“Just what was this "mistake" that some unidentified "we" made? Could it be deliberately promoting Fascist and self-serving conspiracies againpt the uppity Kenyan watermelon eater? Promoting a product from another branch of the corporate empire without mentioning the connection in their misreport of non news? Failing to fire hacks who have almost maliciously, and certainly with malicious disregard of the facts, promoted a political agenda because they would like to score rating points from advancing Teapublican talking points long exposed for false?
Do they think having the irresponsible remain in place after having done more to discredit 60 Minutes in one show segment and its ongoing cover-up campaign by
disinformation? That is exactly the way a "news" broadcaster can least afford to demonstrate. To shamelessly display an ongoing attitude of support for even those guilty of the most egregious and ongoing partisan attacks.
Until this mess is cleaned up and the guilty fired, 60 minutes has no more credibility than Dancing Dave's Sunday Meat Press, who this week had his old showbiz partner on to attack Nancy Pelosi just as giving Rove another bullhorn for his agitprop would ever be a career-enhancing move.”
“Too bad someone else's sentences inadvertently got lodged in the lining of multiple teleprompters for multiple speeches. Mr. Libertarian Anti-Abortion the Ayn Randian Bible thumper may not think that "property is theft" (wait, his guru was an atheist? never mind that whole "rationality" thing then), but as Dave McReynolds observed long ago, "theft is also theft." Does not matter whether the words were from Wikipedia or the Associated Press, they were not his to take.
And now we find out that besides trying to "shoot the messenger" who's spreading facts he won't concede (how Republican of him!), his first instinct is to revert directly to the law of the jungle because "might makes right" and only his personal career goals, or so he says, stand in his way when it comes to choosing brutality and force and intimidation over "sweet reason."
Guess that just proves the notion that they're called "libertarians" because "sociopath" is such an ugly term.”
“This whole topic sounds rather like an "old husband's tale," but whatever you want to call the medically active cream in the news, "fountain of old age" it certainly is not. Men spend enough years growing facial and body hair that it is a significant marker of sexual development that some are loath to do away with.
Not everyone likes the Yul Brynner/Bald Captain look above the eyebrows, so perhaps it is not surprising some do not like the same look on the rest of the body. Then again, many of today's lads have abandoned tight pants for baggy concealment, apparently confident they need no advertising, or self-promote by showing their ass in boxers with much less colorful outerwear worn even lower.
At the same time, the rise of the mustache and various forms of beard and the carefully manicured level of "scruff" in public appearances to add a virile facial display of raffish masculinity that may not match the teased and barren landscape elsewhere. What DOES it all mean? Something generational (no pun) for sure, but "these kids today" continue to be as much a mystery to we fogies of a lost and ancient world as sex itself-- a constant study and challenge where, perhaps, all we can hope is to enjoy the process of finding new experiential data.”
“What is this "trimming" of which you speak? Some demasculinization technique to make yr partner think you have a pre-adolescent body unready for prime time? Some "trompe l'oeil" ruse adapted from porn conventions in order to make yourself look bigger? If you don't think your equipment is appealing, why should anyone else? O Vanity, thy name is Man.
Centuries ago, a "trimmer" was a cheater. Guess some things don't change. If D. Hoffman, among others, is attracted by "the scent of a woman," why would "the scent of a man" be a turnoff? Add the stench of soap, deodorants, perfumery and you might as well employ a manikin or anti-hysteria simulacrum with no medical benefit from the potent DNA eruptions of revitalizing cream that issues from the Fountain of Youth.
Women cut back on underbrush for ease of access; the male organ is longer than any part of its hirsute nest and reaches out on its own. For millenia, natural human scent (short of rank uncleanliness) and foliage have conspired to arouse interest via pheromones and the welcome, even gratifying, signs of physical maturity ripened for sexual experience. Besides, everyone knows pubic hair is curly so it won't poke you in the eye.
As with size, heft, curve, and ripple of boob, butt, abs-- and, definitely, all the rest-- in spite of this oddly pedophilac ideal of adult "manscaping" (more like "boyscaping"), "if you've got it, flaunt it" is still good advice. It pays to advertise.”
