DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Peapeuddedbaw** · 08-29-2012, 09:19 PM

This made me look up the definition.

Gruesome

adjective
1.*causing great horror; horribly repugnant; grisly
2.*full of or causing problems; distressing

I think my use of the word is perfect in this case.

As for Infowars, they just use pure conjecture to come up with ridiculous unsupported claims, in other words, they start with a real story and then proceed to pull things out of their ass. For profit, nonetheless.

I despise the website and don't have a modicum of respect for anyone who tries to give it credence.

The video clip was not of great horror or distressing. There was nothing grisly in it. I think gruesome is too stronger word. If the bomb had gone off, the aftermath could be described as gruesome. But this is really not worth arguing about.

If Infowars start off with real stories, there's the point of the website. The stories on there aren't by any means all mainstream. If you then bother to read their take on it and conclude it to be pulled from their ass, then fair enough, but that doesn't discredit the original headline. They make profit from sponsors, not directly from making news up.

08-29-2012, 09:19 PM	#56
Peapeuddedbaw Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 426 Senior Member	This made me look up the definition. Gruesome adjective 1.causing great horror; horribly repugnant; grisly 2.full of or causing problems; distressing I think my use of the word is perfect in this case. As for Infowars, they just use pure conjecture to come up with ridiculous unsupported claims, in other words, they start with a real story and then proceed to pull things out of their ass. For profit, nonetheless. I despise the website and don't have a modicum of respect for anyone who tries to give it credence. The video clip was not of great horror or distressing. There was nothing grisly in it. I think gruesome is too stronger word. If the bomb had gone off, the aftermath could be described as gruesome. But this is really not worth arguing about. If Infowars start off with real stories, there's the point of the website. The stories on there aren't by any means all mainstream. If you then bother to read their take on it and conclude it to be pulled from their ass, then fair enough, but that doesn't discredit the original headline. They make profit from sponsors, not directly from making news up.
	Quote