Hostile Kos, Clueless Kos.
Better bloggers and posters at DailyKos notwithstanding, there's never a shortage of what gives the site a bad taste to many who don't quite share their zeal for everything and everything.
take two diaries I read there today.
Hostile Kos:
This one was written by a cyber friend of mine at Freedom Democrats
. And yes, he really is a Democrat (though I sometimes wonder for how much longer).
He expresses how off-putting the increasingly stronger "big govt. rhetoric" is becoming and from John Edwards, a Kos favorite, in particular. In the process he cities a piece about Edwards' health care plan from Cato-at-Liberty . A very "untrollish" diary to say the least. It is written from an overlooked view within the party.
Then we look at his tip jar:
Tip Jar (8+ / 2-)
and why?
TR'd for "Nurse Edwards" (3+ / 0-)
Nice Coulter move.
by Elwood Dowd on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:35:18 PM EDT
Yeah. OK. You show'em, Elwood.
To this, my friend repsonded into the following string:
Cool Off (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
It was a clear reference to David Boaz's article comparing John Edwards to Nurse Ratched for his "you're going to get health care even if you don't want it" attitude. It seems obvious that Edwards must think he's a nurse if he's going to boss all of America around and make their health care decisions for them.
by FreedomDemocrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:22:37 PM EDT
Boaz? (0 / 0)
From the Cato Institute?
I don't follow the Republican street the way this infestation of "libertarians" does.
And the fact that a corporatist Republican think tank starts the smear doesn't make it any more acceptable here.
by Elwood Dowd on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:59:52 PM EDT
Not a Republican (1+ / 0-)
Boaz is not a Republican.
Cato is not a Republican think tank.
They are critical of President Bush and the Republicans in Congress.
But because they don't agree 100% with you, they must be the enemy, right?
Childish.
Freedom Democrats
by FreedomDemocrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:11:03 PM EDT
I didn't call them "the enemy" (0 / 0)
You did that, asshole.
But anybody who has been paying attention for the past few decades know that they promote Republican policies.
by Elwood Dowd on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:14:42 PM EDT
Right (1+ / 0-)
Like opposing the War in Iraq, opposing the Patriot Act and other crack downs on civil liberties, opposing the War on Drugs, supporting free speech, and calling for earmark reforms and transparency in government.
Obviously Republican policies.
Freedom Democrats
by FreedomDemocrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:56:37 PM EDT
And the other troll rating?
TR'd for "nanny-state liberals". n/t (0 / 0)
by churchylafemme on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:01:36 AM EDT
Corporate-State Conservatives? (1+ / 0-)
So I can throw out corporate-state conservative, but not nanny-state liberal?
Nanny-state describes the type of liberal, it does not imply that all liberals are nanny-statists. But there is no reason to be blind to those segments of the Democratic Party.
Freedom Democrats
by FreedomDemocrat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:02:44 AM EDT
That'll teach'em....not.
Debate is not welcome....not even from other Democrats. Real Nice.
Clueless Kos:
The intro:
Frontier Populism is relatively new school of thought, mostly being hammered into a political philosophy by young Texans. The aim is to create a society without systems for political, economic and social hierarchies controlled by the few, while still keeping true to the rugged individualism that is rampant in the Lone Star Republic. It is an answer to our years of displaced wealth in the arenas of politics, culture and economics.
The basis of this new society is that all citizens will have true and equal access to the tools of information and production, allowing for a realistic chance at the American dream. And if that fails to take hold across the nation, at least create a brand spanking new Texas one. It is basically time to end the nightmare that is imperialism cloaked as a capitalistic democracy.
This is a school of thought? I'd like to know what they bold print really entails.
For true equality to exist in the USA, we must achieve freedom from the authoritarian and private cabals that pretend not only to be democratically elected, but operating in good faith under free trade. The greatest ruse every perpetuated on the American people is that we live in economic system that is not controlled by hidden hands of the elite. Direct access to means of productions and resources for individual advancement are not available for any class of American outside of the moneyed-elite, a new form of corrupt aristocratic control.
