I so should have known not to click on that at work.
Not that it wasn't labeled, I just overlooked it.
LB--you need to get head phones.
"civilized countries like ours" with a Texas accent. That was hilarious.
Gave up after ten minutes of loading got only a fifth of the way through. Um, possibly you might want to consider noting something isn't for dialup?
I would, but no one uses dialup anymore, Gary.
I'm just glad they have things like this now. I shudder to think what my brothers are learning. I can guarantee I had a more honest and comprehensive class at my Catholic school back in the day than they're getting from today's public schools.
Try disguising yourself as Matthew Yglesias.
I think you misuderstand the physiological factors.
I think you discount the possibility of reacharounds.
Now you're pretending that you've never been sodomized by Labs?
Pretense? I wouldn't have it in me.
Is that a reference to your previous comment about there being a secret or prank behind a commenter's handle, which I was just unable to find because I couldn't remember the phrasing of?
In you, out of you; over time, there's not much difference.
In the long run, we are all sodomized by Fontana Labs.
16: This one. But is "commenter" the mot juste? (This is an attempt to find out if I know what SB's talking about.)
Is their a thread about this person mentioning cuban sandwiches and dross? Because I thought SB was talking about something more mysterious.
This error message,"In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience" prevents me from correcting "their" to "there"
That is the person I was thinking of. And perhaps SB was. SB is a mysterious consortium.
(Since I feel people here are going soft, I was going to say that I believe 16 should have an "it" at the end of it, but now I'm just depressed.)
Perhaps SB was thinking of someone more mysterious, I meant. And 22 lifts my spirits to the heights again! 17 should have an "it" at the end of it.
FUCK. "17" should be "16," obviously.
I'm not sure I understand the confusion. I accuse SB of pretending, then he says "Pretense? I wouldn't have it in me," with it's double meaning of "I wouldn't pretend" and "I wouldn't let Labs put his 29" cock in me." What are you talking about?
I have no idea what either of you are talking about. I am talking about Labs' impetus.
"Either of you" means w/d and Weiner, not ogged and Becks.
I know. I'm so confused by what's going on that I can't even sort things out enough to make a Yglesias/Labs/cuban sandwich joke.
I believe that a quick Google of the key terms, restricted to site:unfogged.com, will clear up what 21 is about. (31 was an awesome example of whatever that figure of speech is, Becks. Could it be... Praeteriteo?)
And with "Praeteriteo," I believe this thread reaches the Chandrasekhar limit at which the in-joke density becomes so great that no comment can escape.
Which is a shame, because I was looking forward to SB's explaining Standpipeself about the comment linked in 20.
I think that either I didn't need to write "it" because "phrasing of" must refer back to "previous comment" or that "it" would not have been enough, since "it" could refer to the phrasing of "secret or prank" or the "commenter's handle." Either way I didn't need to write "it" to save 16. I'm semi-serious about 16 being ok w/o "it" but will demur.
Those last three words? There's an in-joke for you.
My reasoning--and this is really quite silly--is that "which" is the object either of "find" or of "of" (the last one), but not both, and so "of" needs an object.
At the Mineshaft! (sorry, couldn't figure out another way to work an in-joke in.)
I followed the link. The linked comment appears to suggest the implausibility of an Unfogged hoax's underlying the identity of Matthew Yglesias (he who errs in inverse proportion to his dancing the Fontana banana fandango).
But it seemed that your linked comment (35 if that thread) was meant ironically, thus suggesting that there had already been an elaborate hoax involving an Unfogged commenter's identity.
If you only meant to suggest that it was the sort of thing that would happen, I'm going to cry, so if that is what you meant I think you ought to concoct an elaborate hoax involving an Unfogged commenter's identity and then reveal it to me. You can borrow my time machine if it would help.
I think SB would do well not to respond to 38 at all.
There are several of us?
Chopper in Comment 50 in that thread read it the same way as Weiner explains in 38, and I did too. Non-response from SB is reasonble (though frustrating), unless we're talking about the oh so open secret which I already alluded to in 21.
