What if... (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/)

Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.

He's probably right. Such a revelation would likely not go over very well at all. Except such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband. Odd that the "liberal media" seems to give endless credence to Obama's tenuous relationship with Ayers and having also brought up Michelle's thesis before, but have said nothing about the Palin connection to AIP.

But lets not concern ourselves with what Vogler said years ago and Todd's connections with AIP. Instead, lets examine Sarah's connections with AIP: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/

Basically it chronicles AIP helping Palin go from city council to mayor. Some of those AIP cronies got a museum director fired and Palin used Chryson to get a bill killed that would have mad eit illegal for people to carry weapons inside "schools, bars, hospitals, government offices and playgrounds." Indeed, Palin had quite an open-door policy to Chryson when he needed some strings pulled.

In Palin's rise to the governor's office, she appeared at the AIP state convention and asked a former AIP member to be her campaign's co-chair. Just as well, she addressed the AIP state convention just a few months ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI&feature=related). Last year at a meeting of secessionist groups, one of which were the AIP, a tactic was mentioned to further along thier agenda:
Whichever party you think in that area you can get something done, get into that party. Even though that party has its problems, right now that is the only avenue.

Could Palin be the Manchurian candidate that Obama was hyped up to being?
She was a member [of the AIP] when she was mayor of a small town, that was a nonpartisan job. But to get along and to go along she switched to the Republican Party … She is pretty well sympathetic because of her membership.

The person who said that was Dexter Clark, who you may also know as the Vice Chairman of the AIP (http://www.akip.org/contact.html).







McCain started it, and I pray someone finishes Palin's career.

41 views and no one has commented, even to tell me I'm an idiot?

You're an idiot. :)

I would imagine that you're struggling for replies because not many people will argue against the idea that Palin is a hypocritical bint.

As long as she is white & smiles. Do most people care to look much deeper?

If you look below the surface with anyone you may find things that disturb you. Better to just accept the superficial face. Thus, you can ignore everything blissfully until your nose is rubbed in something awful. Which, of course, you can thus easily support your "person" because you "just can't believe it!" "those are outrageous lies!!" "slanderous!".

If you can get enough shallow people denying the truth long enough: your side might hold out. People just want to live in their dreamworld as long as they can.

Maybe it will even work. With the two choices (Hah!) that they believe they have? Why would you blame them?

"Do you want to drown or be burned alive?"

":eek: :("

"Come on! You've got to choose! Burning?! What an asshole! You would want to drown if you were intelligent!" :D

"Come on! You've got to choose! Burning?! What an asshole! You would want to drown if you were intelligent!" :D

Now that's the truth. If I'm ever driven to suicide I'm Virginia Woolfing it all the way!

Haha. I can totally see the republic of Alaska being *such* a world player.

It’s chock full of natural resources, inhabited by about 2/3rds of a million people, and was sold to the united states by Russia.

Motivation, little disincentive, half arsed historical justification – annexation maybe?

Apparently, that polar bear lapel pin she wears is the symbol for the AIP.

Apparently, that polar bear lapel pin she wears is the symbol for the AIP.

This one?
http://www.akip.org/images/aip-ban2.jpg

Never seen the pin you are talking about. Usually I go blind when I hear her speak. :o

This one?
http://www.akip.org/images/aip-ban2.jpg

Never seen the pin you are talking about. Usually I go blind when I hear her speak. :o

Her pins are always out of focus since her campaign handlers don't want her anywhere near cameras and reporters. She is always either wearing that star that represents having a child serving in the military or a polar bear pin.

WHO gives one FUCK about AIP? NO ONE. Thats why it is not brought up. ALSO, because she is a potential VICE president, not president.

WHO gives one FUCK about AIP? NO ONE. Thats why it is not brought up. ALSO, because she is a potential VICE president, not president.


