This is stupid...
Can someone please explain to me how such a dumb and self-contradictory sentence can make it into a news article? Aren't they read for content, as well as punctuation and shit? This sorta shit drives me nuts... sigh.
From a Yahoo news article from today...The Trojan horse is believed to have infected thousands of systems on the Internet since appearing early Tuesday, even though antivirus software and up-to-date versions of Outlook are immune to attack, according to Maksym Schipka, senior antivirus researcher at MessageLabs in the U.K. (Emphasis mine...) Now, I'm sorry, but it's gotta be one or the other. How the hell can machines that have been compromised still be called, and I quote, "Immune to attack."? Either they're infected or immune. Pick one and quit yankin' my dick, okay? Stupid "reporters".
Even stupider chick who said it in the first place...* Gawd. Feh.
I don't use Outlook in the first place.
So there... (It's still stupid, though...) Peace. (* Yes, I am aware that I didn't mention the editor. That's because I KNOW how overworked, under-appreciated and half-crazed they're made to be. Besides, shouldn't that dopey reporter have made that even dopier bitch who said it in the first place clarify it? Editors should have the right to expect ya know how to wipe yerself (as in 'write an intelligent sentence') after they've told ya where the bathroom (or, 'what the subject') is, after all... right? *crickets*)
Comments
1
Stupid "reporters". [/Homer Simpson]
Posted by: Mad Mikey at July 14, 2004 10:52 AM (NmR1a)
2
lmao...
*smacks ya on the arm*
*smacks ya on the arm*
Posted by: Stevie at July 14, 2004 11:16 AM (dvAGX)
3
I didn't read the whole article, but that sentence alone seems just fine. Granted, I'm not entirely sane ,and perhaps I'm reading this differently, but here's the subtext I mentally filled in: "The Trojan horse is believed to have infected thousands of systems on the Internet since appearing early Tuesday, even though [if those stupid thousands of users had taken five minutes to install] antivirus software and up-to-date versions of Outlook[, they would be] immune to attack."
In other words, poorly written sentence, but not inherently contradictory. I'm guessing they meant to say that if you have antivirus software and the latest brand-spankin'-new version of Outlook, you're immune.
Or sumpn.
In other words, poorly written sentence, but not inherently contradictory. I'm guessing they meant to say that if you have antivirus software and the latest brand-spankin'-new version of Outlook, you're immune.
Or sumpn.
Posted by: Dave at July 14, 2004 02:54 PM (ecYgE)
4
Not to yank your figurative dick here...but I honestly don't see anything wrong with that sentence. It merely explains that more up-to-date systems are not vulnerable to the Trojan horse. Seems pretty clear to me..
Ok, you may slap me now.
*steps forward to accept her punishment*
Ok, you may slap me now.
*steps forward to accept her punishment*
Posted by: Funkalicious at July 14, 2004 03:08 PM (JjOt1)
5
I agree, poorly written sentence. Still, I could figure out what the reporter was trying to say after working at it some.
Do I get locked in the cellar with Ms. Funkalicious for my punishment?
Do I get locked in the cellar with Ms. Funkalicious for my punishment?
Posted by: Peter at July 14, 2004 11:43 PM (b/7hi)
6
Hey Stevie, here's one you'll like. I came across this sentence on the 'net today:
"Peter Damon lost his right arm near the shoulder and his left arm above the wrist..."
Um...so everthing BELOW his wrist is still attached?? To what????
"Peter Damon lost his right arm near the shoulder and his left arm above the wrist..."
Um...so everthing BELOW his wrist is still attached?? To what????
Posted by: AmyVegas at July 16, 2004 10:26 AM (lBFdX)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.01 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0081 seconds, 14 records returned.
Page size 6 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.