Attn Hookers

[Miss*Bijou]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, are you one of the many druggies in this trade? That would explain everything here.


Post one in this thread.

It makes reference to an article.

First word in said article is "Washington".

Now just exactly what is it about that which makes the obvious so difficult for you to comprehend.

Or maybe you have no idea where any W-a-s-h-i-n-g-t-o-n is?

lol this is priceless.

OK I know this is going to sound rude but there is honestly no other way of putting it, especially after your little tantrum....I'm sorry to have to tell you this but my friend, you are an idiot. A knob. A tool. A dimwit. An imbecile.... No, I've got it: A cretin (definition: an obnoxious stupid person) - Perfect.


It's wonderful that at least you can spell but here's the thing: Yes, you're right, the article does start with the word Washington. But if you look up at the URL or the big title, does it say Washington Post? or maybe Washington Times? or Washington, anything? That's right, it doesn't. Instead it says Times of I-n-d-i-a. You do know where that is, don't you? Don't worry, it's okay you don't have to answer.. I'll help you out: It's Not in Washington.


Now, I can see you're getting very confused. Don't panic, I'll go slow..
Washington at the start of the article means that whomever wrote the article was in Washington.


You see, that's how the news works: they have reporters in different parts of the worlds (their own or freelancers) who can report on things going on outside of whatever country they are based in, in this case, India. Kind of like when you watch reports about Iraq on CBC or on other news...you know, the reporter usually is in Iraq, not Toronto.


On tv the journalist will say he/she's reporting from Iraq, right? Well in the paper he'll start the article with the city/country he's reporting from. In this case..? Yes, that's right! Washington!!!!!!! But here's the complicated concept about this: It doesn't make it American news, or Washington news. Why? Because the publication/name of the paper still is.........yes, that's right! Times of India!!!!!!...making it, yes, Indian news! See, I knew you'd get it.


The fact that you had to be such a douche for absolutely no friggin' reason when you're the one who can't understand the difference....really buddy, I'd be a little nicer because right now you don't have much else going for you.


wow unreal.

 

[SeekSteadyRegSP]

Thanks for the info however a few observations:


- It's interesting that this seems to have only been picked up by Indian news lol who's dedicated a whole 1/2 page to a short article which doesn't link to the study or any of the researchers responsible for the study.......or anything else for that matter.

We all know how the news works, sweet tits, but your own inference that it was "picked-up" by Indian News implies a story circulated from elsewhere, usually via a wire service (and, in this case, of course not rendered important or meaningful enough in the western/civilized world to warrant much attention). Now perhaps you wish to go on believing that an Indian reporter was on scene in North Carolina where the story broke and he then drove to Washington, DC (or Washington State, if you're really that stupid) to pen this absolute ditty of a compelling tale.

And lets not forget that, once again, and in direct conflict with your own shortcomings in the area of reading comprehension, the research team was obviously led by "Ronald Swanstrom" (he of North Carolina University). (which is not in India, FYI)

The story, at its core, has nothing to do with "India"!!! (do you get it YET?)

 

[Miss*Bijou]

We all know how the news works, sweet tits, but your own inference that it was "picked-up" by Indian News implies a story circulated from elsewhere, usually via a wire service (and, in this case, of course not rendered important or meaningful enough in the western/civilized world to warrant much attention). Now perhaps you wish to go on believing that an Indian reporter was on scene in North Carolina where the story broke and he then drove to Washington, DC (or Washington State, if you're really that stupid) to pen this absolute ditty of a compelling tale.

And lets not forget that, once again, and in direct conflict with your own shortcomings in the area of reading comprehension, the research team was obviously led by "Ronald Swanstrom" (he of North Carolina University). (which is not in India, FYI)

The story, at its core, has nothing to do with "India"!!! (do you get it YET?)

UGH.

You can't be serious. That's your big problem? My choice of words?

I didn't say anything about an Indian reporter being on the scene. Obviously I know the story doesn't have to do with India...that's why I said it was only picked up by the Indian news. English isn't my first language, so while I still don't see how my choice of words (picked up) leads to so much confusion, it's quite possible that the expression means something slightly different than what I was trying to communicate. (BIG deal! )


That being said, most reasonably intelligent people reading it were still able to get what I was trying to say just fine but apparently you have a little too much time on your hands or you just figured you would waste mine... Really, you've got to be kidding me. All this whining over my choice of words? Sheesh. Get a life, buddy.