Actually everyone who does know about it cares. It seems like no one because the media just doesn't want to report it. The mainstream media being where, basically, everyone else gets their information from. Why do people care? Because Alaska is the largest welfare state of the Union. It seems a bit ungrateful to say shit like we should succeed when you aren't out making it on your own like the rest of the 49 states. It especially seems ungrateful if a person coming from that state says shit like "more taxes equate to socialism" or "redistribution of wealth is a slippery slope to a socialist nation." Fuck that! Thats what Alaska is all about.

If I had a kid and he started saying shit like "Fuck all this food you are feeding me. Fuck these clothes you bought for me. And fuck this roof you put over my head. I'm 8 years old... I know my shit. I don't need you, this food, these clothes, or this roof." Thats when you just smack your kid. It may be anger at the spur of the moment, but there is not much more you can do. You can't starve him or have him running around naked outside to teach him a lesson. The proper parenting technique would be to explain to him why he is such dumb ass for thinking that way. But we all know kids don't listen to a word you say unless you make the experience for them very negative so every time they think about doing it again, they equate doing it to a negative consequence.

I have a feeling secessionists and fans of Palin are of the same mentality. Too stupid to understand what they are doing is really really REALLY dumb. No amount of talking logic to them will teach them anything unless you relate their actions to a negative consequence that they will pay attention to.

Alaska lowest tax burden according to The Tax Foundation:

Alaska's State/Local Tax Burden Lowest in the Nation
Since 1990, Alaska's state and local tax burden has consistently been the nation's lowest. Estimated now at 6.4% of income, Alaska's state/local tax burden is well below the national average of 9.7%. Alaskans pay $2,871 per capita in state and local taxes.

link (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/11.html)

Actually everyone who does know about it cares. It seems like no one because the media just doesn't want to report it. The mainstream media being where, basically, everyone else gets their information from. Why do people care?

I know about it, and I don't give a shit. Why don't I give a shit? Because it's more bullshit smear by association, and nothing but. Shockingly, the media, in its infinite need to entertain, hasn't seen fit to consider it worthy, but that's not saying it really is worthy. It's fucking useless, like much of the useless bullshit both parties have been feeding us since the beginning.

You want to bitch about something important, something that matters? She's given plenty of material to work with, stuff that can be directly attributed to her. Spare us the McCain'esque bullshit and use it.

Because Alaska is the largest welfare state of the Union. It seems a bit ungrateful to say shit like we should succeed when you aren't out making it on your own like the rest of the 49 states.

I'm sorry, but what the FUCK are you even basing this on? Last I checked, Alaska was a pork whore, not a welfare state. Secessionism is one thing, and a stupid thing at that, but this pretense that Alaska is the equivalent of some small child is garbage, and simply feeds into the parent mentality of dumbfucks like the Bush Administration, who think that we all should be good and grateful little children, and shut the fuck up until we are told to applaud.

Because yeah, if the money Alaska gets from the government makes it a child feeding off the parental tit, that applies to EVERY single fucking state in the union.

I'm sorry, but what the FUCK are you even basing this on?


The fact they have the lowest tax burden because of the oil industry. I'm not talking about welfare being received by the government. I'm talking about welfare as in someone other than themselves are paying something for them that other normally have to pay on their own. Thats what the FUCK I'm even basing it on. To have it so good and turn around and complain that they should have it better in their own way... yes... thats what little brats do. I see no problem with that analogy.

The fact they have the lowest tax burden because of the oil industry.

Right, no argument there.

I'm not talking about welfare being received by the government.

Exactly. These are Alaskan resources, generated by the state of Alaska, paid for by the state of Alaska, and developed by the people of Alaska. The other 49 states don't do diddly shit to develop that resource, and the government enjoys a good healthy share of that development in form of taxation. No argument there - as a state, you contribute, not just receive.

Because of that richness of resources, Alaska can afford to do those things for itself. Revoke taxes that its citizens don't like, hand out yearly payments of over $1K per CITIZEN, and so. Yeah, they do have it good. That's not the land of milk and honey, however. Ask AM - I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you about how they more than make up the difference in COL here simply on the excuse of shipping costs, and you'll find many cities more than happy to implement all sorts of "temporary" taxes for special projects to make up for that lack of state tax, as Juneau does regularly.

