P.S. I hope you comment on Hillary Clinton’s statement concerning the approval of John Roberts. She’s definitely doing her little swing to the right, I look forward to your thoughts I’ve already posted mine.

This post is five days old…and you’re tellling me to “move on?”

Get a life. The damn thing was a JOKE, stupid. This means IT WAS NOT SERIOUS.

We’ll skip the items marked #1 and #2 on your list as being silly and move right on to the end. By the way, you used one of the other favorite tactics of those unable or unwilling to argue properly, dropping all the points against that you didn’t like only to focus on something trivial.

Let’s assume that for some reason, having a phrase in a article or book title is the proper criteria to evaluate how widely it is used. Rather than just spouting off, I did a little research.

Amazon shows 20 titles with the phrase “grand experiment” and 18 with “noble experiment.” The Library of Congress shows six with noble and five with grand, though two of the nobles are the same book in different formats, so I call that one a tie.

Admit you were wrong and move on, you’ll be a better man for it.

#1: Get a life
#2: Get a sense of humor

BTW, “Noble Experiment” would be appropriate in quotes in that the phrase is widely used and been the title of many articles and probably even a few books.

The phrase grand experiment is not widely used, no matter how you parse it.

>The use of the word “abject” as a modifier >for “stupidity is incorrect. The use of >“abject” in this context is archaic. >Perhaps “object” stupidity would have been >a better choice.

Nope. “Abject” is perfectly correct. From Hougton Mifflin:
1. Brought low in condition or status.
2. Being of the most contemptible kind: abject cowardice.
3. Being of the most miserable kind; wretched: abject poverty.

Definition one does not apply, but two or three certainly does. This usage is far from archaic.

>The use of “Grand Experiment” in quotes is >entirely inappropriate. I am unaware of any >nomenclature surrounding that phrase that >would require the quotation marks. It is >not widely used in any sense that I’ve >heard. Perhaps you could cite the original >source for the phrase – a book title for >instance – that would necessitate the >quotation punctuation.

Ah, the assigning of homework, the last refuge of those without a position to defend. “Grand Experiment” is a widely used phrase and the fact that you missed the sarcasm implicit in the quotes does not invalidate the usage. A quick googling of the phrase reveals 146,000 results. Do not mistake your lack of subject knowledge for error.

>“You are one sick bunch…” The use of “one” >and “bunch” in the same phrase is >colloquial and not appropriate.

Blog writing, e-mail, and nearly all forms of internet communication are informal and colloquialism is quite appropriate. You may not like it, but it isn’t wrong.

>“Mind you…” Another colloquialism…and >archaic to boot.

Your point is? This is stylistic criticism, not grammatical, and a matter of taste rather than correctness.

>As a general criticism, I don’t think I’ve >seen so many exclamation points in a letter >since my 7 year old niece wrote me from >camp.

I agree with this. Nothing is more annoying that an abundance of bangs at the end of a sentence.

“I feel very sorry for your mommy and daddy, they must have been very kind hearted – or they would have drowned your silly ass at birth!”

>Are you completely unfamiliar with sentence >structure? There should be a period after >“daddy” and subsequent capitalization of >the “T” in “they.” Also, the necessity for >a hyphen following “kind hearted” and >before “or” escapes me. Perhaps you could >enlighten me.

Why should “they” be capitalized? The hyphen before “or” is absolutely correct and functions as a semicolon. Nothing wrong with that.

>Please write again and try to express you >views. Next time, may I recommend you >consult Strunk as well as having a >dictionary handy? It gets tiresome >correcting ignorant rants from brainless >twits like you. I have much more important >things to do.

Yet another favorite tactic of those who don’t want to engage in actual argument: dismissal because of poor writing. Though in this case the writing has a couple of typos but isn’t actually that bad. Not my style, but not bad.

If you want to be taken seriously, keep your focus on the content, not the style. Note that my personal political beliefs do not figure into this note at all.

CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS #14WELCOME TO THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNYOU’VE GOT MAIL!LIGHT PO [...]