JSF has a big problem with some of our commenters. And he names names. Are you on his list?
I have my ups and downs with the commenters here. (I don't even want to think about what commenters say about me on other blogs... or diavlog websites where I contribute but lack the power to delete.)
Here's an old post from May 2005, where I explain why I'm ending the comments (which I did for a while, before putting them back).
But let's not just focus on the negative. There are some really great commenters. You can bitch about commenters in the comments here, but how about some positive too? May I suggest naming 5 commenters you really like in there along with anything else you might have to say?
ADDED: Donald Douglas comments on this post.
July 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
134 comments:
I'd come up with a different group of five every time I thought about it from another perspective. And I'd do the same with a list of the worst. JSF conspicuously overlooks at least one really vile posters on the right, so it's not that he's focusing on negative or positive, he's --- big frigging surprise --- focusing on political viewpoints. Whine. Moan. Those rotten liberals. And to think I used to be one!
One thing I'm sure of, though, is that if I kept up a blog, and I found myself writing about commenters on another blog, I'd go get myself a life, tout de suite.
I don't know about 5, but I've found SippicanCottage an excellent commenter.
I am glad I didn't make the cut for that list! LOL
Note to Beth:
Don't mess with my tout tout! Apologies to Zydeco!
I like the give and take, and wish the goons would grow up. But, as Althouse convinced me, all you have to do is scroll past the morons and it's like they aren't even there.
DaveTM is my favorite least-favorite commenter. That guy is either really funny or batty and insane.
The only poster in that list who seems to be an *actual* troll is Dave.
The others, while reliably liberal (Well, Luckyoldson perhaps not so much at first, but he's getting better), do at least attempt to engage in a discussion, marshalling facts, deploying reason, etc.
The place would be boring w/out them and the presence of liberals on this site is hardly surprising, so I fail to see why this guy complains about them. He appears to have simply gone through and cherry picked the most vocal left leaning commenters on a left leaning site and complained about them?
As for favorite posters, I generally enjoy the posts of TMink, Palladian, as well as Revenant.
Seven Machos is adept at delivering fact based smackdowns as well.
I don't often agree with Beth but I really like her and of course Sippian. Palladian and Ruth Anne also.
I used to like knoxgirl (who now may be knoxwhirl).
I take issue with the word "insult".
I prefer "responds to her drunken babbling with the exact amount of thought and consideration it deserves."
Make a note of it...
Oh, and I'd like to say, trolls and all, I like to read and comment here more than on other blogs I read. Ann's posts are "commmentable", which I think means they invite discussion are not merely person x's opinion take it or leave it! I tend towards the schtick myself, but, hey, that's just my nature!
I miss Victoria.
I rather enjoy our liberal colleagues and agree with dewave. Having our liberal friends has been a fascinating exercise in observing the reality based community in action. For example, we were treated to the spectacle of being lectured to about getting the facts right and then a subsequent poster presents video evidence to the contrary--and of course with no acknowledgement from the lecturer--I really do now fully understand what "move on" means: you move on to a new line of ad hominum when your "facts" are shot out of the water.
Beth -- one of my favorite posters, (and very feisty lately!) along with Richard Dolan -- says it best with her last sentence. That said, wouldn't it be cool if JSF came here to comment about a blog that's commenting about his comment about the comments here?
If you don't like what a person says, ignore them. There are several here I ignore. Would you keep talking to an odious individual at a coffee shop? If not, then why do it here?
In the spirit of keeping things positive:
Most Consistently Entertaining Poster to Appear on Althouse Ever (in a continuing role):
Sippican Cottage
Least Likely to Start an Argument:
Sippican Cottage
Most Successful at Diverting any Conversation to Himself and the Fact that Someone Gay may be Suffering Somewhere:
Downtown Lad.
Most Successful at Starting Mindless Arguments:
Dave™©
Most Successful at Portraying the Evil of Anti-Semitism:
Cedarford
Here's what he says about me (top of the list - Alpha-wise):
"AlphaLiberal: Does not want Althouse to write on politics"
Yeah.... That's a pretty truncated view of the greater body of my work, definitely overlooking my assets. And.... not accurate.
Here's a response:
- I want more people engaging the political and policy debate.
- I criticize Ann's role as another part of the right wing echo chamber (for an example, you can see her story on Edwards' haircut). This might be where he gets the idea I want to shut her up. Just providing constructive criticism to help her improve. . .
- I specifically urge Ann Althouse to address the erosion of liberties in our country and abroad, by our government. She's silent on things like the attack on habeas corpus, presumed innocence, etc.
- I wish Ann would address more substance and less fluff, esp when attacking people like Glenn Greenwald who are taking on the erosion of American liberties by American conservatives.
- I simply often disagree with Ann on politics and say so. Disagreement does not equal censorship.
- I've said nice things about her from time to time and complimented her new picture (the one b4 this one) and positions where we agree.
- I really don't like to write with so many "I's"!
So, Ann, write away. My request is to address more substance and less style, please address the erosion of liberty by Republicans and so forth. Call for a Romney haircut story if you're doing haircuts.
As far as the exchange here, I prefer it to only talking to other libs, even though some of the arguments, well, leave something to be desired in the facts and logic departments.
There you go, criticism addressed! Have a nice day!
Oops! Ann suggested naming five, and I mentioned Sip twice, so I'll add:
Regular Whose Return After an Extended Absence is Most Appreciated:
Beth
^ In other words - it's not that Alpha "[d]oes not want Althouse to write on politics" - of course s/he does! S/he just wants her to talk about his/her pet issues and agree with her/him!
I think most of the regular and semi-regular commenters here are great. It's a lot of fun to hang out here and argue. I'm not going to get into making lists of favorites, because that always ends up with someone being left out by accident and feeling excluded.
JSF said, "And what do I picture the Althouse Blog to be? A living Dali painting with a fruit garden."
As one commenter (not me) on a dirty f***ing hippie blog put it (and I agree): "Dali painted lots of symbols that referred to his insatiable masturbation. It works for me."
Palladian
Sippican Cottage
Seven Machos,
Bissage, Pogo, Beth, Drill Sgt.,Internet Ronin, Revenant, Gahrie, Sloanasaurus, Eli Blake
Whatever happened to harkendog, and the Unknown Professor?
downtownlad has earned respect - he knows a lot of stuff.
