@Clarence Rosario: That's exactly how I misread it at first. Shiterate would also be appropriate for the target demographic.
The NSA would like to know your answer, too.
By Maura Johnston on That Big Study About How the Student Debt Nightmare Is in Your Head? It's Garbage
this is why 'data journalism' is the new 'objectivity' as far as being a complete scourge when it comes to, you know, journalism's ostensible job of getting the truth out there. you don't have to be *correct*—you just have to have the illusion of being correct, and numbers conveniently provide that because oh isn't math just infallible?
ugh ugh UGH. i hated 'a new study' bullshit when it was telling me incorrect things about pop music, but shit like this is even more corrosive.
Thank you for spelling blowjob in the correct, single-word format.
By flossy on Death to Negronis
Negronis and suit jackets with shorts?
Jeez, fellas. You don't have to cover ALL the greatest hits on day one.
What kind of crazy excuses did they give you for not being able to fix the bike-ports when you called to report them?
@Clarence Rosario :
A GUIDE TO COMMENTER NUMBERS, by Gef the Talking Mongoose
0-99 : Founder, supportive / undermining friend-of-friend, mom (hi, Mom).
100-999 : "Early adopter," sucker, narcissist seeking new outlet / soapbox.
1000-3000 : Unhip trying to get hip, wallflower, always-a-bridesmaid, etc.
3000-199999 : Spambot.
200000-299999 : Burner account for category 1, nostalgia user, category 2 user who can't remember password, "twitterer," "facebooker," or some other bullshit.
999999+ : Secret category. THE MACHINES.
I find it easy to believe these conclusions apply to most people in and around the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
I read comments on this site if I recognize a veteran whose writing I like.
Give me a few minutes and I'll weigh in with what appears to be an attention-seeking, overly long comment not even related to this post!