Sorry, FinnAgain, I thought I was being clear. Cespoke is a little play on bespoke. Bespoke clothes are custom made and are supposed to suggest refinement as well as wealth. To say that Mr Cheney’s hat was “cespoke” ( c comes after b) would be to denigrate Mr Cheney’s hat, the wee logo on it and the cod military name badge on his jacket. You wouldn’t find the word in the dictionary because I just made it up. That’s English. Coin away: if it sticks, it’ll end up in the dictionary.
I am perfectly aware that “unsartorial” is an unusual construction. Using it to some extent supposes that the word sartorial has already begun to change meanings from “relating to tailoring” to “slightly pretentious way to describe one’s clothes”. But to some extent it suggests spin. “Sartorial splendour” is, these days, fulsome (in the old sense) praise. But fulsome (in the new sense) praise is the praise of the unthinking, too. It is fulsome in the new sense only in its intent.
The twisting of the term was part of the reference to Nixon’s famous statement that “If the President does it, it’s not illegal” - in part a comment on the current US administration; in part a comment on this thread.
I swear off one-liners for a week (Mr Curt, he resting :D).
I’ll lay money that Dick’s mother would not have had him dress that way–nor would any mother.
It was careless, arrogant and self-centered. You people are surprised?
Pssst: blood thinners don’t make you cold; they also don’t make your blood “thinner”–they act in various ways to delay coagulation.
Perhaps his “good” coat was at the cleaners.
I have no possible explanation for his headgear. Temporary insanity?
And yes, I would be as critical (probably MORE critical) if “my guy” (any Dem) had worn the same thing. The reason I would be more critical is b/c I expect more from my side–if I am supporting or have invested in you, you better show me your best at all times etc.
Brutus is mad b/c he ran out and bought that exact outift, and now realizes that maybe he shouldn’t wear it to any funeral except his own…
Except this wasn’t a political thread. It was a partisan swipe at Cheney, and one utterly devoid of substance. C’mon, now, the Bush Administration is supposed to be the worst in history. With all of the other potential topics–war, terrorism, civil rights, the environment, the economy, etc., the best target the OP could come up with is the Vice President’s hat?
That said, I don’t think this thread was at all unusual or inappopriate given the style and substance of Pit Threads over the last 5+ years. What is strange is your overreaction to the replies. If people are going to post stupid jibe threads, it is unrealistic not to expect other people to respond. Otherwise, we’d be left with:
OP: “Bush is a poopy-head”
Replies 1-200: “Yeah!”
What would be the point of that?
I suggest that your ire against political shit-slinging, while understandable, is misplaced, in this case.
How, pray tell, was this partisan?
Are you in the Brutus school of thought where anybody who criticizes Bush is a rabid enemy? If the criticism is valid, it’s still partisan? If a republican makes the criticism, they become a partisan democrat? Sorry, I don’t buy it.
And, by the way, opposition to something isn’t partisan. Support is. For instance, supporting a politican’s choice even when it’s blatantly obvious that there are legitimate grievances.
Of course, the entire Partisan/non-partisan thing ignores the fact that the man was dressed like a potato sack in front of the most powerful men on Earth. :smack:
You don’t get to just pick and choose various words out of the definition and make your own. Cute try, though.
Quite plainly, the ‘cause’ of so many lefties is rabid opposition to the Bush administration, and damn the common sense. The more blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning the opposition, the better.
Besides, the hour is a bit late to try to claim ‘nonpartisan’ status for the packs of roving Bush-haters out there, you know.
Just testing the quick reply. I can think of nothing to say that will even possibly make the Cheney partisans think that just maybe their guy dressed like a bit of a doofus.
I linked to the entire definition, twice, Brutus. And I highlighted one portion.
I wasn’t cherry picking.
Swing and a miss.
Clearly. :rolleyes:
Indeed.
Like refusing to admit that wearing a hat with writing on it to a sombre memorial service is a faux pas just, just because the guy who screwed up is part of your party?
Sorry, your attempt to play identity politics and define other people won’t hold. I seriously doubt that anybody’s political philosophy consists of ‘supporting anti-bush’ ideology. Miracle of miracles, I’m reasonably sure that people had personal convictions before W came on the scene.
That is the entire definitionBrutus. Out of the two of us, one is being obfuscatory. Guess who?
I posted the whole thing, I bolded the second half. You’re claiming I was somehow dishonest or left something out? In other words, you’re lying. Cut it out.
So the first half just poof! dissappears, huh? That is some goofy method of interpreting definitions that you have there. I bet it only applies when you don’t like half the definition.