Hdhouse, Doyle, Freder, AlphaLiberal also write intelligently and often thought-provoking - I know, they can be over the top with seeming vitriol, but since I can too, I appreciate that Ann lets all of us in.
Actually, the only one on the list that hasn't written anything of substance and/or insight that I know of is dave™©.
Oh, yes, I especially like Ann's ex, Mr Cohen - he said nice things about me twice.
My request is to address more substance and less style, please address the erosion of liberty by Republicans and so forth
If you want to address these issues, then you should start your own blog, doncha think? Coming to a blog owned by some one else and demanding what topic they write about is like being invited to dinner at somebody house and demanding they cook what you want.
That being said, I do appreciate the Alpha's posts, Pogo, Internet Ronin,Seven Machos and many others.
I wish DaveTM would come up with some other insults besides the "box of wine". Boring. And then of course their is Lucky who instantly drags every thread off topic with insults and his obsession with homosexual sex. Like Seven said. The scroll wheel on the mouse is an effective tool.
I'm not going to get into making lists of favorites, because that always ends up with someone being left out by accident and feeling excluded.
And Simon, I like Simon.
My favorite is Ignorance is Bliss, if I may say so myself. I just wish he would comment more often.
What Simon says at 10:11--put me down for that. And I like Simon.
Forgot to mention that I like the occasional comments from El Presidente. I miss Victoria too.
Yea, where is Victoria?
In alphabetical order:
dave™©
icepick
reader_iam
Victoria
xwl
This is one of the better comment sites. I usually just ignore/skip past some of the commenters listed in the blog post, but I've learned a lot reading comments here.
There are some righty comments that I don't finish reading, but those don't seem to be serial posters as much as the leftys.
I was a charter poster at Salon's Table Talk (I left when they started charging) and the bulk of the posting was typical vitriol, but very occasionally the combatants would leave aside their venom and really get into some serious discussions. One had to do with the 2000 election which, as we are all aware, has rarely lent itself to intelligent conversation. Nevertheless, for a run of several posts 2-3 people with some legal background* put up good comments, with links to read for ourselves, and responded to each other civilly. It was the internets used to perfection.
* I don't remember what their backgrounds were, not to imply that they just had some minimal legal experience.
Beth proves that you can be on the left without automatic use of ad hominem attacks. If only there were more like her, we might get a thoughtful and substantive conversation across the political divide.
In no particular order, more than five, and no doubt I'll add more later (so there!), because I'm doing this pre-coffee and I'm on vacation and therefore slow of mind and memory. Lack or presence of comment doesn't signify hierarchy.
Beth. I'd buy that woman a drink any day, anywhere, even if I had to agree to discuss ONLY those topics on which we emphatically disagree. (You'll have take my word for it that that's a big deal.)
Icepick (especially on historical context and geopolitical context; also, he's one of the few truly limited-government conservatives who comments here, especially from the non-religious right perspective).
Bill, even if he does hide his light under a bushel most of the time. Cagey dude.
Ruth Anne. A rock.
Freeman Hunt. I'd love to know her backstory, especially since she's so young.
Madisonman.
JohnStodder.
Amba.
Knoxgirl/whirl. (I've assumed they're the same people, too.)
TMink. More compassion and empathy than the average bear.
Internet Ronin.
XWL. OT, and not why, but I've pretty much come to the conclusion that my son's going to end up with a sense of humor much like his. A fine thing, given our world.
Theo Boehm. Unusual perspective and also unusual amount of knowledge on fascinating topics. Another "light under bushel" guy. Oughta be blogging. (If he is, someone tell me, quick!)
PatCA.
Balfegor.
Kirby Olson.
Mrs. Whatsis. Though we never see her anymore, I miss her.
Ron.
And ... raising up an umbrella, in anticipation of rotten tomatoes being hurled ... believe it or not ...
Doyle , on the rare occasions he drops his puerile out-to-shut-Althouse-down crap. I think it gets missed (and yeah, I think it's mostly his own fault), but I strongly suspect that knee "don't" jerk nearly as much or as often as I perceive others think. He betrays himself every once in a while when he drops his I-live-to-whack-Althouse 'tude. Another one I suspect I'd find interesting to debate in real life (though I'd wait before springing for the "good" liquor 'til I saw what mood he was in).
Simon's posts are consistently reasoned and fair. I am glad for MadisonMan and Beth. Both are smart, thoughtful, and take little guff. Always happy to read Palladian, seven machos, and internet ronin. Ruth Anne, reader_i am, and amba are treasures. Freeman Hunt, Balfegor, Bissage, Theo Boehm, and JohnStodder never fail to mesmerize me.
I miss Sippican. Victoria, too.
I cannot fathom certain folks; some left, some right. I like to think I concede a few points and have alterable views (I also like to think I am average-looking and a better driver than most, but there you go). But these guys seem to have cut and pasted their answers as if reciting from the Baltimore Catechism, Angry Version. Most of them are smart folks to be sure, but being verbally abused makes me hate thier arguments just because they're making it.
daveTM is a spambot, just an old abandoned comment generator that's become unhinged from its adware mooring, now freely alighting here and there, but generally signifying nothing.
And a mea culpa. I think half of my own posts should have been deleted, either for sheer idiocy or blatant recklessness; some probably warranted apologies. Maybe one-eighth of the other half is defensible.
Fortunately, no one knows I'm really a dog.
List five?
Not possible - too many would be slighted - so let's leave it at this is probably the only blog with commentary worth reading daily (from my perspective, anyway). Credit for this, of course, goes to Ann as hostess for having a worthy place in which to play.
Simon. Sip. The (rarely appearing) 3 Cohens. Sissy.
pogo,
you win for best comment on this post so far.
And again,
this being one of the most famous blogs in existence today, isn't it interesting that, after every firestorm dies out, it always returns to the the same old regulars.
Nothing else quite like it anywhere.
Keep all that sweetness and light coming! An oasis in the storm, and Lord knows it won't last.
Me, I'm off to get my hands and feet done and then seduce my husband into an early Happy Hour. (I love the way my in-laws love to take over their grandchild/newphew when we visit.) Life is tough.
OT and TMI? Sorry, I'm getting carried away on the unexpected wave of good vibrations around here. Disconcerting, really.
