« Why They Hate Us Revisited | Main | Torture Redux »

January 24, 2005

Comments

Mac: I appreciate your comments. If we had failed to communicate with him before this, that would be completely different. But we had tried, in various ways, with little effect as far as I could see. It's a shame.

well it seems silly to now use that as support for Edward's petulance.

Ouch!

Really sorry to see you call it that Mac. Most of what you called for instead did indeed occur.

A new, improved banning policy will be posted shortly. Hopefully it will address the thoughtful concerns raised by this incident and make the site stronger and more fair overall.

As for all who are bootlicking tacitus, either put up or shut up.

I find that particular statement unhelpful. Appreciating his contributions, when done in a positive manner, is certainly not "bootlicking."

I must have been looming again, Edward. Sometimes I do that without meaning to.

Looming ominously, no less.

[side note]

Slarti scares the hell out of me. Anyone with that much patience is just patently dangerous.

Slarti, maybe you're better at looming ominously, but I am a baleful resident, it seems. ;-)

I admit that I did not personally go to Tacitus and beg him to tone it down either privately or publically. And that was probably a mistake which didn't allow my objections to be registered if they would have had done any good--which considering that I don't know the man seems unlikely. That said, Tacitus was warned on a number of threads and on this one. And he responded on this thread with that really unfair Hitler and Stalin analogy.

I can't adequately convey how unhappy I am with the whole situation. But I'm unhappy not because I disagree with Edward's decision--I'm unhappy because I agree with it and deeply wish that I didn't. I'm unhappy because I don't like being caught between two people I respect. I'm unhappy because the whole point of this site is to engage in a dialouge which is hurt by banning someone very bright but which dialouge can't continue if we allow things to degenerate into vicious attacks.

Argh.

It is very possible that I haven't take my responsibility to police commentors seriously enough. That coupled with my fairly thick skin probably means that I haven't been effective in that role here. But please people, we can be very sharp and very intelligent without being mean. Can't we?

Argh.

If Tacitus wrote a post about "those who promote Islam", you might feel it was directed at you even though you're obviously not one.

Depends on context I imagine, but overall, I'd say I wouldn't take it as meaning me.

OK, fair enough. I wouldn't be surprised if Tac took the "anti-Muslim" thing personally, though (at least based on the tone of his first comment in the thread).

Anyone on the right who feels that the commenters are weighted towards the left has a solution in their own hands: hang out here and comment more.

I didn't mean that as a criticism, just an observation -- because of the commenting community, it's still fair to call this a left-leaning site, even though the slate of official contributors is more balanced.

A new, improved banning policy will be posted shortly.

Oooh, exciting! Wonder what it'll be -- will we vote one commenter off the island each week?

Oooh, exciting! Wonder what it'll be -- will we vote one commenter off the island each week?

Good Lord No!

Just what we need, "Reality Blogging."

Of course, we could take the dating approach, and the winner gets a date with our resident Bachelor (Sebastian) or Bachelorette (Hilzoy)...

{running, before they throw things....}

Don't go there, Edward. There are other reality shows that might fit even better, but they might wind up with yours truly getting a serious makeover.

And who's got time for that, with a couple of kids?

If Tacitus wrote a post about "those who promote Islam", you might feel it was directed at you even though you're obviously not one.

You know, Tac *did* write a post much like that (only not about Islam), and got pretty much the reaction you suggest. As far as I can tell, that experience did not do much to color his behavior here.

For me, having a couple of kids was a serious makeover in and of itself.

but they might wind up with yours truly getting a serious makeover.

Ahh...come on. It won't hurt. You like form-fitting gold lamee, no?

Edward says:
"Do you see your own role in the cylce of violence here?"

It seems to me this violates the posting rules related to being civil. Accusing someone of of playing a role cycle of violence is just beyond rude?

I suggest that if you are going to ban Tacitus you should also ban Edward.

Accussing those who voted for Bush as contributing to the killing of civilians seems to be far beyond rude.

