Meet Jesuit Singles!
This morning, while bouncing around the LA Times online home-page, I typed "jesuit" into the search engine -- and the following appeared in the "Sponsored Links" section of the results page:
Meet Jesuit Singles
Free photos, personals and hot profiles of local singles. Free
I shall pass over in decorous silence any oblique conjectures about vocation procurement in the California Province.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our September expenses ($33,073 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Dec. 15, 2004 11:15 PM ET USA
I have found that some sites must have a way to take whatever word you type into the search engine and magically make their page "match" your search. You can tell those sites by the fact that all of the keywords from your search turn up, but the blurb that, say, google, gives from the site is nonsensical. Perhaps this is a site like that.
Posted by: snowbird -
Dec. 15, 2004 9:51 PM ET USA
Please, God, make it a "typo" - - -
Posted by: Ignacio177 -
Dec. 15, 2004 7:06 PM ET USA
Diogenes You had me going. I went to the site and found the type-o "jewish singles" too. But knowing the wackyness of the Calprov I did not doubt that it could be true.
Posted by: -
Dec. 14, 2004 8:48 PM ET USA
Diogenes, your "decorous silence" came over as "snrk, snrk, snrk". The LATimes error is an example, I think, of a here and coming epidemic of slovenly writing brought about by reliance on the Word spellcheck feature. You get a nasty red squiggly if you really screw up; but if you only wander into nonsense with your fingers, no squiggly. No squiggly, no problem. I see it every day.
Posted by: -
Dec. 14, 2004 11:13 AM ET USA
The L.A. Times probably isn't aware that there is (or should be) a difference between "Jesuit singles" and "Jewish singles." Of course this doesn't rise to the level of confusion they would manifest regarding the meanings of the Annunciation and the Immaculate Conception.
Posted by: shrink -
Dec. 14, 2004 9:17 AM ET USA
If you follow the links, they transmute to Jewish Singles. Perhaps there's a Freudian slip. Whatever.
Posted by: Cornelius -
Dec. 14, 2004 7:07 AM ET USA
Please tell me that's a typo. Maybe for 'Jewish'?