You Don't Say! [Dan Collins]

November 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

April 16, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Notice the headline isn’t Hypothetical Nuclear attack on D.C. a hypothetical disaster. Is it really implied? Discuss.

JD says:

April 16, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Dorkafork – Have not seen your name in a while. Good stuff.

Hypothetically, the disaster quotient would be directly related to whether or not GiGi, Mona and their entourage (read 6 Brazilian sock puppet cabana boys) were in town. Hypothetically.

Jeffersonian says:

April 16, 2008 at 4:48 pm

After destroying DC, wouldn’t we have to wait to see if the perpetrators’ intentions turned out to be hostile?

mojo says:

April 16, 2008 at 4:52 pm

“Women and Parasites Hardest Hit. Hypothetically.”

happyfeet says:

April 16, 2008 at 4:59 pm

I bet they’ll let us go home early that day, and if they detonate before noon EST I bet we can just call in, cause you know Manhattan would empty out, and that’s where like a lot of people’s corporate HQs are. Beyond that, that sort of thing puts a real damper on the hypothetical marketing environment and most of the tv channels will probably run without commercials for like that whole day anyway.

JD says:

April 16, 2008 at 5:04 pm

happyfeet – that was great.

TomH says:

April 16, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Whatever, climate change will make DC unlivable long before this hypothetical event happens. There will be a glacier on the Potomic and a desert on top of that.

N. O'Brain says:

April 16, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Way OT, but this is great, a thank you letter from Australia, via Blackfive:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/04/via-corporal-se.html

Think of it as a palate cleanser after a dose of nishi.

N. O'Brain says:

April 16, 2008 at 5:28 pm

[via via Ace]

harrison says:

April 16, 2008 at 5:37 pm

That’s why I live to the west of the District.

Ardsgaine says:

April 16, 2008 at 5:41 pm

After destroying DC, wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we have to wait to see if the perpetratorsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ intentions turned out to be hostile?

I think it would be safe to assume that their intent was benevolent.

If it were Muncie, though…

happyfeet says:

April 16, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Hypothetically is how cars work apparently…

Miller said consumers’ frustration is growing as gas prices rise, and automakers need to cut through the clutter that consumers are hearing about various technologies. He added that consumers need a lot of education, since most don’t even realize that their vehicles are powered by an internal combustion engine.*

God help us.

Ardsgaine says:

April 16, 2008 at 5:55 pm

I find their ignorance of economics far more scary.

The government also needs to consider more tax credits for fuel-efficient vehicles, carbon taxes to penalize gas-guzzlers, and mandates to promote cleaner fuels such as ethanol, which are some of the approaches that have successfully changed consumers’ driving habits in Europe, according to Scott Bailey, vice president of powertrain systems at auto supplier Delphi Corp.

Basically, they want to find a solution for a non-existent problem, and then use government coercion to ram it down the consumer’s throat.

TmjUtah says:

April 16, 2008 at 6:46 pm

I think the news of the New York Time’s news room layoffs stunned a few copy editors.

The guy who signed off on this one obviously wasn’t having a Pulitzer day.

Dan Collins says:

April 16, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Um, that’s The Washington Times, Tmj

Dan Collins says:

April 16, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Hahaha! Mine is impelled by fire demons, hf.

Merovign says:

April 16, 2008 at 8:43 pm

A journalist ignorant of economics?

The deuce you say!

Ric Locke says:

April 16, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Well, I do see the need for the word.

Given the reader demographic the newspapers are after these days, if they’d left out “hypothetical” or put the word in a subhead, there’d be twenty dead on the Key Bridge alone from the fleeing refugees.

Regards,
Ric

Little Miss Attila says:

April 16, 2008 at 11:57 pm

I can’t even read headlines these days; it hurts too much. The grammar is poor, and no one checks on the double meanings of words (nouns that can be verbs, and vice versa), so sometimes one has to read them over several times to suss out what the heck was even meant.

Too painful. Too much work.