These opening paragraphs from Wikipedia’s characteristic article on Gianna Bryant were snapped before one of the subliterate pederasts who govern such indispensable content notices that it reads like a report penned by a dunce in second grade:
Between the moment that Kobe Bryant faked his death to the very second this post was published, thirty revisions to that article have been implemented, and that’s the present result. Never mind its hilarious solecisms and punctuational abuses; she’s known for basketball skill (also, her father’s a celebrity).
Without Wikipedia, I would’ve never read that immortal quote:
Bryant played basketball, with commentators reported that she was highly skilled, even though she was only a child.
Update: That mess was mercifully deleted and its link redirected to Kobe Bryant’s article hours later.
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:13:23 -0600 From: Robert Buchanan <**********@robertbuchanan.info> To: **********@takimag.com Subject: JBB and Dr. D Message-ID: <20191227191323.GA3052@Hooper> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) To the editors, Why have Joe Bob Briggs and Theo Dalrymple been excised from Takimag's masthead? Dr. Daniels is is still contributing hebdomadal articles.
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:52:42 -0500 From: Mail Delivery System
To: **********@robertbuchanan.info Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender [-- Attachment #1 --] [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.3K --] This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: **********@takimag.com all hosts for 'takimag.com' have been failing for a long time (and retry time not reached) [-- Attachment #2 --] [-- Type: message/delivery-status, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.1K --] Reporting-MTA: dns; d609c.dimedns.com Action: failed Final-Recipient: rfc822;**********@takimag.com Status: 5.0.0 [-- Attachment #3 --] [-- Type: message/rfc822, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.8K --] Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:13:23 -0600 From: Robert Buchanan <**********@robertbuchanan.info> To: **********@takimag.com Subject: JBB and Dr. D User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) To the editors, Why have Joe Bob Briggs and Theo Dalrymple been excised from Takimag's masthead? Dr. Daniels is is still contributing hebdomadal articles.
Thence, I attempted to implicitly pay for this information via my paltry, annual donation via PayPal:
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 09:03:35 +0000 From: Mandolyna Theodoracopulos <**********@takimag.com> To: **********@gmail.com Subject: Donation X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) Thank you for donating to Taki’s Magazine. We appreciate your support. Mandolyna Theodoracopulos Editor-in-Chief
Nuts! Yet not a week later, the masthead was updated:
Whew! This publication’s least popular contributor happens to be my preferent.
Regrettably, Joe Bob (whose last article was published well over a month ago) may have quietly terminated his column at Takimag.
Yet another survey as biased in execution as results emerges from a private, foreign firm specializing in gainful disinformation:
“New research shows “flexitarian” diet growing in popularity as more adults prefer to eat meat only on occasion.”
Starving gruesomely to emaciation in your suburb or city of the first world, baizuo? Flexitarianism will save your life by permitting you to ration yourself essential nutriments, only reducing you to mere etiolation!
“NEW YORK — Cheeseburgers, steaks, and hot dogs are synonymous with American cuisine, or at least they were at one time.”
Renner cuts to the chase, immediately confirming his professionalism by opining baselessly.
“According to a new survey of 2,000 Americans, if these dishes are a common part of your diet, you’re now in the minority. Less than half (47%) of the survey’s respondents said meat is a major part of their diet.”
Not an abject sap, I’m minded to question information deficiently detailed in this article. Where were a majority of these respondents located? Were American citizens in every state or most states canvassed proportionally? What’s the specific range of their ages? How many of them reside in metropolitan areas, and in which districts thereof?
This old ruse scarcely illudes anyone anymore: feed baizuo statistics about baizuo.
“The survey, commissioned by Herbalife Nutrition, found that many Americans (23%) are adopting a ‘flexitarian’ approach to eating. This means eating mostly vegetarian foods with the occasional inclusion of meat. Another 18% of respondents said they were fully vegetarian.”
Gallup also skews their polls, but here’s another they’ve produced just a few months ago asserting that “5% of U.S. adults consider themselves to be vegetarian.” Furthermore, it predicates:
“Though plant-based diets and meat alternatives have been featured in some recent high-profile forums, including the United Nations and Democratic presidential debates, and are becoming a staple even on fast food restaurant menus, the percentage of vegetarians has remained stable over the past two decades. A 1999 Gallup survey that asked the same question found that 6% of Americans identified themselves as vegetarian.”
