The scop of the boards, bebop-o.

"It was a wild wind."

That was a beautiful line, positively Anglo-Saxon in it's punch, alliteration, prosody.

Here's to you, bebop-o. *raises horn of mead*

Thanks.

No kings,

Robert

You talking to me? Are you talking to ME?

Glenn makes the rules here, such as they are. If he's a tsar, he's one of your more benevolent ones, by and large. I can't imagine that he'd mind your calling 'em as you see 'em, although he himself seems to prefer not to smack people with his bamboo stick unless it's absolutely necessary.

As for me, I honestly believe it's wiser to suffer fools, but sometimes can't resist poking 'em back, just for the sheer fun of it. Mea culpa....

"this type of lazy, phone-it-in blogging"

Nice to start the morning off with a laugh. Yeah, the two terms that first spring to mind when I think of Glenn's blogging are "lazy" and "phone-it-in."

As it's sometimes said on the Intarweb: Ell. Oh. Ell.

No kings,

Robert

GG:

Yeah - it's terrible to use evidence and facts to make a point without larding it up with all kinds of gratuitious rhetoric. Great point.

Hey! And toss all your e-mails, too; all that "research" and "history" and "what folks said about what" stuff merely gums up the works. You have to admit, though, that his post was comedy gold-- the word-count rag will live on here forever! (Or, at least, for days.) I can't even imagine what our friend bebop could do with it.

Many Canadians think Diefenbaker coined that insult, but he didn't.

In "Inherit The Wind" (1955), Hornbeck (the Mencken character) says of Brady (the Bryan character), "He's the only man I know who can strut sitting down."

The phrase was popularized in 1948, when it was one of many insults thrown at Dewey, but the insult has been kicking around for at least the past 90 years, probably far longer.

"Hey, Mr. Taxman, I didn't file my tax return this year because I accidently mislaid my receipts and forms. It is just an innocent mistake."

Are we allowed to describe fellow posters (such as this loon) as ignorant dickheads or must we receive permission from the Post Tsar first?

The world wonders....

Has jspring1's fax machine got a Tuttle/Buttle problem this morning?

Jspring, check in with shooter, please. The talking point is that Glenn is long-winded, never says in one word what he can say in a thousand. Oh, and don't forget that he uses too many adjectives. He's overwrought, don't you know, not grave and measured and serious like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Ann Althouse.

If the Wurlitzer can't bellow a single tune, you know, it's, like, a problem. Can the permanent Republican majority count on you in the future? (We're short of counter-tenors at the moment, and would prefer, if at all possible, not to have you replaced. Heh.)

"Great point. I'll be sure from now on to count the number of words in the evidence I excerpt and make sure that the analysis I add has a higher number of words, because that's important."

No - don't waste your time counting your own words. Take a lesson from our Great Leader and hire someone who will take the blame for your wretched excesses thus leaving your own legacy untained by your own failures.

What the hell......one can wish anyway.

I still love Mona.

I say this is the hook to impeach Bush and Cheney. Tell them they either produce the documents or it is considered deliberate destruction and impeach him. Anything less and they'll basically get away with it.

I've been known to worry that I spend too much time reading and commenting on blogs and that it takes up time that could be better spent. But counting words?! Get a life!

Of the 1261 words in Greenwald's article, he only wrote 153 of them. The rest were merely quoted from various news sources, cut-and-pasted into place. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V! That's what I call some hard-hitting analysis.

Yeah, Glenn oughtta just go to two word posts with links to pages that say what he's afraid to say personally himself. That oughtta satisfy the "concern trolls" here, who of course are the one and only audience of interest. "Heh. Indeed."

Cheers,

Of the 1261 words in Greenwald's article, he only wrote 153 of them. The rest were merely quoted from various news sources, cut-and-pasted into place. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V! That's what I call some hard-hitting analysis.

In fact, many of the "letters" written in response to this article topped Greenwald's word count, including the one by prunes found here:

But I guess this type of lazy, phone-it-in blogging is what I've come to expect from Salon. Kudos Greenwald! You really know how to deftly strike at the administration! I'm sure the house of cards that Bush has built will promptly come tumbling down.

Well that's something I never thought I would see: a complaint that I wrote too few words in a post.

Yeah - it's terrible to use evidence and facts to make a point without larding it up with all kinds of gratuitious rhetoric. Great point. I'll be sure from now on to count the number of words in the evidence I excerpt and make sure that the analysis I add has a higher number of words, because that's important.

Of the 1261 words in Greenwald's article, he only wrote 153 of them. The rest were merely quoted from various news sources, cut-and-pasted into place. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V! That's what I call some hard-hitting analysis.

In fact, many of the "letters" written in response to this article topped Greenwald's word count, including the one by prunes found here:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/12/lost_documents/permalink/bfc3c5769bc211999923dfe1314e233c.html

Not that we can draw direct correlation between word quantity and quality of work, but I know that the 153 words that I read did not slap me around and scream Pulitzer. I guess he's going for a Bloggie instead.

But I guess this type of lazy, phone-it-in blogging is what I've come to expect from Salon. Kudos Greenwald! You really know how to deftly strike at the administration! I'm sure the house of cards that Bush has built will promptly come tumbling down.