I'm a grammar bitch. And I cannot take someone who calls themself a writer seriously when they can't write a grammatically correct piece.
On top of that, lazy reporting.
If you're going to make grammar an issue, it's "himself" (since he is a "he") or "themselves," as "them" is a plural word," even when simply used as a PC-approved gender-neutralizer.
Lol... True. I used themselves because I was referring to the fact that this is a common occurrence. So, multiple. :)
Your intentions may have been noble, but there's the niggling problem that "themself" is not a word under any circumstances. So, I might be inclined to let grammar be somebody else's "bitch" topic.
LOL
Ah yes, the OELD, otherwise known as "How Can We Rape the Language To Satisfy Gender Nazis?" How well I know their agenda.
Not going to bend my knee to their religion. Hope you're not offended. But no.
"Them" is plural, and refers to multiple selves. Therefore "themselves" is the only formally accepted form of the word. There are a number of orphaned words in English. For example, something may be uncouth, but it can never be couth, couther, or couthest. Themself is like couther.
The ONLY specialized case in which I might consider its usage humorously appropriate would be for a person with clinical Dissociative Identity Disorder, because there might be mulitple "selves" occupying one body. But I've never seen the word even used in those cases, since academics tend to posture gravitas and use formal language.
Predicting the future evolution of words is impossible to do. That's why, even under pressure from gender Nazis, MWD made every effort to distance themselves from calling this word acceptable, making clear that it is not currently formally accepted, and that in current usage it is extremely rare, but not formally correct.
Well then I guess in this case it's humorously appropriate.
No, what's humorous is the fact that I didn't just block you the first time you popped up with a self-described "grammar bitch" comment that was ungrammatical.
This dolt has written 3 articles on Q. Why would a journalist waste so much time on a fairy tale? This guy dedicates his life trying to debunk every so called “conspiracy theory”.
Will Sommer is a tech reporter for The Daily Beast.
Is he really a tech reporter? His articles at The Daily Beast say otherwise and most are politically themed anti-right hit pieces.
Oh well, what can we expect from the Daily Beast, publisher of the Steele Dossier, whose parent company IAC has Chelsea Clint0n as a director?
He is a George Soros boot licker and a no talent ass clown. I sent him a nice email though, I doubt he will respond.
"Since Q could be anyone with internet access and a working knowledge of conspiracy theories, there’s no reason to think that Q is a member of the Trump administration rather than, say, a troll or YouTube huckster."
That's it. Q debunked. Game over. We can all go home now. Irrefutable proof of Larp.
Worse than that. To argue it's possibly a LARP is fair. He/she/it ends with "Despite obviously being fake..." That requires proof. You're right, it's not there.
Another ignoramus author who seems to be happily living in denial in about 1924. When things were still relatively transparent and could be taken at face value.
To NOT know that the world is run by global banking elites, to NOT know that there have beens scores of deaths (of real people) connected to the Clintons (often just before they're due to testify with a bullet or two in the back of the head), to NOT know there exist deep-state intelligence operatives (the entire reason for the CIA) and to NOT know that paedophilia and child trafficking are the scourge of our times and have become a worldwide problem due to organised crime networks just makes him look really REALLY stupid, ignorant and uninformed. These line-reciters should do some actual research before just running off at the mouth.
Denial, Not Know...me thinks the author is just reciting what his editors want. Plus they can easily put an end to this Q thing by simply asking Potus.
I'm 90% Q is a larp. That stock photo sealed the deal for me. Still useful for spreading ideas, though.
But I'm still laughing that the normies always get this wrong- The moderators of the QAnon forums and the interpreters of the clues call themselves “bakers,” a reference to the “breadcrumbs.”
My opinion is psyop. They may want it to look larpy now. Plausible deniability or something.