Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

But that hardly suggest that it's limited to that time period, DD.

I rarely hear it anymore, though. Even from kids.

Usually when I hear it, it's from my dad, who just turned 70, so for me it kind of dates a person.

An exact phrase search limited to the NY Times website yields

"duh" site:www.nytimes.com

About 1940 hits

Two articles from the NYT website,

Is Pop Speech Bad for Us? One Writer Answers, 'Duh'

By WILLIAM GRIMES
Published: October 12, 2005

Correspondence/Duh; Today's Kids Are, Like, Killing The English Language. Yeah, Right.
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: August 09, 1998

I think illustrate that duh's demise is a bit overrated.

I presume that your father isn't speaking from the dead.

According to the information I found, it first appeared in 1943, but didn't become popular until the mid 1960s.

And maybe the writer of the NY Times article is 70; who knows?

To me, it's outdated slang. If you choose to disagree, go ahead. It seems that any time an issue of language comes up, you feel the need to be argumentative about it. Color me unimpressed.

Funny movie.

Your dad should ask for a refund on your education.

No one cares if you're unimpressed. Duh!

I only disagree because you often illustrate ignorance on language issues, DD. Here's another one now. Your opinion that it's outdated isn't based on any objective reality, it's based on your opinion, because, well, your opinion doesn't really matter, does it?

You illustrate your ignorance by calling it 'slang'. This is a quick go to put down for anything that a person simply doesn't like.

But 'duh' doesn't qualify as slang. It has a relatively long history, as you've noted, it isn't a word that's known only to a small group and as I've shown, and you've shown, it's hardly outdated.

Another fine example of the admonition from The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, that native speakers are notoriously bad at knowing how their language works.

I would venture that 'duh' would be discussed within the pages of that corpus study.

Pedantic Internet guy is pedantic.

It's clear Mr. Dubois is quoting from 'O Reilly's Big Book Of Well Worn Cliches.' For Mr. Dubois this is classed as original thinking and wit.

Brilliant rebuttal, DD. You've just proven the points I set out.

Oh my, you don't like Bill O'Reilly,. How cute.

It's fairly obvious that's what you bash the bishop to.

How would you know unless you watch O'Reilly. So is that it? That's all? You don't like someone. Okay. Are you jealous because he has tons of money and you don't? Just exactly what pricks your puny pecker over O'Reilly?

In just the little bit I've seen of Izzy, my guess is that he very much dislikes, as any thinking person would, the lying ways that is Fox and its conservative pandering crew.

The first that I heard of 'O Reilly was when I read a book called 'Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them,' by Al Franken. It was a really good book, I really enjoyed it, it made me laugh. There was a whole chapter on 'O Reilly, with all of the lies he had told well researched, and documented.

I next saw him on Charlie Brooker's screen wipe. They showed a clip of him shouting and bullying a young lad of 18 whose father had died in 9/11. The reason O' Reilly was acting in such a vile and disgusting manner was that the young lad did not believe in the war in Iraq. It just showed me what a completely repulsive **** the man was.

Then we got the rancid filth that calls itself Fox 'News' posted on our Satellite News Channels. Over here we have a thing called the BBC. The BBC was set up by Royal Charter, it is required BY LAW to be fair and impartial. There is a very rigorous system in place to ensure its impartiality. There is an independent panel that reviews complaints about bias, normally these complaints are from the government of the day, whether Labour or Conservative. 99% of the time they find in favour of the BBC. When the BBC is found to be unbiased, it's headline news. Even it's fiercest critic, The Daily Mail can't accuse the BBC of bias. (You'd love the Daily Mail Mr. Dubois, like you,it supported the Nazis in the 1930s, and very little has changed.

So we, Mr. Dubois, know what a news channel is, unlike you. A news channel reports the facts, and when there is a need for comment, both sides of the arguement are presented. Normally people with differing viewpoints are interviewed at the same time, to ensure balance. That's what the BBC does, that's what Al Jazeera does, and to be fair, that's what CNN does.

Then you have propaganda vehicles, where some gobshite has an arguement with the camera. That's what Press TV does, (Iranian propaganda), that's what RT does, (Russian Propaganda), and that's what Fox 'News' does (Far Right Wing American Propaganda). You can't see that, because you're a small minded bigot,who has no interest about finding anything out about the outside world. You don't watch a 'news' channel to find anything out. You just watch a 'news' channel to reinforce your own prejudices, and O' Reilly is as big a bigot as you are Mr. Dubois.

Are you serious? You're quoting Media Matters about Fox making stuff up? That's almost as funny as MSNBC and Olbermann and his "Worst Person in the World".

So tell us why Fox is the highest rated cable news network.

If you like lying liars, then you're gonna love this.
http://lyingliar.com/

Quote

So tell us why Fox is the highest rated cable news network.

Because the girl who reads the news is a ******* whore whose tits are about to pop out.

Yes, yes, that makes perfect sense. There you have it folks. Ask a perfectly reasonable question and get a stupid answer. You qualify.