It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newsweek-Calling the President a MUSLIM!?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
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


Yes, we covered this. When you change the words used, you change the meaning. That is super. I guess the OP should be about what the cover could have said? Might have said? Because you have to change it to make it say what you want to claim it does each time. You all have.


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


That's two people that have clue what technical writing is. Still waiting to hear how that came into this. It is written in proper English. You cannot correct it, all you can do is change it. It is written exactly how it should be read. He is this kind of president - asterisk!

Keep dodging though.


IT IS A COVER.

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


It is not a sentence, it is a title. Different rules.


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


It was.


It was an idiotic attempt to push an agenda.


What agenda?


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


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


What was the agenda?




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by cindyremains

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
...
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.


If the cover were properly written, there'd be no confusion.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
The semantics and colour coding are irrelevant to the truth.

This magazine will be on the newstands etc. As I understand it, Newsweek is a respected periodical and on the newstands, the cover will work as a subliminal to anyone visiting or passing the stand, whether they get the irony or not.

Direct NLP hidden out in the open.

[edit on 31/8/2010 by teapot]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

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


What? That makes no sense at all. So an adjective/noun combo cannot be a thing? So it must be a "thing" as in Muslim or president? Are you serious? That is a stretch but ok. Which one of those things is he? Remember, you cannot extract the applicable noun without changing the text of the phrase so let's see you try.


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.


Huh? If you take out the adjectives the sentence is changed no matter what happens with the disclaimer. You know if you add even more words it will say other things too, right?


The disclaimer is what is changing the meaning, effectively nullifying the entire sentence. This has been the argument the entire time.


Right, it nullifies the entire list. I never argued that. It is how you seem to be choosing to want to read it that I guess puzzles me. So ATS is the place to post what magazine covers might say if they had different words now? Is that what I joined?

You all go ahead and discuss your conspiracy then. Please explain how Alter is secretly pushing some agenda since you cannot grasp the concept that if you do not change the words, well then it is just fine.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian

If the cover were properly written, there'd be no confusion.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by abecedarian]


Obviously not.

It is properly written. So far the only argument anyone can put forward is "well if you take out this and change where that is and whaaaaaaaa." So, here we are.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by cindyremains

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


What? That makes no sense at all. So an adjective/noun combo cannot be a thing? So it must be a "thing" as in Muslim or president? Are you serious? That is a stretch but ok. Which one of those things is he? Remember, you cannot extract the applicable noun without changing the text of the phrase so let's see you try.


No need for college level english, beginner is fine: Noun- person, place or thing. How many "things" (nouns) are in the text on the cover article? Only one "thing", one "noun": "President"; the number of adjectives is irrelevant as they all describe one "thing".



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by cindyremains

Originally posted by abecedarian

If the cover were properly written, there'd be no confusion.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by abecedarian]


Obviously not.

It is properly written. So far the only argument anyone can put forward is "well if you take out this and change where that is and whaaaaaaaa." So, here we are.


If it were properly written, there would be no need to take out this or that or have anyone whine.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Yes, look at the cover again, but first look at the Newsweek component.

The making of a
President












Just some component breakdowns to show.
What does the red signify? Does it signify anything?
How about the Red Star, almost Chinese in a way.
Red China, Red Star?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Has anyone actually read the piece in Newsweek or are we just basing decisions made on the front cover?

I imagine it will look into how the president has been made to look like a Terrorist,Coddling ,War MongeringWall Street Loving Socialistic Godless Muslim

Iam surprised they left homosexual off the list , as I've definitely scene this accusation fly around.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Has anyone actually read the piece in Newsweek or are we just basing decisions made on the front cover?

I imagine it will look into how the president has been made to look like a Terrorist,Coddling ,War MongeringWall Street Loving Socialistic Godless Muslim

Iam surprised they left homosexual off the list , as I've definitely scene this accusation fly around.

The original purpose of the thread was to discuss the cover. The article itself was superfluous.
However it now seems the thread no longer has a single purpose.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


No, I read it twice. I did leave one comment on the thread regarding the article and another on the comments.

