my homer is not a terrorist

[candid]

Ladies and gentlemen, William Ayers:"I'm not an unrepentant terrorist; I'm just a guy who set off a bunch of bombs in support of my political agenda, and (looking back) it's possible (but definitely not certain) that doing so might have been a bad idea. If I have any regrets, it's that our terrorism bombing campaigns weren't successful in

Comments

[mcfnord]

They publish Rove so the answer is Arabs. Of course, you know you chose whom, rather than what, to malign Mr. Ayers, despite all that other fancy HTML! Sanctimony: secure!

If I Understand You Correctly...

[infopractical]

When being specific, it's impossible to be general. If you're suggesting that candid...gets cozy with Rove...while maligning Ayers...you're so clearly and obviously wrong that it makes me wonder why you think you know him well enough to make that comment. I don't know him all that well, but I've read enough of his writing to know he's not a member of the Republican goonsquad.

But, of course, you choose to comment on the maligning of whom, rather than what, to malign Mr. Grus, despite all that other fancy HTML! Sanctimony: secure!

My Obvious Meanings, Willfully Misread...

[mcfnord]

Nope, you don't understand me correctly. candid asked how to get published in NYT. You may not be aware of this, but Rove is published frequently, both there and in the WSJ. The pronoun they should have been a clue for you here. I'm not sure why a newspaper is plural, but it does seem a newspaper is more sensibly plural than a single LiveJournal user.

Mr. Ayers never bombed anyone. He bombed things. "Who did you bomb?" "I didn't bomb anyone." It's all rather clear to the native speaker.

Re: My Obvious Meanings, Willfully Misread...

[infopractical]

Willfully misread? Ha.

I can't believe you're making a defense of the flow of what you wrote. Your middle sentence could have 14,000 equally valid interpretations now that I take a fifth look at it.

[mcfnord]

You figured I was comparing Rove to candid because they appeared in the same thought together. It's frankly Rovian logic, akin to the Ayers-Obama connection itself. I'm glad we've both enjoyed this laughter at one another. I think candid is willfully Rovian, with a smirk. I think he was smirking, asking who got bombed. I don't think you're smirking, though. Best of luck with your crackpot soft intellectual dickoff. I mean our duckoff!

[infopractical]

I'll take that criticism the moment you go back and correctly diagram your own sentence.

[mcfnord]

You're some kind of diddlemeyer parade. Rah!