Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Wednesday, August 15, 2021

douchedudeAs the Web continues to mature into a more robust and polished media outlet, it’s downright refreshing to know that Hot Chicks with Douchebags carries on in the spirit of Web 1.0 text-and-still-photo snarkiness.

The classics never die, mon.

I think it’s funny that, despite the ordering of the two elements in the blog’s title, there’s far more focus on the douchebags (and their caught-in-the-act douchebaggery) than on the hot chicks. It’s something of a case of misplaced priorities, but completely understandable. After all, you can ogle a picture of an attractive woman without much editorial assistance; but can you come up with the fashion descriptor “cactus hair and amoeba mandana” on your own? Of course not.

All I know is that, the next time I get my photo taken alongside a pretty lady, I’m going to obsessively check HCwDB for the next several days afterward…

by Costa Tsiokos, Wed 08/15/2007 11:42 PM
Category: Bloggin', Comedy, Women
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback


The following headline was attached to this police blotter item from yesterday:

Bronx: Woman Shot to Death

This is the latest occurrence of a phrase which, while commonplace, I find somewhat misleading.

“Shot to death” is the accepted way to describe someone being killed via firearms. I understand that no more than one bullet, strategically aimed, is needed to kill human or animal. But for some reason, in my mind, this particular phraseology implies multiple shots being administered, even when that’s not the case. (For instance, the linked story above describes the victim being shot once, in the head.)

Does anyone else interpret the phrase “shot to death” this way? Maybe it’s just me. For whatever reason, I instantly think of a barrage of bullets being pumped into someone — a sort of overkill to ensure death. Maybe it’s the “shot to” part that implies a repeated action?

Which is why I think the more compact “shot dead” would be more accurate, or at least more neutral in tone. To me, it’s more direct and self-contained, somehow.

I suppose I’m in the minority on this. Probably a minority of one. But that’s how I read it.

by Costa Tsiokos, Wed 08/15/2007 11:00 PM
Category: True Crime, Wordsmithing
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback (5)