Funny how Newsweek is such a liberal magazine, yet the comments there certainly does not seem to mean the majority of members there are.

As I said, I felt the article to be a fluff piece that does not address any of the arguments about any of the things on the cover. Or at least nothing noteworthy.

Anyway, I had some fun on the thread breaking down the message on the cover and my interpreted mistakes in it.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 





Had the editor any brains, the "*" should precede "president", not follow it.


Unless that was the editors deliberate intention all along..

IOW, saying that he is not the rightful president.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 
I think you owe cindyremainsatroll a big thank you!

Review the thread, cindy has done a lot to raise your thread count!

I think they put the asterisk in the wrong place, going on the editors political leanings.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I feel like the burgler who climbed into Inspector Clouseau's apartment, on a mission, while Clouseau and Kato, his houseboy, were in the midst of one of their periodic martial arts wars and who was inadvertently knocked through a window, out of the building, without Clouseau or Kato ever realizing that he had even been in the apartment.

Be that as it may, reading through this thread I got the impression that some posters might think that placing an asterisk * after a statement is an acceptable way of indicating irony, or that what preceeded it should be regarded as untrue.

No.

The asterisk, is a direction to look for the explanatory note at the bottom of the page, functioning much like those small super-linear numbers seen in scholarly writing, which indicate bibliographical notes.

As an orthographical conservative, I beg you, please do not start using asterisks to indicate irony. Thankyou.

And incidentally, in this witless age, irony is given far too much credit as a medium of communication. Just as cleanliness is next to godliness, so irony is next to illiteracy, in my opinion.

Over and out.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower


It does say this-who isn't actually any of these things.



That's all just matter of opinion. Personally I believe the WARMONGERING, WALL STREET LOVING and SOCIALISTIC titles to be accurate descriptions.

*********

War Loving - War in the Middle East rages on under his watch.

Wall Street Loving - One word sums it all up - BAILOUT

Socialistic - Can anyone say MANDATORY healthcare insurance?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower


It does say this-who isn't actually any of these things.



That's all just matter of opinion. Personally I believe the WARMONGERING, WALL STREET LOVING and SOCIALISTIC titles to be accurate descriptions.

*********

War Loving - War in the Middle East rages on under his watch.

Wall Street Loving - One word sums it all up - BAILOUT

Socialistic - Can anyone say MANDATORY healthcare insurance?
Someone has gotten to the meat of the cover.

Very hard to argue with what you posted!



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Uh, you put an asterisk at the end of a sentence not at the end of every single word in the sentence. I'm assuming you know that, but I want to make sure.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Irony or sarcasm.

Sarcasm being the lowest form of wit.

To me it comes off also as condescending, the same feel as the article I guess.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Yes, it was a sensationalist cover to get the attention.

I feel it could be misinterpreted though.

Anyway, thanks for the comments.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Generativist tradition in linguistics
In generativism, especially syntax, an asterisk in front of a word or phrase indicates that the word or phrase is ungrammatical.
wake her up / *wake up her
An asterisk before a parenthesis indicates *(that the) lack of the word or phrase inside is ungrammatical, while an asterisk after a parenthesis indicates (*that the) existence of the word or phrase inside is ungrammatical.
go *(to) the station
go (*to) home



Marketing
Asterisks (or other symbols) are commonly used in advertisements to refer readers to special terms/conditions for a certain statement, commonly placed below the statement in question. For example: an advertisement for a sale may have an asterisk after the word "sale" with the date of the sale at the bottom of the advertisement, similar to the way footnotes are used.

en.wikipedia.org...

BINGO!

We have a case of the latter. Problem solved. The headline composition is fine, no conspiracy, just poor English comprehension.

Something tells me it really doesn't matter though. The purpose of this thread is to keep up OP's daily pattern of partisan attacks on Obama. What sparks the conversation is irrelevant to the poster as long as the proceeding conversation fits the true purpose; keeping a negative focus on the target of the conversation. .

Is that the sound of an axe grinding?


[edited ironically for grammar]


[edit on 8/31/2010 by clay2 baraka]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join