Project Wonderful Banner

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Golden Ellipses: Least Helpful Asterisk

And the winner is...

6-in-one

In the category of "Least Helpful Asterisk" we have the following nominees:

13 comments:

Kaitlyn said...

Oh, I don't know.

They all suck so much!

"jmetc" - his next citation

factinista said...

"Google dog-eating?" Telling someone to google something does not count as a source.

Dickie said...

The Illegible is some John something's column in Jewish World Review.

Gah... all of them suck. I'm not sure which one I'd vote for.

Kaitlyn said...

I wanted to vote for "Google dog eating" but I didn't know it was part of the 6 in one!

Illegible applies to all of them...

Sigma287 said...

I think PETA should be one by itself.

Using known terrorists and hypocrites as your source says a lot about your character. Of course, Tinsley has already proven he approves of terrorism, so it's not that surprising.

ianmorris said...

6 in 1 because it sites PETA, and because google is not a source.

BillyWitchDoctor said...

"Illegible" is John Stossel, of ABC's 20/20, a Libertarian who (among other things) wants unregulated pesticide use and the right to marry one's first cousin.

I may sit this one out. They're all preposterous, but the two I really expected to see didn't make the list: the one sending readers to Google to find an article that doesn't exist (may not qualify--I don't remember if that was an actual "asterisk"), and the one citing Jonah "Liberal Fascism" Goldberg--which would be idiotic for any reason--to "prove" that "conservatives are more charitable than liberals" (probably not 2007).

12xuser said...

His best asterisks are the ones he leaves out, the ones that should cite "my ass". Otherwise, 6-in-1. "USA Today" doesn't really narrow it down very much, and Google . . . .

ianrey said...

"I saw it on some website" is really all his sources ever come to anyway, if you include usatoday.com and cbsnews.com, but "Just Google it" is too lazy to even say that.

Marion Delgado said...

I like YAF.org. Come on, if THEY say it, you can take it to the BANK!

factinista said...

It doesn't matter whether you like the site or not. Even if it wasn't just one of those garbage "conservative movement" websites (which don't count as real news, by the way), just knowing the site that the article comes from DOES NOT HELP. Which is why it's a nominee for "Least Helpful Asterisk." Of course, judging from the posts you've made so far, you're just another right-wing sheep, so you couldn't tell the difference anyway.

Thanks for playing.

BillyWitchDoctor said...

Upon review, I think I'll pick YAF.org because, regardless of the value of the site, or the lack of reference to a specific article, referring to it adds absolutely nothing to the strip. It's like writing a journal thusly:

Now that I'm eating less pizza than I used to*, I find I miss green peppers.

*allyourbasearebelongtous.com

John said...

In all honesty, another issue with the "dog-eating" thing is this:

So what if some people in China eat dogs? Many people all around the world eat pigs and chickens, some people eat monkey brains, and then there's the issue of hot dogs and scrapple (delicious though they both may be).