
mocked me for expressing distance in terms of time
But isn't that what you really want to know?
With the frequency of Wettham's appearances in comments have diminished drastically, I believe the only born & raised NYC commenters are LizardBreath and ac.
110: Damn. That might have to get front-paged.
116: That was actually a joke that Truman made, saying it was a full name, not an initial, and should be written without a period. However, he always signed his name with the period.
No no, I shrivel weiners.
Of course, first she unshrivels them for a period of time.
Depending on stamina, Tia could shrivel a weiner many times in a 12-hour period.
But how many could she shrivel while driving from El Paso to Houston? I think that's what we all really want to know.
110: But "Sex Bomb" by Flipper was a totally different song from the one featured in that video. Be kinda cool though, to see figure skating to Flipper.
118: Exactly. How long? Not how far?
First time I heard Flipper, I was in the sixth grade and I checked it out from the Durham Public Library.
Life is pretty cheap. (Except for the poor, delerious few.)
121: So it should be written "Harry S. Truman," nowithstanding said joke?
89, 92. No, no, you need the conclusion to come out true, justified, but fail to be knowledge. So you see Weiner driving around in a Ford, and you conclude that he owns a Ford. He *does* own a Ford, but as it turns out, he had borrowed apostropher's Ford, and that's the car you saw. You never saw his car at all. So your belief that Weiner owns a Ford is true (it is), and it's justified (you inferred that belief based on a reasonable observation), but it isn't knowledge.
And I see that upon previewing and reading more clearly, T3h 3pist3m0log15t already got it. But imma postin anyway.
Ah the ideal mate. This kind of dovetails in with a guy that cropped up on the Mormon post at Yglesias's blog. "HiveRadical" makes a valiant attempt to defend the science of the B of M, which I felt obligated to mock. So how does this all relate to this post? Throwing "HiveRadical" into Blogger reveals he has blogs, one of which is titled "Eternal Woman", Thoughts on what I hope to find in my future wife." It's fantastic. I highly recommend the post, "Giddy in Balance and a Lady's Smile" in which we learn that "There is something about women that tend, on occasion, to a particular feminine giddiness that, if kept in balance, is terribly attractive."
And how is this catch still single? Possible insight to be found at his other blog, in a post where he compares sex to bulimia. No, really.
That Hive of Lights post is pretty excellent. Its title has me wondering if a catastrophy is a trophy awarded for destruction or something, and if the upshot of uninhibited use of the Calabat would be Calatastrophe.
How is he picturing the safe bulimia campaign? Would participants in safe bulimia wear some kind of protection? "Barf on me, not in me"? Or does his reference to "seemingly safe gluttony" mean the safe bulimia participants are gorging without purging? That would not be bulimia of any sort. Is gluttony the same level of sin as fornication, you folks who know how to categorize sin?
He means 'gluttony' instead of 'bulimia.'
A friend once told me of a particularly religious guy he knew who believed that God would pick his wife for him, and he'd know when he saw her. Problem with this was, of course, is that God neglected to distinguish between divine knowledge and everyday lust, so the religious guy was convinced he'd had a sign that the beautiful blonde in his college class had been put there for him. He could feel the spirit moving him!
But I don't think that guy started a weblog on what he wanted in a wife.
if the upshot of uninhibited use of the Calabat would be Calatastrophe.
That would be pretty sweet.
He means 'gluttony' instead of 'bulimia.'
Crappo. I was growing pretty attached to the slogan, "Barf on me, not in me".
Still sounds like a good slogan for the ladies.
I think his idea of safe bulimia is controlled barfing, which lets you eat as much as you want without gaining too much weight or (this is where it's unlike actually existing bulimia) losing too much.
As far as gluttony and fornication, Dante has the adulterers in the second circles and the gluttons in the third. Sodomites all the way down in the seventh, though. In Purgatory gluttony is Terrace 6 and lust Terrace 7. I think both of these make gluttony worse than lust, but that's all I know about this.
Does that mean chicks who like to swallow will get hit with gluttony and lust? That seems harsh.
Is gluttony the same level of sin as fornication, you folks who know how to categorize sin
Gluttony is a cardinal sin, that is, a meta-sin leading to other sins (i'm pretty sure, but i'm remembering from, like, seventh grade). Fornication is just a cheesy little venial sin. The cardinal sexual sin would be Lust.
Gluttony and lust are both part of the seven deadly sins. Lust gets more attention, but like mcmc said, mere fornication is about as much of a sin as overeating once.
Dante put sodomy all the way down in the seventh because he considered it a crime against Nature.
128: Yep, just like they do at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Museum and Library.
They put the sodomy on the seventh floor of the library?
There is no seventh floor of the Truman library.