I'm talking about welfare as in someone other than themselves are paying something for them that other normally have to pay on their own. Thats what the FUCK I'm even basing it on. To have it so good and turn around and complain that they should have it better in their own way... yes... thats what little brats do. I see no problem with that analogy.

They aren't getting it from others. That's where the problem stems from. They think they can do it all by themselves, and the ones that actually believe it are fucking morons. Guess which oil-rich independent nation with no standing army gets invaded first?

They have it so good, because of this state. That's their argument. That's the fundamental difference made that turns it into a form of ignorant arrogance, rather than petulant childishness. The (at least the core who believes wholeheartedly in the fundamental principles), don't want any part of American government - they believe the state of Alaska can function as a nation in its own right. They don't want the handouts, or any of it.

So yeah, while this may not be childish, it is ignorant and has no little arrogance in it.

It's important to note, however, that the AIP secession movement is not taken seriously by anyone (why the fuck would they?) except for a few AIP members themselves, and their first big-named elected governor, Hickel, did absolutely nothing for them. That's how seriously their own membership takes them.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this attitude is where the whole pork mentality came from in the first place. After all, they DESERVE it, right?

Point aside, it's her husband, who isn't even a member any more, in an organization with goals meaningless to everyone except for those looking for a good soundbite.

How are the AIP doing these days, I wonder, with secession being illegal now?

They aren't getting it from others.

Actually I'd like to make the argument by connecting the dots:

A. Consumption
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_pet_con-energy-oil-consumption

Alaska is number 31 out of 51 (including Washinton DC) in terms of Oil Consumption. The aren't creating their own revenues.

B. The Enron loophole and single stock futures

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/24/enron-loophole-keeps-oil-speculation-unleashed/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stock_future

Due to the Enron loophole, regulation over oil prices was handed over to speculation in the market, cause it to rise in price giving Alaska's oil industry increasing revenue compared to a sans-loophole scenario.

C. The price of oil

http://images.angelpub.com/2008/13/462/oil-price-chart-1999-2008.jpg

Since Clinton signed the loophole into law, oil prices only surged. This kind of goes with (B).

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't just stop at the oil industry paying their taxes for them. If it were just that, then it is all within their state. But it extends to government legislation allowing the market to decide what the price of this resource they have up for sale costs. Taking this into account, you could say Alaska does it all on their own if they were just buying their own oil. But the export data says otherwise. Hell, before 2000, some of their oil was exclusively being bought by the Federal Government for reserves. In essence that is the money of those who share the heavier side of the tax burden paying for their lower tax burden.


Point aside, it's her husband, who isn't even a member any more, in an organization with goals meaningless to everyone except for those looking for a good soundbite.

How are the AIP doing these days, I wonder, with secession being illegal now?

http://www.akip.org/conv08.html

There is the video of Palin Addressing the AIP 2008 convention. I wouldn't exactly call telling people who are trying to succeed from the union to "keep up the good work" just guilt by association through her husband. I'd call that instigation. I'm sure she just said it for political reasons. But you can't really say no one takes that party seriously when you have their state Governor pandering to them.

I know about it, and I don't give a shit. Why don't I give a shit? Because it's more bullshit smear by association, and nothing but.

Guilt by association is bullshit, but when you have the Vice Chairman of the party calling Palin a member of the party, and whos officers tell people to infiltrate other parties to further the AIP agenda, it becomes very important.

snipped

You made some valid comments here, and you obviously put a lot of thought into it. I'd like to address it, particularly some of the points it raises, because it shows that you're taking the conversation seriously, but there's a problem in that this argument is irrelevant....

... not because your conclusion isn't sound, but because it's incomplete. There's some fundamental things you don't seem to understand or have forgotten about how it works.

If it were just that, then it is all within their state. But it extends to government legislation allowing the market to decide what the price of this resource they have up for sale costs.

