<p>
</p>
<p>xiggi, google “hyperbole.”</p>
<p>I guess I ass-u-med the average CC reader was sophisticated enough to know what was and was not presented as literal truth. Silly me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s just another overblown mouthpiece, more erudite than Limbaugh, less entertaining than Coulter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, there’s still busy work, but nothing on the level of “You mistyped? Type the whole paper again.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d take it you’d also believe supervisors, institutions, regulatory commissions, judges, NCOs/Military officers, and customers/clients having expectations of work product/services which requires extreme attention to detail is also “busy work”. </p>
<p>If I had your attitude towards “busywork”, I’d not only have been fired from every job I’ve held, but in some cases…my supervisors/company would have been held civilly and even criminally liable by regulatory commissions/Federal authorities for my negligence of such “busywork.”.</p>
<p>In the case of relatives and friends who were soldiers or medical doctors, such negligence could have resulted in serious injuries/deaths of their colleagues and their charges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AD, how clever is that hyphenated spelling of assumed! But since you must have googled the term hyperbole, you might refrain from posting, humm, hyperbolic statements with such great regularity. </p>
<p>Thank you for the comparisons. I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh nor Ann Coulter. This means I will have to take your word for it. On the other hand, I have to admit to enjoy listening and watching the overblown mouthpiece running circles of erudition and eloquence around the other guests on one of the Sunday shows. However, a cynic might say it is pretty easy to run circles around the mental midgets (and even real midgets) or the occasional foreign prixe winning diva who are supposed to represent the other side of the table and the other side of the political spectrum. </p>
<p>To each his own. Asses included. And speaking of asses, here are a few lines you might use in case you need more description of George Will. Courtesy of Google</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do not hesitate to quote them ad nauseam in the future. Yes, that is nauseam with a A. Just as in asses. </p>
<p>Xig</p>
<p>xiggi – hate on Will?</p>
<p>Warren insists,
</p>
<p>Will (and the law) would say that a valid contract is one entered into willingly by both sides. Warren believes, God love her grasping soul, that a contract is only what I (representing “society”) say it is and if I say you have to hand over your wealth to me (“hunk”) under my own very personal idea of what is good, then tough on you. No “willingly” here. Rather, as you can see from her remarks, she will take as much of a hunk as she feel society deserves. My hunk today, Xiggi’s hunk tomorrow, your hunk next and yes, we will have arrived a social collectivist paradise where there are no hunks of anything left (the state took them all in the name of its own good and its needs) and, relief, we all can enjoy ourselves in our own expanded version of North Korea.</p>
<p>I am definitely on Will’s side, whatever the pious name-calling against him by writers useful with adjectives, but no nuance and certainly no ideas.</p>
<p>Really, Xiggi, dissing Will is very much short-sheeting your own intellect and you should stop. Or, at least, read Will on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and learn something about the social contract that Warren can never imagine. Or, failing all the above, return to guiding the hungering masses of Asia and India through the SAT guide you have been tweaking on CC for these many years – you are good at that.</p>
<p>Is this an episode of the Twilight Zone? Someone seems confused here about both my take on Will and what tweaking means.</p>