Anonymous ID: 22e6bf May 27, 2021, 9:39 a.m. No.13766487   šŸ—„ļø.is šŸ”—kun

>>13766245

Typos, errors, fat fingers, and Otto Correct insinuating himself and actually correcting wronglyā€¦ is one thing. Happens all the time.

 

My comment was more about news and high-profile ā€˜professionalsā€™ who increasingly appear to have no trouble using poor or confusing language. The thing I notice the most in newsprint and radio, is the dropping of important language components that would help clearly identify the actor vs. the acted upon. As if the ambiguity leaves the listener or reader confused as to WHO was actually doing WHAT, by intention. Politicians and bureaucrats must love it. This anon thinks itā€™s intentional. The few times iā€™ve confronted professionals about this, they TOO quickly brush it off as simple error but never offer to correct. Then tell me Iā€™m just a conspiracy.

 

Many of youanons notice [they] now often leave off the word ā€˜theoryā€™ when using that old phrase? [They] donā€™t call you a conspiracy theorist much anymoreā€¦ just a conspiracy. As if that still has enough magic without going the full phrase and drawing unwanted attention. But they still want to label you with a ā€˜sounds-likeā€™ pejorative.

 

Anon thinks this is at least interesting. Maybe nothing.

Anonymous ID: 22e6bf May 27, 2021, 9:44 a.m. No.13766539   šŸ—„ļø.is šŸ”—kun

>>13766258

Thank you for posting this again.

Didnā€™t save it before, but it made an impression and iā€™ve been trying to describe it, not nearly as successful as the actual visual should do.

 

Thanks again.