As links to this post aren't showing up yet, before everyone leaves for the day, take a look at this inspiring story about a young man in Malawi. Once a high school dropout, he's apparently a genius (and has now returned to school) who designed and built a crude windmill for electricity generation. (And give some thought to donating what you might spend on a cup of coffee today so he can finish the job and upgrade the windmill.)
Listing 5 is too much work (do I choose him or do I choose her?) so I'm just going to list one. I find Hoosier Daddy's comments to be consistently thoughtful and on point.
Doyle, on the rare occasions he drops his puerile out-to-shut-Althouse-down crap. I think it gets missed
Yah, but the problem with that is that intelligent trolls always sprinkle their vitriol with a little civility, just to keep you on the hook. So posters like Doyle and Hdhouse have little credibility with me. YMMV.
My favs:
Balfegor
Hoosier Daddy
jane
Seven
Simon
Reader: My three kids are leaving for a week on Saturday. I know what you mean...
He appears to have simply gone through and cherry picked the most vocal left leaning commenters on a left leaning site and complained about them?
This is a left leaning site? Then why is it that all of Ann's most vocal supporters are right-leaning and her most vocal critics are left-leaning? Why does she harshly criticize democrats and treat Republicans with kid-gloves?
Ann "I'm liberal, I really am" Althouse is a fraud.
Damn right I have nothing nice to say about her. She is ridiculous and shallow. Her fans think she is insightful and deep. JSF has a stunning analysis of me.
That she never even bothers to engage Cedarford, who's posts are nothing but anti-semitic (heck anti-every group that would not qualify for membership in the Aryan nations and even those who would but have the stain of actually being from Europe) ravings of a fascist lunatic, demonstrates that she cares nothing for the Constitution she supposedly teaches about.
Her obvious love of Simon, a wannabe lawyer who is obviously a twit who apparently can't score high enough on the LSAT to get into a decent law school, shows that if you slobber at her feet long enough she will excuse idiocy in all its forms. She just craves fans. Having fans is more important to her to intellectual or political honesty.
I need to think some on the top 5.
The 2 that I like most that I don't agree with much?
Madison Man
Beth
The 2 that I relate to most?
SGT Ted
VNJAGVET
The 2 I miss most?
Sippican
Victoria
The 2 that I like best?
let me work on this
daveTM is a spambot, just an old abandoned comment generator that's become unhinged from its adware mooring, now freely alighting here and there, but generally signifying nothing.
Actually, think of it more as the old "garbage in / garbage out" adage - as I said, I give the Blithering Misogynist Idiot's posts as much time and consideration they deserve, and comment appropriately.
My two favorites, btw, are "the drill sgt" (somewhere, a Village is missing a People) and "pogo," who seems to know absolutely nothing about the life and politics of Walt Kelly.
For the most part, though, this site is a venue for brownshirts too fucking stupid to make the cut at Free Republic...
Doyle: Hates Althouse for her opinions
Firm but fair!
and tries to shut down debates;
How do I do this? If anything I start debates, since I'm usually in the minority in opposing Ann. Sure, in a perfect world she would retire from political blogging and teaching law, and stick to photography and pop culture, but I don't have any control over that.
I'm touched by Reader Iam's inclusion of me on his list, even though it's a long list and the praise is rather equivocal :-) And "B" too.
Note to Doyle:
Reader_IAM has a husband and children. Odds are that he is female :)
Brevity is the soul of wit, DaveTM.
Then why is it that all of Ann's most vocal supporters are right-leaning and her most vocal critics are left-leaning? Why does she harshly criticize democrats and treat Republicans with kid-gloves?
Wait, are we talking about the same Ann? The one that burst into tears at being surrounded by mean racist republicans? The one that demanded proof from every republican that they were, unlike their peers, not racists?
As for why Anne's most vocal opponents are liberals, it's the well known liberal tendency to viciously assault any 'heretic' who dares deviate from the liberal ideological line, however slightly. Rigid adherence to the liberal creed is demanded, and apostates will be savaged with all the might and religious indignation liberals can muster.
I suspect the reason you all are so hard on almost-but-not-quite-liberals is that it destroys your narrative that no one can disagree with liberal positions in good faith, but only out of racism, sexism, greed, militarism, etc.
When someone who was a dyed-inthe-wool liberal becomes more conservative, it makes it hard to claim that conservatives are all dumb and evil and that if only they were good and pure they'd be liberals.
"Sure, in a perfect world she would retire from political blogging and teaching law, and stick to photography and pop culture, but I don't have any control over that."
Which is good. You keep me from having my perfect world and I keep you from having your perfect world (using "me" and "you" in the universal sense, not the personal one). The outcome of this is a better world for everyone. The worst thing for us would be for someone or some group to actually have their perfect world.
The problem we humans have is that eventually our arguments degenerate to the primate level. Instead of a "debate" we have people calling each other commies and fascists and brownshirts and drunks (and, worse, thinking that they're clever for doing so). In the physical world, various social norms and the threat of physical retaliation keep disagreements from degenerating quite as quickly as they do on the internet. But perhaps there is value to being able to exchange even the vilest of insults in a detached manner; I don't know.
I believe that many of the arguments and insults traded around in the comments section of this and other weblogs have nothing to do with philosophical disagreements and everything to do with the primate reaction listed above. You're not on my team, you're not of my tribe, I must attack. On the internet it's easy to find outsiders and enemies; you can't see people's faces here. Imagine the face behind the comment you're insulting. Imagine the face behind the comment that's insulting you.
Unsettling.
Ann and some of her supporters and detractors too often make these sweeping generalizations about the left and right that leave a noxious taste in my mouth because they smack of of bigotry.
I have not been here long enough to name names, and I have the memory span of a flash cube, but I prefer those commenters that confront reality head on....even when it makes them wince because it forces them to question a core belief.
I have noted elsewhere that my favorite quote is from Kluckhohn, a cultural anthropologist working in the 1940's who wrote..."In some ways we are like all other people, in some ways we are like some other people, and in some ways, we are like no one else at all."
Having been a victim bigotry, especially during my childhood, I think, has made me acutely sensitive to unfair generalizations.
So I raise a toast to all those commenters who fight the tendency to reduce people to simplistic labels.
Reader_IAM has a husband and children. Odds are that he is female :)
Oops. My mistake.
Smilin' Jack doesn't seem to comment here all that regularly, but several of his comments stick out in my mind as particularly insightful, clever, and independent.