Part of it appears to be a mistaken perception that Alaska directly benefits from that nifty loophole. It's been a point of hot contention and much stonewalling on the subject of windfall profits for the oil companies that are contracted to do this work for Alaska - Alaska wants a share, they don't want to share, and so far they really aren't, and any attempt to force it through special taxes results in great tears and special interests being used to the point of getting elected officials imprisoned.

Taking this into account, you could say Alaska does it all on their own if they were just buying their own oil. But the export data says otherwise.

The fact that the USA is the customer doesn't mean anything. This is oil, currently the world's most valuable and sought after commodity. There will always be a buyer. This is a natural advantage for Alaska, but some idiots allow it to go to their heads.

Hell, before 2000, some of their oil was exclusively being bought by the Federal Government for reserves. In essence that is the money of those who share the heavier side of the tax burden paying for their lower tax burden.

I'd like to remind you that the money Alaska gets from that oil is state revenue, funds by the state for the state. There IS indeed a tax burden, as I've mentioned, but not on the rest of the USA.

http://www.akip.org/conv08.html

There is the video of Palin Addressing the AIP 2008 convention. I wouldn't exactly call telling people who are trying to succeed from the union to "keep up the good work" just guilt by association through her husband. I'd call that instigation. I'm sure she just said it for political reasons. But you can't really say no one takes that party seriously when you have their state Governor pandering to them.

I'll take a look at that when I have a computer that works properly for it, but I'd like to point out that -despite AIP's failings- they are devoted to Alaska, and do a lot of good work for the state. If that's what she's congratulation them on ... and note that I haven't seen the video to know the context... then there's nothing inappropriate or pandering about that. As for AIP claiming her as a member when nobody else does, I think that's idiocy trying to get some credibility it doesn't deserve.

I'll take a look at that when I have a computer that works properly for it, but I'd like to point out that -despite AIP's failings- they are devoted to Alaska, and do a lot of good work for the state. If that's what she's congratulation them on ... and note that I haven't seen the video to know the context... then there's nothing inappropriate or pandering about that. As for AIP claiming her as a member when nobody else does, I think that's idiocy trying to get some credibility it doesn't deserve.


She doesn't outright say anything about their secessionist mentality. She just does the vague "patriots... you are important to us... constitution... proud... hard work..." jive. But I figured a person of her position would not encourage a party based on succeeding from the union.

<<Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.
He's probably right. Such a revelation would likely not go over very well at all. Except such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband.>>

Let me see if I have this right. You are claiming that Mrs. Palin's husband joined a black nationalist movement?

She doesn't outright say anything about their secessionist mentality. She just does the vague "patriots... you are important to us... constitution... proud... hard work..." jive. But I figured a person of her position would not encourage a party based on succeeding from the union.

Oh, lol.

Man, that's just a sucking up for support speech. They may not seem like much, and they may be a complete joke as far as their secessionist ideas go, but as devoted Alaskans, they do have swing. Like many other politicians, Palin knows that kissing a little ass here, there and everywhere with "token shows of respect" gets you places.

Being able to tell someone how worthwhile they are with a shit-eating grin on your face is a valuable political skill.

<<Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.
He's probably right. Such a revelation would likely not go over very well at all. Except such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband.>>

Let me see if I have this right. You are claiming that Mrs. Palin's husband joined a black nationalist movement?

Are you fucking joking? They were making an analogy, not saying that straight out.

Not a very apt one, though, when you consider that the AIP hasn't enlisted Iran or an quivalent, and when you consider they advocate peaceful secession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ventrman View Post
<<Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.
He's probably right. Such a revelation would likely not go over very well at all. Except such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband.>>

Let me see if I have this right. You are claiming that Mrs. Palin's husband joined a black nationalist movement?
Are you fucking joking? They were making an analogy, not saying that straight out.

