Yeah, it's not like there were any links prominently displayed at the front of the article that tell the tale.
The first link is to a google search that conveys no meaning or context. The second link is a recursive link to the post. The third link finally gets somewhere, but I've lost interest, and have no clue what this blather has to do with Hummel figurines.
There are some funny bloggers on the right, but Ace sure isn't one of them. Glad you got a chuckle, Rose, but I don't see anything even smirk-worthy there.
The first link goes to a collection of links, each of which clearly states what it's all about.
More to the point, the first paragraph of Ace's piece will tell anyone who's reading that it's about a Washington Post story that used an obviously altered, possibly phony document. What more do you need to know?
More to the point, the first paragraph of Ace's piece will tell anyone who's reading that it's about a Washington Post story that used an obviously altered, possibly phony document.
First para:
Still no response from the reporter. Her refusal to comment is suggestive to me that she did in fact base her story on this absurd forgery.
Nothing about the Washington Post, and no details other than Ace thinks something is an absurd forgery.
As for the "collection of links", the poorly-written lede didn't spark enough interest for me to start plowing through those links.
Well, I looked into this a bit more. It's the latest cry of "it's a forgery" by those wishing to relive the exciting days of Rathergate. The Hummel reference is to the letterhead of the embassy memo which has been used as evidence of a forgery.
Except (oops) it's not a forgery. As reported by Flopping Aces, the memo is legit:
In short, the term “US Mission-Iraq” is how the military here generally refers to us; however, we at the Embassy simply call ourselves “the US Embassy” or, for the actual real estate on which we sit, “the Embassy compound.” As for the food-shortage notice, yes, it was a legitimate notice; however, food convoys have since begun to come in and we’re gradually getting back to normal.
Had the issue been explained, and had the document actually been a forgery with a Hummel figurehead, then they might have been funny in context. Otherwise no, not really.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
This went right from an utterly dull, nonsensical, badly written and confusing piece of boring bull-crap, to an amusing exposé of just how weirdly desperate some wingnuts are for relevance in a world that must baffle them.
If it actually had been a forgery, or had Ace actually been just kidding around, there might have been something to "get." Sadly, no.
I tend to be pretty jovial myself, even if I'm not funny (I’m not Jewish). Certainly, philosophically at least, I live by irreverence. Not too fond of poop jokes – too anal retentive I suppose - though they are doing some funny shit with talking animals.
On the blogs, IMAO’s Frank is funnier than Ace; John Rogers and Tbogg way funnier still.
I wouldn't be at all surprised (even though spell-check would have let that pass). He seldom makes spelling or grammatical mistakes.
A local pub in my home town had the following tag at the bottom of their sign: "A Public House." I always read it the other way. Maybe it was the typography, or maybe it's me.
I'll bet that after writing it his brain just adjusted and he didn't see the mistake. I'm constantly going back to a published post because I missed stupid errors that I really didn't see immediately after writing.
Why can't bloggers put the money graf right up front? Would that be so hard?
Oh there are? My bad.
The Washington Post and a bunch of bloggers published a likely forged document. Mostly, it's just amusing.
The first link is to a google search that conveys no meaning or context. The second link is a recursive link to the post. The third link finally gets somewhere, but I've lost interest, and have no clue what this blather has to do with Hummel figurines.
There are some funny bloggers on the right, but Ace sure isn't one of them. Glad you got a chuckle, Rose, but I don't see anything even smirk-worthy there.
More to the point, the first paragraph of Ace's piece will tell anyone who's reading that it's about a Washington Post story that used an obviously altered, possibly phony document. What more do you need to know?
First para:
Nothing about the Washington Post, and no details other than Ace thinks something is an absurd forgery.
As for the "collection of links", the poorly-written lede didn't spark enough interest for me to start plowing through those links.
Except (oops) it's not a forgery. As reported by Flopping Aces, the memo is legit:Now THAT'S funny.
If it actually had been a forgery, or had Ace actually been just kidding around, there might have been something to "get." Sadly, no.
Dean or Rose? Rosemary thought that the Hummel captions were funny, but expressed no opinion regarding the likelihood of forgery.
Yeah, most of us who met the junior high smartass who thought he was funny “get” Ace. Then we grew up.
On the blogs, IMAO’s Frank is funnier than Ace; John Rogers and Tbogg way funnier still.
I agree 100%. Ace has his moments, Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom is also a funny dude.
A local pub in my home town had the following tag at the bottom of their sign: "A Public House." I always read it the other way. Maybe it was the typography, or maybe it's me.
I'm certainly in no position to nic pits.