Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Monday, February 01, 2010

The Most Brilliant Blog Entry Ever Written!

I found this blog's brilliant...the comments are even better...follow the link and read them all!

This is the title of a typical incendiary blog post
Posted by Chris Clarke on January 24, 2010

This sentence contains a provocative statement that attracts the readers’ attention, but really only has very little to do with the topic of the blog post. This sentence claims to follow logically from the first sentence, though the connection is actually rather tenuous. This sentence claims that very few people are willing to admit the obvious inference of the last two sentences, with an implication that the reader is not one of those very few people. This sentence expresses the unwillingness of the writer to be silenced despite going against the popular wisdom. This sentence is a sort of drum roll, preparing the reader for the shocking truth to be contained in the next sentence.

This sentence contains the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.

This sentence claims that there are many people who do not agree with the thesis of the blog post as expressed in the previous sentence. This sentence speculates as to the mental and ethical character of the people mentioned in the previous sentence. This sentence contains a link to the most egregiously ill-argued, intemperate, hateful and ridiculous example of such people the author could find. This sentence is a three-word refutation of the post linked in the previous sentence, the first of which three words is “Um.” This sentence implies that the linked post is in fact typical of those who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence contains expressions of outrage and disbelief largely expressed in Internet acronyms. This sentence contains a link to an Internet video featuring a cat playing a piano.

This sentence implies that everyone reading has certainly seen the folly of those who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence reminds the reader that there are a few others who agree. This sentence contains one-word links to other blogs with whom the author seeks to curry favor, offered as examples of those others.

This sentence returns to the people who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence makes an improbably tenuous connection between those people and a current or former major political figure. This sentence links those people and that political figure to a broad, ill-defined sociodemographic class sharing allegedly similar belief systems. This sentence contains a reference to the teachings of Jesus; its intent may be either ironic or sincere.

This sentence refers to a different historic period, and implies that conditions relevant to the thesis of the blog post were either different or the same. This sentence states that the implications of the previous sentence are a damned shame. This sentence says that the next sentence will explain the previous sentence. This sentence contains a slight rewording of the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.

This sentence contains an apparent non-sequitur phrased as if it follows logically from the reworded thesis of the blog post. This sentence is a wildly overgeneralized condemnation of one or more entire classes of people phrased in as incendiary a fashion as possible which claims to be an obvious corollary to the thesis and non-sequitur.

This sentence proposes that anyone who might disagree with the wildly overgeneralized condemnation is, by so disagreeing, actually proving the author’s point. This sentence explains that such people disagree primarily because of the author’s courageous and iconoclastic approach. This sentence mentions the additional possibilities that readers who express disagreement with the wildly overgeneralized condemnation are merely following political fashion or trying to ingratiate themselves with interest groups. This sentence is a somewhat-related assertion based in thoughtless privilege and stated as dispassionate objective truth. This sentence explains that if the scales would merely fall from those dissenting readers’ eyes, they would see the wisdom and necessity of the author’s statements.

This sentence invites readers to respond freely and without constraint as long as those responses fall within certain parameters. This sentence consists of an Internet in-joke that doesn’t quite fit the topic.

[This parenthetical sentence was appended some time after posting as an expression of gratitude for the post’s many visitors and an apology that server overload has prompted the owner’s closing of comments, at least for the time being.]


this mispunctuated internet acronym expresses the idea that the commenter could not be bothered to read all of the words you have decided to post

Posted by Sven DiMilo on 01/24 at 08:44 PM

This sentence consists of a single word all-caps exclamation expressing the commenter’s mistaken assumption as to the numerical order of his comment.

Posted by Arvind on 01/24 at 09:33 PM



Posted by Bill on 01/24 at 09:38 PM


I never meta-incendiary blog post I didn’t like.

Posted by Rob G on 01/24 at 09:42 PM


=v= This comment makes its exasperation manifest. It careens quickly into pet peeves that have nothing to do with the post, focusing instead on generalizations about women, races, bicyclists, and an ethnicity described with an adjective used as a noun. A coded racist remark is added, followed immediately by accusations of a “race card” being played.

In summary, disagreeing with this comment to any degree is censorship, which is typical for you and your misdefined 19th-century agenda.

Posted by Jym on 01/25 at 03:37 AM


This comment comes to the defense of the original blog post’s author with a zeal that is unsettling to behold.