Not a very apt one, though, when you consider that the AIP hasn't enlisted Iran or an quivalent, and when you consider they advocate peaceful secession.>>

The original poster may not have meant that Mr. Palin joined a black nationalist movement. That is however, what it says. For anyone who knows how to read and comprehend the English language, there can be no other conclusion drawn.
At the very least the original poster needs a remedial writing course.

The original poster may not have meant that Mr. Palin joined a black nationalist movement. That is however, what it says. For anyone who knows how to read and comprehend the English language, there can be no other conclusion drawn.
At the very least the original poster needs a remedial writing course.

If you read the fucking link before it you would know exactly what I was talking about.

The original poster may not have meant that Mr. Palin joined a black nationalist movement. That is however, what it says. For anyone who knows how to read and comprehend the English language, there can be no other conclusion drawn.
At the very least the original poster needs a remedial writing course.

It was perfectly clear what the OP meant to anyone whose horizons are broader than "omg that's exactly what he said." I may not agree with him on much, but you're being pedantic on this to the point of fucktardation.

You need to read it in the context of what was written, understand "advanced" principles like analogy and metaphor and work with it.

Palin seems to think some people who use bombs in the USA are not terrorists. Watch her dance around acting like she ... well she acts a great deal like another arrogant self loving Republican when she gives her answer.

Palin: 'I Don't Know' If Abortion Clinic Bombers Are Terrorists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hu1NeI4M1k

And McCain - well he wants to protect the bombers and murderers. For political gains maybe. He needs to get that self righteous religious vote. What a guy.

McCain votes in favor of terrorists - Twice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FXNruODaXE&feature=related

Palin seems to think some people who use bombs in the USA are not terrorists.

I don't see any way she can spin this to be a good thing. Ayers didn't kill anyone and notified people in advance of his attacks. Abortion clinic terrorists kill people, call in anthrax scares, and bomb buildings. If she says Ayers was a terrorist because of destruction of property (which is all they have on him, discounting conspiracy and all that) then at the very least these anti-abortion groups are just as guilty.

Look at this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html

It was perfectly clear what the OP meant to anyone whose horizons are broader than "omg that's exactly what he said." I may not agree with him on much, but you're being pedantic on this to the point of fucktardation.

You need to read it in the context of what was written, understand "advanced" principles like analogy and metaphor and work with it.

<<Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.
He's probably right. Such a revelation would likely not go over very well at all. Except such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband.>>

This is what the OP posted. He said imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a Black Nationalist movement. The last sentence says that such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband.

It may not be what the OP intended to write but, that is what was written.
The OP needs a writing class.

You need some help with your brain function.

<<Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.
He's probably right. Such a revelation would likely not go over very well at all. Except such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband.>>

This is what the OP posted. He said imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a Black Nationalist movement. The last sentence says that such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband.

It may not be what the OP intended to write but, that is what was written.
The OP needs a writing class.

You need some help with your brain function.

"Such a thing". Meaning something similar in nature. Not "this is true of". It was obvious what he meant, and your pedantic arguments are fucktarded.

If you read the fucking link before it you would know exactly what I was talking about.

I did read the link and I do know exactly what you are talking about. What came out in your writing however, was something different.
It had Mr. Palin joining a Black Nationalist movement. I was trying to be helpful in pointing out an error in writing.
It is nice to try to convey something in writing. This points out if it is written improperly, it can mean something entirely different than what was intended, thus distracting from what the writer was trying to get across in the first place.

"Such a thing". Meaning something similar in nature. Not "this is true of". It was obvious what he meant, and your pedantic arguments are fucktarded.


If it is similar in nature are you saying that Mr. Palin did in fact join a Black Nationalist movement?
A person needs to be able to write exactly what they mean clearly so there is no room for misunderstanding.
If they cannot do that, they are not a good communicator.

If it is similar in nature are you saying that Mr. Palin did in fact join a Black Nationalist movement?
A person needs to be able to write exactly what they mean clearly so there is no room for misunderstanding.
If they cannot do that, they are not a good communicator.

