Leixcal Sabotage would be a good name for a rock band.

Results reveal: Santorum, closeted, homosexual, Tom Cruise, anal, secretions

dallylamma: [www.myinterestingfiles.com image 640x410]

You've been saving that one up, haven't you

For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

We should do the same for other politicians we don't like, such as Bush and Dick.

here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, that was a pretty clumsy sentence. Not that I think all sentences should be super short, but if you're going to those sort of phrasings, you should make sure they read well.

mjjt: dallylamma: [www.myinterestingfiles.com image 640x410]

You've been saving that one up, haven't you

It's hard to hold back that much santorum.

/frothy

here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

12349876: Leixcal Sabotage would be a good name for a rock band.

"Lexical Sabotage" would be an even better one

BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

ooooooooooooo. look at ME. I write for the Economist, I use sub-clauses and me and MY gay friends don't refer to the mess we leave on the sheets as Santorum! I'm so farkin' claaaaaaaaaaaassy.

Kanemano: 12349876: Leixcal Sabotage would be a good name for a rock band.

"Lexical Sabotage" would be an even better one

"Lightning farkers" is an even better one

Kanemano: 12349876: Leixcal Sabotage would be a good name for a rock band.

"Lexical Sabotage" would be an even better one

Leixcal sounds like a hallucinogen.

BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

I think I worked out what he said, but it makes the entire article just a touch more stupid. He's saying, at least the term hasn't spread widely. However, this is right after the part where he both A) links to the google bomb website, which encourages it, and B) points out that it's been highly effective. He's saying the term is a silly term that no one really uses, but then goes on to describe how anyone who attempts to verify that will be immediately introduced to the alternate definition.

Just bad writing all around.

BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

Parenthetical phrases marked in commas; this guy has them. I got used to these a long time ago, thanks to Douglas Adams. But he gets bonus points for nesting another parenthetical inside it.

BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

"Mr. Savage's definition of Santorum ... has not .. really acquired that meaning since."

I don't get it. How does a definition acquire a meaning? Words acquire definitions. Definitions do not acquire meanings.

The best part is that by linking to Spreading Santorum the Economist has now boosted its ranking on Google.

/Shameless ripoff of dallylamma's new meme

StreetlightInTheGhetto: BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

They're implying that most Savage Love readers are gay (I doubt it these days) and that the better definition hasn't really been adopted amongst a wider audience (doubtful amongst Americans as a whole but EVERY one of my friends knows it save one younger Texas raised Catholic girl who didn't understand why we kept laughing at the caucus results).

No, I'm pretty sure he's not.

He's saying they made up a term for the frothy mixture, but it was unnecessary because it's not something anyone talks about in the first place, so who cares. He's acting like the point is to make you think of the senator when you discuss anal sex, while the point is that the Senator appears to have the ethics consistent with someone conceived via anal sex.

They give journalism degrees to just about anybody these days.

It's not just the gays Santorum is attacking. He literally wants to make blowjobs illegal again. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

He literally wants all consensual sodomy of any type, (even between a married man and woman) to be made ILLEGAL again.

This guy is in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history and his response to this is he wants to outlaw them??? WHAT THE F???

Source of this info: Link

The pertinent quotes from that article:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue, yes, it does," he said, referring to a Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down a sodomy law in the Lone Star state. "This right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."

As a heterosexual male republican I can only say this: F**K YOU SANTORUM.

And the author of this essay is . . . JOHNSON???



/Johnson, what?
//Just Johnson

Mr Guy: BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

I think I worked out what he said, but it makes the entire article just a touch more stupid. He's saying, at least the term hasn't spread widely. However, this is right after the part where he both A) links to the google bomb website, which encourages it, and B) points out that it's been highly effective. He's saying the term is a silly term that no one really uses, but then goes on to describe how anyone who attempts to verify that will be immediately introduced to the alternate definition.

Just bad writing all around.

Yeah. He's wrong. Gay people do use it, it's just that, a. people don't discuss it in polite company or with Economist journalists, b. if you do it right, there shouldn't really be any santorum, c. if you do it wrong, and do in fact come in contact with santorum, it's something you prefer to ignore (like Rick Santorum).

BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

Translation: "Nice try, Savage, but nobody uses your word."

Mr Guy: BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Although it is now getting into wider circulation - Jon Stewart used it in that 'box of chocs' sketch in the link - 'Oh look, he's (Romney's choc) got a bit of santorum on him." and "You've no idea how hard it is to clean up when you get santorum on you"

I just love it - ridicule and humour are so much more satisfying and effective than abuse.

BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

All he's trying to say is has Mr Savage's definition really been far even as decide to use the reader's proposed definition of "santorum" even go want to among gay Americans notwithstanding do look more like?

MuToiD_MaN: BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

Parenthetical phrases marked in commas; this guy has them. I got used to these a long time ago, thanks to Douglas Adams. But he gets bonus points for nesting another parenthetical inside it.

I also learned to read them by reading the HGTTG. Thank God for Adams.

I also took it a step further by attempting to use nested brackets inside of parenthesis. I got into the habit while taking computer science in high school.
In this way, you could nest a clause inside a clause inside a comma and it would maintain some semblance of readability.

Such that:

I went to the market, on fifth (the street above fourth [where the hobos take smack] and south of sixth [where the hookers will blow you (but not well) for a dollar]) and Lexington (the street named after the Mayor's dog), and bought an apple.

