Last night, while sulking alone in my hotel room, I started reading some of the old posts I have stored on my laptop, and began thinking about the words that I frequently use. It was quite interesting (for me at least).
Whenever I write about George W. Bush, I tend to refer to “The House of Bush†and the “colossal†misjudgement that is Iraq. Maybe I have a talent for drama – that, or my writing is hyperbolic nonsense, which is ironic considering that exaggerated prose is one of my pet peeves. However, I would argue that Iraq is such a massive political disaster, that such language is perfectly warranted.
Around the time I started listening to the excellent Letter to America podcast, I started referring to my readership as “dear readers.†Jett Loe, the chap who produces LTA, refers to his “dear listeners†regularly, so that’s where I got it. I make no apologies for this, no one is forced to read this blog so I love every last one of you.
“Dude” – this Americanism, I presume, really grates with some British readers, but if you have watched as much South Park as this writer, you’ll understand why it’s so deeply embedded in my lexis. So please excuse the term, dudes.
This post was intended to be longer, but I’m a bit rushed, so that’s your lot…*snip*
Sphere: Related Content
I listened to LTA, and you got a mention, employing the word “dudes”, another key element of tygerspeak.
Iraq “a massive political disaster”? Yes - for us, but not, perhaps, in the eyes of those who perpetrated it.
Read the articles I’ve linked to in my arena: “Iraq - is this the truth?” and “An important insight”, and then discuss!