KadyFox on Jun 7, 2013 at 23:18:45
“Trimming - No, it won't poke you in the eye, but it can find its way into a nostril. Also, they are bound to find their way into the mouth. A shorter hair might be easier for many people to deal with, that a two inch, course hair. I said "trim", not "shave", because that is up to each couple. We trim or shave most of our body hair, head, beard, arm pits (Yes, even some men trim it), legs...Why should we freak out about trimming pubic hair?
Not all pubic hair is "curly". Most of what I have seen would be considered "kinky". There are some bends, but it does not curl back on itself. The hairs are courser in nature, than other body hairs.
I also said to make sure it was "fresh" and "clean". I did not say that perfumes or strong smelling soaps were needed. But there should never be a foul odor, whether from sweat, "cheese", not drying completely after a shower (think "forgotten laundry in the washer" smell), or some infection. It should NEVER STINK!”
arjansgirl on Jun 7, 2013 at 17:25:44
“way overthinking the comment, but some things just look better with a little landscaping, ya know!! fountain of youth?? what are you smoking dude??”
“As long as you are featuring regional specialties from the Northeast, please take a moment to appreciate the New England Confectionary Company, not for their familiar NECCO Wafers, but for their wonderful Sky Bar, each bite a separate treat, including marshmallow and caramel. Only one machine on earth makes these, so they can be hard to find, but definitely well worth the effort.”
“Have loved Moxie since I was a child and rode dinosaurs to school, but it does rather taste like carbonated Castoria-- a reference that may have gone the way of Carter's Little Liver Pills. Some sodas can be bought without deadly HFC by those with access to civilized products north (or south, as the case may be) of the US border, but Moxie is so utterly American that such an option is not really available.
Still, thanks for calling attention to this holdover from the days where my Maine ancestors occasionally drank "tonic" back before it was mere soda swill-- or "Coke" as they call it
in the South. Had a can recently and could not figure why it tasted so different from the beverage of legend, and now I know. Would happily pay extra to drink again "the real thing."”
“Correction at the link to The Guardian report: This article was amended on 27 February 2013. The original said that Thomas Pinney is emeritus professor of English at the University of California. That should have been at Pomona College in Claremont, California, and has been corrected..”
“So exactly what guideline did I violate in my instantly deleted one-line post pointing out that the actual committee vote (14-11-1) is not included in this article? Or is actual information banned from comments as well as for what passes for "reporting" around here?”
marinemomof3 on Feb 12, 2013 at 18:33:32
“Many get deleted w/o reason.”
optimist7 on Feb 12, 2013 at 18:32:47
“Do you happen to know who didn't vote?”
optimist7 on Feb 12, 2013 at 18:29:37
“I encountered instant deletion a couple of times yesterday. There are so many software glitches lately, it's hard to know what's going on, but I share your frustration. I don't think we're alone. I rarely see many of the old regulars any more.”
LickMyDecalsOffBaby on Feb 12, 2013 at 18:25:31
“thank you for this INCREDIBLY UNIMPORTANT INFORMATION that I'll never know how we lived without”
“"Most likely"? It is unprofessional and irresponsible for a "reporter" to speculate on easily ascertainable facts rather than pull them out of the usual place. As competent commenters have explained with no trouble at all, the pre-frozen canard could have been easily researched at the same site as the taste samples were obtained. Once upon a time, "news" stories actually contained information that was Meant to be factual. Considering the vast array of completely reasonable complains about KFC products, there is no need to invent calumnies where none actually exists.”
RCDawg85 on Mar 1, 2012 at 17:58:02
“You're trying too hard by using large words that you probably don't know the definition.
News flash: You don't sound any smarter.”
zarcady on Mar 1, 2012 at 14:15:47
“Well Tom, for an article that was about TASTE, I think it was done pretty well. Sounds like you wanted an analysis not an opinion. I think that you should do something about your complaint, start writing your analysis columns and lets see what comments you get.”
“Maybe Silver could hire a non-doctor to assess medical "controversies"
over vaccines amd the rise in cases of mumps, measles, and tuberculosis.