They are an illegitimate authority in all aspects of American life, brutalizing traditional American ideals in order to fulfill their agenda for their own economic, political, religious and cultural reasons.
Do read the whole thing. It's light reading....VERY light.
- John's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Frankly
...in the exchange with Elwood your friend is more in the wrong. Cato is no better than Heritage, which means taking pretty much anything they say seriously is begging to be ignored if not ridiculed. Worse then to take a smear they started and pass it on.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I don't think that's fair
Whatever you think of their scholarship, Cato is clearly libertarian, not a "corporatist Republican think tank" -- they basically side with Dems on war-on-terror and war-on-drugs issues.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sorry Brendan
you'll have to explain the difference to me between "libertarian" and "corporatist republican" cause from where I sit I just don't see the distinction.
They certainly aren't social cons, that's true. But when it comes to fiscal cons and cato, well, let's just say that that's a double superlative.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You don't know the difference?
I think you should explore a bit. The differences are plentiful.
I know what they claim
are differences. And yet at the end of the day, despite token objections regarding civil rights Cato ends up being nothing but institutionalized useful idiocy for the GOP.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
He was troll rated for quoting
Cato. THAT is wrong. There's nowhere else to go with that one. Cato does scholarly work. You say they're "no better than Heritage"...yeah, no better at supporting your POV on some issues....but that doesn't discredit them as a source.
For your next experiment, go to freerepublic or RedState
... and quote Jimmy Carter's latest book. Then, by all means, come back here and post another front-pager about all the despicable reaction that ensued.
And you are actually surprised at the reaction your "friend" got?
Are you really that stupid?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I'm actually surprised that this bothers you that much n/t
I mock this kind of whining at Daily Kos.
It's even worse in this forum where your whining about troll ratings at Daily Kos isn't relevant.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I don't Know Kos-etiquette
So I couldn't say whether it warranted a troll rating. All I can say is that in the comments you posted your friend was mostly wrong and Elrood was mostly right.
You forgot to put scare quotes around "scholarly." To call what they do scholarly is a serious insult to people who are actually scholars. Cato is merely one of many hack political organizations that exist to puch an agenda and they have no qualms about lying and distroting figures to do so. There are differences in the particular ideologies they push but in terms of quality they are on par with Heritage.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The other point is, "What did the poster expect?"
Go to any highly partisan political site and post name-calling of the site's favored candidate... or quote as fact the opinions of some think tank that is nearly diametrically-opposed to the vast majority of posters at the board.
And, gee, those responding go after the diarist. And this is then passed off as "news" here.
Silly, silly stuff.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
wow.
You never cease to amaze, Tlaloc.
I know...
there's a reason for that, John. You've been severely indoctrinated. It is always a shock to people who have been essentially brainwashed that their views are not universal. The question is whether you can move past the way you were shabbily treated to get a better understanding of life. In real life Cato is not a scholar organiztion- it's just another right wing circle jerk of guys who are maintained by the wealthy supporters of the GOP because they make useful propaganda sources.
For another example see the National Review. The magazine never made money, never will. It isn't a business it's a charity.
Let's also not forget thet Rupert Murdoch used to be on Cato's board of directors.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
wow, again.
Right, John
Tlaloc is a true, bible thumpin', bible quoting spokesman for a political religion who can always be counted on to damn (er, darn) what anyone else says simply because he doesn't agree with its conclusion, without actually needing to analyze. A simple comparison with his doctrine is all that is necessary7, since he has the absolutel truth, he thinks, in his scripture and dogma.
A true fundamentalist different from those terrible Christian fundamentalists only in actual blind-faith dogma, and in that they tend to be nice people.
Maybe you can help me since you're a scientist...
