This post is addressed to the individual posting as "Granville" The fact that you have copycatted my "mudhole" phraseology from earlier in this very thread indicates frustration and a lack of creativity on your part. Or, perhaps, a wish to join the Herd. This is plain for all to see, as are your racist taunts.
This is posted to the idiot posting as Sam Fisher. The fact that you think you either coined that decades old phrase somehow and or have exclusive rights to use it shows that you are a moron.
Sorry to be thread necromancer, and even though I know the Silverman/TED dust-up is old news as well, this particular commentary on it reminded me of Trig-gate so much I couldn't help but post it. http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/14/ted-organizer-trashes-speaker-fails-social-iq-test/ TED Organizer Trashes Speaker, Fails Social IQ Test TED Organizer Chris Anderson isn’t a man to be trifled with. If you criticize his event you don’t get invited back (which is why we see a bunch of nonsense articles about the event that don’t mean anything at all, but praise heavily). But it’s always fine for Anderson to trash his own speakers. “I know I shouldn’t say this about one of my own speakers,” he said on Twitter, “but I thought Sarah Silverman was god-awful…” Silverman’s crime? She made people uncomfortable by saying, over and over, that she wanted to adopt a r****ded child. Like other comedians lately, she was using the word to remove its power to hurt people, and as a jab at Governor Palin’s recent jihad against the word. Apparently the TED crowd didn’t get the joke. Here’s a first hand version of what happened from a TED attendee who asked not to be named, since he or she would certainly never be invited back to the event: Perhaps TEDsters should just stick to the simple stuff. Slavery sucks, for example. Glad we finally got that controversial topic on the table for discussion.
well, if you're going to resurrect a year old thread w/ a 9 month old article, you might as well include this comment from the TC thread, that nails the whole thing: -- If you can bemoan "Sarah Palin seeking sympathy ratings for her new career" and feel that "Palin needs to be mocked to the ends of the earth" then the masterly rhetorical performances of more than one Sarah have gone right over your head. Palin would never have reacted to some random meathead's use of "r****d"; random meatheads use the word every day. She reacted to the Obama administration's (correct) description of a bunch of their moonbat pwoggy supporters as ****in' r****ds. It was a way to rub their noses in the fact that, yes, they are ****in' r****ds, and furthermore that their great heroes acknowledge it. Palin knew that most of the media would come unglued at her highlighting such an uncomfortable truth, and she also knew that by doing so as an "aggrieved party" they wouldn't really be able to do anything outside of the latenight news-humor shows. She turned their own PC thoughtcrime apparatus back on them, and there wasn't a thing they could do. Maybe she wouldn't have been a great VP, but Palin plays the media like a fiddle. If you admire Silverman because you perceive her to have "mocked" Palin then you've been played too.
Yeah, cause, you know, posting comments from the readers section of articles is so commonplace and regarded with such high esteem and credibility around here. How could I have been so r****ded.
