Replies

"ilk"? cuuuuuute...

"obtuse"? "besmirch"? "defame"?
Oh, do calm down. Or be concise: "sully" would have sufficed succinctly, and been more accurate.

Some counterpoints:
1. The original article on the New Scientist website is the one which should be studied by the little rugrats, as the post here has no data.
2. Blame whoever wrote the humor-inspiring headline over at New Scientist - the puns and jests are as inevitable a byproduct of such a headline as is a nova of the fusion-to-iron stellar cycle.
3. While I will agree that Holdmuhbeer's sexual reference was inappropriate, I do so only because it skirts very close to violating the site's posting guidelines. Whether or not it actually crosses that line is a matter for the Admin Moderator to decide - not me... and not you. To attempt to do so, as you seem to have intended, in the tone and timbre you used, seems a usurpation of a mantle of authority and comes as close as the sexual reference does to violating a clause of the posting guidelines: "no personal attacks".

I normally don't rag on folks, but you ragged on all of us who like to season our awe with irreverence, and I do not believe you have just cause. Please do not do so again. You took what could have been made as a valid point and instead made it into an exercise in supercilious vainglory, causing annoyance instead of concord - let alone penitence.
(And: Yes, I can Bulwer-Lytton with the best of them).
Life is not and should not be as dour as you would seem to prefer. So, again: Do calm down.

We obviously see things considerably differently.
You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

It seems to be your view that this site is without value when it comes to informing or educating the next generations about Constitutional conservatism. I can now assume that “sullying” or adult humor serves the purpose of the site. After all, we can’t afford to do anything “for the children”. I tend to see everything as a potential for training the young coming along because otherwise the only place they will obtain training is from the willing liberals and communists. It is how we have lost the "minds" of a generation or so thus far so that we need others (i.e. Coulter) to pull a few of them out.

It is a shame to give reasons to the eager liberals who judge sites for filtering groups to keep children out of this one. There are discussions of history , politics, science, economics and geography here that are stunning in their import and impact. Even this thread has more valuable input (with references to other sites) from Freepers than the article itself contained.

How sad that because it would be "dour" without “sullying” references the filterers can get their wish fulfilled to keep this out of the sight of some of the most promising youngsters in our nation whose parents may not have the background in their areas of interest that those here could provide.

You are correct. The moderator did not find the tasteless remark offensive. I had no idea that you and yours would conceive of my objection as tantamount to an Admin rebuke since I did not. It is an interesting concept, but it wasn’t my purpose or intent.

Apparently what you object to most is the verbiage. It somehow afflicts you. Words of three syllables or less can be hard for some to people to produce depending on what one’s training in languages has been but that may not be apparent to a crowd.

I apologize for the objectionable verbalization. It is interesting to me that you are free to stamp my motive as “supercilious vainglory” according to your (mis)perception. So far as I am concerned you have here come just as close to usurping “the mantle” of authority as I must have in your estimation. Your warning to “Please do not do so again.” indicates to me that you must be the authority/Moderator here.

Since I cannot “Bulwer-Lytton” with any of them you are seven up on me. And since you have named yourself a King, I bow (out) to you, Admin/King Prout.