It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.
What is under the ellipsis? I went to the sourced article from Slate, and poked around CNN and a few other places but couldn't find it.
DO NOT THINK THAT I AM FORMING ANY KIND OF DEFENSE. I just get really annoyed when any member of the press aids presidential bullshit in any way, but in a flip of the coin, if this turns out to be a bunch of overreaction because some meaning-changing words were omitted, I don't want that to end up creating sympathy for Bush.
On the other other hand, despite having a pretty amazing vocabulary, I still can't come up with something to connect "for you" to "in some ways romantic" that doesn't still sound like some freeze-dried ol' bullshit.
Maybe the ellipses represent one of those awkward/creepy pauses in his speech. You know, the ones where he glances around the room with that self satisfied smirk on his face, looking for a sign of approval from anyone in the damn building.
J24U said:
Maybe the ellipses represent one of those awkward/creepy pauses in his speech. You know, the ones where he glances around the room with that self satisfied smirk on his face, looking for a sign of approval from anyone in the damn building.
J24U said:
Maybe the ellipses represent one of those awkward/creepy pauses in his speech. You know, the ones where he glances around the room with that self satisfied smirk on his face, looking for a sign of approval from anyone in the damn building.
Generally preceded by a turkeybob headshake.
NAILED IT, hyuk hyuk
Ah! I have yet to see video of the quote (computer issues, I see the links) but looking at transcripts of Bush's past public speaking it would appear that the ellipsis is the convention used for precisely that reason.
Good enough for me. Just one more out-of-touch with reality quote from the President of the Privileged.
It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.
What is under the ellipsis? I went to the sourced article from Slate, and poked around CNN and a few other places but couldn't find it.
DO NOT THINK THAT I AM FORMING ANY KIND OF DEFENSE. I just get really annoyed when any member of the press aids presidential bullshit in any way, but in a flip of the coin, if this turns out to be a bunch of overreaction because some meaning-changing words were omitted, I don't want that to end up creating sympathy for Bush.
On the other other hand, despite having a pretty amazing vocabulary, I still can't come up with something to connect "for you" to "in some ways romantic" that doesn't still sound like some freeze-dried ol' bullshit.
I see what you are saying. Generally speaking, though, the convention is to use brackets to indicate editorial omissions in professional newspapers. For instance:
words [...] more words
I don't know how often journalists hold to the convention, but this is the correct form they should be using.
"If in smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind that wagon we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum Est
Pro Patria Mori."
-Wilfred Owen
J24U
Danvers, MA
February 2006
MAR 17, 2008 08:16 AM