Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Reagan Man
You aren't clueless, you just play clueless when you post.

You attempted a sarcastic comment, but in doing so used a word with multiple meanings, where the meaning you wanted was the least used. In doing so, you ignored the more obvious word which sounds like the word you used and has the meaning you expected.

Taking advantage of your use of the less exclusive word was a simple task. Quoting the online dictionaries was also a simple task, one that even a child could do. It's hard to imagine anybody other than you would have required me to post a link to an online dictionary reference.

Of course I know that you were not trying to say anything nice -- it wouldn't be your nature, contrary to the namesake you have chosen to hide behind as a screen name.

It's not my fault you left yourself open with a poor word choice.

Going with my assertion you are not clueless, I can't fathom how you think that "insipid, simplistic, and bland" have no relationship to the word "pablum". You surely must know that those are descriptive terms used for baby food, and why the word is used to describe bland writing.

While its been given a shared meaning with "pabulum", MW defines "pablum" in its earliest form, as a trademark for baby food.

So you actually believe that "pablum" got a shared meaning FROM "pabulum"? Wow.

Pabulum:

pabulum Usage Examples

Adjective modifier 
very: For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish.
It's not my fault you chose a word for which the most common definition is a positive quality of speech that elucidates or feeds the curiousity of those who read it. That you chose this word for an opposite reaction is your own fault. I tried to give you a better word, but you seem to simply want to argue that you meant the 3rd definition, not the 1st, as if everybody doesn't know that already, and are having a good laugh at your expense.

Your response reminds me of an insipid movie, "Happy Gilmore". The protagonist, trying to act the cool man, says "I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast". TO which Gilmore replies -- "You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?"

And just like you with your "pabulum" remark, everybody knows what the protagonist meant, and they all laugh at him for his poor choice of how to say what he wanted to say.

Next time, I do recommend that if you are trying to be snarky (and given your history, I would suggest you stick to trying something you are better at), you should try choosing a word whose main meaning is what you want to say, not the opposite.

337 posted on 08/10/2009 7:16:32 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
OMG! There is no end to your dumb posts. You just repeat the same things over and over, causing you another mess you won't be able to dig yourself out of.

>>>>>You attempted a sarcastic comment, but in doing so used a word with multiple meanings, where the meaning you wanted was the least used.

Sorry, no sarcasm was attempted. I went for your jugular and from your responses, looks like I hit paydirt. News flash: most words have multiple meanings. LOL

>>>>>Quoting the online dictionaries was also a simple task, one that even a child could do.

Quoting is easy, linking is a task that you obviously could not do.

Pabulum is the right word that defines your posting history on this forum, "insipid, simplistic" and "bland"... to go along with your desperate personality and obsessive-compulsive nature.

338 posted on 08/10/2009 8:11:16 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson