Newsweek-Calling the President a MUSLIM!?

Originally posted by abecedarian
This is a question of semantics and ordering, not noun-adjective relationships. Oh wait, maybe it is....

It is both.

If we wanted to be "technical", the only "things" the disclaimer could potentially be applied to are "Muslim" and "President" as those are the only two words listed which can be used as nouns; the other words are not things but rather describe "things": adjectives. However as "Muslim" is used as an adjective it is also not subject to the disclaimer thus resulting in the only possible interpretation that Obama is terrorist-coddling, warmongering, wall-street-loving, socialistic, godless and muslim and is not president.

Way to miss that. It is a list of adjectives that have only one choice of noun to apply to - president. It does not say "he is president - asterisk!" it says "he is THIS KIND OF president - asterisk!"

Like I said, is he a Martian president or not? Is he a Kenyan Martian president or not? How many adjectives do I need to include for your understanding of all this to start making sense?

The cover would be more appropriately written:

The making of a terrorist-coddling, warmongering, wall-street-loving, socialistic, godless, muslim* president.

*actually, he isn't any of these."

No because when it is included at the END OF A STATEMENT - it applies to the statement. When you move the asterisk forward you seclude it to that word or phrase it immediately follows. That would have read that only Muslim had the asterisk when that would be stupid as it is written correctly the way it is.

Originally posted by cindyremains

Originally posted by abecedarian
...
The cover would be more appropriately written:

The making of a terrorist-coddling, warmongering, wall-street-loving, socialistic, godless, muslim* president.

*actually, he isn't any of these."

No because when it is included at the END OF A STATEMENT - it applies to the statement. When you move the asterisk forward you seclude it to that word or phrase it immediately follows. That would have read that only Muslim had the asterisk when that would be stupid as it is written correctly the way it is.

Okay, I'll give you part of that; there should be asterisks after each item in the list. Therefore, the cover should've been written differently as the way it was written, the only "thing" in the list was "president" and thus the only thing able to be disclaimed.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by abecedarian]

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by cindyremains
Obama is a Martian president. Obama is a reptillian president. Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Hawaiian shapeshifter president. Obama is president.*
*who isn't any of these things.

You tell me, is Obama any of the things I listed or not?

There. I made it more accurately reflect the issue.

Then failed to address the question still.

On the cover, any one of those adjectives could be used alone with "president" as could "president" be used alone.

Um...sure. If you take it out of context and ignore the other words but look -[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f4ac382fbe9b.jpg[/atsimg] There they are.

Now, how would you interpret the disclaimer?

The same way. He is not any of those things. He is not a Martian president. He is not a reptillian president, etc. Are you starting to see how adjectives work when you include them?

If you want to pretend words are not there and take things out of context, how about you just ignore the disclaimer? That seems like a better made up conspiracy to explore.

Originally posted by abecedarian


Okay, I'll give you part of that; there should be asterisks after each item in the list. Therefore, the cover should've been written differently as the way it was written, the only "thing" in the list was "president" and thus the only thing able to be disclaimed.

I am not sure what you are getting at with your "thing" comment. It should not be written any other way. More people should learn proper grammar but im sure it will only take 20 minutes before someone on TV uses "I" wrong to sound smart. Such is the culture in America. If you wish it were written at a more elementary level so that more people could understand it, that is cool. I wish more people were smart enough to read.

Originally posted by cindyremains
....
Like I said, is he a Martian president or not? Is he a Kenyan Martian president or not? How many adjectives do I need to include for your understanding of all this to start making sense?

I understand why it makes sense to you as I understand colloquial writing styles. However, in technical writing, your argument wouldn't stand.

Originally posted by abecedarian
I understand why it makes sense to you as I understand colloquial writing styles. However, in technical writing, your argument wouldn't stand.

Oh?

What does technical writing have to do with magazine covers?

reply to post by cindyremains


Alright-

The making of a

Terrorist Coddling
War Mongering
Wall Street Loving
Socialistic
Godless
Muslim

or

The making of a

Terrorist Coddling
War Mongering
Wall Street Loving
Socialistic
Godless
President

The cover is NOT written in proper English, it is written in a half thought out technical or pseudo English.

IT IS A COVER.

If you think this is proper english, where is the commas and period.

Please do not even attempt to argue this was formatted properly.

It was an idiotic attempt to push an agenda.

Just as the article was (comma) period (period)

[edit on 31-8-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]

Originally posted by cindyremains
...

On the cover, any one of those adjectives could be used alone with "president" as could "president" be used alone.

Um...sure. If you take it out of context and ignore the other words but look -[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f4ac382fbe9b.jpg[/atsimg] There they are.

Now, how would you interpret the disclaimer?

The same way. He is not any of those things. He is not a Martian president. He is not a reptillian president, etc. Are you starting to see how adjectives work when you include them?

If you want to pretend words are not there and take things out of context, how about you just ignore the disclaimer? That seems like a better made up conspiracy to explore.

Exlcuding the adjectives does not invalidate a thing as the text then would read "The making of a President* (disclaimer: *who isn't any of these things)." Yes, grammatically incorrect as there is now an issue with number agreement, and ending a sentence with a prepositional phase is a no-no. However, you can't ignore the disclaimer as that modifies the text's meaning. We are therefore left with the implication he is not president.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by abecedarian]

I'm suprised nobody has brought up the structure of this page based upon colors.

Separate out the red from the white and analyze it that way. Makes one heck of a statement when you do.

Originally posted by abecedarian
Exlcuding the adjectives does not invalidate a thing as the text then would read "The making of a President* (disclaimer: *who isn't any of these things)."

That is absolutely correct!

You win a prize! I thought we just covered this though?

Yes, if you CHANGE WHAT IT SAYS, it will indeed say something different. If you took out the adjectives and left the disclaimer, that would be a whole other statement. If you added "antichrist" that too would be a whole different statement.

Yes, if you edit it, change what it says, it will say something different. Good job.

Yes, grammatically incorrect as there is now an issue with number agreement, and ending a sentence with a prepositional phase is a no-no.

What is the number agreement issue?

It is not a sentence.

However, you can't ignore the disclaimer as that modifies the text's meaning.

But you can ignore the words you want to ignore in order to make it say something else?



[edit on 31-8-2010 by cindyremains]

reply to post by Hefficide


Dangit!

You just killed my THREAD.

I also caught that right away, but I was having FUN!

Star for you.

edit to add-

BUT wait!

The disclaimer is also in red, so that means it can only apply to the red things.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]

Originally posted by cindyremains

It is amazing how many threads get started lately and the OP has to switch topics by the 5th page because...

maybe the topic was changed because trolls like you changed it, by showing up to rudely argue the semantics of how he interpreted it,

he wanted to present the cover and get a discussion, instead he got insults from two trolls like you claiming he doesnt know how to read,

like it matters how you feel about his comprehension abilities, that should be off topic, the topic is the cover of newsweek not how he read it. hence he ends his OP with a ?question mark.

grow up.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Your thread was dead when you thought you read something correctly but did not. But do tell, what do you suppose the nefarious color coding really means? Seeing as how the author is an Obama supporter, thinks birthers are nuts, and is a columnist and editor, not journalist just what do you suppose it means?

Let's get to it already. What is the conspiracy here aside from you not reading it correctly? What made this ATS worthy?

Originally posted by cindyremains

Originally posted by abecedarian
Exlcuding the adjectives does not invalidate a thing as the text then would read "The making of a President* (disclaimer: *who isn't any of these things)." Yes, grammatically incorrect as there is now an issue with number agreement, and ending a sentence with a prepositional phase is a no-no....

What is the number agreement issue?

It is not a sentence.

The "number agreement issue" comes from the sentence having only one thing- "President", and the disclaimer referencing multiple things.

However, you can't ignore the disclaimer as that modifies the text's meaning.

But you can ignore the words you want to ignore in order to make it say something else?

Were it not for the disclaimer, the sentence "The making of a President" is
not changed, nor is it changed if the adjectives are included. The disclaimer is what is changing the meaning, effectively nullifying the entire sentence. This has been the argument the entire time.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by cindyremains]

[edit on 8/31/2010 by abecedarian]

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

"The making of a terrorist-coddling warmongering wallstreet-loving socialist godless muslim president"

Arson Murder and Jaywalking

Calling the President a MUSLIM!?

I Take Offense at that Last One

Fun to see tropes in action.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by LordBucket]

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


Well, initially I did want to only talk about the cover.

But then I went and re read the article and THEN the comments.

Woo boy, this is ONLY going to make everything they bring up totally back to the table.

Just take a gander at the comments.

Originally posted by cindyremains
Let's get to it already. What is the conspiracy here? What made this ATS worthy?

Editors and journalists dumbing down civilization with ambiguous text.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by abecedarian]

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
maybe the topic was changed because trolls like you changed it, by showing up to rudely argue the semantics of how he interpreted it,

Then you are going to have to show me where I brought up abortion because I swear that was the OP changing the topic while I was and am still discussing the subject of the OP. Please set me straight.

he wanted to present the cover and get a discussion, instead he got insults from two trolls like you claiming he doesnt know how to read,

Because he apparently does not know how to read. As a result of that, ATS' front page had this interesting sounding thread that turned out to be a huge let down. As long as his ignorance lead to suckering me in to read, I felt my opinion was fair game as well. You know, my opinion on the subject of the thread before someone (not me) brought up abortion?

like it matters how you feel about his comprehension abilities, that should be off topic, the topic is the cover of newsweek not how he read it. hence he ends his OP with a ?question mark.

grow up.

Maybe you need to read the OP again. He specifically asks a question based on his failed reading of the magazine cover. I addressed that question. It was silly because if he read the cover correctly, he would not have asked it.

I see you did not bother to address the topic of the thread though...just me.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Now the real fun starts...

The colors used here have powerful and opposite psychological effects upon the reader.

The people who designed this cover weren't grammatically inept at all. But they are pretty proficient in subliminal suggestion.

reply to post by LordBucket


I knew exactly what they were getting at with the cover, but one had to think about it.

I know it is a advertising gimmick to get people to take it off the stands.

I think it hurts the president more than it helps, especially after reading the article.

It reads like another Journ O List piece. Totally condescending and frivolous. Does not address any of the issues really, just rehashes the same boring rhetoric from the elitist sycophant media that helped Obama get elected in the first place.

Not one thing this guy does, except for few and far between, does the liberal media hold his feet to the flames.

Oh well, I had fun with the thread so far.