flecked

No two lines drawn by my hand, no two drops of ink flecked from my pen will ever be the same. My emotional state at the time will felt in my brush strokes.

It makes me think your screen is flecked with spittle. The guy admitted the quotes and admitted an error.

They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.

> spittle-flecked rants This added color detracts from your comment's point. It's the kind of thing that would be included in, well, a spittle-flecked YouTube rant.

Google "police union boss" if you want to see a spittle flecked shouting goon defending the worst police behavior. This is the guy who won the most votes.

>there isn't enough there to the spittle-flecked, cheeto-dusting link... Why, exactly, did you use this particular choice of words?

When I see his name in the byline, I close the tab, as it's almost always going to be some spittle-flecked rant about just how much someone else's work sucks.

There's a difference between saying that for many things, MS Office wins and some of the spittle-flecked rants about OpenOffice that one sees.

The article sums it up well: > it doesn’t take too much imagination to guess that constant foam-flecked political outrage makes one quite tedious

When nature calls, the 26-year-old single mother and her four children head toward the jungle next to their farm of red and pink roses, to a field of tall grass, flecked with petals, where the 7,000 people of her village go to defecate and exchange gossip. 7000 people is a lot of people.

Your spittle-flecked diatribes don't put forth anything remotely resembling the scientific process. Cite your sources and their studies, not their blogs.

Galileo didn't deliver spittle-flecked rants either. He carefully gathered evidence and wrote it up, and his ideas gained acceptance by peer review.

The progress of science wasn't driven by nutjobs delivering spittle-flecked rants on Youtube. Almost all of it was driven by careful peer review of ideas -- which is the exact opposite of unrestricted speech.

Galileo in particular was prosecuted by the Catholic church for making spittle flecked rants against the Pope. Much like a modern YouTuber, he then pretended he was persecuted for his science.

There hasn't been a single example of a nontrivial story broken by a guy delivering spittle-flecked rants on Youtube. The ranters, however, are very good at taking credit for what actual scientists did.

Not tearing off on a spittle-flecked, unhinged rant because somebody says that calling people "muggles" is unproductive and career-limiting and just kinda not a good way to operate would be a good start towards being better. People will give back what you put in.

The written equivalent of spittle-flecked screaming is neither professional nor constructive. Unless, of course, the goal is to hound someone out of the community and make others less likely to participate, in which case that was an excellent comment.

If you can't tell the difference between a professor and a guy who gives spittle-flecked rants about the lizard people, this discussion will not be productive. For example, we all know he did a terrible job with the hydroxychloroquine study, but of course he retains his position.

This sort of bilious, spittle-flecked juvenile chest-thumping teenaged-courageous-loner noise is precisely why venues like Hacker News, despite the presence and attention of a good many smart people, have been rendered such sterile wastelands. No matter how much you enjoy the game, it's not getting us anywhere.

Actually, Galileo did largely deliver self-aggrandizing spittle-flecked rants, full of personal attacks against other astronomers, which were complete rubbish. His arguments for why the Earth revolved around the Sun were complete nonsense, and were more theological, than scientific in nature.

I have a number of members of friends/family who have become very difficult to be around, because they’ve become so intense/constantly outraged about politics, even if they are on the same end of the political spectrum as me: > The research doesn’t reveal precisely why we tend to dislike overly political people, but it doesn’t take too much imagination to guess that constant foam-flecked political outrage makes one quite tedious. It also impedes our ability to think clearly: At least one experiment has shown that people become less accurate in interpreting data when the data concern something politically polarizing.