"The headline “100 Years of LOLitude” is by Kevin Dopart; Judy Freed wrote the honorable-mentions subhead." Just what WAS the honorable-mentions subhed? (Will keep complaining about this til I get an answer.)
My gripe is that the headline is ALWAYS identified (in this case, "101 Years of LOLitude"), but the honorable-mentions subhed is NEVER identified -- why do I have to scroll up to be reminded what it is?
We like to make you work! I spell out the headline because there are two headlines on the page, one at the top and one at the top of the results; it's easier to say the name of the headline. Also, the second, explanatory part of the headline doesn't tend to be by the person who sent it; if that part's clunky, I don't want to blame the Loser!
About that misattributed Clarence Darrow quote, apparently when it comes to quotes about the demise of the disliked, never the Twain shall meet. Another famous one, "I did not attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it," is a double mis-. Neither Twain nor Darrow, the usual suspects, coined it.
The business of no one (we assume...) recognizing Luigi Mangione from the images released by the NYPD is actually not surprising. Could very well be because of what's called the "butcher-on-the-bus" phenomenon. It's the cognitive dissonance of not recognizing someone you know because they're in an environment or context in which you're not used to seeing them.
Interesting that Mangione was charged with second degree rather than first degree murder (among other charges), since clearly the alleged murder was premeditated and intentional. In NY, the difference is aggravating factors, such as the victim being a police officer and a number of specific other factors. The death penalty was dropped 20 years ago. And while no doubt the defense will introduce extenuating or mitigating circumstances --- and diminished capacity will likely be considered --- defending a second degree murder charge is a hard slog. Not that there won't be a whole objection or squabble of heavily salivating criminal defense lawyers (you get to choose the collective noun) willing to take on the high-profile case.
As John Weidman put it (in the mouth of John Wilkes Booth) in the musical ASSASSINS: "Murder is a tawdry little crime; it's born of greed, or lust, or liquor. Adulterers and shopkeepers get murdered. But when a President gets killed, when Julius Caesar got killed...he was assassinated."
Trump is awarded "Patriot of the Year" and wonders when Putin will present the award to him. Surprised that it is from the USA. Says: "OK. Who is the Joker this time."
So if one of your this week entries gets cited as a fine example for next week’s contest, do you get this week ink, next week ink, or ( as I fear) submit it again Bozo and we’ll see ink? Asking for a dear friend.
Well, obviously we don't want you to resend an entry we've already published! BUT as I noted in the Style Invitational Devotees group on Facebook, if you think that your best "noink" from Week 100 would work in Week 102, feel free to send it again.
What we don't want to do is to choose Week 100 entries /ourselves/ to use for Week 102.
As for which week your example will be credited in the Loser Stats, I leave that monumental decision to Gary Crockett, Keeper of the Stats, though I personally think crediting it toward the new contest makes sense.
Not exactly sure what the gripe is about the funny farm being able to chime in on which Invite entries it thinks are funniest and/or more deserving of the Royal Guffaw. Does tend to encourage engagement which is all to the good, although I do agree, reading about someone else's choices (without annotation or explanation, in particular) is akin to watching paint dry. Suggest the Royal Couple occasionally publish its shortlist for a week along with the few, the proud, the anointed to make things a bit more sporty.
In addition to Gene's reason, we've actually been asked by the Losers not to do so, because it would mean they couldn't use the same, so far unpublished joke for a future contest.
H-m-m. First I've heard of that but then again, there would be no reason for you to mention it in passing and submissions do remain the property of the entrants. Yours is a far better reason for not publishing the short list, I suggest, than a possible tarnishing of integrity, since you're already asking to be second-guessed. So, just to be clear, once a submission is published in any official way, shape or form it is disqualified for future use --- at least as an Invite entry?
The integrity you get automatically after 32 years. The engagement not so much. What I'm suggesting is that you merely increase the number of forced choices.
"We have simply added a device where readers can, by implication, call us idiots. We like that."
Does it not follow then, that you would be absolutely ecstatic to be called out as humorless philistines (by imprecation) for not bestowing the Royal Guffaw on some short list entries? And just think of the succor it would give the near misses (misters and non-binary). I rest your case.
"This was called an assassination because it was an assassination. There is no other term for it. This is the definition of an assassination, from the Britannica: “The term typically refers to the killing of government leaders and other prominent persons for political purposes—such as to seize power, to start a revolution, to draw attention to a cause, to exact revenge, or to undermine a regime or its critics.
This was a highly visible, important person, and the crime was done to draw attention to a cause, and also to exact revenge."
Okay. Everyone who knew who Brian Thompson was before December 4, 2024, please reply below.
That's not the point, Sassy. He was the head of a many billion dollar company. In his field he was famous, but this is not about fame. It was about importance, and politics. Nobody knew who Medgar Evers was, either. Except in places where everyone knew. It was clearly an assassination. It was to shut him down for agitating for freedom. C'mon.
Indeed, and although there is some anecdotal (for now) evidence his mother had a problem with UnitedHealthcare, his personal relationship with the insurance company remains unknown. More likely Thompson was specifically chosen and stalked as the sacrificial lamb for the health insurance industry as CEO of the largest health insurance company (by membership).
These 2 should have made the shorter list.
Contractors Who Built Trump Monument Say They Never Got Paid (Sam Mertens)
Impossible Foods Inc. develops plant-based Impossible People to eat that stuff. (Deb Stewart, Damascus, Md.)
We should celebrate more things the first time they happen on a Tuesday.
"The headline “100 Years of LOLitude” is by Kevin Dopart; Judy Freed wrote the honorable-mentions subhead." Just what WAS the honorable-mentions subhed? (Will keep complaining about this til I get an answer.)
