Posted on 06/26/2012 11:07:06 AM PDT by John Semmens
Tulsa, Oklahoma City officials destroyed resident Denise Morrison’s “survival garden” because “this abnormal use of her property was causing anxiety in the neighborhood.”
Morrison started the garden after she lost her job. The garden consisted of food and medicinal plants. Before embarking on her agricultural venture, Morrison researched City ordinances to ensure she complied.
“Lack of compliance was not the issue,” said City Zoning Director, Leroy Fiat. “The fact that there are no official rules against what she did doesn’t matter. No one else in the city does this.”
As for her nutritional and medical needs, Fiat advised that “there are government programs—food stamps and Medicaid. No one needs to try to make it all on their own.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://azconservative.org/2012/06/23/press-secretary-parries-questions-on-fast-furious-scandal/
What are the differences and why are they humorous? The real woman had her survival garden destroyed by city workers, and that aint humorous. So whatever subtle differences there are between her story and this POS copy, do they amount to humor worth reading at the lady’s expense? No, they don’t. Or is it the same old Semens story, that he steals a headline, splashes ‘satire’ in the keywords, and thinks it’s funny?
All it takes is for Semens to put [satire] in the titles. But he won’t do that because what he’s doing is craptire.
Yeah...I saw no humor or satire in what was presented. It is why I provided the link.
It’s hard to explain humor to someone without a sense of humor.
He subtly altered the expression of the events in a way that resonates with another person of a survivalist mind.
Indeed; many a true word has been said in ‘jest.’
You presume too much, such as that I don’t have a sense of humor. Without that presumption in place, what you have said is simply untenable. That’s why you can’t come up with the differences and why they are supposedly funny.
Why do YOU think John Semens doesn’t put [satire] in the title? It’s because he knows that most FReepers would not bother reading the rest of the article, and he enjoys the gotcha on those who do read it and miss the hidden satire claim.
All of this would just not even be an issue if Semens put the [satire] in the title. At the very least, the columns he has blogpimped which have the keywords “craptire” should have [satire] in the title, but he’s too invested in the gotcha to do so.
Nobody puts ‘satire’ in the title, unless it really isn’t satire.
Do you need the /sarc tags too?
If you don’t understand it, just leave it alone; don’t make a fool of yourself.
Nobody puts ‘satire’ in the title, unless it really isn’t satire.
***You mean, unless it’s craptire.
Do you need the /sarc tags too?
***That isn’t the subject of the current conversation, cognition-boy. Do you need a /sarc tag?
If you don’t understand it, just leave it alone;
***You have amply demonstrated that YOU do not understand it. Otherwise, you’d have put up several examples of how this article differs from the original and how those differences are humorous. But you didn’t, because you can’t, and because YOU YOURSELF do not understand it. Even Semen-boy has said in the past that he relies on the keywords so that freepers will clue in, but he outdid himself this time. This whole Semen-stained article is craptire, not satire.
don’t make a fool of yourself.
***Your concern is duly noted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.