<p>randombetch - you lost. :)</p>
<p>yep, and your bill totally violates itself since you take this pretentiousness to the extreme level. i dont think you can find anyones posts that are deliberately showy. so therefore, if your bill passes, it automatically violates the measure. how ironic… :)</p>
<p>@xrCalico23: yeah you just put a period more than 10 characters away.</p>
<p>oh btw, i forgot to laugh. ahahaahaaa… not. nice way to waste a sunday afternoon typing that though.</p>
<p>@randombetch: i lost what?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t expect Bush to find Colbert very funny.</p>
<p>Yes, toolish is a word:</p>
<p>READ: Princeton Girl Explains New Slang Term, “Tool”</p>
<p>[Princeton</a> Girl Explains New Slang Term, “Tool” > daily princetonian, Princeton, tool box, tools | IvyGate](<a href=“http://www.ivygateblog.com/2009/05/princeton-girl-explains-new-slang-term-tool/]Princeton”>http://www.ivygateblog.com/2009/05/princeton-girl-explains-new-slang-term-tool/)</p>
<p>EXTRACT:"Is good writing also “toolish?”</p>
<p>Cindy has a point. Many of us are jealous of the social skills, drive and courage possessed by tools. Not to mention the career success, social lives and romantic conquests."</p>
<p>"Cindy is quick to assure us she is not a tool, despite her various and acknowledged toolish affiliations: The Daily Princetonian, Wilson School, USG (Editor’s Note: Cindy says these affiliations are toolish, not me. Though, I believe her.)</p>
<p>Um, I think the meaning of the wonderful Nonobfuscation Act for Eliminating Redundancy and Promoting Clarity and Also Brevity and Coherence of Clauses Act was lost on a certain person. </p>
<p>Or rather, I think, LuciaB misread and thought it was randombetch who wrote the post. Either way, this thread is both hilarious and memorable.</p>
<p>i call pretentious on “toolish!!!” 
hurry christiansoldier, throw anyone who says “toolish” in jail with your 2010 nonobfuscation act…</p>
<p>as for Colbert, i bet Bush found Colbert’s 2008 presidential run funny lol.</p>
<p>Correction, Calico: you mean the wonderful, sublime, excellent, honorable, exquisite, necessary, messianic, and so forth Nonobfuscation Act for Eliminating Redundancy and Promoting Clarity and Also Brevity and Coherence of Clauses Act. You should really make your posts longer and more thoughtful so people will think you’re smart.</p>
<p>^got it. I apologize for my thoughtless brevity guys.</p>
<p>Original Article concerning the word “Toolish”:</p>
<p>[Taking</a> a peek in the tool shed - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/05/06/23636/]Taking”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/05/06/23636/)
Taking a peek in the tool shed
By Cindy Hong</p>
<p>@christiansoldier: Your response is clever :). Let me respond:</p>
<p>The potential passage of this affirmation strikes me as great news and a sizeable rictus (grin) has presently encircled the perimeter of my oral cavity! As I peered at the declaration through the sensory receptors embedded within my ocular cavities, the percipience came upon me to recognize its due merit. The scrupulous contretemps (arguments) to exterminate the ostentatious language within this cerebral cyber-biosphere have thus far been ghastly, debauched, and quiescently substandard. We shall once and for all halt this tendentious folderol (nonsense) that obfuscates our prose in order to stupendously enhance the pithy, transparency, articulacy, and lucidity of our text.</p>
<p>The evocation of the risible glee of the CC populace is met with my own great delight. It has evoked the potential formulation for the righteous path to the conclusion of the jejune and vapid tone of this discourse and has obviated any further measures that may initiate verbal casus belli (Latin: war). It will inconceivably provide the condign punishment for those who haughtily subject the CC populace to their baroque, ornate, rococo, fulsome, orotund, ostentatious, grandiose, brazen, pulchritudinous, and vociferous tongue and may institute a novel paradigm that assumes the foremost objective of transporting us all towards the once-quixotic and prelapsarian idealism of austere and unadorned brevity.</p>
<p>I had oh so briefly contemplated halting my immediate dialogue at this present latitude, but due to the lack of any torpor or lassitude, I beg you all to allow my being to proceed further in order to exert my devoted enthusiasm regarding the wonderful, sublime, excellent, honorable, exquisite, necessary, messianic, esteemed and so forth Nonobfuscation Act for Eliminating Redundancy and Promoting Clarity and Also Brevity and Coherence of Clauses Act of 2010. I hold the distinct obligation to display the irrefutable immensity of the acumen and perspicuity of this diktat, for the decree is rife with the utmost astuteness and perspicacity.</p>