“Not in a Hundred Years”
My gripe is that the headline is ALWAYS identified (in this case, "101 Years of LOLitude"), but the honorable-mentions subhed is NEVER identified -- why do I have to scroll up to be reminded what it is?
We like to make you work! I spell out the headline because there are two headlines on the page, one at the top and one at the top of the results; it's easier to say the name of the headline. Also, the second, explanatory part of the headline doesn't tend to be by the person who sent it; if that part's clunky, I don't want to blame the Loser!
I'm glad to know there's a good reason -- thanks.
Really liked Jon Ketzner’s “we’ll elect a geranium but not a woman,” and Sam’s unpaid contractors entries! Very clever.
Surely it should be West Northeast South Dakota.
About that misattributed Clarence Darrow quote, apparently when it comes to quotes about the demise of the disliked, never the Twain shall meet. Another famous one, "I did not attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it," is a double mis-. Neither Twain nor Darrow, the usual suspects, coined it.
The business of no one (we assume...) recognizing Luigi Mangione from the images released by the NYPD is actually not surprising. Could very well be because of what's called the "butcher-on-the-bus" phenomenon. It's the cognitive dissonance of not recognizing someone you know because they're in an environment or context in which you're not used to seeing them.
Interesting that Mangione was charged with second degree rather than first degree murder (among other charges), since clearly the alleged murder was premeditated and intentional. In NY, the difference is aggravating factors, such as the victim being a police officer and a number of specific other factors. The death penalty was dropped 20 years ago. And while no doubt the defense will introduce extenuating or mitigating circumstances --- and diminished capacity will likely be considered --- defending a second degree murder charge is a hard slog. Not that there won't be a whole objection or squabble of heavily salivating criminal defense lawyers (you get to choose the collective noun) willing to take on the high-profile case.
As John Weidman put it (in the mouth of John Wilkes Booth) in the musical ASSASSINS: "Murder is a tawdry little crime; it's born of greed, or lust, or liquor. Adulterers and shopkeepers get murdered. But when a President gets killed, when Julius Caesar got killed...he was assassinated."
So many good ones, I'm happy I still haven't entered since the death of SI.
Trump is awarded "Patriot of the Year" and wonders when Putin will present the award to him. Surprised that it is from the USA. Says: "OK. Who is the Joker this time."
So if one of your this week entries gets cited as a fine example for next week’s contest, do you get this week ink, next week ink, or ( as I fear) submit it again Bozo and we’ll see ink? Asking for a dear friend.
Well, obviously we don't want you to resend an entry we've already published! BUT as I noted in the Style Invitational Devotees group on Facebook, if you think that your best "noink" from Week 100 would work in Week 102, feel free to send it again.
What we don't want to do is to choose Week 100 entries /ourselves/ to use for Week 102.
As for which week your example will be credited in the Loser Stats, I leave that monumental decision to Gary Crockett, Keeper of the Stats, though I personally think crediting it toward the new contest makes sense.
I will so advise my dear friend
Not exactly sure what the gripe is about the funny farm being able to chime in on which Invite entries it thinks are funniest and/or more deserving of the Royal Guffaw. Does tend to encourage engagement which is all to the good, although I do agree, reading about someone else's choices (without annotation or explanation, in particular) is akin to watching paint dry. Suggest the Royal Couple occasionally publish its shortlist for a week along with the few, the proud, the anointed to make things a bit more sporty.
In addition to Gene's reason, we've actually been asked by the Losers not to do so, because it would mean they couldn't use the same, so far unpublished joke for a future contest.
H-m-m. First I've heard of that but then again, there would be no reason for you to mention it in passing and submissions do remain the property of the entrants. Yours is a far better reason for not publishing the short list, I suggest, than a possible tarnishing of integrity, since you're already asking to be second-guessed. So, just to be clear, once a submission is published in any official way, shape or form it is disqualified for future use --- at least as an Invite entry?
Dale, that means that we would be publishing entries we think are not quite worth publishing. Defeats the integrity of the contest.
The integrity you get automatically after 32 years. The engagement not so much. What I'm suggesting is that you merely increase the number of forced choices.
"We have simply added a device where readers can, by implication, call us idiots. We like that."
Does it not follow then, that you would be absolutely ecstatic to be called out as humorless philistines (by imprecation) for not bestowing the Royal Guffaw on some short list entries? And just think of the succor it would give the near misses (misters and non-binary). I rest your case.
Quoting Gene:
"This was called an assassination because it was an assassination. There is no other term for it. This is the definition of an assassination, from the Britannica: “The term typically refers to the killing of government leaders and other prominent persons for political purposes—such as to seize power, to start a revolution, to draw attention to a cause, to exact revenge, or to undermine a regime or its critics.
This was a highly visible, important person, and the crime was done to draw attention to a cause, and also to exact revenge."
Okay. Everyone who knew who Brian Thompson was before December 4, 2024, please reply below.
That's not the point, Sassy. He was the head of a many billion dollar company. In his field he was famous, but this is not about fame. It was about importance, and politics. Nobody knew who Medgar Evers was, either. Except in places where everyone knew. It was clearly an assassination. It was to shut him down for agitating for freedom. C'mon.
Indeed, and although there is some anecdotal (for now) evidence his mother had a problem with UnitedHealthcare, his personal relationship with the insurance company remains unknown. More likely Thompson was specifically chosen and stalked as the sacrificial lamb for the health insurance industry as CEO of the largest health insurance company (by membership).
And statistics showed that UHC had the highest claim rejection rate.