But that is okay to do here.

I guess that lesson that we can learn here is that as long as someone of the left is talking being overly uncivil, then that's okay. If someone in the right is, then they get banned.

I guess that make's sense... atleast for here.

"Just what we need, "Reality Blogging."

Of course, we could take the dating approach, and the winner gets a date with our resident Bachelor (Sebastian) or Bachelorette (Hilzoy)..."

We could also look for new commentators this way. We just need the blogosphere's equivalent of Donald Trump to preside...

Just to clarify Sebastian…

That said, Tacitus was warned on a number of threads and on this one.

There is a world of difference between various warnings and nudges during heated discussions on assorted threads, and the collective editors engaging the freak'n "Blog Father" in a constructive discussion offline. Let me see if I can explain, for instance I have been warned and actually banned* at Tacitus when given an ultimatum and I stood in defiance. However, if Josh at some other time had sent me an e-mail stating that he thinks I'm hurting his site or that my contributions are a net negative, well I'd be gone in a heartbeat or I'd alter my participation - without question. Do you see the difference?

*trigger not pulled though because, for whatever reason, he later decided the better of it; much to the consternation of many commentators and accusations of hypocrisy and favoritism. I even wrote him offline and told him to go ahead ban me for the resultant "street cred" it would generate. Instead, he decided to suck it up and just do what he determined was right even though it maybe made him look bad. Perhaps a lesson in that.

Mac -- is there a reason you're assuming such offline discussions did not happen?

smlook,

I'll address your comment, even though I think you're grasping at straws.

My question was not implying an active role in the cycle of violence, but merely a passive supporting role. By refusing to look for opportunities to practice tolerance and promote peaceful messages, anyone would own such a role, in my opinion. I've been clear about my belief that tolerance needs to be a constant effort.

If one's first reaction to such a message is to discredit the messenger, not even stopping to contemplate how the message could be used (with or without the speaker meaning it to be) to further the goals of tolerance, peace, and widespread moderation, then one is supporting an environment in which such progress becomes increasingly difficult.

Accussing those who voted for Bush as contributing to the killing of civilians seems to be far beyond rude.

I've reread that several time and still think you pulled that out of thin air.

I guess that lesson that we can learn here is that as long as someone of the left is talking being overly uncivil, then that's okay. If someone in the right is, then they get banned.

That's not how it works here. But you should recognize the difference between an author and a commenter. Different rules for them do apply. As an author, I pay for any uncivility by having folks wish to no longer visit here. My fellow bloggers could ask me to leave, but I don't agree that my question to Stan should lead to that.

And for God's sake Mac...send me an email would ya?

You like form-fitting gold lamee, no?

Think "tangerine Speedo". Or, on second thought, it'd be best not to.

Think "tangerine Speedo".

My mind's eyes!!! MY EYES!

Mac -- is there a reason you're assuming such offline discussions did not happen?

No assumption, I was just responding to his comment and trying to clarify the difference. However, if these did occur, or were ongoing, why didn't (don't) they continue without the public use of the nuclear option?

However, if these did occur, or were ongoing, why didn't (don't) they continue without the public use of the nuclear option?

How many second chances should someone get? Personally, I don't care if you're the freaking blogfather or not, you play the game like everyone else.

This comes up every so often on one of the newsgroups I (used to) read. Famous authors, whose works were and are often under discussion in that very newsgroup, occasionally show up and act like complete prats. They got no more slack than anyone else would in their situation. All in all, it works out quite well.

edward, was responding to slarti's comment of 07:47am

Josh, please don't interrupt my bootlicking with your populist prosaicism. It's a matter/anti-matter thing.

Oh, brother. defend yourself verbally, is what I meant by that. If you think I'm even remotely inclined to threaten anyone in any way, in person or otherwise, you don't know the least thing about me.

Plus, I'd have thought that since we were talking about Tacitus, the idea of me threatening you with him wouldn't have made much sense. But YMMV.