I think there's something about the strong female presence here in the comments that keeps this mostly civil and mostly fun.
So here are the first five female commenters who spring to mind, arranged alphabetically.
Amba
Beth
Freeman Hunt
Reader I Am
Ruth Anne
Commentor emeritus status given to Victoria.
I'm sure I missed someone.
As for the guys, there are so many, I can't keep them all straight. (Insert gay joke here.) Every time I start that list I realize I forgot a few, so I'm giving up trying to list just 5 guys.
Roger wrote:
For example, we were treated to the spectacle of being lectured to about getting the facts right and then a subsequent poster presents video evidence to the contrary--and of course with no acknowledgement from the lecturer...
Roger, your comment is very vague, but if you are referring to the Yusuf Islam discussion, you ought to get your facts right. If you are referring to something else, my apologies.
Thanks to everyone who's included me in their lists, I'm basking in the glow. This one, though, it the icing on the cake:
Freder Frederson said...
"Ann "I'm liberal, I really am" Althouse is a fraud. ... Her obvious love of Simon..."
From your lips, Freder... ;)
Although I'm still not willing to make a list, let me also second Reader's comment about Doyle - on those rare occasions when he shows up without a bug in his ass, he's perfectly capable of engaging intelligently and robustly, and I wish he'd do so more often. Much the same can be said for DTL when he shows up without the insistence that the entire world revolves around gay issues.
As for why Anne's most vocal opponents are liberals, it's the well known liberal tendency to viciously assault any 'heretic' who dares deviate from the liberal ideological line, however slightly.
No, that is a oft-repeated slur by right wingers. Just because it is said a lot doesn't make it true.
Victoria
Victoria--she is amusing in her scientologist Tom Cruise sort of way. But she is certifiably bat-shit insane (even if she doesn't believe in mental illness). Half the time her posts don't make a lick of sense, even if they are on topic--which they usually aren't. Sometimes she is just demonstrably and factually wrong yet you can't budge her--like when she was convinced that steel was the best material for cookware.
"Victoria--she is amusing in her scientologist Tom Cruise sort of way. But she is certifiably bat-shit insane (even if she doesn't believe in mental illness)."
Sure you're not thinking of Maxine?
Freder you make it true by your actions, but it's nice to see the lack of insight and complete denial of objective reality.
Ann has interesting things to say and can usually handle arguments. Her complete batshit reaction to the libertarian/federalism conference was out of the ordinary, but even then she did eventually explain where she was coming from and there was somewhat of a decent conversation regarding the issues. Conservaties come here to argue/convert Ann, while liberals come to denigrate her and try to get her to shut up. Saying "why aren't you talking about this eeevil bushitler move" doesn't count as reasoning.
That really hurts to get left off that list.
Must.try.harder.to.piss.off.JSF.
Althouse is obviously more hawkish when it comes to national security type issues. This common sense position on national security also spills over into politically correct type issues, so she leans a little anti-PC. I agree with her so I am a supporter.
Her detractors and supporters on national security are very emotional about the issue - they get very angry. The debates are not generally very intellectual.
Althouse also comments on a lot of social issues, however, not many of the "conservatives" on this board get very emotional about social issues, thus, she gets little troll-type criticism and the debate is more intellectual. I am sure if Althouse was posting over at Evangelicals.com, she would be called Satan more often.
Althouse doesn't talk much about economic issues. Who knows what her views are about economics. Maybe the usual anti-war trolls would be supporting her if she did.
I was shocked to find out that Cedarford supports government health care.
I feel betrayed.
Thank god there are no fanatical Ron Paul supporters on this blog. They are even worse than the lefty trolls.
No, that is a oft-repeated slur by right wingers. Just because it is said a lot doesn't make it true.
It is true on this blog though. The usual mob type conservatives don't post here. They are busy posting over at the Ron Paul for King Blog or the man walked with the dinosaurs blog.
Sure you're not thinking of Maxine?
My mistake, you are, of course, correct.
This is indeed Comment Heaven by the standards of most blogs. I can think of maybe two other blogs that have a comparable commentariat. That said, I hate to limit my favorites to five. But if I had to, they would be:
Bissage, Pogo, Internet Ronin, reader_iam, and, last but not least, a three-way tie among Simon, Beth, and Madison Man That doesn't count the prima inter pares of all commenters and blogging diarists, amba.
How's that for sneaking in a few extras?
On the other side of the coin, perhaps we could have a little musical interlude (with apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan):
SONG: BLOGGER-SAN and CHORUS of COMMENTERS
. . . . . . . .
BLOGGER-SAN
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of Internet offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write insulting posts —
All people who puff up and preen and make inflated boasts—
All children who are up too late and commenting on blogs —
All persons who in saying much, croak on and on like frogs—
And all the cloddish people who on spoiling threads, insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
CHORUS
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed.
BLOGGER-SAN
There's the partisan obsessive, and the others of his race,
And the twit who's always pissed — I've got him on the list!
And the people who know nothing and yet puff it in your face,
They never would be missed — they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All governments but this, and every country but his own;
And the monkey on a mission who insults you and can fly,
And says, when chided for his trollish deeds, he'll stay around and try;
And that singular anomaly, the online novelist —
I don't think he'd be missed — I'm sure he'd not he missed!
CHORUS
He's got him on the list — he's got him on the list;
And I don't think he'll be missed — I'm sure he'll not be missed!
BLOGGER-SAN
And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
The Legal humorist — I've got him on the list!
All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of blogging life —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed.
And lying politicians of the irritating kind,
Such as — What'cha call him — Thing'em-bob, and likewise — Never-mind,
And 'G— 'g— 'g— and What's-her-name, and also You-know-who —
The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
CHORUS
You may put 'em on the list — you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed!
[Exeunt CHORUS]
No, that is a oft-repeated slur by right wingers. Just because it is said a lot doesn't make it true.
Swiftboating: Throwing the Left's words back at them.
It is true, as seen for the last 6 months on this very blog: As for why Anne's most vocal opponents are liberals, it's the well known liberal tendency to viciously assault any 'heretic' who dares deviate from the liberal ideological line, however slightly.
Conservaties come here to argue/convert Ann, while liberals come to denigrate her and try to get her to shut up.