The sentence, devoid of any subclauses, reads: "I went to the market and bought an apple."

But it utterly failed to catch on.

It made sense to me.

Actually Santorum is internally consistent

Not only does he have antediluvian ideas about sex and who should supervise it, he is completely ignorant about SEO.

StreetlightInTheGhetto: They also may be implying that gay readers are the only ones who have the chance and who do use the alternate meaning in normal conversation. However, that wasn't REALLY the point... When I hear his name both definitions simultaneously come to mind. So it was effective, because I haven't forgotten how he earned that dubious honor either.

Exactly, that's what he's trying to say. He's saying no one is able to drop santorum into casual conversation, but that's not the point. The point is that he wanted to make dang sure when researched this candidate, you found out about his stance in this particular issue. Additionally, it sets up an us vs them mentality which encourages you to subconsciously be more agreeable to other viewpoints shared by members of the same group. Encouraging people to giggle when people say Rick Santorum because he's made certain homophobic comments encourages other people to identify more strongly with the gay rights movement as they see other people giggle and recognize that commonality.

Oh good... it wasn't just my lack of caffeine and surplus of dumb. Yeah I did eventually understand the "sentence" but seriously... who the f*ck writes like that?

When I write I'll toss in little sub sentences and sh*t to add on points pertinent to the main thought but if it starts getting all brain farty I reword it... and I didn't even go to high school. I bet this person has degrees in all sorts of snooty dumbf*ckery.

Secondary education. Expensive and mostly useless.

I think we need to send Rape-Rape the Ewok after Mr. Santorum.

mjjt: Actually Santorum is internally consistent



I doubt it, since it's more of suspension and not a solution.

No, no. it's pronounced Santo-RIN-ium.

Now back to your sheduled thread.

The fact this guy is writing TFA means the word is ... on his lips.

Leeds: "It's not just the gays Santorum is attacking. He literally wants to make blowjobs illegal again. THIS IS NOT A JOKE"

Yeah, he pretty much hates any expression of sexuality that isn't "open to conception".
He supports outlawing abortion.
He supports outlawing *contraception*.
He supports *the return of sodomy laws*.
He supports *banning all forms of pornography*.

He's signed pledges to advance these issues if elected. He's repeatedly endorsed these views and pledges.
These aren't things people are reading in to what he's saying.
These are literally and directly his social policy positions.

The guy is a non-starter for anyone to the left of the American Taliban.

If you follow links through, interesting analysis as to what Google or other Search Engines should do about it

"Despite this being an industry-wide phenomenon, it's Google - as is often the case - that takes all the blame for Santorum's problem. Yesterday, he spoke more harshly about it than I've heard in the past. Politico reported:

"I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they'd get rid of it," Santorum said. "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country."
He continued: "To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle but I suspect that's not true."

Where to begin in dissecting this? I've already covered that this isn't a Google-specific problem. Bing, Yahoo and Baidu are all as "irresponsible" as Google, despite getting none of the blame."

Full article (new window)

fzumrk: BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

All he's trying to say is has Mr Savage's definition really been far even as decide to use the reader's proposed definition of "santorum" even go want to among gay Americans notwithstanding do look more like?

That just made my day

The Economist's correspondent has simply been talking to the wrong people. Santorum is such an effective Google bomb that it's almost the classic example. The reason why people, IRL, aren't talking about santorum the actual product, it's because people, IRL, don't talk about santorum. It's disgusting and hardly sexy and you really never want to mention it happening to you, particularly in polite company, even if yours is the kind of polite company where you can bring up fisting without anyone batting an eye.

However, I suspect anyone under the age of 40 who is in possession of an internet connection that isn't just used to visit Quiverfull sites immediately thinks of the froth when they hear or read the word "Santorum", and that's precisely the point of the Google bomb.

BurnShrike: here to help: For the record, it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" (proposed by his readers in a contest) has not, Mr Savage's popularity among gay Americans notwithstanding (and no matter what the Urban Dictionary claims), really acquired that meaning since.

Ow... my brain.

Yeah, I had to read that several times to get the gist of what he was trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it.

I turned it sideways for a better understanding and all I saw was a schooner.

[ ] it is worth noting that Mr Savage's definition of "santorum" [ ] has not [ ] really acquired that meaning since.

That is an awful "sentence."

And the purpose was not to get everyone to refer to their bathrooms butt-juice as "water closets" "santorum" but to understand that "water closet" "santorum" means bathroom butt-juice.

I'll try this again, since i THINK i posted it, now i KNOW i have. Here's a quote, from me, in response to Rick's social policies.

Don't diss Rick Santorum. He's an intelligent, amazing man whose ability to misunderstand 10% of the American population is the stuff legends are made out of. The fact that his human body can contain that much arrogance and stupidity without exploding is simply a masterpiece of God's work. Clearly, God has smiled upon him, if only to provide us Americans with a live show to what is totally wrong with our voting system today. Bravo, Jesus, Bravo.

Also, Holly and Monika, Please don't refer to Rock as a Douche. Its inappropriate to do so to someone expressing their opinion. It would be much more appropriate to refer to him as "a frothy mixture of fecal matter and lube sometimes resulting from anal sex" I know it seems worse, but its what a google search comes up with. We, as Americans, should only insult someone because google has taught us that their name has a funny double meaning.