That’s quite a discrepancy, so why should this poll be at all rated reliable?
“So, what’s fueling this shift in Americans’ eating habits?”
Widespread dysgenics spanning four generations that have engendered plummeting IQs and attendant credulity.
“Among survey participants, flexitarians were the most likely group to say their food choices stemmed from trying to be more environmentally friendly (40%) or ethical (31%).”
Slavishly trendy, baizuo still immediately believe everything their teevees and pundits feed them — forever Boomerist cattle to their trough. Ugh! Of course, the overharvest that veganism, vegetarianism and “flexitarianism” compels is hardly sustainable, and the unintentional mass slaughter of animals eventuating from such harvests exceeds that of any abbatoir, but so long as baizuo feel righteous — and especially supercilious in their unblemished, imaginary integrity — what else matters?
“Young people are also a factor; 36% of surveyed flexitarians said they adopted their new diet because their children encouraged them to do so.”
I won’t read anything more repugnant this month. If you’re actually changing your dietary habits at the advice of your glaringly inscient, imbecile offspring, you’ve failed as a parent and a human.
“Even among those still regularly eating meat, the survey shows that more Americans than ever are willing to experiment with more plant-based food sources. In all, 71% of respondents expressed this sentiment.”
How many of them were only humoring obtrusive pollsters? Given the evidence above, this percentage is as improbable to credibly relate such a majority’s inclination as any other.
“But, what about protein? For so many of us, meat is our primary source of protein, but the results of the survey make it clear there are plenty of other ways to build muscle.”
Sure, you can also victual eggs. Without consumption of meat, one omits from their diet thirty to fifty essential nutrients that can’t be otherwise obtained.
Also, who permits these doltish hacks to initiate a sentence with a punctuated conjunction? It’s the worst common solecism known to me. Just read it aloud.
Among survey participants not regularly eating meat, 65% get most of their protein from shakes and protein bars,
To live this way is to entertain supreme malnutrition. Whenever you publicly observe some gaunt, slumped, balding, barbate, misshapen goon grimacing at his iPhone or purchasing his weekly surplusage of 400+ fruits and vegetables, you can wager reliably that his protein’s derived from some saccharine swill.
“and 56% just eat other foods known to carry lots of protein like rice,
Now this article veers into pure falsehood. I love rice, but it never contains “lots of protein.”
Why not just consume a daily allotment of plaster, if you’ve such contempt for your digestive tract?
Of course! Diurnal consumption of every baizuo’s favorite protein can nearly castrate preteen boys and ensure in men enervation for dangerously low testosterone. Thanks, but some of us still expect a functioning libido, penile tumescence and procreation.
“‘Protein is an important component of every cell in the body, helping to support healthy bones, muscles and organs,’ says Susan Bowerman, senior director of Nutrition Education and Training at Herbalife Nutrition, in a statement. ‘So whether you obtain your protein from shakes, bars, animals or plants, your focus should be on the quality of the source, to help ensure your body is receiving maximum benefit'”
She can’t help but overstate by anteriority the nutritional prominence of shakes and bars. After all, Herbalife doesn’t raise cattle, and needs to shift those units!
“Generationally speaking, millennials are the most likely age group to try out more plant-based foods,
That’s to be expected from the most ignorant generation of dupes the developed world has ever beheld.
“but across all ages more people than ever before are open to the idea.”
Oh, no overestimated percentage noting that millennials represent only 200% of all vegetarians?
“Interestingly, the survey also noted that Americans living in the West (20%) and Northeast (19%) are the most likely to frequently eat “meatless” meat.
These numbers are even more ludicrously distorted than those precedent, especially when collated. “18% of respondents [in the U.S.] said they were fully vegetarian,” but 19% of northeasterners are most disposed to eat faux flesh? If vegetarians represent 18% of the population, wouldn’t that percentage skew higher in leftist regions, where greater numbers of vegetarians are indisputably concentrated? As corporate propaganda comes, this is as sloppy as most.
“Individuals from those areas were also found to be the most open to trying plant-based foods as well (51% in the West, 55% in the Northeast).”
