Doing the O last cuz the dementia got im for just a second.

“Fuck the C_ps… What was it? Caps? Cups?”

Ethel: “COPS”

“WHERE?!”

The other interesting tidbit from this:

Things get dire when US carmakers enter the fray. All but one of the bottom ten brands in the list are American. The best of the worst was Chevrolet at a score of 40. But Tesla makes that failing grade seem respectable with its absolute rock bottom rating of 31, trailing Jeep by just one point.

That is because everything American has been shit since forever with all the lack rules and regulations, but in the last decade, things really have gone off a cliff

Aw, are you hurt that I don't think your linked article is worth reading, based on having gone through and read the initial intro/'teaser' for that article? What did you think that initial teaser is meant to be used for, if not to gauge whether or not the whole article is worth a read?

It's like providing a free sample of some food product in a store, and the person goes "yuck", and now you're getting all pissed off and saying "well you didn't eat a whole serving size before going yuck, so you clearly have no taste!".

If you're involved in peer reviewed work, you should have thicker skin to criticism.

Yup, you've cracked the code! The deep, philosophical truth is that free samples exist so we can say 'yuck.' My mind is reeling from this Socratic revelation. Truly, we have a giant of philosophy on our hands here.

I love how your entire defense rests on the intellectual rigor of taste testing an abstract. The first paragraph didn't emotionally gratify me, therefore the entire argument is invalid is a peer-review methodology I've only ever seen in YouTube comments. But please, tell me more about thicker skin from the person who wrote a whole paragraph because they did not like a teaser. 🤣

You seem overly triggered that I found the teaser off-putting, so much so that you're conflating what I'd initially stated and what I'd used later as an explanation of how teasers work.

I basically noted that the person is padding in useless words, and that they were referencing highly contested concepts as though they're pre-defined/determined (twisting). It's the kind of stuff I used to see in first year student papers back in uni. Like even in the title, there's no real purpose for using "reality of" when you can just say "Contemporary Canadian Imperialism", the attempt to expand that out and tether what's fairly likely a subjective article to what most people consider 'objective' (reality) is just academic obfuscation. If this person had an editor, they should've been underlining stuff all over the place.

Even more, it's a piece published by a US University that seems pretty clearly to try and foster animosity amongst Canadian demographic subsets and to paint Canada in a negative light. Funding for this sort of article, its publication and distribution, at a time when the US is aggressively targeting Canada with economic warfare and making statements about annexing the territory, is at the very least questionable.