Is this a diary about the Cato Institute and libertarianism, or is this a diary about a diary at Daily Kos that was about the Cato Institute, libertarianism and "Nurse Edwards" where some liberal (imagine the gall of a liberal hanging out at Daily Kos) objected to the diarist the diarist here is discussing calling a favorite liberal candidate a name and, subsequently, troll-rating the diarist the diarist here is discussing?
Because it is not really clear what the intent of this piece is. The headline of the piece has nothing to do with the Cato Institute or libertarianism, but, rather, some odd meta about another website where the described actions actually seem completely expected in light of the content published by the diarist the diarist here is discussing.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
obsession.
just go with the flow. If you're going to go after anyone who veers off the thread topic, you'll be busy complaining go after after hundreds and hundreds of posters across the web.
Maybe if you actually had a point besides something as
... obvious as "My friend got troll-rated for calling John Edwards, 'Nurse Edwards,' or "The liberals at Daily Kos don't like the Cato Institute" (neither of which qualifies as news), maybe you'd have something.
But you don't.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Did I do something to offend you at some time?
You're being quite aggressive and persistant over something that's very trivial at the end of the day.
Actually, I'm being "persistent."
I just want to raise the quality of the front page.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Ah,
So you've obviously shared so much on all the many other front page topics, right?
Ask Ender.
I'm sure he'll be glad to share my many criticisms of his work, very little of which has had anything to do with Daily Kos.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
For that I give you
a great big thanks.
Intellectually macho liberals! The world needs more of them.
It is the economy, stupid.
More at mad
than scientist!
Actually, I tend to think of these things as conversations, which have the same rights as anyone else, and may go where they wish to go.
I'vve never liked "thread Nazis" who like to leave notes like:
[Paraphrased from an actual note directed to me a few years ago.]
that is a beautiful note! :) n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Good idea.
Perhaps we can have more intriguing front page posts with highly debatable topics like:
"Conservatives vow not to vote for Clinton"
or
"Liberals say Bush and Cheney have made a mess of Middle East"
or
"Dogs, cats not the same animals, scientists declare"
I look forward to the scintillating discussions that ensue!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Show
us.
Personally, your topics above haven't appeared in my memory, but I don't much pay attention to topics in which I have no interest. You would do well to avoid the ones you find uninteresting.
At a party, when one finds oneself in a little group discussing somethintg one finds uninteresting, one moves on. It is considered bad form and impolite to launch into a tirade about how the conversation doesn't me one's standards and the people engaging in it are cretins.
As it is, a thread nazi might observe that this thread has been hijacked into a discussion of the vast moral question of whether the original posting meets some celestial standard for a front page essay. Who in heck cares?
"Conservatives vow not to vote for Clinton" would at least garner the observation that on some purity-driven left wing sites, Clinton has been called a closet Republican, or at least not a worthy candidate because of her iraq stance.
And it would have the too-often-missing virtue of at least being reality-based, rather than the "it's all about oil" or "Bush is working for corporate America in Iraq" noinsense that regularly gets front-paged elsewhere. You can throw in other absolute lies like "Cheney is running the presidency," "they said the threat was imminent," "they said that Iraq was behind 911," they lied about the WMD," and so on. Would you be objecting so strenuously to these lies posted as an essay topic?
Looking forward to your reality-based, high-interest essay, complete with evidence for any statements and logical arguments leading naturally to a conclusion, which you clearly state.
Thank you in advance.
Here ya' go! Knock yourself out!
A whole string of my past diaries
, nearly all of which are much more detailed, supported and logical than anything Ender has ever posted here.
Oh, and you have zero diaries
to your credit!
Well, ain't that a hoot!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Speaking from here on, girl
(Must admit that the name and hissy-fitting always made you a girl in my mind's eye)
What I have or have not done in my short time here is not relevant, any more than what you hve done in the past.
Looking forward, is the key.
