I took the liberty of reading the article but I’m gonna say the title is quite… tendentious. Makes it sound like it’s yet another one of those FUD / nutjob clickbait that have been coming at the privacy community for a few days with sensationalist titles such as “The CIA will stop funding Signal” (never has been) or “FBI wants to sell Wikipedia” (never has been).
What is going on?
EDIT: Cosmic Cleric has provided the definition of “tendentious”, which I have linked.
ten·den·tious
/tenˈdenSHəs/
adjective
expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one.
“a tendentious reading of history”
Thank you. I’m not too proud to say I didn’t know this word. And, you saved me looking it up. When I was a kid, my dad got tired of defining words for me when I was reading a book, so he taught me to use a dictionary. From then on, I’ve read with a dictionary next to me.
Thanks for taking the time to explain it to others, which I should have done beforehand. Admittedly when I wrote that post I was thinking of the term “tenacious” which means something completely different, and that distracted me from noticing I was using a perhaps obscure word.
Your adroit incorporation of the term “tendentious” exemplifies lexical virtuosity. Impressive articulation. Truly seamless weaving of a sesquipedalian polysyllabic term.
Something can’t become categorically imperative, a quiddidity such as an essentially categorical property is invariant with respect to time. It either is or it isn’t. Per contra, aesculapian aid might become dispositionally required.
Your adroit incorporation of "adroit " reminds me of mine own erewhile efforts to incorporate “adroit” into my poetical experimentations, which I hope resulted in an execution considered adroit back in the time.
Grateful I am for your bringing of this memory of creation to me.
Completely off-topic but I recall a lawyers TV show back in the day where the response to this joke was something like:
“About at the same time you stopped beating yours”
Which would have been interesting to see how that would have worked at the court. Can’t remember the show alas, but it was probably The Practice (a late 90s show I think, predecessor to Boston Legal).
I took the liberty of reading the article but I’m gonna say the title is quite… tendentious. Makes it sound like it’s yet another one of those FUD / nutjob clickbait that have been coming at the privacy community for a few days with sensationalist titles such as “The CIA will stop funding Signal” (never has been) or “FBI wants to sell Wikipedia” (never has been).
What is going on?
EDIT: Cosmic Cleric has provided the definition of “tendentious”, which I have linked.
ten·den·tious /tenˈdenSHəs/ adjective expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. “a tendentious reading of history”
Thank you. I’m not too proud to say I didn’t know this word. And, you saved me looking it up. When I was a kid, my dad got tired of defining words for me when I was reading a book, so he taught me to use a dictionary. From then on, I’ve read with a dictionary next to me.
You’re welcome, and yeah I had no idea what that word meant either, its why I looked it up in the first place.
New word for me, too. Odd, considering how incredibly relevant it is nowadays!
It’s a very common word in other languages (Spanish) but my brain didn’t even process it correctly the first time I saw it in English lol
Very common word in Dutch too, but the Spanish did at one point rule the low countries before we kicked them out, so.
Thanks for taking the time to explain it to others, which I should have done beforehand. Admittedly when I wrote that post I was thinking of the term “tenacious” which means something completely different, and that distracted me from noticing I was using a perhaps obscure word.
Your adroit incorporation of the term “tendentious” exemplifies lexical virtuosity. Impressive articulation. Truly seamless weaving of a sesquipedalian polysyllabic term.
Someone call 911, I think I’m having some kind of medical issue with how this post looks.
We would be euphoria-laden in our willingness to expeditiously mobilize and engage medical assistance should it become categorically imperative.
Something can’t become categorically imperative, a quiddidity such as an essentially categorical property is invariant with respect to time. It either is or it isn’t. Per contra, aesculapian aid might become dispositionally required.
Just kill me instead. Thanks!
The fuck does tendentious mean and how do I even pronounce it?
We speak murican here friend
Your adroit incorporation of "adroit " reminds me of mine own erewhile efforts to incorporate “adroit” into my poetical experimentations, which I hope resulted in an execution considered adroit back in the time.
Grateful I am for your bringing of this memory of creation to me.
Original title is worse, I editorialized it as much as I thought appropriate
You made it express an opinion as if in an editorial report?
Or do you mean edited/revised?
edited/revised
“When did you stop beating your wife?”
Completely off-topic but I recall a lawyers TV show back in the day where the response to this joke was something like:
“About at the same time you stopped beating yours”
Which would have been interesting to see how that would have worked at the court. Can’t remember the show alas, but it was probably The Practice (a late 90s show I think, predecessor to Boston Legal).