@Angus, I guess my first response may have given the wrong impression. I did recognize the author meant it to be funny; only I am sooooo very tired these days of people who think that being humorous only means being loud, mock-angry, and dull-witted. It's everywhere: on newstalk radio, on television, in books, on the Internet, etc. When I wrote that the author of that prose uses the website "to flame just about everything and everyone," I meant in the sense of someone who identified flaming with great humor, instead of identifying quality flaming with good humor. My disgust at his style probably pushed some static in the way of getting my message across.
I'm not suggesting as some have said (over and over) that "the times are going to the dogs," but that styles cycle. There have been periods in English literature (I can't speak intimately about others) where crude, rude remarks were considered the height of wit. The Elizabethan stage had quite a bit of it, though more by way of inuendo. (The literature was another matter. It was pretty damn blatant. Too bad I can't reproduce examples up here.) I've found some current pungent expresssions that have to do with reproduction and excretion being used in English plays of the early 17th century. Doesn't bother me; they're usually put in context next to a lot of other comic stuff. They lend flavor, like topological variety in a landscape. Who wants everything to look the same, as though taking a walking tour through Belgium?
Then the English Got Religion, and cut off Charles I's head. Literature had to be high-minded to be published. When the Restoration brought Charles II into power, the literature became racier than before. In the 19th century, reaction set in. And so it goes.
I'm sure there was a purpose to the last two paragraphs I've written at one time, but I'm tired to find it and tie it down.
Oh, well. If I'm going senescent, I have the satisfaction of knowing that you're all being dragged, kicking and screaming, behind me.