Or maybe you just suck at reading comprehension? Everyone has their own prose. Maybe you should expand the variety of media and literature you read to something beyond fox news or right-wing radio? Or is that too elitist for you :rolleyes: ?

"Such a thing". Meaning something similar in nature. Not "this is true of". It was obvious what he meant, and your pedantic arguments are fucktarded.

It says <<The last sentence says that such a thing seems to be true of Palin's husband.>>

When it says seems to be true of, it means that it is true of.
It does say what I posted.
If I said that it seems to be true that Mr. Obama joined the KKK, I am claiming that he did in fact join that reprehensible organization.

Or maybe you just suck at reading comprehension? Everyone has their own prose. Maybe you should expand the variety of media and literature you read to something beyond fox news or right-wing radio? Or is that too elitist for you :rolleyes: ?

Go to any English class and make that argument with your teacher.

Everyone calls me pedantic as though it is a bad thing. Here is a definition for you.

"Pedantic" is a word frequently used by people who don't bathe to describe people who do -- or to describe anybody else who is not as sloppy, lazy, careless and ignorant as they are.

For some reason, there are people on this Earth who believe that ignorance and dull-witted apathy are virtues. Good for them. What really amuses me is that when they read disinformative documentation written by people like themselves, they throw a fit. When they use dysfunctional software written by people like themselves, they throw another fit. Competent people make the damn world run, while these incompetent morons seem to regard themselves as a sort of divinely ordained leisure class, whose only role in life is to lie around in their own filth and whine about how they're too important and precious and creative to do anything but, well, lie in their own damn filth. Fuck 'em. Off with their heads.

Show me somebody who insists that s/he has a God-given obligation to do everything wrong, and I'll show you somebody who expects others to take up his or her slack.

http://www.everything2.com/title/pedantic

If it is similar in nature are you saying that Mr. Palin did in fact join a Black Nationalist movement?
A person needs to be able to write exactly what they mean clearly so there is no room for misunderstanding.
If they cannot do that, they are not a good communicator.

Jesus Christ, you're dense. Mr. Palin did "such a thing" as joining a Black Nationalist movement supporting secession from the US by joining an Alaskan Nationalist movement that supports secession from the US.

Every other person in this thread understood what he meant. Linguistically, "such a thing" would mean "similar in nature to", rather than "Identical in nature to". If he meant the latter, he should have written "did this thing" instead of "did such a thing".

Did that break it down into small enough steps for you? You're nitpicking over a stupidly minor point, and wrong about it anyway.

Everyone calls me pedantic as though it is a bad thing. Here is a definition for you.

"Pedantic" is a word frequently used by people who don't bathe to describe people who do -- or to describe anybody else who is not as sloppy, lazy, careless and ignorant as they are.

For some reason, there are people on this Earth who believe that ignorance and dull-witted apathy are virtues. Good for them. What really amuses me is that when they read disinformative documentation written by people like themselves, they throw a fit. When they use dysfunctional software written by people like themselves, they throw another fit. Competent people make the damn world run, while these incompetent morons seem to regard themselves as a sort of divinely ordained leisure class, whose only role in life is to lie around in their own filth and whine about how they're too important and precious and creative to do anything but, well, lie in their own damn filth. Fuck 'em. Off with their heads.

Show me somebody who insists that s/he has a God-given obligation to do everything wrong, and I'll show you somebody who expects others to take up his or her slack.

http://www.everything2.com/title/pedantic


pe·dan·tic /pəˈdæntɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-dan-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.


You are overly concerned with an exceptionally minor part of the OP communicating his idea, a part which everyone in this thread understood regardless. You're whining about a moot point, as the OP seems to have been a sufficient communicator to get his idea across to everyone except yourself. Technically speaking, you are even incorrect in the trivial point you are trying to raise. This would indicate that you are incompetent, rather than the OP.

Edit: The page you quoted seems to use pedantic to mean thorough. They are not synonyms. Find sources that fail less, or are less butthurt about being called out for whining about trite issues in the context of a larger discussion.