Contact
Subscribe


This Is A Blogpost Concerning A Science Article I Read In A Newspaper

Jun 17, 2011
By .
Humor, Science

I will begin by making an exaggerated claim which shows that I do not understand the scientific research at issue, nor indeed do I understand science at all, nor am I aware (because I hardly bothered to read the article) that it was written a year ago.

Second, I will link to and quote a portion of the article that shows the reporter is also a scientific ignoramus.

In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research "challenges".

I will follow up with an arcane reference to a British science fiction tv series that hasn't aged well, but assume readers will get because I enjoyed the show when I was a child.

Finally, I will state that the reporter's ignorant summary of the scientific research supports my moral and political prejudices, denouncing those who disagree with me as morons whose beliefs endanger the world, or society, or children, as proven by science.

At the close of my post, I will write a brief, three letter word attached to a hyperlink (perhaps "Via") through which I grudgingly admit that I did not find the article myself (because who has time to read newspapers?), but got it from a more popular blogger.

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White

26 Comments
Tags

26 Comments

  1. Ken  •  Jun 17, 2011 @8:45 am

    This is a comment which is nominally a reaction to your post or a congratulation for creating it but actually serves to promote me and what I want to talk about.

  2. PeeDub  •  Jun 17, 2011 @9:09 am

    This is a snarky comment. It does nothing to promote discussion of the subject.

  3. ZK  •  Jun 17, 2011 @9:13 am

    this comment shows knowlege of the issue at hand, bt is fll of spelling errors lacks punctuation and any semblence of propr grammer. It also ineviably paints either 'librals' or 'theists' as too stoopid to live.

  4. David  •  Jun 17, 2011 @9:30 am

    This comment takes the bait from the first comment hook, line and sinker, contributing to the inevitable thread derail.

  5. PLW  •  Jun 17, 2011 @9:45 am

    I don't understand this post at all.

  6. Dog's New Clothes  •  Jun 17, 2011 @10:07 am

    U SUCK THIS WAS DONE BETTER 5 YEARS AGO!!!!!1

    Link to old blog post: http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2006/04/07/4991

  7. Scott Jacobs  •  Jun 17, 2011 @10:13 am

    Derisive comment calling into question your credentials and authority to post on this topic.

  8. Ken  •  Jun 17, 2011 @10:21 am

    In this comment, I call out Scott Jacobs on something he said in another comment on another post on an entirely unrelated subject two years ago, and also imply that he adheres to sexual practices that mainstream America finds unsavory, while maintaining plausible deniability that I mean to do so.

  9. raptros-v76  •  Jun 17, 2011 @10:34 am

    This is a clearly failed and either hilarious or annoying attempt to claim FRIST! comment.

  10. Jeff  •  Jun 17, 2011 @11:05 am

    This is a comment from a clueless reader missing the entire point of the article. I will make random use of CAPS and people will wonder if I'm CRAZY.

  11. Jeff  •  Jun 17, 2011 @11:07 am

    I will usually follow up with another post right away to say the same thing but WITH STRONGER LANGUAGE!!

  12. Ken  •  Jun 17, 2011 @11:15 am

    This is a comment linking to a comic strip that might be relevant.

  13. LabRat  •  Jun 17, 2011 @11:39 am

    This is a comment observing peevishly that since not enough is known to weave the entirety of the topic and every possible side issue into a coherent narrative, nothing really is, or ever possibly could be, known.

  14. mojo  •  Jun 17, 2011 @11:49 am

    This is a self-referential comment – which, I must say, is quite short.

  15. Javert Freeman  •  Jun 17, 2011 @11:50 am

    You have overestimated the depth of my concern of your opinion.

  16. Joe  •  Jun 17, 2011 @12:09 pm

    Fixed that for you.

  17. bill.  •  Jun 17, 2011 @12:34 pm

    You know who else made exaggerated claims?

  18. SPQR  •  Jun 17, 2011 @12:35 pm

    Of course, you forgot that the ignorant politician making a name and a fortune for himself on the other side of the scientific controversy once claimed to have invented a ubiquitous technology single-handed based on a trivial funding request in an omnibus spending bill.

  19. Mark  •  Jun 17, 2011 @1:09 pm

    At this stage, a partia

  20. Mark  •  Jun 17, 2011 @1:11 pm

    At this stage a complete post that is clearly an extension of a partial posted less than a minute before will complain about minor editing mistake in the post and then use that to launch into a laundry list of reasons why the site is no longer worth reading.

  21. David  •  Jun 18, 2011 @7:51 pm

    This is a link to David Moser's classic 1982 story, This is the Title of this Story.

  22. David  •  Jun 18, 2011 @8:20 pm

    This is my customary response to any link to that story, which is to point out how much funnier it is when you imagine Peter Jones reading it in the same voice he used to play the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

  23. Scott Jacobs  •  Jun 19, 2011 @12:36 pm

    This is a comment expressing contempt for Ken bringing up that old comment of mine.

    This is a not-so-subtle insult, and a blatant suggestion the Ken enjoys sexual congress with dogs of both genders.

  24. Professor Coldheart  •  Jun 20, 2011 @10:27 am

    Inside joke!

  25. Al  •  Jun 20, 2011 @10:54 am

    This comment is a reply to a comment made so early in the thread that it's completely irrelevant.

  26. Dave  •  Jun 23, 2011 @10:32 am

    This is law blog comment spam.