Well, that is the conclusion. The argument that would see the conclusion as a rational outcome is a Jabber Wookie I'ma still a 'huntin. Can't he just say "me no likie"?? Save Andrew and us heckuva lot of time writing out/ wading through his merdant prose
AA, I don't think it was just at the end, was it? I thought in the first couple paragraphs this dude was whinning about Steyn lumping all Muslims together. I tried clicking on the link, and for some reason it wants me to register again. I don't. This is all from memory.
Whining was throughout, but there was no "argument that would see the conclusion as a rational outcome". "He considers Islam unified, Me No Likie. He scorns Sharia, Me No Likie. He decries immigration as substitute for reproduction, Me No Likie". Is indeed a listing of Me No Likies, but there ain't no argument [per above] there. At least no "argument" which couldn't be just as fully characterised by the oneliner: "Steyn Book: Me No Likie". Of course, by my paraphrasing, I've left out the context of his turgidly merdant prose. And any prose which forces the turgidly merdant description "turgidly merdant" from me is really really turgid and merdant. Which was, I think, the primary point of the post......unless I'm wrong.
I don't think you're wrong (JJ may disagree with me here). Some authors are more subtle than others. He was subtle with his thesis statement, and heavy on his own points to back it up.
7 comments:
I think the argument is that he doesn't like Steyn's book.
Well, that is the conclusion. The argument that would see the conclusion as a rational outcome is a Jabber Wookie I'ma still a 'huntin.
Can't he just say "me no likie"?? Save Andrew and us heckuva lot of time writing out/ wading through his merdant prose
Now that we became Canadians all of a sudden, we should be hearing more of this verbal diarrhea backstates, too.
Ever seen Lake Louise?
AA, I don't think it was just at the end, was it? I thought in the first couple paragraphs this dude was whinning about Steyn lumping all Muslims together. I tried clicking on the link, and for some reason it wants me to register again. I don't. This is all from memory.
Whining was throughout, but there was no "argument that would see the conclusion as a rational outcome". "He considers Islam unified, Me No Likie. He scorns Sharia, Me No Likie. He decries immigration as substitute for reproduction, Me No Likie". Is indeed a listing of Me No Likies, but there ain't no argument [per above] there. At least no "argument" which couldn't be just as fully characterised by the oneliner: "Steyn Book: Me No Likie".
Of course, by my paraphrasing, I've left out the context of his turgidly merdant prose. And any prose which forces the turgidly merdant description "turgidly merdant" from me is really really turgid and merdant. Which was, I think, the primary point of the post......unless I'm wrong.
I don't think you're wrong (JJ may disagree with me here). Some authors are more subtle than others. He was subtle with his thesis statement, and heavy on his own points to back it up.
Post a Comment