Macallan --

Let's not make assumptions about what has/is/will/may go on in private. At Edward's suggestion, we are revisiting the rules applicable to banning. That process will occur first in private and, likely, later in public.

I yield to no one in my admiration of Tacitus. My feelings are very similar to Sebastian's -- and perhaps even more conflicted. For a variety of reasons, which I will not discuss in this forum, I feel a great deal of responsibility for yesterday's events. In other words, if you think that we don't appreciate the significance of these events, you're sorely mistaken. Virtually all of us consider Tacitus as a friend.

None of this means, however, that I do not fully stand behind Ed.

For those who say that we ban only folks who are left/right/socialist/commies/libertarians/LaRouchians/etc. --

We want to be fair, we strive to be fair, and we are working on ways to be even more fair in the future.

Von has noted that he doesn't like talking about Tacitus site here, but I have to note

trigger not pulled though because, for whatever reason, he later decided the better of it; much to the consternation of many commentators and accusations of hypocrisy and favoritism

and an number of commentators (on both sides) asking you to reconsider and defending you (I lurked. So sue me) I note that Armando and Trickster were quite vocal in asking that you not be banned.
link

I would suggest that the lesson in that is that memory is a tricky thing. Even Tacitus misremembered how it all went down

Now, hang on.... (#29)
tacitus (User Info) Posted on: Sun Aug 15th, 2004 at 06:11:13 PM EST
In the interest of historical accuracy, there are a few things that should be noted here:

# You[Harley] and Mac both have posted stuff I've had to publicly repudiate.

# Mac announced he was leaving the site when he misunderstood my gripe about you to be about him. And, I must say, considering what he thought was occurring -- my publicly urging him to quit the site -- he was quite gentlemanly about it.

Note that I am assuming the best here-that Tac misremembered the incident. I'd also ask you to make a list of who was banned at Tacitus and then drop them into our right left categories. Of course, you could take the attitude that Tac took

You will doubtless see this as subjective -- or more likely, not see it at all -- but that's irrelevant to me. The whining over posting rules is coming mostly from those who do not respect its spirit -- and it is coming entirely from the left. I don't respect that in cases like this.

The question _here_ (note that I didn't bring up this behavior, you did) is not whether Tac had a point or not, the question is whether he did not make a personal attack. I think that one of the threads that Seb is referring to is here. I would cut him more slack in that thread because he felt his words were being attacked, but the overall bile from him is truly astonishing. However, in the case we have here, Edward called him out and then banned him. Was Edward reacting too quickly? Tac apparently went to another IP address to post _another_ comment. If that isn't standing in defiance, I don't know what is. This going to email goes both ways, and when Tac found himself banned, he could have sent an apology off list (as you could do right now) and I don't think (I'm not privy to the behind the curtain details) he didn't. But if someone attacked my wife verbally, I would like it to be very clear that they were very very sorry before I budged one micron. If that is hard to understand, then I can't explain it.

lj: "he could have sent an apology off list (as you could do right now)"

That probably came out slightly wrong.

Sorry, too many parentheses

he could have sent an apology off list (as you could do right now) and I don't think (I'm not privy to the behind the curtain details) he didn't

he did

Also, I'm not suggesting that Mac send an apology, just noting that email was an option.

just noting that email was an option.

Well, he might have been surreptitiously illustrating his point by not doing so. I hear he's sort of evil that way, but you didn't hear that from me.

slarti, never thought for a moment you were threatening me physically. how bizarre. i took your comment to mean you thought i was afraid of those blogs and that's why i wouldn't post there, because i was too scared to 'defend myself' which couldn't be further from the truth.

How else might I threaten you, wilfred? Am I going to...I don't know, ruin your reputation? Honestly, I have no idea where you're coming from, here. But it doesn't matter, I was not in point of fact offering any sort of threat whatever to you, other than the imagined kind.

Or, maybe there's another reason you're not afraid of me...not that I care.

