@34 I wasn't really aiming for complete accuracy and fairness, more for humor.
And something doesn't have to be a non sequitur to be off topic. You could go from watches to something like latidtude and longitude without making a non sequitur, but you've still moved off the topic of watches. Talking about extreme poverty is also off the topic of watches, even if they are related subjects.
And since discussions of extreme poverty can bring out very strong emotions in people, I can understand a moderator zapping a few posts to steer the conversation back to the original topic of watches. In fact, I'd understand a moderator zapping a post that was on topic, but worded in a way that provokes off topic replies.
Nix, et al.
I think you are missing the point of disemvowelling HuronBob. I don't think he was trolling, or making a personal attack, I think he was just way off topic.
Thread topic: Hey! Cool watch!
HuronBob: Lets discuss the work of Thorstein Veblen.
Thread: Did he have a cool watch?
HuronBob: Children are starving in Africa!
Some people at BB didn't seem to understand the difference between topics. However much the watch may or may not fit in a discussion of Veblen, in a discussion of cool watches, Veblen and starving children are off topic.
I wrote this awhile back in responce to someone using the term "towel-head" and then saying he hadn't meant it in a racist way. I thought about updating it (or starting anew) to make it applicable to "sheet-head", but I'm lazy. I think its relevant enough as it is, despite line 5...
On the Possible Meanings of Towel-Head
We might all be way off base
We could've missed his meaning
It might be a sunbather with a burnt face
And not at all demeaning
A sheetless child playing ghost
Would also fit his image
No need here for the whipping post
No reason for a scrimmage
And what about those newly showered?
Would they not fit his words?
No, it's less of a stretch to think he's soured
On the Turks, Arabs, and Kurds
Anybody here an I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue fan? Its a great BBC Radio show. When I read:
"...you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center."
All I could think of was Humphrey Lyttelton saying "And Points mean prizes. What do points mean?" (This is one of those things that is really funny if you've been listening to the show for years, but makes first time listeners wonder what all the fuss is about.)
Here is a list of what McCain should award as prizes! A sample: This week's prize is certain to wipe out even the most uncomfortable of embarrassing personal ailments - it's this Preparation-H Bomb.
Marilee @29, If I got those phone calls, I'd have to flip a coin.
Heads, I tell them he got ordained and is now "Mr. Clergyman" and is
living at the rectory. Tails, I'd pretend I couldn't understand, and
ask them to repeat the question in a simpler terms.
If they laughed at either of those terrible puns, I'd pretty much have to answer their questions out of gratitude.
This sort of thing really bugs me. I was a Poli Sci major in
college, and did my senior thesis involved finding problems with
polling data. I once argued with a telephone pollster for 20 minutes
because there wasn't a "No opinion" option. Because of that incident
(and the time I convinced a window-treatment salesman that we lived in
a subterranean bunker) my wife has forbidden me from answering the
phone unless I recognize the caller ID.
I assume that when talking about who the frontrunner is and how close the races are, CNN is talking about poll data, rather than actual delegate counts.
This is part of my election pet peeve: paying too much attention to polls, and not enough attention to issues and candidates. I think election "momentum" is a great example. Why vote for a candidate just because they won somewhere else? I can understand changing your mind because of a large number of things (careful thought, a candidate's change in position, or even a good impression from an event, ad, or debate), but I don't understand changing your mind because the other candidate won somewhere else.
#97, 109, 136
I know I'm really late to the party, but I did want to add something about bible versions/translations.
I think as long as we are talking modern translations, good introductions and footnotes are more important than which version you use. "Caesar" vs "the Emperor" seems like a minor issue compared to something like a short essay giving context to the letters of Paul and addressing basic issues of authorship.
In defense of the NRSV, they did get some things right. I'm a big fan of the gender-neutral language.
I do secretly miss the idea of God being old fashioned enough to use "thees" and "thous" while everyone else has moved with the times. It reminds me of my wife's family, some of her grant uncles and aunts are old time Quakers who use Plain Speech. It leads to great conversations filled with things like "I tried to send thee an email last Second day. Did thee receive it?"
