Uncle Dick and Papa

NY Times ^ | April 23, 2005 | MAUREEN DOWD

[Huck]

I've never read a Maureen Dowd column start to finish. Still haven't.

[Domestic Church]

It probably bothers her that we post this stuff too...and then we slice and dice it and serve it up on crackers to our young ones.

[jwalsh07]

It's impossible to read a column that somehow manages to sound like the whiny, nasally, uptight West Side Manhattan dilletante that writes it.

It's the chalk board thing.

[Huck]

I don't get her at all. I hear about her on talk radio. I have seen her on with Russert I think a couple of times. Just sounds like a birdbrain to me. And she is also all those things you say she is. But the elite snobs read her. She's like required reading for elitists. I wouldn't even line my guinea pig cages with her crap. I use the Newark Star Ledger for that (unread.)

[Kaslin]

I think any article by Moron oops Maureen Dowd should automatically get a barf alert

[Kaslin]

Why are you posting Zeta Jones' picture?

[Kaslin]

Which makes a twice as ugly

[SmithL]

See Post #6

[GSlob]

"Pope Benedict XVI wants to dismantle Vatican II and go back to 1397."
This so-called "good sentence" is the product of clanging ignorance and dense stupidity on Maureen Dowd's part [but then, what else to expect from her? A tree is to be known by its fruit]: In 1397 (during the Great Schism 1378-1414) there was a contending Avignonese antipope, Pedro de Luna, IIRC. Now, why on Earth would ANY normal pope wish to return his church to such a situation?

[neverdem]

This so-called "good sentence" is the product of clanging ignorance and dense stupidity on Maureen Dowd's part [but then, what else to expect from her? A tree is to be known by its fruit]:

That's my error. I didn't read it correctly. Maybe it's a residual reading defect from a speed reading course that I took four decades ago, but I read 1397 as 1937. Maybe it's a lingering hostility to the Second Vatican Council? Maybe it was my surprise at what I thought was an insight by Mo Do? Somehow, I transposed the digits.

[GSlob]

You did read it correctly: the article on NYT site reads "1397". You did not commit any error, but quoted faithfully.

[neverdem]

You did read it correctly: the article on NYT site reads "1397". You did not commit any error, but quoted faithfully.

I wrote, and confessed, how I read it initially, i.e. 1937, not the 14th Century. Bless me father for I have sinned.

[GSlob]

Well, be blessed, and go in peace, and if you ever again see a clanging liberal idiot, kick him.