"Fire and Fury" book… great if you run out of toilet paper.
-
Yes I've certainly read the word "encomium" many times before, even in my school days, but I've looked up the word statistics and it isn't in the top 20,000 words in American English, so it must be true. I didn't realise I was in the top 1%.
But you said that there was a top 1% word in every paragraph as well as spelling errors. Let me know when you've downloaded it again.
I find it disturbing that you spent so much time analyzing that book, yet instead of realizing that it is a pile of garbage, you absorbed it like a sponge. I have made it a practice to not subject my brain to bullshit.. nor to subject my brain to drugs or alcohol.
I must mention one trick in reading a book or article. Remove all the adjectives and read it. There is software commonly available which is able to identify grammar, so there should be a way to identify all adjectives and either highlight or delete them. Adjectives are almost always "opinions", and opinions tend to be worthless.
I just thought of something else to do.. run that book through a language TRANSLATOR.. and then back to English again. That should be fascinating.
One other point.. a very common characteristic of writers who studied language in college is to imbue their prose with such words as "imbue" to make it seem like they are intelligent and credible. The reason George W. Bush got elected is because that man doesn't know any words longer than 3 syllables - and therefore was able to be understood by the masses.
In a physical sense, the flowery bullshit written by literary snobs is like a Rube Goldberg machine.
I must add one more thing. Legal statues / laws are typically written in a way in which no average person could understand them. That is intentional. I have found that most lawyers and judges don't understand the laws that are the "tools" of their trade. They want to obfuscate their meanings.. so that they can interpret them however they want. This is quite convenient for crooked judges. I have one excellent personal example of that. Many years ago, I worked as an engineer for a company which was paying all it's employees as "contract labor" instead of as "employees". Paying employees as contractors instead of as employees allows the employer to get away without paying taxes, not giving benefits, and not giving protections. There is a list of conditions which determine whether a worker is an employee or a contractor. In the case of this company, every condition was that of an employee. There is a federal law which states that if a worker is wrongfully paid as being a contractor instead of as an employee, then not only is that worker not liable for paying the taxes, but that worker gets a 15% reward of all the taxes that were recovered from the employer as a result of an investigation. Well.. I should have been given an award of $25,000. I acquired the payroll records totaling over $1 million from that company to it's workers. I did all the work for them. However, that crooked judge screwed me. The company I worked for did not even bother to show up for the trial. They ADMITTED that their workers were being paid as contractors when they were in fact employees.. and they have continued to do so to this DAY (except that the office that used to be 15 workers is now just 2 people - the owner and the office manager). The judge not only did not give me any reward, he also forced me to pay the taxes that my employer did not! There is no interpretation of the law to allow that. It was the federal judge who handles all federal tax disputes of that type.. and he was a complete FRAUD. What that judge did to me is like being charged with running a red light, when you have 10 witnesses and video showing that the light was green when you passed it, and yet the judge still charges you with running a red light because the cop said so!
My point being.. bullshit artists purposefully use obfuscation to avoid the truth and get whatever fraudulent conclusions they desire. My oldest brother is a grand master bullshit artist, so I know all the tricks these people use.
-
The over seas correspondents said in Swedish reviews about the book that it would be easy to read, but really it isn't. Yes, there is a lot of words that someone who is not native in English wouldn't knew about, but most of the time you can take a wild guess and make an assumption of what context the word is in. What is so much harder is that the author Michael Wolff is constantly name dropping people I have never heard about like I am supposed to know who it is. I can get that journalists who works in this field has better knowledge, but they should probably know that most people here never heard about most of the people mentioned.
I googled them, they have not been mentioned in any of the local media. So if you're not an american it is not a book that is easy to read, cause you don't know who they are talking about. If the book would be translated (I think it won't be though) it will need an editor that makes an localization of the book and makes notes on every side of the book about who is whom. -
The over seas correspondents said in Swedish reviews about the book that it would be easy to read, but really it isn't. Yes, there is a lot of words that someone who is not native in English wouldn't knew about, but most of the time you can take a wild guess and make an assumption of what context the word is in. What is so much harder is that the author Michael Wolff is constantly name dropping people I have never heard about like I am supposed to know who it is. I can get that journalists who works in this field has better knowledge, but they should probably know that most people here never heard about most of the people mentioned.
