Recently, my use of the phrase "babe" has come under attack for overt chauvenism. Also, the definition of "people" has recently been brought up, which leads me to an important topic.
What exactly do I mean by my title, "How to get babes without even trying"?
Obviously, the greatest word in contention is the word "babes," and, as such, I feel the need to address the definition of this word.
When I use the term "babes," I may well be using it as a gender neutral term. It is important to note that both men and women can be babes. Consider a recent conversation at law school.
Girl #1: Damn, girl! Who is that fine mo-fo over there?
Girl #2: What? You mean that hotty-bo-botty extra-large boy toy wearing the white, button down shirt featuring a nautical theme?
Girl #1: Hells yes.
Girl #2: Hun, he is out of your league. That babe is none other than your fellow classmate, Nathan from Wichita!
Girl #1: Shit!
Luckily, I happened to overhear this conversation play out among two immensely beautiful women that may only have existed in my head. The point remains, though. Men can just as easily be people as women.
That's right, ladies. I am human. I know: hard to believe, but it's true.
The second phrase in contention is "without even trying." Many (up to as many as 2) of you have pointed out, "But Nathan! Almost every single one of your tips requires a great deal of trying! How can you maintain such a title while operating under such a lie!"
To these people I say, "Stop using exclamation marks while you talk! Same with people who use the letter 'O' without an 'H' at the end. Everyone needs to just calm down."
The fact of the matter is that you are misunderstanding the phrase. You assume that "even" is an adverb proceeding the participle of "trying." You could not be more wrong.
"Trying" is, in fact, a GERUND! That's right. In this case I'm using trying as a noun! Which means that "even" can be an adjective. Which in turn means that I can use the following definition from dictionary.com
trying: 2c: Placid; calm: an even temperament.
Yes! You read that correctly. My blog is all about getting babes without placid trying. In other words, amazingly, my blog is all about getting babes wildly and aggressively.
So rejoice, my friends, for I have not been caught in a grammatical faux pas. I remain steadfast and true, courtesy of our favorite dictionary buddies.
Holla'!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
MP3 Clips
Useful Links
Followers
Labels
- Dumb Quotes (6)
- HTGBWET (33)
- law thoughts (7)
- Science (3)
Links
- Come see the surface side of me! (new)
- Google News
- Funniest Law student in Texas
- Come talk about and maybe get pissed off about religion
- Insightful guy, when considering his crazy political affiliations
- If you like fanfics, random KC good times, and learning about yourself in relation to Harry Potter and others, visit this site. Thank me later.
- Come learn more about communist indians!
- My Story
- This is me when I give a crap
- Perhaps the liberal version of a place to go get angry? Neat
- This is reserved for cool people, I'm waiting!
8 comments:
Nathan, I love you....:) You are perhaps, no, are undoubtably my neatest friend
I just read your last post, btw, and give me a friggen break. If Bush threw the election, prove it and arrest him.
You ever see one of those shows about the "Bible code"? After a major event — the Sept. 11 attacks, lets say — they type words and phrases like "crash" and "airplane" and "twin towers" into a program that goes through every page of the bible and finds places that those words are mentioned near one another. It doesn't just figure where someone says "twin" and "towers", it finds where the letters might align up, down or any other direction to spell out these words, and at an angle too.
Well, amazingly, they'll find stuff like "Osama" "attack" and "terror" all on the same page and the odds against such a thing happening will be like 250,000 to 1. So some crazy guy then rants and raves about how the bible predicted all this crap.
Hmmm...some theories and odds sure are stupid, aren't they?
Does it matter that in this case the "crazy guy" is a highly regarded statistician and professor at an ivy league school who specializes in the particular stastical analysis that's being talked about, and who is, in fact, not a democrat?
And, further, does it matter that he's talking about the effectiveness of polling data, a traditionally effective resource used to determine just how democratic a nation is being in its voting, instead of crackpot numerology, which your bible example fits into nicely?
Third, while the article may or may not address this issue, I specifically say that Bush DIDN'T do any of these things. I instead pin it on Mr. Blackwell of Ohio, who performed immoral but conceivably legal acts.
Besides, even if I said Bush did do these things, I wouldn't say he "threw" the election, as that would mean he intentionally gave up.