My comment was to simply point out how much easier it is to trash people where they can't respond. I'm growing a little weary of this sort of thing, because it doesn't do a thing toward addressing what it is they're saying. Although it may serve provide that fleeting moment of superiority.

"Although it may serve provide that fleeting moment of superiority."

We could just get rid of this bone of contention if we'd all just realize that Giblets is superior to us all.

At least, as part of a gravy recipe.

"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than the grave about you, whatever you are!"

All must bow before Giblets NOOOOOW!

"These are the chains I forged in life..."

Chains of GIBLETS!!!

Edward,

"ussing those who voted for Bush as contributing to the killing of civilians seems to be far beyond rude"

That is exactly what both Lily and I think Dianne did a couple of days ago. But, no peep out of the posting rules god.

Let's try this on for size and see how it feels?

Can't you see how your constant opposition to the Bush administration is providing support to the terrorists?

Do really mean to empathize so much with the terrorist?

Can't you see how your opposition to the War in Iraq is aiding the insurgency? We know that they are hoping for the U.S. will become polically divided and lose the political will to fight.

Don't we know that they are using the MSM and naive Americans in effort to achieve a PR victory in Iraq?
Why do you support them in their effort?


I guess you nor Hilzoy would find it offensive if I accused you of helping the terrorists and the insurgency, now would you?

I'm certain I would get a big fat threat from the Posting Rule god if I did.

smlook - I guess you nor Hilzoy would find it offensive if I accused you of helping the terrorists and the insurgency, now would you?

I'm certain I would get a big fat threat from the Posting Rule god if I did.

I personally am not sure which discussion it is that you're referring to, but if your tone in that one was as unpleasant as this one, I'm not surprised that it got hot. Sarcasm, snark, and a rude attitude usually beget more of the same.

smlook: since you don't provide the actual comment you're referring to, and since I'm not up for rereading the past few days' threads, it's hard to assess what you say. But if you think someone has violated the rules, you should feel free to email about us. I have called people on both sides on rules violations, but I can easily imagine having missed something.

Certainly a few commenters over the past few months have suggested that voting for Bush in 04 is tantamount to endorsing all of his policies, some of which are alleged to be torture and needless war. I heartily disagree with the sentiment of those comments and find them not in the spirit of moderation, but whether they're posting rules violations is another question.

kenB: Certainly a few commenters over the past few months have suggested that voting for Bush in 04 is tantamount to endorsing all of his policies, some of which are alleged to be torture and needless war.

I plead guilty to this, at least in the month following the Nov 2 election. I can't honestly be bothered to go back and dig up all the threads in which I said something like this, but I do recall deciding (sometime in December) that I really shouldn't do this anymore - that, as you say, it didn't fit the spirit of this blog. I'm not sure if I'm sorry yet that I was mad enough to say it... you might have to wait another four years.... ;-)

There have been a couple of very good discussions in the past month, on courtesy and moderation in political blogs like this one, that have made me think about some of my snarkier posting habits with the intent of improving.

One of the things that I think makes Obsidian Wings is the regular recurrance of open-thread posts, or posts on non-political topics, where political opponents can share a cup of tea in a sociable fashion, or the online equivalent. I think that newcomers to the site, or occasional visitors who only bother with the high-profile political threads, tend to be edgier because they only ever read their political opponents ranting on a tangent strongly opposed to their own beliefs - they never discover that actually the evil so-and-so also writes moderately good haiku, and likes Terry Pratchett, and thinks sugared tea is an abomination, and has a vile sense of humor... and so on. Impossible to put in the posting rules, perhaps, but still: I think that's one reason why ObWing hangs together.

I don't understand the juxtaposition of "sugared" and "tea". Isn't it like the fabled existance of Star Trek V? Things that DO NOT EXIST?

I'll second Hilzoy's advice. We can't monitor the site 24/7, so if you see a posting violation, please do email us. We take these things seriously.

Can't you see how your constant opposition to the Bush administration is providing support to the terrorists?