Uhoh
Must admit that the name and hissy-fitting always made you a girl in my mind's eye
That's gonna go over well with our female posters... and you better not let your wife and daugher see it!
Let's avoid discussions of the poster as opposed to the comment, though.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brendan
why do you assume that being seen as a girl is a bad thing?
I like girls.
Gosh, I didn't realize you were complimenting him
I'm sure he'll be thrilled!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Wouldn't any woman love to be this fellow's
... wife or girlfriend? He has such a high opinion of women!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Expectations are not high.
Personally I suggested a betting pool about how many weeks before the next time you have a complete melt down and storm off. Others thought it cruel.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
heh
hey, and then you tell me to cool it down :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hey-
low expectations can be good for some people.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Better than
daily meltdowns without storming off.
I DO remember your explaining once why you had stormed off. You kinda blamed me, in part. Seems that I had corrected your misreading me in about 10 consecutive responses.
But Ihave toi agree with you here. Without low expectations, doctrinaire, irrational political beliefs would be unbearable.
Hey, genius, why no diaries?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Lol - next full moon? n/t
Like I said, knock yourself out reviewing my many past posts.
You just look foolish when you don't do your homework before you open your trap to criticize.
As for the "girl" comment, is that supposed to be an insult? Are you married? Or do you have a girlfriend? If so, she has my deepest sympathy.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
And again
Could we please refrain from discussing the poster rather than the post.
Maybe I should just make that my sigline =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Like I said
I never criticized you for not writing diaries.
I simply am looking forward (the operative word) to you future hihg-interest diaries. I would be wrong to try to hold you to your standards stated today in past diaries, although you could clearly have always held the same standards.
Note that it is only in the last few days that i have noted your presence, and I don't really care about what has hapopened with you in the past. This is one reaons why i am not now throi=winbg up essays I have written in the past.
This wasn't a contest between you an me, as you want to mqake it, it was a response to your criticism of someone elses diary's being put on the frontpage without refrerence to your standards. It was merely a "show me your standards in action--in the future" by writing a diary. Nothing prevents you from chosing a diary of which you are particularly proud and putting it up again.
Actually, I think the whole thing is ridiculaous, more an attempt on your part to simply argue about nothing of consequence, and THAT is what i was talking about.
The message seemed to be that before any diary hit the front page, it shouold be run by you for judgment.
What did the message seem to be?
Actually, the message was much, much simpler than you've made it out to be. The message was that a front page post whining about how a friend got troll-rated on Daily Kos for writing something which was very likely to be troll-rated is a waste of front page space.
The criticism was specific to the piece in question. And since you are unable to cite a pattern to support your broad-brush strokes of your interpretation of what I intended, I must conclude that you are talking out your ass.
And your breath smells.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You know
you do have Cheney's rabid dog quality!
Let me restqte it: you seemed to be sayihng that before this particular diary hit the front page, it should have been passed in front of you for your approval.
Now, please, young dick, how would we know just which specific diaries to pass by your judgment in advance of your judgment?
I DID like your one comment where you seemed to simply state that the topic was a bit slight. Why couldn't you have left it at that?
Restate it?
You need to be doing more of that. Maybe then you'll find a rational argument instead of a string of uninformed gibberish you've presented here.
Of course, my comments were restricted to the front page post in question. I simply said it was a poor excuse for a front page post. For some reason, you have a problem with that and you continue to try and make it something more.
Keep trying. I find it entertaining.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You simply lied
in saying that youy only said it was a poor excuse for a front page post.
(Please note that I don't buy the elitism involved in the front page system to begin with. I have noticed that it is popular on boards driven by elitism, however.)
You said much more, some of which was abusive or hyperbolic. The response you got for the poist was exactly what I have been saying, "I'm sorry you don't approve," I suspect because the post seemed to be about the superiority of your approval.
Again, simply going to another essay you found more interesting would be a better way.
Continue to lie (try the "it's all about oil" lie), but i find it morally reprehensible and not entertaining.
