tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post6638466937559689937..comments2024-03-22T03:19:38.110-04:00Comments on Forever In Hell: Wrecking Cranes to Wayward FacadesPersonalFailurehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03034292023591747601noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-40265741002641371372009-05-14T11:13:00.000-04:002009-05-14T11:13:00.000-04:00You know, I'm actually totally fine with that Twil...You know, I'm actually totally fine with that Twilight/Shakespeare thing. Mostly because the horror of this post you're showin' us heah (New England accent) is just so all-encompassing.Cynical Nymphnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-77705765077696025232009-05-14T09:24:00.000-04:002009-05-14T09:24:00.000-04:00Y'know, every once in a while I write out a blog p...Y'know, every once in a while I write out a blog post in a stream-of-consciousness, spoken word style. I then tend to feel slightly bad, because I'm always pretty sure that it's confusing to someone or just plain shitty.<br /><br />I feel so much better about those posts now...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-5476576394183786312009-05-14T08:46:00.000-04:002009-05-14T08:46:00.000-04:00actually, my only issue with "four aforementioned"...actually, my only issue with "four aforementioned" is the way it scans. very awkward. plus, aforementioned is awkward all on its own, and a phrase common to legal documents.<br /><br />yes, i have typed "party of the first part". and "party of the second part".PersonalFailurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034292023591747601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-89312155628374212102009-05-14T08:32:00.000-04:002009-05-14T08:32:00.000-04:00Wow, I'm really confused, and I'm usually OK with ...Wow, I'm really confused, and I'm usually OK with stream of consciousness. This whole thing is a big old case of "that word doesn't mean what you think it means." I HATE it when people abuse words like this, they never did anything to you! Let them be!Leighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01264241978515946396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-43931444915758556132009-05-14T05:26:00.000-04:002009-05-14T05:26:00.000-04:00A single 'Yo' may well have truned the stu...A single 'Yo' may well have truned the stupid nuclear - thank <insert mythical deity/expletive here> he didn't put one in.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-75056458683636152512009-05-14T04:02:00.000-04:002009-05-14T04:02:00.000-04:00what the fuck was that?
first of all, of God hims...what the fuck was that?<br /><br />first of all, of God himsrlf said he would not "roll" like he did in the OT. remember Jesus saying he was the last of the prophets and that things were different now?<br /><br />second of all, listen, i mean *LISTEN* to PF, she is *right*, the OT did not HAVE A HELL. they had "Sheol" a time of nothingness after death while they waited for God to get them. thats *ALL*<br /><br />third of all, the whole POINT of the prophet-and-direct-intervention was that Israel was the *chosen nation of God*. the US is not. God did not send messengers to the Lariamites (is that spelled right? its 4am i don't want to look it up) ONLY Israel. or rather, only Jews.<br /><br />fourth, where the *fuck* did you get your language? what the hell is wrong with you? what is the point of all this... this attempt at sounding like a "cool kid" decades after the phrases have gone out of style?<br /><br /><br />PF, i have no clue how you continue to be able to do this. if i had to read these everyday and *think* about them coherently, my brains would leak out of my ears.denelianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083149213773118359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-16181746671515383542009-05-13T20:15:00.000-04:002009-05-13T20:15:00.000-04:00I'd say that's a worthy winner of this prestigious...I'd say that's a worthy winner of this prestigious award. Good find.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-74536614910540916952009-05-13T18:48:00.000-04:002009-05-13T18:48:00.000-04:00Heh, that was funny.
Literary Review:As PF has ki...Heh, that was funny.<br /><br /><B>Literary Review:</B>As PF has kindly already highlighted the thesaurus and metaphor abuse, I will restrain myself and deal with the elements of literary incompetance she did not approach.<br /><br />The article was written in a 'spoken' literary style: i.e. what he would say if he was speaking to the congregation off-the-cuff: hence such brilliant exclamations as <B>"the $64,000 question you gotta ask yourself,"</B> <B>"Out of sorts with God,"</B> and my personal favorite: <B>"Whoop-Dee-Frickin’-Do."</B>In a speech, they make the speaker either a) connect with the audience or b) sound like they think their audience are morons. Which of these occur generally depends on the audiences opinion of the speaker.<br /><br />It is clearly not a literary style that works in an article format, because we're used to reading articles that have undergone proof-reading, where this literary style is specifically designed to sound like it has not. In this case, that is probably an accurate impression.<br /><br />Worse the author then combined it with little jokes that only make sense when they are read, such as his endearing little "BS" comment. Not only do these ruin the illusion of being spoken to (or in this case, at), but they're also in my opinion the lowest form of wit, excluding puns.<br /><br />It is also worth noting that his use of modern celebrity personalities would be lost on many individuals, because... actually, that's probably only true of myself. Who the f*ck is Nancy Pelosi? Or Janet Napolitano? Or "Miller", and what would he look like on steroids? I can't stop thinking of Bruce Banner for some reason...<br /><br />Finally, I must point out to PF that "four aforementioned hammers" is actually grammatically correct. Not that I can find any reference to a tool meant to deliver sharp impacts in the preceding paragraphs, and it is true that for readabilities sake removal of the number would be recommendable, and it is another result of the "spoken" literary style, but there is nothing officially wrong with "four aforementioned."<br /><br />One last thing: I am not a literary critic, I have no knowledge of literary conventions, and I'm just doing this because I'm a pretentious bastard. So there.Quasarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04219765882891909223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-37045937426091459242009-05-13T18:04:00.000-04:002009-05-13T18:04:00.000-04:00"No, the prophets were wrecking cranes to wayward ..."No, the prophets were wrecking cranes to wayward Israel’s facades." Do you know how to put Mr. Giles up for a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_in_Mouth_award" REL="nofollow">Foot in mouth award</A>? He deserves it after that.<br /><br />Also, PF, your interlaced commentary was funny.Rob Fhttp://thewordsonwhat.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-16390042101086011502009-05-13T17:41:00.000-04:002009-05-13T17:41:00.000-04:00PF,
Reading Doug Giles too often has been known t...PF,<br /><br />Reading Doug Giles too often has been known to rot the brain. Proceed with caution.Vollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14514280952695776270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1334761054277672365.post-85360083930682688082009-05-13T17:17:00.000-04:002009-05-13T17:17:00.000-04:00WTF is he on and will he share? So I guess making...WTF is he on and will he share? So I guess making fun of a prophet for being bald requires divine retribution in the form of mauling bears? Oh yeah it "happened" in the Bible.BeamStalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17772110446629492132noreply@blogger.com