Or so I'm beginning to realize. On an October 11 post I wrote "Your Constitutional Right to Uninformed Snark" which was about someone who goes by "Barbra"-did she get Ms. Streisand's permission for stealing her spelling?-who tried to make me look silly by claiming that I had on my previous post "What Does OWS Want? Part 2" provided false information about a list of demands for Occupy Wall Street at OccupyWallStreet.org. She claimed that I represented this list of demands as the official demands of OWS a and was therefore misrepresenting it when I had quoted from the writer verbatim who stated this was just his opinion and there is no official list of demands.
For my answer to her shooting first and actually reading my post later please see
For the original piece that she was knocking see
What's interesting is that this post became one of my most read ever.
For the original list of demands see http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
All in all I wish Barbra no ill will, she got me another post, appreciate anyone who can do that for me. However, after the comments I got from some other snarky reader-though they didn't read very much- I'm beginning to see a pattern.
Snarky people are very impressed with themselves. They love to write comments that show up a writer for basically kicks I guess. They have no constructive point but they somehow take pleasure in making their pithy little comments that they imagine make you look silly. They have attitude and delight in calling people out. What they don't have, apparently, is basic reading comprehension skills. I have no idea how they passed those tests that you had to fill in the circles for back in 5th grade.
For after the snarky Barbra we got a new comment from someone who goes by the name "anicklesworthfromthepeanutgallery." That is a good name for them although what they threw is far from a nickle. It wasn't even a penny. The name of this piece they commented on was about the Sunday arrest on the Supreme Court steps of Cornell West. To start the piece I posed the question of whether Cornell West will prove to be the "Rosa Parks of the Occupy Wall Street" movement"
" An arresting development indeed, and may make West a kind of Rosa Parks. It certainly ups the visibility of the movement which is good, it was not smart to have arrested him. Knowing West he probably wouldn't accept this designation and it may not be the best one-in theory the Occupy Wall Street Rosa Parks was a Californian woman who due to the protests, some banks chose to let her keep her home. What someone like West does is increase the OWS profile."
I think by this paragraph it is clear that I was drawing an analogy right? Not as clear as you might think... Take a look at what peanutgallery has to add to the discussion:
"Rosa Parks was a Californian woman who due to the protests, some banks chose to let her keep her home." They quote my analogizing this Californian woman to Rosa Parks and criticize me for mistaken her for the real Roas Parks.
'Rosa Parks is a central figure in the Civil Rights movement. She is the woman who refused to give up her seat to a white customer on a Montgomery, Alabama bus 1955 that led to the Supreme Court ruling segregation Unconstitutional. Ms. Parks passed away October 24,2005 in Detroit, Michigan."
"Get the key facts straight. An error of this magnitude completely undermines any credibility you may have with the folks in tin foil hats."
Yes not so shiny nickel, I appreciate your looking out for my credibility! Clearly you have a lot of credibility in your life. I don't know what this allusion to "folks in tin foil hats" is about either. Maybe that's a shot at the movement as a whole-ie, he's a Right wing dolt.
But it seems clear that the more snarky you are the less able you are to comprehend simple sentences. Peanuts you are welcome to read my blog any time but you might be happier over at Firedoglake where snark is king and facts don't matter too much.