"Morally reprehensible"
Note the irony of a post taking to task another poster for making a judgment on a (crappy) front page post and offering "morally reprehensible" as your judgment.
Nevermind. I suspect irony is something which will forever escape you.
As for what populates the front page, one would hope that those being elevated to the status of front page editor would know how to hit "diary" instead of "post" as the author admitted happened.
And then there's the fact that Ender opted to move the post off the front page to the diaries.
So it appears as if my judgment on the post of not being front-page worthy was shared by the author and Ender.
Perhaps you thought it was the most compelling thing you've ever read here. Wouldn't surprise me.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
for the record
I did no such thing. John himself removed the post.
There are two different main types of content types. Stories, which automatically go to FP, but do not appear in the diary list, and diaries which can be promoted to FP but will stay on the diary list regardless.
Since John created this as a story, there was no way for him to change it to a diary so he simply unpublished it thus completely removing it. I went into the database and changed it to a diary, bringing it back so you guys can continue to enjoy it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
But madscientist don't much care about it, as the ol' feller
... points out in his post right down yonder. He says so hisself! Ignore the fact that he put up a coupla' dozen posts in a (former) front-pager he don't much care about!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You know, CLC
this ain't rocket science, as we say up the holler. Putting a comment on a thread is no vote one way or another for the essay at the top of it. Otherwise, your putting a the number of posts on this thread yourself would contradict your own words about the essay!
In fact, as i already said, I see these things as conversation, and the essay at the head simply a conversation starter.
The conversation may take directions which have only tangential connections to the original essay topic. Many of my conversations, no matter what the topic, come at some point to bridge. Ever use weak twos?
Who cares
is my attitude. Like I said, I'll leave the frontpagedness of a diary to you elitists to decide.
Mer, I'm just an ordinary man, the kind of person that liberals like to think they love in the abstract, but end up abusing in actual contact.
I'm an actual poor person, for instance!
Still, you could learn from an old, poor person, a common man, like me. for instance, you say:
I believe this harping on a simple mis-push tells us all we need to know about your commitment to charity toward others and good will towards men.
Was the diary a bit slight for the front page? If I had my druthers, there would be no front page for the oh-so beautiful people to obsess about. I'm more egalitarian. But be that as it may, if you absolutely HAD to dcomment, how about, I thought this essay a bit slight for the front page?"
Or how about simply passing it by?
As for me, I still haven't read it! I think i saw something about dKos in it, and that would hold no interest to me. I simply got here by clicking on comments that i hadn't read when i got online.
Now, be sure to take yet another opportuinity to show your superiority to, for instance, someone so stupid as to mis-press the diary button, by once again blathering about how this essay was beneath your high-falutin' self, and not worth the effort it would take for you to read part and mjove on. Those in your grand class should not even be assaulted by a diary this slight, it seems. You are above it.
With that, this commoner withdraws from your royal self, remembering never to show my back, and keeping your eyes in sight even as they look down your royal nose.
Boy, you're suddenly a regular, ol' Fred Thompson!
And just as phony.
Love the quick change, given your other posts here.
Go rub some pony oil on your joint and see if that makes it more stiff or less stiff.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I guess you might have missed
my friendly reminder
that we try to avoid insulting the poster and prefer to focus on the argument.
So, for example, describing another poster as phony is bad form. Now you know!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I don't like rejecting sources outright,
unless you're critiquing specifically why the organization should be rejected (e.g. we can reject the Discovery Institute's claimed expertise on science, because their fundamental goals are non-scientific). Cato has its own experts
, and while you and I both would probably disagree with anything they'd say, it's better to attack what they're saying than the organization itself.
Just my two cents.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
And while you're critiquing
they'll put eight new studies each loaded with BS.
The modern "information era" is almost defined by their being a glut of information, or more correctly data. The ability to filter data for real information is critical then, for very simple GIGO reasons.