Posted by Callan Bentley on 01/25 at 05:23 AM

This comment misreads one of the previous commenter’s comments and wonders why on earth he has posted something so off-topic as a rant about women’s bicycle races, and wants to know about this “race card” he thinks everyone is playing - what is it? Some kind of betting pool on the Tour de France?

Posted by bev on 01/25 at 08:37 AM

This comment contains Internet buzzwords of approval (FTW, made of awesome) in uncertain syntax, along with one or more links to the commenter’s totally unrelated get-rich-quick scheme.

Posted by Larry Hogue on 01/25 at 11:09 AM

This comment takes issue with the first sentence of the blog post and goes on for quite a while making it clear that the commenter didn’t read any further.

Posted by Bob the lurker on 01/25 at 11:17 AM


This comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this blog post but is actually a spam comment disguised as a topical comment about online marketing.

Posted by Hilary on 01/25 at 11:34 AM


Incendiary blogging incentivizes blog traffic.

Or, put another way:

She sells screeds by the sea shore.

Posted by omegapet on 01/25 at 11:58 AM

This comment is a scathing attack on a commenter above that basically amounts to bringing an ongoing fight here from another site.

Posted by This handle is anonymous on 01/25 at 01:52 PM

This comment is spam and does not even pretend to be topical. It is written in Russian so I’m not even sure if it is a sentence or not, but I’m pretty certain it’s a list of 238 links to porn sites. Somehow, it made it past the spam filter.

Posted by James on 01/25 at 02:15 PM


This comment attacks the post author by using the phrase “ad hominem” incorrectly.

Posted by Misleading Pseudonym on 01/25 at 02:29 PM


This is not a comment.

Posted by blf on 01/25 at 03:50 PM

This comment addresses a different blog entry and was posted here in error.

Posted by Reb on 01/25 at 04:46 PM


this comment goes on for far too long in a manner only tangentially related to the subject, frequently veering into personal details of the commenter’s life that were really better not shared in a public forum.

Posted by K. Signal Eingang on 01/25 at 04:46 PM

This comment nominates PZ Myers for a poll he is not a part of.

Posted by Tortorific on 01/25 at 04:52 PM

This comment agrees with the blog but worries that it may send the wrong message to those that are undecided.

Posted by PeterM on 01/25 at 04:59 PM

This comment notices several puney spelling and grammatical errors in the previous comment’s, then goes on at length about how misuse of the English language annoys the poster more than incendiary blog postings.

Posted by D-Dave on 01/25 at 04:59 PM

This comment agrees with the content and the need to highlight the issue but thinks that presented the way it has been makes us all look mean.

Posted by PeterM on 01/25 at 05:02 PM

This comment alludes to Muphry’s law and takes the previous reply to task for its own misspellings and grammar errors, completely oblivious to the fact that they were clearly intended as a joke.

Posted by Cath Lawrence on 01/25 at 05:04 PM

This comment triggers Godwin’s Law.

Posted by RodeoBob on 01/25 at 05:06 PM

This comment takes issue with the above commentor’s pointing out spelling and grammatical thus vearing the comment thread further off topic.

Posted by Cappy on 01/25 at 05:07 PM

This comment congratulates the author of the blog post on being willing to say what everyone is thinking, emphasising the large number of people who agree with the author whether they know it or not, while explaining that the vast numbers of knowledgable and authoritative figures who disagree are part of a vast, pointless conspiracy.

This sentence descends into vitriolic attacks on the aforementioned authorities and blames them for unrelated or possibly nonexistent atrocities.

Posted by Davidpj on 01/25 at 05:09 PM

This comment attacks the post author by using the phrase “ad hominem” incorrectly.

This comment attacks the commenter by using the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly.

Posted by RodeoBob on 01/25 at 05:09 PM

This comment indicates that I have left a message simply due to the presumed future epic-ness of this thread

Posted by Damian on 01/25 at 05:12 PM

This comment gives a link to a YouTube video which is proffered as an excellent example of the thesis of the post, but, is actually only tangentially so at best.

Posted by Biff on 01/25 at 05:15 PM

This comment has been deleted by the author.

wait… what?

Posted by D-Dave on 01/25 at 05:15 PM

This comment demands information that is easily googlable and completely off topic, and castigates the post author for not presenting “both sides”. It then goes on to make implied death threats and ends with either “I’m praying for you” or “Jesus Loves you”, possibly in all caps.

Posted by Lou FCD on 01/25 at 05:17 PM

Page 1 of 20 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

1 comment:

Cecil Moon said...

Yeah! What they said.