Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (30841)	12/29/2008 4:48:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "I believe it is just a word he made up." OK, fine... (I kinda figured it was made-up, since I'd never heard of it before <g>) but, why? What for? (It's just nonsense when used without any contextual meaning, any given definition.) Re: "I believe his point is that even if the pork spending (pork relatively broadly defined), doesn't meat the definition of earmarks (or the narrower more technical definition of pork), that its still a huge waste in resources, and that he considers it to be pork and probably as bad as actual earmarks." Again... OK. But why not just SAY 'pork spending' (a term who's meaning everyone understands)... or 'unproductive spending'... or 'unwise', or 'bloated', etc., etc.? "Nosemarks" (because no definition was given) just came across as a nonsense word... perhaps meant to seem 'cute' because of the play on 'earmarks' (the term I first posted, and one who's meaning is fairly well clear and specific to most folks), but it also came across as just an attempt to dodge any discussion of earmarks... or even federal pork-spending in general.