It's not quite parallel. I get to vote for the President and I get to vote for who comes after him. Nothing I say about Bush is likely to lead to him or his supporters getting hurt. The same cannot be said for Muslims living in America. The worse the anti-Muslim rhetoric here gets, the more likely it is idiots will strike out at the Muslims they see.

I was talking with a Turkish artist I know about the new series of "24". She hadn't seen it, but someone told her a very middle-class normal looking Turkish family turns out to be a sleeper cell of terrorists. The artist I know was furious about this. She said that this kind of mindlessness pushes her to rally around her own people, regardless of how unwilling she'd be to do so if the rhetoric in the US wasn't so "us vs. them". This is why I magnify the good news...to keep things from descending into "us vs. them" any more than they have to. This is why I challenge people who try to squash the good news to recognize the role they're playing in increasing the "us vs. them" division.

By celebrating the good news that comes out of the Muslim world, or at least finding ways to use it to advance reform, we can increase solidarity with the moderate Muslims. It's a battle for hearts and minds. We should magnify the messages we want to be heard, despite their speaker's sincerity level.

All right buckos, just what's so horrible about sugared tea? I find that adding 4 or 5 packets per cup is just the thing to make it go down nice and smooth.

Sugared tea: ew. It sticks to my teeth, and the taste of the tea is all muffled and disguised.

About my advice: actually, if you email the site (top left, under the kitten), we'll all get it, and you will avoid confusion about whether you meant to write to one or all of us.

"voting for Bush in 04 is tantamount to endorsing all of his policies"

Well, since Bush himself has said words to this effect...

Sweet Tea is what god drinks...if he exists!

By the way you haven't had sweet tea until you have it in the deep south. You brew the tea with the sugar already added. If you brew it, then add the sugar later is just isn't the same.

I personally drink it unsweet instead of adding the sugar at the table if the tea is brewed that way.

Think I'll have a cup of unsugared green tea right now, as a matter of fact. Cheers.

And I just recalled that it's Robbie Burns night, so I'll have to head home shortly and put on my kilt to celebrate and throw back a dram of Highland Park as well in his memory. Sadly, the local supplier of haggis up the road closed its doors a while back, so no "master o' the puddin' race" for me tonight.

smlook

I used to get peeved when a "usual suspect" said something like "Shrub received his 51% endorsement of torture from the American Public" and no one called them on it thinking that those who stayed silent were nodding their heads out there in cyberspace. Now I realize that most, at least IMVHO here at OW, are rolling their eyes. I think that most agree that a statement like that makes about as much sense as you or I proclaiming that opposition to Ms. Rice's appointment as Sec State is an endorsement of racism.

You can get into screaming matches every time it happens or you can just let it go unless you are targeted directly. Eventually, I've found, again IMVHO here at OW, that the "usual suspect" will say something with which you can laugh about, agree with or that you really do want to seriously debate, any of which will be a better use of your time...especially the first.

Now, as a matter of curiousity, where does Green Tea ice cream land on the scale, abomination or so different that it gets a pass from sweet tea hatred?

C'mon, people. White tea is the new green tea. Not sure if there's ice cream yet.

" used to get peeved when a "usual suspect" said something like "Shrub received his 51% endorsement of torture from the American Public""

An interesting theory of representative democracy in which the voters have zero, absolutely no reponsibility for the actions or policy of the leaders they freely elect. Or maybe only the good stuff and none of the bad.

One which I am afraid I don't adher to, while having disagreed with Clinton on capital punishment and welfare reform, I did feel a little responsible for those policies, because, well, I voted for the guy.

bob: "while having disagreed with Clinton on capital punishment and welfare reform, I did feel a little responsible for those policies, because, well, I voted for the guy."

You would have gotten those with the other guy, so I can't see how you bear any responsibility. You might want a different example, say something about trade policy.

bob,

Do you feel responsible for murdering Vincent Foster? That would be a better analogy. Are you responsible for the allegations of partisans?