Also, too, the monkey origin of Aids, the "choice" of sexual orientation,
how "the pill" causes "abortions," not to mention the science behind how
the bodies of virtuous women reject insemination by rapists. And such.
As with climate denial, evolution, astrophysics, the Big Bang, DNA, and
similar "lies straight from the pit of Hell," what could go wrong?”
“Of course she was armed and dangerous. She had already wounded one person in the course of a frontal attack from her deathmobile and was handling the killer device like a madwoman erratically waving a loaded gun around a kindergarten. Not armed? Somehow the only way a person can be "armed" is courtesy of the NRA? Please. Anyone unfortunate enough to be anywhere near this woman's path was as much at risk as a trailer park in a hurricane, or a peaceful farmer's market at risk because some auto pirate gets confused about the Go and Stop pedals.
Knives, guns, and trucks are all tools when properly used, but they can all be instantly weaponized and used to mete out death, destruction, and chaos.”
Jul 9, 2013 at 17:27:37
“How can they possibly claim copyright to a title? For a movie made a century ago and itself long out of copyright? Preposterous. The copyright laws in this country are an absurd restraint on trade that Our Founders never contemplated and results in vast quantities of materials being kept off the market for the benefit of precisely no one except, possibly, Disney. Anyone else remember heroic Dan O'Neill's underdog crusade in the Mickey Mouse and the Air Pirates case? How about Robert Benchley's hilarious (but I said it was Benchley, so of course it is hilarious) volume "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or, David Copperfield"?
The invaluable (and frequently accurate) Internet Movie Database reports "The New Butler" was made in 1910, and the exact title used again in 1912, 1913, 1914, and 1915. On television there was not only "Bilko the Butler," but "Butler" (twice), "The Butler" (twice), and two other television episodes (confusingly?) titled "The Butlers." Whether any of those butlers were notable, like many others, for what they saw or whether they "did it" is left as an exercise for lawyers.
Meanwhile, if either of the two silent shorts titled "The Butler" or the 2005 short of the same name was involved in litigation, it would be interesting to know. And if not, even more interesting to discover why not? Any one of these titular servants might have had hairy toes, though I suspect that in this instance, at least, the smoking of pipe-weed has been perfected by”
temenos on Jul 11, 2013 at 01:00:45
“"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet."
WashingtonDCsucks on Jul 10, 2013 at 14:22:04
“Pay a parasitic lawyer enough and anything is possible.”
Marilyn Wise on Jul 10, 2013 at 13:21:36
“It has nothing to do with the Copyright Act. It is a private agreement in which movie titles are registered with the Title Registration Bureau, administered (apparently) by the MPAA. Harvey could have checked the TRB any time, and probably he did. He just thought he could get away with it. He needs to check himself.”
D Humphrey on Jul 10, 2013 at 11:27:50
“This isn't an issue of copyright, Tomm. It's an issue of a voluntary industry system where all the studios are allowed to hold on to titles without other studios using them for their own later films. Just as the ratings system isn't a government censorship organization, this isn't a matter of law. Have you ever wondered why the Francis Ford Coppola version of "Dracula" had to be called BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, or the 1958 British version is called HORROR OF DRACULA in the US? It's because Universal Studios has never agreed to let anyone else use the title after calling "dibs" on it in 1931, when they made their Bela Lugosi version, even after all these years. (What about the Frank Langella version in 1979, you say? That was another Universal version.)
Often the studios don't care, and they barter or trade off the rights to titles,which is why you have three big Hollywood movies called HEAT come out since 1985, or a CRASH with Holly Hunter and James Spader in 1996 and another with Sandra Bullock and Matt Dillon in 2004. But if a studio wants to hold on to a title, any other studio that signed on to this agreement--which is all the big Hollywood studios--has to respect that. The question here is: why the hell does Warner Bros. care so much about holding on to the title of a nearly 100 year old short movie that nobody has ever heard of. It does almost sound like extortion.”
“It shocked me the first time I read "do" for "due" in an article because I do not pronounce those two words the same, but apparently enough others make the same spelling error that my position is, once again, in the minority.