I have never told her to shut up. I have told her she is wrong, she is not a liberal, she is a disgrace to Democrats and hypocrite, even called her a not very good artist and her criticism of art ridiculous. But told her to shut up never.
Do I wish she would shut up sometimes? Of course I would. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe she has the right to spout whatever nonsense she wants. I just think she should expect to be called an idiot if she insists on thinking an onion ring looks like a vagina.
I think we could do with a few more stanzas of those who won't be missed.
not many of the "conservatives" on this board get very emotional about social issues, thus, she gets little troll-type criticism
It probably also helps that Ann isn't constantly attacking prominent social conservatives for those beliefs.
Victoria was the "cheers" gal
Cyrus: that was very perceptive of you, but since you seem to be interested in getting the facts straight, here's the argument on the other thread:
First poster says: "Take another example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens. He continues to stump for the assassination of Salmon [sic] Rushdie.
Cyrus says in response to the above assertion: "This is factually incorrect. According to the FAQ at the Yusef Islam website, Yusef Islam denies ever calling for the death of Salman Rushdie. Here is his statement:
I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini - and still don’t.
you continue:
It's hard to take seriously the opinion of anyone who can't get simple facts straight."
Rose offers these two bits of evidence: a video and a NYT article and notes "Sure is, Mmm-hmm.
But if he(Yusef) denies it, well then, I guess the video must be faked."
Cyrus responds:
None of what you've written addresses the claim that Yusuf Islam "continues to stump for the assassination of Salmon [sic] Rushdie." I know of no evidence to support that claim. In fact, what little evidence I have seen suggests otherwise.
If you have evidence relating to this claim, please share it
Well, Cyrus, Rose shared it, and you very neatly shifted the argument from your first assertion that Yusef denies EVER CALLING for the death of Salman Rusdie, to "continues to stump for." It appears to me the tape of Yusef discussing the fatwa does not square at all with the FAQ on his website.
You are quite good with the rhetorical sleight of hand, Cyrus, but I think in the case the facts pretty well speak for themselves.
Freder Frederson said...
"[Ann] insists on thinking an onion ring looks like a vagina."
If you're serious, suddenly it becomes clear why Ann's critics didn't understand the point being made about the onion rings and carrots: they really didn't understand the point, on a deeper level.
As for why Anne's most vocal opponents are liberals, it's the well known liberal tendency to viciously assault any 'heretic' who dares deviate from the liberal ideological line, however slightly.
Tell that to Chris Matthews, Katrina Vanden Heuvel and Michael Kinsley. They are all liberal journalists/commentators who have been attacked by the left recently for straying off the liberal plantation.
Then of course, you have Sen.s Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller who were practically drummed out of the party.
It probably also helps that Ann isn't constantly attacking prominent social conservatives for those beliefs.
Hmmm...maybe she sees them is not worthy of attacking.
I think Althouse's dream president has to be Rudy. If we assume that Althouse is indifferent about economics, then Rudy could be her political soul mate.
Oooops...left out the key part of the quote in my above comment:
No, that is a oft-repeated slur by right wingers. Just because it is said a lot doesn't make it true.
Re: "pogo," who seems to know absolutely nothing about the life and politics of Walt Kelly"
Who's Walt Kelly?
Heh.
I got a million of 'em..
ohhhh
sloanasaurus
pogo
fen
dick
gahrie
but then again if you are gonna shoot fish in a barrel.......
No, that is a oft-repeated slur by right wingers. Just because it is said a lot doesn't make it true.
Similarly, just because it is hysterically denied does not make it false.
We have to look at the actions and words to determine the truth of it, and I'm quite comfortable resting my case on the evidence. Liberals immediately turn and savage any 'apostate'.
Look how much heat Ann gets: her fault is that she isn't mean enough to Bush for you guys liking.
Same thing for Lieberman: he was your vice presidential candidate not a decade ago and now he's the devil incarnate. Why? He wasn't mean enough to Bush.
Look at Zell Miller too.
These are basically liberal people holding mostly liberal positions. Yet precious few liberals in the blogosphere say "Lieberman? Good chap. Reliable liberal vote. He's a bit too hawkish on national security for my taste though".
The fact that you base someones political orientation, not on their beliefs or opinions, but on whether they attack republicans enough and refrain from attacking democrats speaks volumes about how you perceive politics.
You don't want a rich and diverse party full of strengthening intellectual give and take, you want a liberal echo chamber marching in rigorous lockstep, parroting all the liberal talking points and religiously refraining from mentioning any right wing talking points.
Seems like a pretty boring world to me, when all we have to do to know a liberals position on any issue is look at the 'conservative' issue and then posit the opposite.
Freder Frederson: "[Ann] insists on thinking an onion ring looks like a vagina."
So Freder must think that everyone who watches "North by Northwest" and thinks he's seeing an allusion to sexual intercourse when the train going into to tunnel at the end actually thinks the tunnel "looks like a vagina."
I appreciate all commenters and would never list a few. Isn't a satisfying exercise, really, to name some and leave out others. It's as if we're in sixth grade and voting on Most Popular, boy and girl, or officially Dissing the Unmentionables we list. A bit puerile and exclusive this is.
People, if you weren't mentioned in this official 'we love you' commenter thread, it's not because your comments aren't enjoyed, but that we're forgetful. Please keep piping up when you're so moved.
Ann - Record loss of comprehension of metaphor and simile as ADS symptoms.
Similarly, just because it is hysterically denied does not make it false.
Excellent point. They do that a lot.
Doyle said: "It probably also helps that Ann isn't constantly attacking prominent social conservatives for those beliefs."
Well, I can only speak for myself, but it wouldn't make any difference to me.
jane,
Nice comment, especially "...It's as if we're in sixth grade ".
I never understood office politics at all until I made the horrified discovery that life was not only alot like high school, it was even less mature than that, more like sixth grade.
Such epiphanies tend to lead one either to misanthropy or sentimentalism. But laughter works, too.
Now I'm off to steal someone's lunch money.
First of all, I'd like to give kudos to Ann. It's hard to find a place to go where people from different parts of the political spectrum can have intelligent discussion without getting into flame wars.
I can go to lefty blogs, but it's boring when everyone pretty much agrees with you.
I can go to righty blogs but usually I get scrubbed (or worse-- I was once accused in all seriousness of practicing witchcraft by a really loony right wing poster.)
