No Laughing Matter

This interview is rife with writing and thinking errors. To avoid writing and speaking like this pretentious stuffed shirt here are a few suggestions:

1. Avoid creating "all purpose" words. FoxNews is famous for stretching, degrading and watering-down the words "liberal", "secular" and "progressive" until they have lost all of their former meanings and have become insults. Here the critic is using "snarky" to mean reveling in past indiscretions, making crude, hate-filled remarks without any basis in fact or cheap insults at someone else's expense. If you don't know what you're talking about, how will your reader?
2. Avoid name calling. If you have an argument that is well supported you don't have to resort to childish names and putdowns. Here the author calls Bill O???Reilly a "blowhard." It does nothing to support his claims, further his ideas or make him look good. It is just silly and tawdry.
3. Avoid foreign words. The word bourgeoisie must be avoided at all costs as it will peg the user as a pretentious, effete snob. It is unpardonable for an American to use this word as its use shows a shocking unfamiliarity with European literature and the word lacks meaning or context in the United States.

I think I might be getting the hang of this.

I'm sorry - you're correct. I'll save my "extreme inflammatory viewpoint" for another time. Please - post your thoughts twice so someone slow like me can fully absorb them, okay?

I was going to read this book until I saw that he is an ardent fan of Keith Olbermann. He is the snarkiest, cruelest talking head on TV, by far. Just lost my 26 bucks. Sorry.

This interview is rife with writing and thinking errors. Here are a few:

1. Avoid creating ???all purpose??? words. FoxNews is famous for stretching, degrading and watering-down the words ??????liberal??????, ??????secular?????? and ??????progressive?????? until they have lost all of their former meanings and have become insults. Here the critic is using ??????snarky?????? to mean reveling in past indiscretions, making crude, hate-filled remarks without any basis in fact or cheap insults at someone else???s expense. If you don???t know what you???re talking about, how will your reader?
2. Avoid name calling. If you have an argument that is well supported you don???t have to resort to childish names and putdowns. Here the author calls Bill O???Reilly a ??????blowhard.?????? It does nothing to support his claims, further his ideas or make him look good. It is just silly and tawdry.
3. Avoid foreign words. The word bourgeoisie must be avoided at all costs as it will peg the user as a pretentious, effete snob. It is unpardonable for an American to use this word as its use shows a shocking unfamiliarity with European literature and the word lacks meaning or context in the United States.

This interview is rife with writing and thinking errors. Here are a few:

1. Avoid creating ???all purpose??? words. FoxNews is famous for stretching, degrading and watering-down the words ???liberal???, ???secular??? and ???progressive??? until they have lost all of their former meanings and have become insults. Here the critic is using ???snarky??? to mean reveling in past indiscretions, making crude, hate-filled remarks without any basis in fact or cheap insults at someone else???s expense. If you don???t know what you???re talking about, how will your reader?
2. Avoid name calling. If you have an argument that is well supported you don???t have to resort to childish names and putdowns. Here the author calls Bill O???Reilly a ???blowhard.??? It does nothing to support his claims, further his ideas or make him look good. It is just silly and tawdry.
3. Avoid foreign words. The word bourgeoisie must be avoided at all costs as it will peg the user as a pretentious, effete snob. It is unpardonable for an American to use this word as its use shows a shocking unfamiliarity with European literature and the word lacks meaning or context in the United States.

This interview is rife with writing and thinking errors. Here are a few:

1. Avoid creating ???all purpose??? words. FoxNews is famous for stretching, degrading and watering-down the words ???liberal???, ???secular??? and ???progressive??? until they have lost all of their former meanings and have become insults. Here the critic is using ???snarky??? to mean reveling in past indiscretions, making crude, hate-filled remarks without any basis in fact or cheap insults at someone else???s expense. If you don???t know what you???re talking about, how will your reader?
2. Avoid name calling. If you have an argument that is well supported you don???t have to resort to childish names and putdowns. Here the author calls Bill O???Reilly a ???blowhard.??? It does nothing to support his claims, further his ideas or make him look good. It is just silly and tawdry.
3. Avoid foreign words. The word bourgeoisie must be avoided at all costs as it will peg the user as a pretentious, effete snob. It is unpardonable for an American to use this word as its use shows a shocking unfamiliarity with European literature and the word lacks meaning or context in the United States.