I googled them, they have not been mentioned in any of the local media. So if you're not an american it is not a book that is easy to read, cause you don't know who they are talking about. If the book would be translated (I think it won't be though) it will need an editor that makes an localization of the book and makes notes on every side of the book about who is whom.Trust me, you aren't missing anything. That Michael Wolff book turned out to be a nothing. It was promoted as being the tool to end Trump's presidency. Instead, it turned out to be nothing more than something to line one's bird cage with.
It reminds me of "Old English". Find a book in Old English.. the words are English, but are used in a much different way with different meanings.. so that it's almost impossible to understand.
Michael Wolff is just a pompous slug that nobody will ever hear from again.
-
I continue to be surprised at how illiterate American's are. I remember I had to look up "Borscht Belt" but in Wikipedia, not a dictionary, and I might have automatically skipped a very small number of unfamiliar words where the meaning was obvious from the context and auto-corrected any spelling errors (though I noticed Mediation where Meditation was obviously intended), but I had absolutely no problem reading this book.
Of course it is well established that people dominated by evolutionary behavioural patterns, with lower intelligence, literacy and vocabulary and with a learning capacity that diminishes very rapidly with age tend to be political conservatives. I expect that the main target audience of the book (political progressives) will have no difficulty reading it.
I read that the book is going to be filmed as a television series. They need to be quick because I doubt that the Trumpanzee will be around for long enough for it to be relevant.
-
I continue to be surprised at how illiterate American's are. I remember I had to look up "Borscht Belt" but in Wikipedia, not a dictionary, and I might have automatically skipped a very small number of unfamiliar words where the meaning was obvious from the context and auto-corrected any spelling errors (though I noticed Mediation where Meditation was obviously intended), but I had absolutely no problem reading this book.
Of course it is well established that people dominated by evolutionary behavioural patterns, with lower intelligence, literacy and vocabulary and with a learning capacity that diminishes very rapidly with age tend to be political conservatives. I expect that the main target audience of the book (political progressives) will have no difficulty reading it.
I read that the book is going to be filmed as a television series. They need to be quick because I doubt that the Trumpanzee will be around for long enough for it to be relevant.
You are incredibly delusional.
Trump will be around for a long time. The success of that book is based upon the pre-sales. Once people start reading that pile of crap, the sales will plummet. There is something else to consider. One cannot profit from the proceeds of a crime. If Trump were to file charges of defamation, libel, slander against Wolff.. then Wolff would not make a penny off that book.
-
Trump's lawyers already tried to get the publishers to withdraw the book, but their legal threats were rejected because they failed to point out a single error. I'm sure the publishers will be ecstatic of Trump takes legal action. It will clearly fail and the publicity will result in even more book sales.
-
Trump's lawyers already tried to get the publishers to withdraw the book, but their legal threats were rejected because they failed to point out a single error. I'm sure the publishers will be ecstatic of Trump takes legal action. It will clearly fail and the publicity will result in even more book sales.
You must sniff glue.
Even the AUTHOR admits IN THE BOOK that it is loaded with several different versions of things.. including many contradictions.. and none of it can be corroborated. No errors?Frankly, if that book had been silenced, people would assume that there was something significant in it. Now that it has been released, we know it was all just a ruse to sell books. What a load of manure.
-
Yes lots of people say the book is full of lies, errors, inconsistencies and fabrications. Interestingly none of them (including you) ever point to a specific example.
-
Yes lots of people say the book is full of lies, errors, inconsistencies and fabrications. Interestingly none of them (including you) ever point to a specific example.
Here's one set of examples:
"To conclude that Trump knows nothing is a fact burned out of lies. I mean, to say he knows no Jack is a fact hard to explain/believe in the book. Much as Wolff tries to explain Trump’s ignorance of almost everything, the more he celebrates the cleverness of Trumpism. If we agree with Wolff that a dummy could make it to the White House then Wolf should be enlisted for a Presidential race. At least from his business, Trump was never sedated with his position in life hence his quest for more at all time.
