Commenting on Cavett's Comment
In a recent post by Dick Cavett which was dated April 11, 2008, he commented on the appearance of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker and I intended to comment on Cavett’s comments and the NYTimes in general. However, comments had been closed. I guess 489 comments were enough.
At any rate, and not to let a good comment go to waste, I’m posting it here:
As I have done before, I’ve fleshed this out a bit, however that doesn’t really apply here, since it never had a chance for electrical immortality – until now.
First, in defense of Copseak, or in the particular case, military jargon. Come on, Dick, he’s general. They talk that way to each other and especially in briefings, de-briefings and any other military briefs – and even when they are only in their briefs.
By the way, “Copspeak” is not in the NYTimes’ [Alt] [Click] on-a-word thingy. A book has been written with that term as a title but as two words, and if you ask Google, it comes back asking if you meant “cop speak”, but it all means about the same thing. That form of speaking that Cavett lamented.
However, your criticism of Crocker is dead on. Who does he think he is and where does he think he is speaking? If he can’t articulate the administration’s policy to Americans any better than that, how in the hell is he suppose to do that to foreigners?
Finally, why isn’t the [Alt] [Click] on-a-word thingy turned on at this site. Come on, NYTimes, it’s Dick Cavett. Of all the pompous, articulate opinion writers you got, Mr. Cavett needs to have his words clicked. I had to go to another opinion, activate the [Alt] [Click] on-a-word thingy, and then copy and paste words from Mr. Cavett’s post to get not only their meaning but how they sound. That’s so last century
At any rate, and not to let a good comment go to waste, I’m posting it here:
As I have done before, I’ve fleshed this out a bit, however that doesn’t really apply here, since it never had a chance for electrical immortality – until now.
First, in defense of Copseak, or in the particular case, military jargon. Come on, Dick, he’s general. They talk that way to each other and especially in briefings, de-briefings and any other military briefs – and even when they are only in their briefs.
By the way, “Copspeak” is not in the NYTimes’ [Alt] [Click] on-a-word thingy. A book has been written with that term as a title but as two words, and if you ask Google, it comes back asking if you meant “cop speak”, but it all means about the same thing. That form of speaking that Cavett lamented.
However, your criticism of Crocker is dead on. Who does he think he is and where does he think he is speaking? If he can’t articulate the administration’s policy to Americans any better than that, how in the hell is he suppose to do that to foreigners?
Finally, why isn’t the [Alt] [Click] on-a-word thingy turned on at this site. Come on, NYTimes, it’s Dick Cavett. Of all the pompous, articulate opinion writers you got, Mr. Cavett needs to have his words clicked. I had to go to another opinion, activate the [Alt] [Click] on-a-word thingy, and then copy and paste words from Mr. Cavett’s post to get not only their meaning but how they sound. That’s so last century
posted by scout29c at 7:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home