Posted on 12/02/2001 6:56:41 PM PST by Enlightiator
The Time article:
Yes, grocery shopping on the internet, with home delivery, has not panned out so far, with the failure of NetGrocer, and the imminent failure of Peapod. I have always tried to use these services where available, not enough hours in the day, and getting the stuff home is a problem for me.
They started writing about that back in the 20's and 30's (read Hugo Gernsback's stuff -- just don't look for literature). To date nobody has licked the air traffic control problem.
Heck, I thought he looked macho -- of course I thought Dukakis in the tank looked macho, so what do I know.
I'm getting too old and out of shape to go surfing anymore, LOL !!!!!!!
I certainly wouldn't object to a little mechanical propulsion.
The Freepathon is on!!
This is an expensive operation
To keep it Going
Click the Logo
For the Secure Server
So9
With dems in the house they'll probably mandate the d****d thing!
When I see an adult wearing one, I can't help but to think of when we put them on "challenged" people to keep them from hurting themselves.
I think people who wear these helmets are challenged as well.
I just happen to be reading Voltaire's "Candide" and I see no signs of any "sarcasm tags" in it. But I notice certain clues such as over the top statements, exaggeration, subversion of common cliches, outrageous claims, poses, pretended stupidity, funny word spellings, and similar devices. I saw Kinky Friedman at a book reading a few weeks ago and he explained (or complained) that he no longer did musical tours in this country because of the scandals his appearances were causing with songs like "They Don't Make Jews Like Jesus Any More" (/sarcasm tag!)
Some of us refuse to use these "sarcasm tags" here because we think we plant enough clues for critical readers to recognize the nature of our posts. Certainly, at times the clues are insufficiently clear or not strong enough but I don't think anyone in this group does it wanting to feel superior to those who just don't get it. Tongue in cheek is no longer tongue in cheek when accompanied by a laugh track and most things on television with laugh tracks wouldn't be funny without them (And aren't funny with them, either, if you axe me!) Cheers!
Question for you RedBloodedAmerican: Have you stopped beating your wife?
How do you like it when someone insinuates that you have beat your wife? Well, I don't like it when you insinuate that I was kicked off FR or had a different screen name because neither happened.
Suck it up dude. You failed to articulate what you meant in your post and you blamed me for that. Instead of acknowledging your mistake you blame me. And now, after I had pointed that out you continue to attack me rather than acknowledge your mistake. It's always the writers responsibility to make his point clear and not blame the reader.
Yes, I have read about that. It will be as big a factor as such things that now have promise like telmore research, gene therapy and DNA manipulation. But the point is that it's an obvious direction that on several fronts technology/medical researchers are striving to meet the goal of biologic immortality. Importantly, non-aging and youth rejuvinating immortality.
You don't understand PR and how the media and government really operate. Had he not been wearing a helmet the mainstream media and government would keep a million from being sold. One can only guess at how often people think they're doing good when in fact they're shooting themselves in the foot because they fail to understand the media stooges, politicians and bureaucrats' value destroying modus operandi.
Have you seen the BMW Z8? Beautiful, (and only about 45 times the price).
It is the writers fault when you can't comprehend the English language?
So long.
Bring on the Skycar!!
Is that a hodge-podge of several authors varying view points and writing styles? No. But you already knew that, right? I assume you consider yourself a critical reader, thus you do understand. I'm a critical thinker and understand rationalizations.
Some of us refuse to use these "sarcasm tags" here because we think we plant enough clues for critical readers to recognize the nature of our posts.
I found that critical readers' thinking goes something like this: "well, I think it's obvious sarcasm (darn, I wish I had read a history of his posts so that I could discern his style --sort of like reading a book I get to know the author's style over several pages), but I may be wrong. So which way do I respond. It seems like over kill to posit both scenarios in my reply. And it seems a waste of time if I go one way and he meant the other. How much effect is gained or lost when a sarcasm tag is included? And that must be compared to how much effect is lost when people get the wrong idea or chose the wrong route?"
Perhaps a snotty :) "I'm writing to highbrows" tag would help us normal (whatever that is) people to avoid the intentional lack of clarity that the highbrows shroud themselves with. No problem with writing to a particular segment, but if you want to limit the confusion from outsiders then use the highbrow tag.
In my three-and-a-half years experience on this board I have seen more people use the "I was being sarcastic" escape to extricate themselves from a sticky situation than the highbrow approach (you're the first I've seen/read). You offer a new twist to that, IMO. Rationalization is a faulty crutch. ...That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
LOL. Hey, lets melt Daschle's phone lines and demand our IT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.