Trump might have stopped reading but he has started working, practicing what he knows and the more you practice the better you learn. Trump is always upping the challenge to do more and hence has spent more time facing challenges and crises as well. We can regard Trump as the most challenged man and unpredictable of this time but his survival strategy is a school to learn.
Trump watches the best and most times makes the best out of them. Trump is a man always in a hurry— that is just Trump’s style. Wolff ended up supporting all these inert qualities of Trump in an attempt to say, “Trump knows no jack?”
Under the heading “Trump Tower,” Wolff says Trump appears and knows nothing, and that Trump cannot even read a balance sheet: “Trump, the businessman, could not even read a balance sheet….” That all Trump knows seems to be someone who learnt it an hour ago and ready to forget it sooner.
To cushion his argument, Wolff writes that Trump never wrote The Art of the Deal but his co-writer, Tony Schwartz did. Contrastively, Wolff latter argues that Piers Morgan, the British newspaperman said the “virtues” and “attractions” of Trump are all in the book—The Art of the Deal.
Here is one of his contrastive positions: “If you wanted to know Trump, just read the book. But Trump had not written The Art of the Deal.” What an irony! Also, in a similar response, he quotes Sam Numberg’s position about Trump’s intelligence, “Is Trump a good person, an intelligent person, a capable person? asked Nunberg, Trump’s longest political aid. “I don’t even know. But I know he’s a star.” Then the question is: “What is the difference between a star and a genius?” Wolff needs to respond.
Over Trump knowing no jack, Wolff’s Fire and Fury seems an attempt to lampoon and castigate in a bid to pull down but with the wrong attempt: it is a case where the critic contrastively makes the villain the hero and vice visa.
There is no doubt that Wolff scores some points against Trump. One of such points (facts) revealed by Wolff is “The coming about of the Jewish agenda in Trump’s White House”. This is an area Wolff records a plus and deserves ovation. The public had wanted to know as well as understand what informed Trump’s White House in the disputed territory of Jerusalem. Through the book we get to know that this is done through Jared Kushner, the son-in-law to Trump.
Kushner and his wife Ivanka control the White House to some extent and his link to the Jews shows a relentless interest in giving the Israeli State a long disputed territory. It was revealed that: “For Trump, giving Israel to Kushner was not only a test, it was a Jewish test: the president was singling him out for being Jewish, rewarding him for being Jewish, saddling him with an impossible hurdle for being Jewish— and, too, defaulting to… in the negotiating power of the Jews.”
Not only that, we are brought to the know that in the Trump’s White House there is a conflict between the Jews and non-Jews as observed by Henry Kissinger about the White House. After the release of this book, it is believed that Trump should see to this Jewiphobia.
In the book also, one of the facts Wolff reveals is that Trump is antiglobalist. However, is anything new about this fact? Several times, Trump has not only demonstrated it but voiced this as his philosophy: “America First”. His Presidential agenda is “America First”.
For his America First dream, he has broken the Paris Climate Pact that puts over 194 countries on the brink. He has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal. He has accused China of obfuscating the U.S. economy, “that China is a front in the new cold war,” calling Russia the bad guy, viewing North Korea’s Kim Jong-un as an bomb ready to explode.
These are some of the facts Wolff reveals in his book but these are already known and anyone close to the media, even outside the United States, can give more detailed account as well. These are issues already over-whipped and commonplace in the media.
In the same vein, Wolff steals a lot from the public cesspool. Much as taking materials from public septic tank is not wrong, personalizing them as an investigative work might be misleading. About 60 per cent of what Wolff dredges up as his investigative effort are already lying in the public domain.
On Trump taking his friends’ wives to bed, which is a tough thing to do is not supported by any investigative examples—they are mare talk going around in the public, which the author merely downloads into the book." -
Trump's lawyers already tried to get the publishers to withdraw the book, but their legal threats were rejected because they failed to point out a single error. I'm sure the publishers will be ecstatic of Trump takes legal action. It will clearly fail and the publicity will result in even more book sales.