So, the Bush Administration, then, isn't prosecuting a war in which there are serious allegations of torture of prisoners and in which, in fact, one soldier has already been convicted? Huh. My newspaper is broken, then. Who knew all that stuff was actually just partisan allegations? I can't even tell you how relieved I feel to know it isn't true.

Bob

I don't understand why you would take my comment, one that is meant to point out to another (newer I assume, sorry if I'm wrong there smlook) commenter that IMHO just because the majority of the posters and commenters don't shout down "endorses torture" statements does not mean that they agree with those statements, and write that it is An interesting theory of representative democracy in which the voters have zero, absolutely no reponsibility for the actions or policy of the leaders they freely elect. Or maybe only the good stuff and none of the bad.

I read your comment to say that denying that those who voted for The President endorse torture means that you think that I believe those voters bear no responsibility for the actions of the person they elect. I don't know if I can award a Carnak (or even spell the name correctly) but I think nominations are open from the floor. If so, I nominate you.

You would have gotten those with the other guy, so I can't see how you bear any responsibility.

No other candidates on the ballot? Abstention not an option?

Not your newspaper Phil.

Well, I agreed withe trade policy (NAFTA) and don't know that Bush I wouldn't have promoted it, tho Bush I would likely had more difficulty passing it. If Hilary murdered Foster, then I suppose I would be somewhat morally responsible, as I was a little responsible for the blowjobs, tho I wish I had enjoyed them more.

In any case, I have been sincerely grappling with the meaning of representation and responsibility in our Republic for decades. I realize we all have to make hard choices in the voting booth, those who do not choose have their own cross to bear. Those who generally support this President but oppose particular policies might make their opposition known by whatever means they feel will be most useful, like a symbolic vote against Gonzalez or supporting the German war crimes investigation of Rumsfeld. Simply saying "I don't like torture" is probably not going to suffice. Everybody, including the torturers, is saying it.

there are three conservative posters, if you count von

Catsy, JFTR, Von isn't a conservative as for the two others, well!

I actually don't comment here very often and usually only comment when Eddie is posting and off of the reservation. I might comment more but someone, unnamed, more often than not accuses me of "thread jumping".

My highlight at Wings so far is when someone called me a fascist which was highly amusing, since the individual doesn't know what he, or is it a she, was talking about.

Finally the self reflection which is currently going on is good for the soul.

I might comment more but someone, unnamed, more often than not accuses me of "thread jumping".

thread jumping?

and jftr, I appreciate your support of Edward in all of this.

My 2-cents worth (in depreciated currency, but, hey, I'm self-aware):

Hell of a thread.

Timmy is not a fascist, even if he accused me of being a Stalinist (which he wouldn't). But there would be yelling.

As one who has been the subject of banning discussions (and maybe shunning) here and elsewhere, let me say that this too will pass. Tacitus will be back. He'll live to spar with Edward again.

I don't agree with Edward on everything, mostly method. He's an honorable guy who says what he has to say within fairly civil bounds. But I like the way he expresses himself; he's noble, passionate, and consistent.

I agree with Tacitus on much less. But he's honorable, noble, passionate, and consistent. And he'll let you know that, chief .. a little mannerism that sends some folks up the wall, including me. And, he expresses himself beautifully.

Both are better people than I am. Both have superb values. I could let both, or either, raise my kid with pretty good confidence in the outcome.

Which has to be one of the silliest things ever said on the internet, considering this is all just, you know, e-mail and we've all never met, for crying out loud. But there it is.

O.K., they can babysit the kid. And so may the rest of you ..... even Timmy. Smlook may need to undergo a background check. ;)*

Moe Lane is guardian.

Wait until my wife finds out about this.

I like to fight and throw virtual furniture, but I hate it when other folks don't get along.


* Hey, Carville let Matalin breastfeed his kids. No, I don't have a cite.


And he'll let you know that, chief .. a little mannerism that sends some folks up the wall, including me.