<p>We shall not tolerate or endure any invidious dissonance, animadversion, or obloquy that debases this delightful proposition. For this may commence the possibility of leaving us in obstreperous, shambolic, parlous, desultory, meretricious, disputatious and malignant discourse with our ideological adversaries.</p>
<p>To occlude the possibility that this bill shall be met with immoderate invective, please note that any succeeding nascent proposal must obliterate the baroque and chrysostomatic (eloquent) prose exerted onto this cyber-graphical network, regulate any potential encroachments by * in media res <a href=“middle%20ground”>/i</a> dialogue, and transcend towards the unmitigated simplicity of minimalist prose. Any such capricious palter, cavil, or quibble shall be extirpated to the fullest degree. This is not to say that the proposal under due consideration is not liable to the least objection or liberated from the most necessary of emendations or specificities. But any succeeding measure must not pusillanimously circumvent or preemptively forestall the immediate necessity to preclude such loquacious and garrulous peroration formed by any sesquipedalian (polysyllabic) lexicon but shall function towards the fundamental ideal of the sedulous and expeditious modification and/or termination of any decorative writing modalities.</p>
<p>It is with the greatest honor that my esteemed associate has proposed to promulgate this desideratum (desirable) ne plus ultra (perfect) resolution on my behalf with the utmost expediency and celerity to eliminate the aggravation, contempt, and tsuris caused by the unregulated exploitation of opaque language. Henceforth, I sincerely hope that we all cogitate over this proposition and utilize these succeeding moments to ratify and implement this wonderful, sublime, excellent, honorable, exquisite, necessary, messianic, esteemed, indispensable, transcendent, magnificent, and compulsory ordinance within the coming period of time.</p>
<p>@Alumother: I do appreciate your helpful intentions. However, I actually emailed my English instructor from my expository writing course from last semester regarding “mildly acquainted,” and she did not agree that there is anything grammatically, inferentially, or idiomatically incorrect concerning the phrase. In essence, she felt that it was a completely valid construction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alumother, you are coming across as rather condescending here. I apologize if this is not your intention. </p>
<p>I do not understand your argument against “mildly antiquated.” The illogicality of “passionately antiquated” is irrelevant because “mild” is but a hypernym of “passionate.” </p>
<p>“mild” can mean “moderate in intensity, degree, or character”; it is perfectly logical, given that “antiquated” means “aged” and could thus be thought of on a continuum, that something could be moderately antiquated.</p>
<p>Edit: Apparently, I cannot read: “acquainted” was the word. My response is of the same nature. One’s familiarity can be of varying extents; therefore, one’s being acquainted can be moderate.</p>
<p>Funny post as always, christiansolider. :)</p>
<p>I think The Nonobfuscation Act for Eliminating Redundancy and Promoting Clarity and Also Brevity and Coherence of Clauses Act of 2010 deserves a deliberations process as long as humanly possible. In addition to having the year changed into Roman numerals.</p>
<p>Thanks for the entertaining read by the way :)</p>
<p>I’m glad you took it in good humor, Mifune.</p>
<p>christiansoldier that was really funny.</p>
<p>Guys, you’re right. I am being condescending. Because I’m annoyed. But I’m right about the writing. Mifune, your English teacher isn’t helping you. Listen to what I’m telling you and your writing will get better and your college essays will be better and you will have a better chance of getting into a top college.</p>
<p>The poor fit of “mildly” with “acquainted” is something you have to feel in your gut. I’ve been reading and writing for 50 years. Experience matters.</p>
<p>People who tell you what’s wrong with what you’re doing sometimes offer more help than those who support what you already believe.</p>
<p>I want kids to get into Princeton. I’ve got two children, both have attended. It’s a great place.</p>
<p>ok, the 2010 nonobfuscation act was pretty funny ill admit. i think it needs to be “ratified and implemented” immediately to throw mifune in jail for his last post (113). some of the show-off words he used arent even in the dictionary. (that has to be worth super bonus show-off points lol…) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol… also, i like the “sensory receptors embedded within my ocular cavities” thing in place of “eyes.”</p>