Were I SB, I would point out that "35 if that thread" makes no sense. Like I said, people are going soft here, which I guess is a good thing and to be pushed along.
Assuming SB does what I think SB is about to do, it's a good thing we all know about that the problem with affirming the consequent.
This is related to Rove nominating Miers, isn't it?
I actually wrote "about that the." That is screwed up. I'm done for the night.
And so age takes its toll on Maya Angelou.
Jesus Christ, you guys were busy last night. SB, I only hope that at some point, many years in the future, that which confuses the rest of us dullards is revealed.
My current theory: you are Ex. Your commenting upon ogged's blog has rekindled your passion. However, ogged's case of Koro has left you unable to rekindle your physical passion, so you make love over the Internets, using only your minds.
I'm so confused by what's going on that I can't even sort things out enough to make a Yglesias/Labs/cuban sandwich joke.
Two kinds of pork in one sandwich? Melty gooey white stuff?
Yeah, there's no joke there.
And so age takes its toll on Maya Angelou.
What has taken its toll on Maya Angelou is decades of writing god-awful, clunky, artless, college freshman quality poetry. Or, perhaps more accurately, being exposed to it has taken its toll on me.
You know, the theory in 53 occurred to me too. 39 (and Ogged's mad IP skillz) suggests that Ogged may know who SB is.
And the thread goes dead! Clearly they're hiding something....
This is very confusing. Matt, what did you mean by asking whether "commenter" was LMJ?
SB has consistently commented from at least one locale which is not the ex's current living area; however, SB could simply be routing SB's traffic through said locale.
w-lfs-n! I happen to know some facts concerning SB's identity (hint: either Lucy Mangan or Ian Crocker), but I'm not about to post them. Discretion.
SB, I was wondering whether "coblogger" might be more appropriate.
You know, if you don't at least tell me whether I was right about what your original comment meant, I'm going to change my hints about your identity to "Debbie Gibson or Huey Lewis." (I promise not to ask any more questions about what you meant, in case I was wrong, so you don't have to worry about setting a precedent where you reveal yourself by no-commenting after a series of denials.)
I should say that it's fun guessing, but if Standpipe wants to remain a mystery, then by all means standpipeself should do so. I hope you'll forgive me for being curious--I'm the sort who to this day will open Christmas presents days in advance and then reseal them, rather than wait to be surprised. It's troublesome for me when a sharp knife and some tape aren't the solution to a mystery.
Or are they?
Oh, I agree with 64, and absolutely don't think Standpipe should reveal anything about Standpipeself unless Standpipe wants to. If the mysterious original comment had to do with an open secret, though, I will sleep better knowing that I am in on it.
And since I'm a little bitch, I should say that you misused the reflexive (substitute ordinary pronouns and you'll see). And that the Vikings aren't looking so hot.
In re the reflexive: sure. I just wanted to type "standpipeself" and was too lazy to figure out a more graceful way of doing it.
In re the Vikes: oh, Christ. Tell me about it. Key injuries, poor coaching, a quarterback who has mysteriously lost the ability to see open receivers...
Ah well. At least the Packers suck more.
and since the steelers didn't play this week, I'm really courting disaster by talking trash. (Debbie Lewis: You are not off the hook.)
You know who Bush should appoint to lead FEMA. Brett Favre. He is one immune from criticism 0-4 quarterback.
I'm the author, Matt. I'm dead.
Ah well. At least the Packers suck more.
Between the Packers, Vikes, Bears, and Lions, it's hard to say who sucks most. The NFC North is a swirling vortex of Teh Suck. A combined 3-11, and 2 of those three wins are from NFC North teams playing each other.
The division champ might only need 6 wins this year.
Re 71: Hell, if the division teams each split their series with the other teams, and then one team wins a game outside the division, it might only take 4 games.
I may have mentioned this before, but re: 69, that Barthes essay is really awful. Here's the argument: there are important things to the interpretation of a text other than the author's intent. Here's the conclusion: the author's intent means nothing. It's teh suxx.
[I just searched the archives, I left a comment saying very similar things back in May.]
