Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I wouldn't want to slight Penske.

What do we call a group of trolls?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What do we call a group of trolls?

a troupe?

aV

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm just noting that the failure to appreciate your brilliance there was not correlated with party affiliation or wavelength on the ideological spectrum.

I think it correlated with breathing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What do we call a group of trolls?

that i have left you alone sonce you came back is due solely to kindness. i have limits.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A feat matched yearly by NL teams ever since?

I think the Yankees have won a few WS since 1986. (read the post again)

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bilmore, you can thank John Kerry and those Democrats now.

I love how both sides always feel they can justify any quote by attributing it to "some" R's, or "some" D's, or "some" critics, or "some" hydrocephalics. I'm sure "some" R's and "some" D's actively worship kumquats, but I'd still like to see names attached when "some" journalists quote their anti-rutabega views.

And, when the story contains lines such as these, I begin - just begin, mind you - to think that maybe I'm not seeing factual reporting, but some crappy partisan editorializing instead:

By The Mighty WP Kessler:
Many experts regard North Korea's test as a failure of Bush's nonproliferation policy. Critics have charged that Bush, distracted by Iraq, allowed North Korea to bolt from a Clinton-era agreement on freezing its nuclear programs, build a stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium and finally test a weapon. Bush, unlike President Bill Clinton in an earlier crisis, refused to conduct sustained bilateral negotiations with North Korea and instead set up a somewhat cumbersome six-party negotiating framework hosted by China.

At many points, the United States found itself at odds with other partners in the six-party process, such as China and South Korea, which repeatedly urged the Bush administration to show more flexibility in its tactics. Meanwhile, administration officials were often divided on North Korea policy, with some wanting to engage the country and others wanting to isolate it.

Before North Korea announced it had detonated a nuclear device, some senior officials even said they were quietly rooting for a test, believing that would finally clarify the debate within the administration.

People killed trees for this shyte. Amazing.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I love how both sides always feel they can justify any quote by attributing it to "some" R's, or "some" D's, or "some" critics, or "some" hydrocephalics. I'm sure "some" R's and "some" D's actively worship kumquats, but I'd still like to see names attached when "some" journalists quote their anti-rutabega views.

Eschewing the use of "some" is, to be sure, a good universal rule of thumb.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I love how both sides always feel they can justify any quote by attributing it to "some" R's, or "some" D's, or "some" critics, or "some" hydrocephalics. I'm sure "some" R's and "some" D's actively worship kumquats, but I'd still like to see names attached when "some" journalists quote their anti-rutabega views.

I agree. Someone told me some Dems have engaged in some treasonous acts, and encouraged some terrorism. This is something you'd criticize, isn't it? Some nerve, aye?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think the Yankees have won a few WS since 1986. (read the post again)

I will sleep better tonight knowing that you are proof-reading posts from August.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I love how both sides always feel they can justify any quote by attributing it to "some" R's, or "some" D's, or "some" critics, or "some" hydrocephalics. I'm sure "some" R's and "some" D's actively worship kumquats, but I'd still like to see names attached when "some" journalists quote their anti-rutabega views.

And, when the story contains lines such as these, I begin - just begin, mind you - to think that maybe I'm not seeing factual reporting, but some crappy partisan editorializing instead:

People killed trees for this shyte. Amazing.

I wouldn't pay for the Washington Post, but to blame them for acquiescing to the Administration's frequent insistence on providing information only on background is only half-right.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I agree. Someone told me some Dems have engaged in some treasonous acts, and encouraged some terrorism. This is something you'd criticize, isn't it? Some nerve, aye?

Criticize? In that particular usage, when it was responding to what it was responding to? No, not at all, especially since I'll answer Ty's long awaited question from yesterday with specifics to back it up.

But, to the point being facile is a virtue, good one!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I wouldn't pay for the Washington Post, but to blame them for acquiescing to the Administration's frequent insistence on providing information only on background is only half-right.

"Acquiescing"? Did you really say that?

Standing back and listening to someone say something without actively complaining about the method of delivery might be "acquiescing."

Making a journalistic choice to print crap like ""some" have said that Bush screws sheep nightly in the East Room" without source isn't "acquiescing." That's called "remember those rules we learned in journalism trade school, about sources, and shit? Those only apply when we quote people we like."

(Sorry for extending the "unsupported smear" so long. Crises arise, and it takes longer to make them go away then it used to, now that I'm, as Sidd helpfully points out, senile. Hopefully, tonight. I'm sure you're on tenterhooks.)

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
And, when the story contains lines such as these, I begin - just begin, mind you - to think that maybe I'm not seeing factual reporting, but some crappy partisan editorializing instead:

RedState, quoting the Boston Herald:

"During a press conference this week about removing some Massachusetts Turnpike tolls, a Boston Globe reporter rambled through an elaborate, jargon-laced soliloquy that was interrupted by Romney when it became clear there was no question in sight.

'Do you have a point of view on this?' Romney joked.

'I represent the people, governor,” the stunned reporter replied.

Romney’s punchline: “No, I represent the people. You represent the media.''

[Hank Chinaski]

is there any real evidence that stem cell research could actually immediately help anybody with Parkinson's or physical damge (Chris Reeves) or it more wishful thinking for some hope? or is it more about possible advancements 20 years from now.

i remember reeves saying that he knows with stem cell research he could walk again. that seemed far fetched.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is there any real evidence that stem cell research could actually immediately help anybody with Parkinson's or physical damge (Chris Reeves) or it more wishful thinking for some hope? or is it more about possible advancements 20 years from now.

No. It's cruel, really. It's been presented as something that could help people with problems right now, but it's a 10-15-20 year course of study, given where it is right now. There has been a showing that there is promise in some of the techniques, but it's a far-off one, if there is one.

And, remember that there's a difference in what's being fought - the use of embryonic stem cells - versus the scientific work that has shown either equal, or even greater, viability, with the work being performed with adult stem cells. And also remember that, at least as far as a few months ago, what was being contested wasn't the actual performance of the work, but the public funding of the work. (Not familiar with the MO fight, so that may represent a change.)

Really, it's the same old groups - pro-life v. pro-choice - just picking a different venue. The various groups are excited because they get to make new signs to carry.