Mr. Wondrnthru seems fairly touchy about the subject. Indeed, someone who is Muslim is someone practicing a faith, not someone from a particluar racial background. However, Obama was never "affilaited" with that religion. Secondly, there are many practicing Muslims (a majority, in fact) who reject the terrorists who hide behind their faith (and they are not the first to hide behind faith in order to justify their terrorist acts, lest we forget the Crusades and those leaders who have used Christianity to validate their own brands of terroroism). And what do you mean by his "Muslim" name? It is his given name. Would you be suggesting a new kind of political correctness whereby all names that don't sound "American" or "Christian" enouigh should not be used? Pass the Freedom Fries, friend.

I think the real issue for mainstream media reporters is that now the news can be interactive. No longer must I pound my head against the wall after reading a blatant lie or something stupidly written. I can chime in with my opinion, challenging the writer on fact and tone. And if s/he blows the lede, or recites party bolierplate, or acts as stenographer, or if s/he engages in snark in the article, they're going to get called on it. Some of the comments are uncivil? A minor offense, sticks & stones being what they are, compared to disseminating misinformation to the masses.

It's a new world where everyone thinks that everyone else is entitled to their opinion. And that you must voice every thought in your head as well. My dad taught me that God gave us 2 ears and one mouth. Do you suppose that by doing that he wants us to listen twice as much as we speak?

The funny thing is, most people are not at all funny. If I am interested in what a person has to say about something, I only want to hear that, not a lame attempt at levity. Some people have hilarity and true jocularity when speaking.
It is not a learned thing, but a natural gift. I personally find serious intellectual conversations to be stupid, and pitiful.

I was definitely with him until his defense of Keith Olbermann. How you can find trouble with Maureen Dowd and NOT see the same issues with Olbermann [just from a different political vantage point] is beyond me.

Most people bypass insulting remarks in search of thoughtful, well researched writing. If younger people only want to look at the insulting stuff, that is just another sign of our deteriorating culture. Looks like it will just deteriorate further.

The New Yorker cover drawing of the Obamas wasn't SNARK. The associated caption contest *was*

How about the equally important nuisance in American culture today? - The fact that legitimate issues like "snark on the Internet" get an insidious left wing tilt by commentators such as this...

"Sorry, i didnt want to get on a rant here, but...."

Hey Everyone :
Did you know that Barak Obama is the first black president of the USA? Geez, i would have never known that if our friends at ABC,NBC,CBS, MSNBC, FOX, and CNN hadnt told me daily since nov 4th....and about every 15 seconds during the conronatio...err,....Inauguration.

Did u know that Martin Luther King, Jr was apparently black also.....i think he was a speaker of some reknown, but it was so long ago that almost no one who isnt black apparently remembers him or believes in anything he tried to do.....

...and did you know black people were once slaves here in America? (Unlike the millions of slaves held by the Romans, the Assyrians, the Mongols, the Turks, the Babylonians, the Zulus, the Carthaginians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Egyptians, the Russians, the French, the Arabs, the Hindus, and countless other cultures throughout history.....) and that more people were bigoted and racist many years ago than today?

...and when did it become mandatory for any Christian preacher to call themselves Dr?
Isnt that reserved for people who actually earn degrees studying something? Dr of Divinity is an affront to people who actually get PhD's the old fashioned way....they earn them.

And What is olbermann going to do now that Bush isnt in the white house ? That was his whole show.....
He's prince Snark.

"Snarky" is exactly how my wife characterized Palin's speach at the Rep. convention and it looks as if she was right. I have to say that I believe that the internet and all that implys with respect to newgroups, forums, blogs and just commentary is rife with snarky comments that one would not say in day to day life. They anonimity is one factor in this, but I think that it is also that it is a new medium for the exchange of dialog and ideas. It will take a while for people to raise the standard of dialog to that of verbal exchange.

True humor and civility can certainly coexist. What we have far too much of now is anonymous blogging with a really nasty tone - people saying things that they might not say in person or if their identity were known. Over time, that lowers the level of the public conversation and makes common many things that should be unacceptable. Too much disagreeable disagreement, too many unconsidered consequences.