It is rare to find a blog like this one in which people from the left and right can debate and discuss important issues. Even though my own belief is that Ann tilts to the right (which is certainly true from my Liberal perspective), take a bow Ann-- not many places like this on the web.
On to the topic of the post:
I agree that I miss Victoria. On her blog she said that she had some things to attend to but planned to resume blogging when it was taken care of. If you want to read what she said and maybe leave her a comment you can do so at
http://futuremd.blogspot.com/2007/05/dont-hug-queen.html.
Some commenters who make me think (and sometimes garner a response) include:
sloanasaurus
blake
beth
sippincottage
Internet Ronin
simon
Ann, you just said:
...think that everyone who watches "North by Northwest" and thinks he's seeing an allusion to sexual intercourse when the train going into to tunnel at the end actually thinks the tunnel "looks like a vagina."
Thank you.
For Real: A Professor friend from the local University of California is coming to a dinner party at our home tomorrow night. He teaches film studies. He's a Hitchcock expert. He is bringing a copy of "North by Northwest" for us to enjoy with his commentary.
For the first time since we began doing this "Hitchcock Festival", I now will actually have something to contribute . . .
jane--I agree. It was difficult to list only a five, and so I snuck in some extras. But you're right. Leaving out people is puerile and exclusive, and, for my part, I mean no offense if you're among the many commenters who ornament this place but who were not mentioned.
Simon--Actually the inability to process symbols and excessive literalism in language comprehension and use is one symptom of Nonverbal Learning Disability. It's amazing we have seen so much of it among Althouse critics in recent weeks.
Theo, a mention by one nice guy, but it's more about the rest.
Pogo, some of us get by, barely by, by lapsing into the misanthropy, sentimentalism AND laughter both ways. No need for lunch money here, but what about wedgies?
I'll stick to the positive listings here. As others have said, it's hard to narrow it down to five. Perhaps I'll take a tip from Peter (wouldn't that be called "circumcision?" LOL) and do a list for each gender (all in alphabetical order; as Jane pointed out, this isn't a HS popularity contest, just a quick note of appreciation).
Ladies first:
Amba, Beth, Freeman Hunt, reader_iam, Victoria
(Reserves*: Jane, Ruth Anne)
And then the guys:
Bissage, Internet Ronin, Palladian, Seven Machos, Sippican Cottage.
(Reserves*: Mark Daniels, Theo Boehm)
*With the All-Star Game in a few days, I can certainly pick some reserves for my squad.
(I'm bound to be forgetting somebody...)
And what did happen to Sippican and Victoria? I'll admit that my Vortex Time is often limited during the academic year, so I may have missed some sort of dust-up that prompted them to leave.
All in all, yes, this is a fine commentariat; I may scroll through a few people who have exhibited trollishness, but I'll usually give them a sentence or two before doing so.
Roger,
Well, that response pretty much drops you off my list of 5 favorite commenters. : )
Seriously, you've really screwed this one up by not reading carefully. Here is a brief list of what you've got wrong so far:
1. You wrote:
we were treated to the spectacle of being lectured to about getting the facts right...
Actually, there was no lecture. I wrote only this:
It's hard to take seriously the opinion of anyone who can't get simple facts straight.
That hardly constitutes a lecture.
2. You wrote:
a subsequent poster presents video evidence to the contrary
This is incorrect. No evidence was presented relating to the claim I challenged (i.e., that Yusuf Islam continues to stump for the assassination of Rushdie).
3. You wrote:
with no acknowledgement from the lecturer
Again, incorrect. I responded directly to Rose about her comment.
4. You wrote:
you very neatly shifted the argument from your first assertion that Yusef denies EVER CALLING for the death of Salman Rusdie, to "continues to stump for.
Wrong again. If you go back and check (read carefully, please), I did not assert that Yusuf Islam never called for the death of Salman Rushdie. What I said was that he denies ever having supported the Fatwa against Rushdie. I did not shift my argument at all. Rose presented evidence to contradict what Yusuf Islam claims, not what I claim. I hope you see the distinction there.
Roger, you are a bright person, so I can't see how you've got this one so wrong. But just to be sure you understand, let me give you two examples to explain my position.
First, let's assume someone writes "Bush continues to drink alcohol." In response, I write: "This is factually incorrect. There is no evidence to support this claim." The commenter then posts a twenty year old video of Bush drinking. Does this prove me wrong?
Second, let's say someone writes "Romney continues to campaign for abortion rights." I respond with "This is factually incorrect. On his website, Romney indicates that he's pro-life and has always been pro-life." The commenter then posts a video from 2002 in which Romney indicates that he will protect a woman's right to choose. Has he proven me wrong?
Roger, if you look at the original claim by Snitch that I challenged, it specifically claims that Islam continues to stump for the assassination of Rushdie. I didn't shift the debate. Moreover, the only reason I cited from Islam's FAQ is that what he states there (whether or not it is honest about his position of eighteen years ago) is not at all consistent with Snitch's claim that he currently supports the Fatwa against Rushdie.
In any case, I hope this clears up your confusion about a very unimportant point.
I hate having to limit it though. I also find I get challenged intellectually sometimes by reader I Am, Madison Man, gahrie, and Drill Sgt.
And if I didn't mention you but have responded to one of your posts then sorry but it's tough to limit it.
I have told her she is wrong, she is not a liberal, she is a disgrace to Democrats and hypocrite, even called her a not very good artist and her criticism of art ridiculous. But told her to shut up never. Freder
I think this is what people are talking about when they say the lefties here brand dissenters as heretics. Freder here just excommunicated Ann from being a "true" liberal and even a Democrat.
My faves are
Drill SGT
Internet Ronin
Seven Machos
MadisonMan
Simon
Hideous thread. But reminds us all what a waste of time blogging is, except for a few of us.
Pogo,
I hope you saw we were honored above :)
I post here and at Dr. Helen's because I like the people who post here. My ADD guarantees that I would forget someone if I listed anyone, but this is a fine place to read and post, and I am happy to be here.
Having said that, I know that Maxine is harmless, but she bugs the shit out of me. And I skip trademarked d's posts because they are without value. I read all the rest if the topic interests me.
Heck, even Reality Check wrote two fantastic, well thought out posts. Course, I think he was 4 different people.
It is nice to be here with such fun company.