#80: From Melannie Rawn's author's note at the end of Spellbinder: "To those who are disappointed this isn't another book- [snip] - what can I tell you? Life happens. So does clinical depression."
And from her long un-updated website FAQ: "Melanie's had a few complications (including shoulder surgery) that have kept her from even starting it."
That same FAQ listed Spellbinder as unpublished, but its been out for awhile now. So it looks like she had to deal with several of life's curve balls in a row. From the few posts I skimmed on her message board, it looks shes started Captals Tower. Fingers crossed!
I generally wait for a series to finish before I read it. I don't like being stuck in the middle. There are only two series I'm stuck in the middle of: Song of Fire and Ice, and Exiles by Melanie Rawn. I got really excited when I saw a new book by Rawn almost ten years after her last one, and was disappointed it wasn't the third book in the Exiles trilogy. Then I read her author's note explaining the gap and why she wrote something new, and immediately felt like a horrible person for ever thinking "What is taking her so long?"
I think its really funny when posters offer to fight someone over a flame war. Clearly, if you beat some one up in real life, they were wrong about [abortion/tax cuts/evolution/hot button topic].
Ok, so not really a meme, but I have seen it twice (ignoring all of Bullshido)...
Warning: they’re adherents of the duck-call school of Baroque instrumentation.
This reminds me of the 1712 Overture, by PDQ Bach. During a rather soft section, he uses an actual duck call. Then goes into a bit of a jazz organ riff. Genius!
At one early point in my life, I listened to the BBC radio version of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy on almost a daily basis, and on weekdays watched a Monty Python episode on public television. Being a geeky kid, I quoted from both at length. My mother, who didn't really pay attention to either show, could tell which I was quoting because I did the accents differently.
I've since expanded to other British comedy shows (any other I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue fans?). While I don't use too many British words or spellings, I have this incredible urge to say anything funny, even things like knock-knock jokes, in a British accent. (And the really sad part is my British accent sounds unlike anything you'd actually hear anywhere in the British isles...)
Just wondering, was the blog's name a red flag? Googling "Embryoyo" returns several results for a poetry book by Dean Young. Could Mark Mitchell not even come up with his own name for his blog?
Lee @107, not sure what you are flow charting... The difference between the two is choice. In the first example, salvation is dependant on two things: God, and your faith (which is optional). In the second example, salvation is dependant only on God.
@#13, (also #3 and #8) in the interest of remembering everything he said (and did), he did change his mind on the issue of racial equality. He was one of the first white ministers to baptize and welcome black congregants. He is still an evil, dried up old turd, but he was willing to admit he was wrong on race, something my grandparents never did.
@78, re (2), that sounds more like Arminianism. They believe that to be saved, a person must have faith. A person can turn down salvation through their lack of faith (and the lack of faith can be shown by a person's actions)
Calvinists believe the people God picks to be saved will eventually have faith, they have no option to turn it down. Faith isn't a condition of salvation, its handed out by God as a means to be saved. No action can make someone elect or make them unelect. Their actions/belief are caused by their status of saved or not. (See "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace").
I can't help but think the Republicans are penny wise and "We're taking a pounding!" foolish.
Its a bit long to be a good pun, but it pops into my head whenever I see how much money the war is costing.
Anyone know where you can view the record of who voted for and against the Military Commissions Act? I'm trying to figure out how many votes we'd need to swing to override Bush's veto of the new bill, and that seems like a good starting place.
Not sure how I feel about the article. On the one hand, the article talks a lot about how the media reports on terrorism, but not a lot about the government's anti-terrorism programs or law enforcement efforts. The fact that one of the �Anti-Abortion Heroes of the Faith� was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list says someone is taking it serriously.
However, I doubt Michael Chertoff has had many meetings about these psychos.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 8 |
| 2007 | 10 |
| 2006 | 2 |
Total: 20 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Matthew:
Show all comments by Matthew.