Have you seen the “new” Pepsi Throwback? Basically, it’s Pepsi from the ‘70s: In the old packaging but made with sugar.
Look, I consider myself pro-choice. Ish. On the one hand, I embrace the pro-life argument: From conception, the zygote/embryo/fetus is a living organism; it’s human (I don’t really buy that it’s not quite human yet or whatever the justification is); morally, we’re left with murder, or at best, self-defense.
[On the inside of a hotel shower.]
[The Barbarienne has had her “green drink"—a gawdawful juicing of leafy green vegetables—after which she gets a small portion of chips as a reward. But she had to run off to ballet class before she could eat them. She has come home from ballet, expecting her chips.]
This sentence presents the author of a post on another blog as a jackass. This sentence is a litany of his various past sins, stupid ideas and random odd mistakes, barely masking the fact that I just plain don’t like the guy, regardless of what particular position he’s staking out.
This sentence is the beginning of a fisking:
This sentence contains the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.
This sentence points out that the trite and obvious statement is trite and obvious, and typical of (my narrow summation) of the the post author’s point-of-view.
This sentence claims that there are many people who do not agree with the thesis of the blog post as expressed in the previous sentence. This sentence speculates as to the mental and ethical character of the people mentioned in the previous sentence.
This sentence invites readers to respond freely and without constraint as long as those responses fall within certain parameters. This sentence consists of an Internet in-joke that doesn’t quite fit the topic.