There are a lot of organizations that exist to create noise and doubt. They will say pretty much anything on the off chance that it happens to stick with you and you don't take the time to do a thorough assessment of their claims. The sad part is that these organizations are just as effective if you DO take the time to evaluate their claims because they can lie a thousand times a day and it takes you a lot longer to debunk each lie.
The only way to deal with them is to ignore them entirely. That way they neither sap your resources nor do they fill your head with falsehoods.
Does it mean you may pass by some credible arguments and writers by assuming they are all trash? Yes it does. That's a pity, but people who voluntarily associate themselves with non-credible organizations shouldn't be surprised to be viewed as non-credible.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why is this garbage front-paged here?
Whining about ratings at Daily Kos. Crap like this is rightly mocked at Daily Kos and it should be here, too.
"Look, look! Someone troll-rated me!"
Whiner.
Oh, gee, what a f**king surprise... You "friend" calls the most popular Dem candidate at Daily Kos "Nurse Edwards" and gets troll-rated for it.
Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
Again, why is this pointless crap on the front page here? What's next?
Pope lashes out at abortion!
Jeez...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Sorry you don't approve
I actually meant to "diary" this one but hit "story" out of habit. After I noticed, I didn't really think it was that big of an issue so I left it.
No, it's not that I "don't approve"...
It's that this kind of crap gets roasted at Daily Kos for the kind of inconsequential whining it is, regardless of one's political persuasion.
You should go post this same crap at Daily Kos and watch the fun. I guarantee you it will be very funny to read the reactions of the masses to your whining.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
it's none of your business
why one of our frontpage editors frontpages something a**hole. Got it?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It's garbage that isn't worthy of a front-page post.
Ironically, even the author acknowledges as much upthread.
You should read before you post.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
again
it is none of your business if something is worthy of a front-page post. You are not even a participant here yet you directly and viciously attack one of our editors who has contributed quite a lot.
WTF?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Oh, is that how it works around here?
Participants don't get to question the editors?
Wow! Just like the old country, eh, Ender?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
eh
I just said that you are not even a participant. And it has nothing to do with questioning the editors. It does have a lot to do with your tone and mode of attack. It was RUDE.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm not a participant?
Then how am I able to post?
You have a true Russian sensibility.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
you
have not been a participant. And now you barge in and start attacking?
You are missing the damn point. You have a true a**hole sensibility. But I guess that it isn't news either.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
"A**holishness" is in the eye of the beholder.
And how have I "not been a participant?"
Is Steve Foley a "participant?"
Or is this now a secret society? Maybe you can show me the secret handshake!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
obfuscation is nice
but you know what I meant. You haven't been around for a long time and the only times you show up is when you want to slam people here.
I wouldn't call it meaningful participation regardless of how right you think you are.
You could've made your point without the rudeness.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Obfuscation.
That's kind of a big word, isn't it?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
it's hard to admit
that you might've been too much of an ass. I know.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't think I was rude.
The editor should have moved this garbage to the diaries. It's tripe.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
As obviously not a fan
of the substance of this diary I would say you were overly harsh in response. I'd also say the same thing about Ender's reply to you which went even further.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I actually tried to move it
to the diary column but I couldn't. But like I also told CLC, I didn't think it was a big deal.
It's quite a fuss he/she is making over something so innocuous. I've never seen anything like it.
that's the way he is
though in this case he's crossed the line. The only times he keeps showing up on SC is to attack. He should stick to his dkos brethren.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
"Crossed the line"
Vladimir Putin of SwordsCrossed speaks!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
heh
you are a dumbass
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Banned for name-calling!
Heh.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
you are one
provocative son of a b**ch.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender, you setting an example here?
You and Brendan might want to figure out if attacking other posters is OK or not. I'm having a tough time figuring out when I can call someone a dumbass. I've resisted up until now, but if the gloves are coming off....
Just saying