Yet precisely how are “plant-based foods” defined? Do these include salads, perhaps a regularly munched apple or pear?
“It’s clear that meatless meat is here to stay, with 70% of all respondents stating they believe it will continue to grow in popularity moving forward.”
We’re supposed to believe that a significant majority replied to the question of sham meat’s future popularity not with an insouciant, “Oh, I don’t know,” but positive affirmation? Sure.
“Of course, there will always be some resistant to change.
That fatuous, lordly insinuation is galling enough, but the statement is true: plenty of people, in this instance an overwhelming majority, are resistant to imprudent, unhealthy, asinine trends.
“For example, 16% of respondents said they “never” eat meatless meat.
That’s almost certainly false. I personally know only two people who’ve sampled it, both only once.
“Perhaps, though, these respondents are so hesitant because they don’t know what is inside meatless meat. Less than half of respondents (45%) knew that meatless meat usually contains soy, and only 41% knew that wheat gluten is another common ingredient.”
If so, those hitherto unaware would likely be even less apt!
“In fact, only 55% of respondents knew that meatless meat is intended to taste just like real meat. Puzzlingly, 38% incorrectly said meatless meat is grown in a lab.”
Not “puzzlingly,” but “mendaciously,” these are teetotal fabrications purposed to image for typically moronic baizuo some construct of whoever hasn’t embraced bogus beef — their mean grandfather or Richard Spencer salivating over a hamburger. “Just envision the stupid Natzees, too dumb to know that meatless meat isn’t supposed to taste like meat! If they’re so dumb, you must be real, real smart!”
“The survey was conducted by OnePoll.”
Nota bene: OnePoll‘s a British subsidiary of South West News Service whose market research consists primarily of online survey. They’ve only expanded their research to poll American, French, German, Italian and Spanish respondents in the past few years, and only do so via an iPhone app. So in light of the firm’s provenance (after Australia, the second most vegan country worldwide), the demographics who most commonly use the hardware by which they poll, Herbalife’s obviously emporeutic imperatives and the contrariety between the figures of this survey and those more reputable, as well as others which are blatantly absurd, I can’t help but speculate that this surreptitious promotion of cheap products and a slave’s diet is no more convincing than artful in its artifice.
Confabulating telephonically last night with sweet Annusya, caprice compelled me to read with her a quartet of short chapters from Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary. Tux Commander is my preferred file manager in X11, and the means by which I access most files directly. For my inattention, it was still configured to display text files with its internal viewer, which is nice but inadequate for want of textual search. Why I hadn’t months, even a year theretofore reconfigured it is beyond me, but as an expedient while Annusya received a copy of the file, I tapped F4 to invoke the editor and promptly locate the first of those four chapters.
Somehow, I’d forgotten in the intervening years since I last perused text with an editor that most salient of many reasons why pagers are preferable to editors for mere perusal — namely, Leafpad‘s cursor arrested the eye, beckoning me to type:
Anyhow, I later reconfigured Tux Commander to view all files with less via LXTerminal:
IMDb serves four functions, below ordered in prominence and priority:
- Documentation of productional data pertaining to motion pictures
- Aggregation of cinematic and televisional trivia
Those latter two functions, now distant in significance from the first, are in their neglected ulteriority often poorly performed, usually in deference to the first’s primacy. In no few pages where trivia for popular features is itemized, one may encounter one or both of the following blurbs:
These certainly are trivia, especially for their negligibility, but no less so than they are advertisements. Either Ebert and Schneider (in the mold of all popular hacks) or their publicists clearly hired someone to interpolate them among the trivia of every flick detailed or listed in their respective products. Whenever I skim these in passing, I still roll my eyes. That so many users of IMDb vote these items interesting is as much evidence of widespread dysgenics that plague the Anglosphere as is their presence of the site’s almost impossibly low standards.
If any site’s content was ever so desperate to be readapted, it’s that of IMDb — preferably for a resource as swift, spare and substantial as the private Japanese Movie Database, an exemplar for all such online databases. Shouldn’t we ask not whether this is possible, but why it’s not inevitably impendent?
Quoth the petulant pontiff:
“The third thing I take from what I said earlier, which I am slightly allergic to: ‘This is something authentically Christian’, ‘this is truly so’.”
