September 25, 2006

"[ticked]."

WaPo quotes me, and cleans it up!

5 comments:

Hazy Dave said...

Amusing. If they're going to remove a bit of slightly scatological vernacular, why replace it with another bit of vernacular, rather than something like [annoyed] or [perturbed]? Maybe they found [blood sucking parasited] a better substite for [urinated]? What is it copy editors do, again?

I suppose it makes sense, but the surprising part is that "pissed" isn't quite acceptable in a newspaper story yet. Unless they're feigning surprise at "colorful" language accidentally uttered into an open microphone by a public figure? Or is that "reporting on a controversy" rather than "feigning surprise"? Whatever...

goesh said...

Illiterati - luv it! Ha! and I loved Bill's staged wrath too. All that was lacking in that waving hand of his was a wet cigar.

mrp said...

Ms. Althouse typed:

That doesn't mean his critics aren't right about a lot of things, but there's nothing really wrong with him getting angry like this. I assume a good part of it is that he's angry at himself for the opportunities he can now see he missed."

Lemme guess: She voted for him twice :)

Sanjay said...

How do you feel about them "cleaning it up?" Are you [ticked]?

Maxine Weiss said...

Well, I didn't vote for him once, so I don't feel his petty, childish, immature, fake temper tantrums are the least bit cute or genuine.

It shows the same lack of respect he's always exhibited.

Ego-centric as always.

Peace, Maxine

Post a Comment

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.