The one that really aggravates me, though, is "besides" be point. Wherever did that particular idiocy come from? We even had a losing presidential candidate speak that way, and it does not seem possible he was raised with that particular vice.
On an earlier occasion in response to a similar article on this site about errors of grammar and usage, I wrote with what I thought was a fine sense of ironic humor:
“I could care less about the enormity of the situation, and the (sic) hoi polloi,
contact such misusage's all the time, find such distinctions besides the point.”
The only thing wrong with that sentence to raise a red flag was in the first four words. The serial apostrophe did not even get a rise out of anyone, much less any of the other abuses. Then again, "enormity" now seems to have lost its meaning, no one appears to believe "contact" is not a verb, and "at this point in time" there is no sense even bothering to note that "the hoi polloi" has become as standard as any other language abuse. Sick Transit!”
toscano on May 2, 2013 at 13:07:15
“Oh dear! Sic transit......no k in them Latin days”
“"it's important not to succumb to historical revisionism about the past." But, but... that's my favorite kind of historical revisionism!
Half a century ago, someone noted about the Vietnam war, there is no silent majority-- the president is deaf. Today, it's the Gross Obstruction Pig party that's deaf. At least if you're an optimist. The rest of us think they can hear perfectly well, but just hate so much better that it does not matter. When the nation can rent money for free, there is no jobless program. When infrastructure crumbles, there is no modernization program. When poop factories explode and the economy implodes because there is no oversight, one party has candidates who propose we stop spending scarce national funds on Boston marathon security-- as timely a proposal as when Pious Jingle proposed we stop monitoring volcanoes-- and in the huge state where a radio ruffian blames the president of the United States of America for the Boston bombing, Governor Oops is busy denying that more or better oversight would have prevented the deadly fallout in West of capitalism's latest failure. Obama is wrong about a lot of things (as anyone; they just will not agree on exactly what his errors are), but like the rest of this once great nation, he's the victim of political hate crimes.”
“Language is a living thing. Some of us are fuddy-duddy enough to refer to a "catalogue" or "monologue," but may still submit to "dialog." Varied and valid objections to "yo" are noted by others here, and not (yet anyway) defended.
"Hiser" and "s/he" have been tried and do work, but apparently fail even to be remembered. Rather than a dubious and ambiguous neologism like "yo," it would be much easier for everyone just to agree that "they" and "them" will do. These days when data are singular, detectives no longer seek "clews," "contact" is a verb, and an unfabled house has "stories," it should not be a bridge too far to concede that usage and spelling both evolve.
New spellings and new words accrue as live, people, and the world all change to accommodate the novel demands of endlessly changing circumstance. The old order changeth. Chaucer and Jane Austen agreed on the proper usage of "nice," but that meaning is obsolescent at best.
As "actor" replaces "actress", and "poetess" and "aviatrix" have been discarded along with "negress" and "octoroon," women are no longer primarily identified in speech by a term that first denotes their marital status (unlike the invariable honorific for men) and "coed" becomes increasingly quaint. When was the last time you heard or read the words "wonderful," "incredible," "fabulous," or "terrible" and "awful" used in anything closely related to their original, literal, meanings rather than as broad, casual intensives?”
Cahal on Apr 24, 2013 at 17:50:07
“It reminds me of the to-do over the honorific "Ms." for all women regardless of their marital status. Most of my students here in Los Angeles think that Ms. is for unmarried women. The more things change. . . .”
“The only thing this review says about what happens on stage is that it is a "65-minute performance consisting of nine vignettes. Apart from that, there is more information about his prejudices, interests, editor, and even the audience than about the sleight of hand involved. I'm glad the reviewer was entertained and baffled. BY WHAT? Card tricks? Dice? Appearances, disappearance, levitations? Finding the aces? A new twist on the Ambitious Card? Something changing color? What do they do that Ricky Jay didn't do 20 years ago? Maybe lots. This is no better than a ballet review that says women danced on their toes and leaped gracefully, or an opera review that says the soprano sure hit some nifty high notes. Or is it just stupid and old-fashioned for me to expect some hints of what this sleight of hand consisted?”