And it illustrates perfectly why I find posting rules that forbid profanity rather pointless. You can police language, but people will *always* find a way to make even the most innocuous phrase insulting or offensive.

Timmy:: Catsy, JFTR, Von isn't a conservative as for the two others, well!

Hence why I said "if you count von". Some people do. I personally peg him loosely as a moderate conservative; he has his own self-depiction which currently escapes my memory.

Macallan: Do you feel responsible for murdering Vincent Foster? That would be a better analogy.

Do you consider nonsensical and thoroughly debunked nonsense like this before you write it, Mac, or does it pass from Ann Coulter's spleen to your web browser unburdened by the inconvenience of thought or shame? Honestly.

I think mac was making a little self-deprecating VRWC joke to the sometimes conspiritorially-minded bob mcm....

bob mcmanus: Well, since Bush himself has said words to this effect...

...but he was careful not to say it before November 2nd. Only afterwards did he declare that getting 49% of the electorate to vote against him meant that everything he'd done and everything he planned to do was endorsed by the American people.

Those who generally support this President but oppose particular policies might make their opposition known by whatever means they feel will be most useful, like a symbolic vote against Gonzalez or supporting the German war crimes investigation of Rumsfeld. Simply saying "I don't like torture" is probably not going to suffice. Everybody, including the torturers, is saying it.

Quite.

(Green tea ice-cream? I had a green tea pastry once, in the East Village in NYC. Was too sweet.)

testing

I guess not, Mac. Maybe yours?

Just so we're clear, though, you're stating that the Administration -- and by extension its supporters -- bears absolutely no responsibility for prisoner mistreatment at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere? None? Not even by omission, through a culture of permissiveness and ambiguity about limits at the facilities? It's all just "partisan ranting" to try to implicate the Administration at all, to the degree that it's simply comparable to the "Vince Foster Was Murdered" looniness?

Man, I hope you cut that much slack to everyone in your life.

Catsy: Do you consider nonsensical and thoroughly debunked nonsense like this before you write it, Mac,

Yes. I'm very considerate.

or does it pass from Ann Coulter's spleen to your web browser

No it goes from her spleen to the trunk of Pat Robertson's Cadillac where it is taken to a waiting RNC Lear Jet. It's picked up on this end by a Carlyle Group limousine and delivered to my vast under mountain secret lair constructed by Halliburton. Former Enron employees type it into my web browser.

unburdened

...unburdened? Are you mad? The burden is very great. Very great indeed.

by the inconvenience of thought or shame?

Yes, apparently thought or shame is quite inconvenient, as you've just demonstrated.

Honestly.

A little testy this morning Edward?

You got former Enron workers! Drat, I wanted some former Enron workers. Do they know any?

A little testy this morning Edward?

{groan}

Every morning.

You got former Enron workers! Drat, I wanted some former Enron workers. Do they know any?

If not, I understand there are some Anderson workers available through monster.com.

might make their opposition known by whatever means they feel will be most useful,

I do, whether it makes your list of acceptable means or not is another story.

You got former Enron workers! Drat, I wanted some former Enron workers. Do they know any?

I suppose I could send you mine. I find that if people work in the under mountain lair too long they get a bit pallid and cranky, so I like to rotate them out when I can. There's a new crop of PeopleSoft folks arriving next week, so...

Hi, peace to all of you from a Muslim who will fight to defend and bring peace to this earth. I hope I DEFINED myself here clearly :-) About Imam Mecca's sermon, well, there is nothing NEW about this as Islam means no harm to anyone who is "innocent". However, those who continue to kill "innocents" in the world, there is a clear in-build defence system in Islam that obligates Jihad against such anti-social elements who try to disrupt the peace amongst human beings. Hope you got a POINT OF VIEW of a not-so-important Muslim. Peace and love to you and your loved ones!!!

Muslims say what they know Westerners what to hear (Islam is a religion of peace) then they tell the Muslim world to go out and kill Westerners. If you do not believe me read Walid Shoebat's book "Why We What To Kill You."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad