Thursday, January 25, 2007

$10, 000 to the first reader who can understand a word of this*

Good afternoon. A few days ago, I suggested you watch a CNN program with Christianne Amanpour investigating British Muslims both extremist and moderate. This attracted the attention of a not-at-all-cowardly mystery poster named "purpleXed" who has no blog but does have a Blogger account. Presumably for the purpose of leaving comments on blogs like this one.

Well, being a liberal, I'm hung up on fairness. I actually try to respect all points of view and be tolerant. So I was looking forward to enaging this guy/gal in a civilized debate, seeing what they had to say, then making my reply.

But I'll be damned if I can understand a ##$@&&%$#$ word of this, enough to get hold of for a reply. Excerpt:
It is the media that retains the rants on the oxygen mask of publicity when it accords them undeserved and unjustifiable attention on prime time without which the rantagogues are more weak than a fish without water.
Any suggestions for what I should say to this apparently deeply involved person on an issue so precious to them that they took time out of their busy day? Speaking out like this should be encouraged and rewarded, it shows they're paying attention.

I just wish I was.













*Payable at the exact instant I have $10, 000 to give away, of course.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Translation: The media shouldn't give airtime to fringe extremeists like the groups complaining about the treatment of Mulsims on "24," because it distracts from and distorts the genuinely important issues of the day - and if the media didn't give these nutbags attention, they'd wither and go away. Whee!

Anonymous said...

No, wait, got it wrong. He's accusing the CNN report of giving airtime to extremists for the blah blah blah reasons I mentioned. But he's unclear what extremists he's talking about; it appears he objects to any airtime being given to any sort of Muslim extremists at all. Having not seen the CNN program in question, I have no idea if his accusations are at all founded, or if he's unable to tell the difference between earnest investigation and simply giving extremist elements a mouthpiece through which to rant. Or if, in fact, he knee is jerking without having actually seen the program.

Ben Varkentine said...

Having seen the CNN program in question, his accusations (if they are what you say) are not at all founded.

But I think the very fact you had to re-think your translation makes my point for me.

Unfortunately, this means you will not be getting your $10, 000. I know that breaks your heart.

jeopardygirl said...

Well, I think whoever it is was trying to impress you with his/her large...vocabulary.

One bit that caught me:

It is the media that retains the rants on the oxygen mask of publicity when it accords them undeserved and unjustifiable attention on prime time without which the rantagogues are more weak than a fish without water.

If opinions are not solicited by the networks for a few weeks those loudmouths who survive on soundbites with no following will be reduced to their actual size - trivial, insignificant and unworthy.


I feel he/she could also have been referring to the (usually conservative) TV pundits who rant and rave on CNN and FOX. His/her main argument seems to be against the media, who put those with extreme views on the air. He/she seems to be saying that if there was no media demand for the airing of those views, the proponents of those views would cease to be as noticeable to those of us who choose to be informed beyond the soundbites.

And he/she were (in a sense) cussing you out because you were recommending a program where extreme views may or not be expressed. I think this person may be on the side of enlightened, informed people (such as yourself), but unable to do so in a less intellectual fashion.

(How do you like my large...vocabulary?)

Can I share the money with Corey?

Ben Varkentine said...

Laurie Anderson was right-langauge is a virus! No one can look at that and give a simple answer.

Perhaps I in turn should have been less opaque in my specifications. What I'm looking for here is: What does this MEAN, in 30 words or less.

In other words, oh baby, you know how I like your large vocabulary, but no, you can't have any money.

Sorry. Appreciate the thought, though.

jeopardygirl said...

Five words: Law Of Supply And Demand. Five more: you showed there is demand. Three more: Shame on you.

13 words, I win. Pony up, Thumper.

Ben Varkentine said...

Six words: Except that still makes no sense. Six more: What we're after here is clarity.

12 words, you don't win. Got a problem with that, you know where to find me.