Ah here, that’s a bit sexist. I’m fairly sure at least one of the Una haterz is a woman.
And a few more might be gender fluid
To be honest they seem more bewildered than angry.
Indeed. I’m a dyed in the wool, counter cultural ,right-on pinko on social matters- If somebody knows it could they please post the (presumably existing) compound word in German that describes a simultaneous feeling of cringe, horror and mild amusement when I read most of her output.
I’m perfectly happy to criticise a journalist on their writing point of view etc and I think some of mullalys work is utter drivel that I can’t understand its publication but I try to base my opinion on what’s written and how it’s written.
the piece linked yesterday was by an unknown American writer on a topic that is pretty unremarkable & tired at most. The only relevance in posting it here seems to be she’s a she.
The review posted of the piece is just a series of rants and as I said based on the writers hatred rather than what was written ,didn’t see the point yesterday, still don’t today.
I took that linked piece from yesterday to be more of a pop at Millenials/PC obsessed liberals.
I suppose each of us sees it from our own particular angle!
Naw just thought it was a piece of shit posted in a newspaper.
Una decrees that the 42% of US women who voted for Trump are “ignorant”.
So much for sisterhood.
Given that only just over 50% of the population are female, idiocy seems to be pretty evenly distributed and that I’d estimate that at least 99% of the human race are ignorant, I’d say that’s an understatement, but then, what do I know?
Didn’t realise that ‘so many’ were being terrorised in America? Has anyone heard anything on this!
There have been a few claims most of which turned out to be fake, any real violence has come from the anti Trump side
As usual Una is completely totally and utterly wrong, fair play to her for making a living from this BS, the rest of us have to work
One of the paragraphs is headed ‘Click-Bait Drivel’ - thought for a second she was test-driving a new name for her column.
Another clanger in the Indo
[Solar-powered Canadian houseboat washes up on *Canadian beach * (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/solarpowered-canadian-houseboat-washes-up-on-canadian-beach-35214275.html)
A makeshift solar-powered houseboat has washed up on an Irish beach after apparently drifting across the Atlantic Ocean from Canada.
Weird snake metaphor. Also parallel planes aren’t uneven, and its planes, not plains. However, my gripe about Una is not that she can’t write (although she can’t), it’s that she’s the vicious guttersnipe that she accuses everyone else of being.
But plains are macroscopically flat expanses of grassland, which is also a decent description of playing fields, so the actors might indeed be on parallel plains. Also, given the effect of soil compaction by the wheels of the lawnmowers used to maintain them, playing fields are always at least slightly uneven, even disregarding damage caused by studded boots,
Now ordinarily, playing fields would be coplanar, if we were to ignore the earth’s surface curvature (some people soon to be appointed to high political office might not even realise that this last point is a simplification ) rather than parallel, but they could reasonably be parallel (at least if extended), if one were to be located, for example, on the roof of a skyscraper in New York and the other at ground level, in which case the apparent anomaly would be resolved.
The separation of several light years is, on the face of it, more problematic.
However, let us consider a person navigating from the rooftop playing field in Manhattan to one a considerable distance from it. For the sake of argument and to give ourselves plenty of space to work, we will locate this playing field in Perth, Western Australia, the most distant large city from New York. Now, if our hypothetical navigator or commentator, in attempting to travel from one to the other and after taking the gold plated elevator to street level, had lost his or her bearings (as poor Una so clearly appears to have done), then rather than travelling along a great circle, that being the shortest route between two points on the surface of a sphere, he or she might set off at some angle to this bearing and, in so doing, trace a kind of helix along the surface of the globe, before reaching the destination, a bit like a very large and tightly wound version of those concertina like globular lamp shades. If the offset were small enough, this journey could indeed extend over several light years, thus solving our conundrum.
Exercise for the student.
(a) discovered a novel, geometrically elegant and uniquely eloquent description of the current state of American politics?
(b) written a load of drivel?
Protractors may be used. Do not attempt to write on two sheets of paper simultaneously.
Yes. Yes, I’m sure that’s what Una was getting at.
N.B. No matter what direction you set off on Earth you’ll travel in a Great Circle unless you continually change direction. But supposing you could wind your way around in some sort of helix. Several light years – let’s call it four – is a trillion Earth circumferences. It would be quite hard to miss Perth that many times. If we drew that many meridian lines they’d be spaced only 0.04 millimetres apart at the equator. Una may not have realised this. Alternatively she may have been treating Perth as an ideal mathematical point, and this is truly precision journalism after all.
Just can’t see beyond your geometro-normative cis-grammatical preferences, can you?