Does anyone need a spiritual leader who speaks as reviewers of Goodreads type?
“We have fallen into the culture of adjectives and adverbs, and we have forgotten the strength of nouns.”
Hardly! This monoglot won’t assume trends pertaining to qualifiers in other tongues (be they those of preponderantly papal nations or otherwise), but Anglophones should apply nominal phrases comprehending legitimate attributives instead of qualifying nouns. In almost every instance — “lexical list” in lieu of “word list,” “electoral dates” for “election dates,” “cardiovascular disease” rather than “heart disease,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera — the utilization of a proper modifier is always more accurate, efficient, instructive and aesthetically felicitous. We haven’t “forgotten the strength of nouns;” we’ve simply misused it!
“The communicator must make people understand the weight of the reality of nouns that reflect the reality of people. And this is a mission of communication: to communicate with reality, without sweetening with adjectives or adverbs.”
This is one pluperfect paralogism. Sincere, effective communication requires adjectives and adverbs to elegantly and succinctly preserve specificity. If Frankie actually reflected rationally on this matter, he might’ve instead denounced prolixity (esp. circumlocution) or magniloquence rather than indispensable parts of speech.
“‘This is a Christian thing’: why say authentically Christian? It is Christian!”
Whyever not, when the present pope is so readily disposed to preach bogus, circumstantial, politicized, contemporary “morality” in neglect of canonical virtues?
“The mere fact of the noun ‘Christian’, ‘I am of Christ’, is strong: it is an adjectival noun, yes, but it is a noun.”
This broaches the crucial question: is the present pope a simpleton?
“To pass from the culture of the adjective to the theology of the noun. And you must communicate in this way.”
Oh, must we? Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, et al. surely sleep easy.
“‘How, do you know that person?’ – Ah, that person is like this, like that…’: immediately the adjective. First the adjective, perhaps, then, afterwards, what the person is like. This culture of the adjective has entered the Church and we, all brothers, forget to be brothers, by saying that this is ‘this type of’ brother, that one is ‘the other’ brother: first the adjective.”
Here’s the implicit burden: “never judge, for only God may judge through me. Never discriminate, so to remain an intellectual, moral and ethical slave.”
“Your communication should be austere but beautiful:”
Any writer or orator who aims to exercise both precision and concision, whether florid or otherwise, needs qualifiers.
“beauty is not rococo art, beauty does not need these rococo things;”
Are we to accept that a substantial proportion of the finest Catholic painting, literature and architecture isn’t genuinely beautiful because a papal puppet seeks to propitiate and control his most benighted followers?
“beauty manifests itself from the noun itself, without strawberries on the cake! I think we need to learn this.”
Well, I dissent: when ably authored, austere and aureate prose or speech alike are beautiful, and necessary in discrete applications and spheres. By inveighing against requisite parts of speech, pope Frank opts for a very aberrant and asinine species of verbal, lingual, and lexical veganism.
“Communicating by witness, communicating by involving oneself in communication, communicating with the nouns of things, communicating as martyrs, that is, as witnesses of Christ, as martyrs. To learn the language of the martyrs, which is the language of the Apostles. How did the Apostles communicate? Let us read that jewel which is the Book of Acts of the Apostles,”
Which translation? Look out, Frankie: some of them are awfully purple!
“and we will see how it was communicated at that time,”
That’s not terribly likely.
“and how it is Christian communication.”
Since when was any prosaic style especially Christian? Isn’t this prescriptivism contrary to Francis’ nauseatingly incessant call for mindless inclusivity, irrespective of detrimental repercussions?
Look, I’m not oblivious; this harangue is essentially the retort of one pedantic prescriptivist against another. Obviously, the holy pappy is guilty of far worse, such as the prospective canonization of a fraudulent socialist despot, didactic tolerance of jihadist barbarity, promotion of globalist elites’ migratory and economic agenda, support for popular climatic pseudoscience, and consortium with an abusive, subhuman nabob (see below).
For the past six years, we’ve beheld the outrageous imprudence of Francis on a daily basis. Evidently, his word is no more tolerable than his acts.
Theodore Dalrymple has also addressed this subject with decidedly greater civility and consideration.