Also, Kay, I think you're nifty too. Can we please use the furry handcuffs next time?
as a resident English teacher who by no means claims to be good at grammar . . . I applaud your use of imaginary dialogue. I totally pictured two law student's in your head calling you a babe. It made me smile after a day with my fun delinquent summer school kids!
Um. Yeah, Joel, I just want to apologize for that last point. I'm the first to complain about strawman arguments and that was the very definition of one. They make great zingers, but do absolutely nothing for advancing the conversation.
The rest still stands, though.
Also, Lisa, my main purpose in life is to provide mirth and humor to others in times of need.
Point 1 — First, lets play word games.
You were wrong on the use of the word ironically a few posts back (another liberal rant, if I remember correctly ... yes, yes it was. You were explaining that the media are controlled by the GOP)
-----------
Point 1A: I’ll direct you to dictionary.com, where I found this:
i·roni·cal·ly adv.
i·roni·cal·ness n.
Usage Note: The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply “coincidental” or “improbable,” in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.
-----------
Point 1B, I’ll supply this: With apologies to George Carlin (and the message board I stole this off of). . .
A diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck. He is the victim of an accident.
If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence.
But if the truck was delivering insulin, then he is the victim of an irony.
------------
Point 1C, it’s not ironic that you like both McCain and Clinton. It’s coincidental or improbable or maybe an accident.
-------------
Point 1D, on a very different but still fantastic note, check out this message thread: I really love the sportsjournalists.com message board.
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,27622.0.html
--------------
Point 2: I don’t have the time right now to spend countering either your post about how the media is biased toward the GOP or your ascertain that GW Bush or anyone anywhere near him purposefully stole the election.
A brief web search did generate one interesting site, however. I don’t think this review is of your article, but it seems to cover much the same ground. Honestly, I didn’t even read your article all the way through (I’m supposed to be working, of course) but I will point out this is from a VERY liberal source (Not one of the Republican-tainted and infected mass media sources that you apparently no longer believe)
I will try and stay within the format of our debate here, and I shall offer a few tidbits from the article I found first:
— As for the larger argument that Ohio was stolen, Michael O'Grady, the legal counsel to the Ohio Democratic Party, says, "That point of view relies on the assumption that the entire Republican Party is conspiratorial and the entire Democratic Party is as dumb as rocks. And I don't buy that."
— It remains far from clear that Bush stole the election, and I say that as someone who has written that Bush did steal Florida and the White House in 2000 (and who—full disclosure—is friendly with skeptics Miller and Wasserman). First, some of the most far-reaching acts of potential disenfranchisement, such as the purging of voter rolls, were legal—which is why one lesson of Ohio 2004 is that voting systems throughout the nation need fundamental reform. Second, even if Kerry had won Ohio, the national vote went to Bush by 3 million votes. Ohio would have given Kerry the presidency by the same unholy route that Bush traveled in 2000 and that led so many Democrats to urge, rightly, the abolishment of the Electoral College.
Now here’s the piece from Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2005/11/recounting_ohio.html
---------
Point 3: Bashing the Bible code is wrong.
I don’t have time to back the crazy bible code, but my point was very simple. In fact, it barely even mentioned your article, so I was by no means directly attacking it. Instead, I was pointing out that often times stats are stupid, confusing, misunderstood, used incorrectly, only half accurate and presented in a way to prove the person that used the said stat correct, no matter if the same numbers could be used to come up with an entirely different conclusion OR if there are numerous easy answers to the charges levied by said numbers, those answers often being totally ignored.
(For the record, I would imagine you can find “twin towers” “Osama” “Jesus” “the end times” “Nathan” “Kay” “ew, no one wants to see Kay naked” and “tool. You’re a tool, tool tool.” In just about any book you do a similar search in.)
Like I said … some theories and odds sure are stupid, aren’t they?
what the F*#$? I wasted an hour of my life reading your boring post about politics and dictionary grammar and you insult me for no reason? Who the H$*# doesn't want to see me naked; I know of no such person, and I demand you take it back. If you don't bad things will happen to you...it says so in the bible on page 385 where these words can be found: Joel, Pain, Balls...Interpret as you want, but I think I know what it means. And yes, Nathan, furry handcuffs are better because they don't pinch your skin...I have pink or red, take your pick.
Kay, I also found in "The Velveteen Rabbit" where the words "Kay" "great" "gives" and "head" were all on the same page.
Neat, huh? It was on page 3, and again on page 12 where the boy has to burn his wabbit.
Post a Comment