Trey
Wow! Way to encourage more amusing and thoughtful comments, Ann. Will it work?
Trey said: "And I skip trademarked d's posts because they are without value. ...Heck, even Reality Check wrote two fantastic, well thought out posts. Course, I think he was 4 different people."
In my case, I skip Lucky. And I think it was the other way around with Reality Check. I strongly suspect that several of the bomb throwers here are the same person (maybe that's what you meant, Trey?).
I'm not making a list for the same reasons iterated by Simon. I will, however, mention a commenter who hasn't posted in this thread and who I haven't seen mentioned just yet:
Finn Kristiansen (Especially his comments on religion; he has a gift for clarity and insight that is rare in writing on that subject.)
Christy: "Wow! Way to encourage more amusing and thoughtful comments, Ann. Will it work?"
Ah, you see my strategy. Let me just say, I'm going to ask this question again in 3 months. So, everyone, raise your game.
Dewave opined: As for why Anne's most vocal opponents are liberals, it's the well known liberal tendency to viciously assault any 'heretic' who dares deviate from the liberal ideological line, however slightly.
It has nothing to do with Ann most often and most vocally opposing liberals. Jeeeeez. D- Move beyond the midbrain
I mostly browse in the late night hours, after threads are already exhausted. So, I'm primarily just a lurker, with a few dopey comments here and there when I'm bored.
Browsing this blog's diverse array of commenters helps me feel up to speed on what news junkies are talking about and which of their positions can stand up to scrutiny without having to spend as much time on the news myself.
It's hard to keep up on things when you don't actually like the news that much devote most evenings to baseball and movies, but you all help me. :)
Revenant is my fave commenter. He's really clever when arguing points. It helps that I generally relate to how he sees the world. I suppose some people must hate how clever he is!
My least fave is Lucky. Not because of his political orientation, but because he views every thread (no matter the topic) as a situation where he must obsessively post 100 messages to let the conservative movement know he hates everything they stand for.
He probably should just calm down a bit. And, in case he didn't know, everyone's already familiar with the DNC talking points. The point of talking points is that they flood the media and get crammed down our throats. They don't need to be repeated in every single thread every day. We're all capable of tuning into Hannity and Colmes and its ilk to get the day's partisan propaganda.
Like several who have commented here already, there are too many interesting regular commenters on Althouse for me to come up with a list of five favorites.
The ones I most appreciate are those who present reasoned, respectful viewpoints, no matter their perspective.
Althouse's blog does seem to be one of those rare places on the Net where people of varying perspectives hang out. I like that.
I've enjoyed getting to know Richard Lawrence Cohen and Pastor Jeff through the Althouse blog. Not to mention Amba and Reader_i_am.
By the way, Kev, thanks for putting me on your reserves list and for the recent link over on your blog.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
Mark Daniels
The thing that makes it work (when it does work, which isn't always) is a lightness of touch and a lot of frivolity. As we saw with the rabid raccoon, anything can be made political, but at some point--whether it's a picture of a flower's naughty bits or a post on Sanjaya's hair--the political becomes absurd.
People whom I might have regarded as trollish caricatures based on messages in one thread show their truth depth and humanity in other, non-political threads. (Remember when it was "Politics and the aversion to politics"?) There's something humbling about that.
I have a rough idea that (e.g.) beth, Madison Man and Eli are somewhere on the left, and that Pogo, Sloan and Sgt are somewhere on the right. But this artificial designation doesn't reflect conformity of thought. More importantly, I get the sense that they treat others well, regardless of affiliation. Humanity trumps politics.
Which, lest this sound too much like a Hallmark card, is actually pretty depressing when you think how many people descend rapidly into ad hominems and talking points. And it's doubtless telling that Ann's two (probably) most controversial posts were both, at heart, very whimsical.
Those of you who've been listed as the top five worst or best commenters should contact each other and form a cartel. Refuse to supply any more crude (or gems) until Prof. Althouse begins paying you. Laugh now, but consider: Who owns the rights to all these posts? If Prof. Althouse were to publish various of her posts and comments in book form, would you be compensated? Get your legal rights in writing up front.
I've organized other blogs. Prof. Althouse can send her musclemen with lead pipes to my doorstep, but I won't be cut o
TMink: I'm gonna send the Jihad to decapitate you.
Haha. Just kidding.
Just another schoolyard taunt, that you say "bugs" you.
Peace, Maxnie
If you're serious, suddenly it becomes clear why Ann's critics didn't understand the point being made about the onion rings and carrots: they really didn't understand the point, on a deeper level.
So Freder must think that everyone who watches "North by Northwest" and thinks he's seeing an allusion to sexual intercourse when the train going into to tunnel at the end actually thinks the tunnel "looks like a vagina."
Now, should I explain the unintentional irony in these statements or should I leave it to our dear, very dense, readers to figure out.
Teflon causes Alzheimers. Always use stainless steel.
Ann, your mascara's smudged.
Fondly, Maxine
Thanks, Kev, for putting me in your 'reserves' ;-)
Blake just made some very good points with which I very much agree.
And BTW, Kev is an excellent writer whose blog is worth checking out. It would not be the worst thing if he contributed more here as well.
Damn! I forgot to put Maxine in my G&S parody upthread. She should get her own stanza.
"Most Successful at Diverting any Conversation to Himself and the Fact that Someone Gay may be Suffering Somewhere - Downtown Lad"
Absurd.
Anyway, my top five favorite commenters are me, me, me, me, and me.
i'd say there's a good chance pogo + sloan + seven machos + fenrisluven are the same person, though pogo has a sense of humor and fenrisluven is the most at odds with "the facts."
I deny that. Any seemng "humor" is unintentional, a medication side effect, post-traumatic stress disorder, or my Mom's fault, whichever I happen to think of first.
"And BTW, Kev is an excellent writer whose blog is worth checking out. It would not be the worst thing if he contributed more here as well."
Thanks, Theo, and right back at ya. My appearances here are often spotty, because the nature of my work (musician and educator) keeps me away from a computer for large swaths of the day. The summers are a bit more relaxing (and summer Fridays doubly so), which means I get to follow more threads and chime in more often.
"Let me just say, I'm going to ask this question again in 3 months."
Excellent; I look forward to that. I had a feeling that perhaps a sequel might be in the offing.
Oh dear, I guess I've arrived too late for the group hug. Oh well...