Not just more sales in the US, but internationally. It is being translated into 9 other languages because the demand is so high. That's pretty unusual for a political science book.
In the US sales are still super strong: 1.7 million copies and still going. Can't keep it in stock in the UK. US libraries are having to buy extra copies to meet the waitlist demands. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/fire-fury-sales-exceed-17-million-52577888
Russian hackers have placed malware in pirated copies so that is forcing people who want to read it, and would usually download it via torrent, forcing them to buy a copy.
-
Trump's lawyers already tried to get the publishers to withdraw the book, but their legal threats were rejected because they failed to point out a single error. I'm sure the publishers will be ecstatic of Trump takes legal action. It will clearly fail and the publicity will result in even more book sales.
Not just more sales in the US, but internationally. It is being translated into 9 other languages because the demand is so high. That's pretty unusual for a political science book.
In the US sales are still super strong: 1.7 million copies and still going. Can't keep it in stock in the UK. US libraries are having to buy extra copies to meet the waitlist demands. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/fire-fury-sales-exceed-17-million-52577888
Russian hackers have placed malware in pirated copies so that is forcing people who want to read it, and would usually download it via torrent, forcing them to buy a copy.
Whether it sells 5 copies, or 5 million… it's still a pile of shit.
I'm actually glad it is selling so well... it is draining the wallets and purses of the moonbats throwing their money away on that garbage.
It also shows how desperate the left is to attack Trump. Anything that might have a remote chance of hurting Trump is like a drop of blood in the water which triggers a feeding frenzy of sharks. I have loved watching the reactions of several celebrities whom I used to like but now realize are total assholes. Here's a short list: Richard Branson, Robert DeNiro, Bryan Cranston, Johnny Depp, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Justin Berfield, Cory Michael Smith, Colin Hay. Nevermind what their politics are.. the fact that they would be so stupid that they made their radical political views public is just asinine. -
And after that long rant above, Fred still failed to point out a single assertion that the books makes which is demonstrably false.
It reminds me of the reaction to a speech Meril Streep made during the US election campaign. All the Trumptards were furious and hurled all sorts of abuse at her. The Trumpanzee's reaction was to call her a bad actress which was typical because not one of the crowd screaming abuse could put forward the slightest argument against what she actually said in the speech.
-
And after that long rant above, Fred still failed to point out a single assertion that the books makes which is demonstrably false.
It reminds me of the reaction to a speech Meril Streep made during the US election campaign. All the Trumptards were furious and hurled all sorts of abuse at her. The Trumpanzee's reaction was to call her a bad actress which was typical because not one of the crowd screaming abuse could put forward the slightest argument against what she actually said in the speech.
I most certainly DID. But since you are a moonbat liar, that is the kind of response I expect from you.
The book was posted here last night. I got it. But apparently you complained about it. The moonbats don't want people to see what a pile of shit that book is. -
so, in coclusion, Frederick is a closed minded individual incapable of analysing a complete situation and instead jumps to lazy prejudice conslusions
-
so, in coclusion, Frederick is a closed minded individual incapable of analysing a complete situation and instead jumps to lazy prejudice conslusions
Clearly, you have nothing to add to the discussion since you can't talk about the topic of the thread.
-
so, in coclusion, Frederick is a closed minded individual incapable of analysing a complete situation and instead jumps to lazy prejudice conslusions
Clearly, you have nothing to add to the discussion since you can't talk about the topic of the thread.
I apologise. i shouldve said that the ability to analyse a situation with a broad perspective is far superior than using unconfirmed conclusion based on ignorant prejudice.
-
"Ignorant prejudice" seems like leftist code for "doesn't agree with the leftist agenda/narrative".
-
Clearly, you have nothing to add to the discussion since you can't talk about the topic of the thread.
I apologise. i shouldve said that the ability to analyse a situation with a broad perspective is far superior than using unconfirmed conclusion based on ignorant prejudice.
Thanks for pointing out that I analyze situations with an informed and astute broad perspective rather than make unconfirmed conclusions based upon anonymous sources and ignorant prejudice the way Shami94 does.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login