I do have to single out commenter JohnStodder, who I believe used to post as JohnStodderInExile, for praise. His cogent politically-related comments of last October/November convinced me to switch my vote for my Congressman from R to D, something the Furious Children couldn't have accomplished in a year of hyperventilating.
Reading the commenters here is always a learning experience, though I suspect many of the lessons are unintentional.
Ann,
-- AWESOME POST!!!!
You got just about EVERYBODY of the regulars - especially glad to see palladian - to chime in.
On a FRIDAY!
DUDE! Incredible!
Paco--Don't know about group hugs, but I second the motion about John Stodder. Some of the best writing around here. He is an extremely hard act to follow.
Hey, maybe if we all just put our differences aside and pull in the same direction, we'll be united and everything will be fine.
Then we can join these folks.
DTL wrote: "Anyway, my top five favorite commenters are me, me, me, me, and me."
My vote for the most honest post of the year.
world
world world
world DTL world
world world
world
Trey
Oh, nobody's saying that, Alpha Liberal. And if you're referring to the last line of that post, what a load in this context.
Thank you all for visiting and commenting. But at this stage of the game, most commentators know that they are begat from Aristotle and the Adams' (John and Sam). All of the people I mentioned throw feces at other commenters and make noise stopping conversation and the free flow of ideas (or even tries to shout down the Blogs owner); Man is civilized, those whom I mentioned in the post cannot understand the concept of "agreeing to disagree".
Let me close this statement with something I learned from one of the Old Tammany guys: If you cannot sit down for a drink after your debate with your opponent, you have lost more then you have won.
Well I made his list. wooowooo!
But when I tried to post on the blog with my appreciation for being listed (although the comment by my name was unintelligible) and perhaps he should refrain from having flyers made up with names and certainly not post them on the town square kiosks, particularly before the night of breaking glass...
well he didn't post my snark. me bad.
but then i see JSD has just posted prior to me....ahhhh the left wing once again arresting debate and adding nothing to the discussion....throwing feces as he so eleoquently described it...
i suppose what is more agreeable to JSF is sitting around a campfire (burning books probabaly) chanting the latest prophecies of Rush (not "di" but Limbaugh), and howling at the moon....while the rest of us (the majority by the way) sit outside the fire's warmth, blocked by fatcats who have feasted too long at the public trough...
is this throwing feces dear JSF? is this the stopage of discourse?
tell ya' what...trot out some topic and defend it...don't post lists...and what is it you don't like? That I don't name President WooWoo by name? Frankly it is difficult to see who is president right now...Cheney keeps jumping up and sticking a fork into some dumb bastard who he is roasting over that campfire..I kinda think he must be done by now.
Thanks F.Hunt.
There are so many interesting commenters here coming from the left and the right, though, in most cases I have an affinity toward conservative voices.
I think conservatives and liberals function in this world much like men and women, each focusing on certain things that catch their eye, in the aggregate leaving no stone unturned,nothing neglected.
I find the voices of some of the women quite distinctive (Hunt, Victoria, Reader) in tone and topic and they tend to stand out.
Lauren age 4 asked: "Daddy, what are you doing?"
I am talking to my friends.
"But I don't hear anything."
We are talking by writing.
"Oh. What are you talking about?"
All sorts of different things, that's what makes it fun.
"What are their names?"
Well, here is hdhouse, there is beth but I think of her as Elizabeth, this one is bissage, and that one is dust bunny queen.
"Daddy, your friends have really funny names!"
Trey
(1) Trey, please tell your daughter that there’s a nice man with a funny name out there sitting at a computer who thinks she’s adorable. She’ll likely say, “But Daddy, he’s never even met me.” That’s when you can respond, “It doesn’t matter, Sweetheart, he’s right, anyway.”
(2) A gigantic “thank you” to everyone (B, Pogo, Theo Boehm, Kev, Irene Done (on the “Patton” thread), and now, TMink)) who said something nice about me. Your checks are in the mail. Seriously though, it means a lot because I’m basically here at Althouse to hang with a bunch of cool people and I’d like to think I fit in, somewhere.
(3) An ultra-gigantic “THANK YOU” to our hostess, who makes it all happen. Your posts are insightful, analytical, comical and beautiful. And that’s the way our lives can be, if we work at it enough. Thanks for throwing a great party.
By the way, after 124 comments, why has no one asked Althouse the WORLD'S MOST OBVIOUS QUESTION?
Here's a guess: Because every regular here at Althouse respects, loves and admires her to pieces, whether they care to admit it or not.
I most admire two things about Ms. A.
1. Her photographs. I really enjoy and appreciate them a lot.
2. Her blog. I like the place more than her posts. Not that I dislike her posts, but I come for the discussion.
I mean no disrespect at all to what our hostess writes, but I sense and appreciate what she engenders more.
Trey
Bissage:
Or maybe we're just too dense to know what "WORLD'S MOST OBVIOUS QUESTION" is.
I divide my faves between the oldies and the newbies, mostly. Since I'm an oldie, I like Sippican Cottage for humor, Bruce Hayden for putting it all into a nutshell, then newbies like Pogo, who really sounds like Pogo, Theo, Trey, Sloanasaurus, Paulabarge, readeriam, the military commenters. I also enjoy some of the female personas, like RuthAnne, Freeman Hunt, Joan, DustBunnyQueen. I'm sure I've forgotten someone, but I enjoy visiting. Hope it evolves and continues.
(Thank you, readeriam!)
Paco,
The same as Sethi, I cannot speak it!
Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.
Paco, that was rotten of me, really, to be so teasing.
You’d think I'd have the decency to give a little hint.
Oh, well.
Heh, yet again.
trey..
please tell your daughter that although we have funny names, we like what your dad says and that most on the board think he is a righteous dude.
also plunk her down and make her watch ferris until she gets it.
be well.
Great clip Bissage! Is Peter Green the sineger? Man, he looks happy. He is not so happy in the later album photos I have.
But I think that your mystery question is "Who are Ann's favorite and least favorite posters."
And I predict she will not answer.
But I could be wrong on both accounts!
Trey
Anyone else wondering why JSF is lying about his age on his blog? He claims to be 36, but he looks at least 50.
That alone says enough about his character, doesn't it.
He kind of looks like Kermit the Frog though - how cute.
Thanks for 2006.
Post a Comment