I so love reading your blog, and often so love reading the lively comments. But then there are the times when reading the comments that I feel like I am looking into an unflushed toilet. Does it have to be this way?
२९ सप्टेंबर, २००९
"Sadly, Nancy."
The closing on an email that reads:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४३ टिप्पण्या:
I don't know what to say. I mean, I miss Titus.
Titus always flushed after looking. But what happened to the dude? Is he ok? Titus, tell us you are ok. Please?
Yeah, it got a little fecal-y at times.
I'm just as God made me, ma'am.
I just been sitting here writing a survival manual for orphans and then I'm gonna clean my room. Those others were up to something , but I wasn't paying attention.
Is this a recent email?
If so, I doubt it is Titus she is referring to.
I mean, I miss Titus.
Titus was OK at times, but I really miss Victoria and Palladian.
Several others, who used to comment here regularly, can be appreciated elsewhere, but those three just vanished into the ether.
I miss Meade early on, when he was still trying hard to impress Ann through words.
This is someone who was apparently OK with reading about Titus' loaves, but feels that something [(cough)toomanyconservatives(cough)] has changed for the worse since those halcyon days.
Why not change the name of the blog to Outhouse?
Gee Nancy, do you really read this blog? Of course it has to be this way. Haven't you noticed? The great Althouse is fascinated by excrement and urine. So naturally, the blog sometimes looks like an unflushed toilet. Oh, the fascination of unflushed toilets!!
Just be thankful that she has, so far, spared us pictures to go along with the countless posts with the excrement and urine tags.
Well, I would like to take this opportunity to express my fondness for commenter traditionalguy.
While I don't engage much in online discussions (did it a lot in the past & now I'm done), I do come here, and I read...
No doubt traditionalguy and I disagree on a number of matters, and I'm sure he, like many of us, wakes up on the wrong side of the bed from time to time, but nonetheless I have come to regard him as my favorite Althouse conservative.
His temperate remarks and easygoing kindness promote comity and hint at deeper levels of human compassion. His best remarks are models of Christian fellowship and Southern gentlemanliness.
And so I value his presence here.
/man hug/
A flushed toilet is just water.
(And by comity, I mean "mutual courtesy, civility" not any legal definition I'm not aware of)
Hey Nancy, change my adult diapers. There is poopy in them.
Usenet solved the troll problem by inventing the kill file. If someone's comments bothered you, you never had to read anything by that person again.
Does blogger have killfile functionality? No one should be forced to read my thoughts, even accidentally.
Q: Does it have to be this way?
A: Yes, it does.
The free flow of ideas is often ugly and is sometimes nasty. My advise is to learn to identify contributor names and decide what you aren't going to read based on the author. I would rather deal with the 10% of comments that are vapid, nasty or deliberately rude than read pablum.
FLS,
We have disagreed in the past but if there were a kill switch I wouldn't use it on you.
El Presidente -- muchas gracias
As far as the Althouse comments community goes, I miss Trooper York. And Paul Z.'s posting style has changed: formerly he posted infrequently, but each post was a killer witticism. Now he engages more frequently, but not at the masterpiece level.
Does it have to be this way?
No, it doesn't.
I agree with Nancy.
FLS, you are not one I would use a kill switch on.
i'm fairly new here. was that nancy pelosi? :D
Laura, thanks, but I wasn't trolling for praise. I didn't want to single anyone out, so using myself as an example was safer.
LOL, Kate.
Ann Althouse said...
I don't know what to say. I mean, I miss Titus.
Yep, Titus was the 1st thing that came to mind. Not just his coprophilia, but his whole over the top vulgarity! Titus made it funny, and he also had some hysterically funny "me & my lover and our uncut hogs" tales...as well as the sweet and poetic "alter-Titus".
Maybe though, many of us do need to strive for the witty, instead of cesspool dwelling....
And in Jeremy's case, only dive into the gutter once on a thread to make his point, rather than 20 times...
Chuck B...Thanks for your generous comment. The beauty of Althouse Blog is her allowing free speech across the board, even when it is vulgarly expressed, which in turn allows thoughts to be shared, and that is the goal of free speech. Then we can change our perspective or at least be prepared for the best arguments of others. Why not comment again yourself?
The blog reading and comment process.
Professor, I don't disagree with you much, but I never saw what you did in Titus. To me, he was like Saturday Night Live in their down years: Too much pushing for a reaction, not enough understanding that pushing too hard is a laugh killer. There are people who can genuinely be entertaining with scatology and prurient humor, but I wouldn't put him in that category. Sometimes a turd is just a turd.
I agree with Chickenlittle: Victoria and Palladian are real losses here.
I haven't missed Titus's fecal postings since Jeremy is back.
Does anyone really miss Titus? It's like defecated on every thread.
For myself, I still read every day, but I used to comment more frequently. I mostly quit because I couldn't take Jeremy, Titus, and some others. I understand what I take to be Ann's reasons, but I really don't like a lack of civility, and I detest what seem to be concentrated efforts to undermine reasonable discussion--mostly meaning Jeremy.
As someone who has been reading this blog regularly since the 4th month, and who has commented a certain amount, I'd like to echo chuck b.'s remarks upthread about traditionalguy.
Like chuck, I disagree sometimes with traditionalguy, or would have a different view, but his presence here is the proverbial breath of fresh air. He is one of the commenters I always read, and I always feel I've gotten a genuine, thought-out, solid take on whatever is being discussed.
Rh, your video was PRICELESS! Love how your mind works, mister.
Whatever has happened to Victoria & Palladian?! They are easily the commenters I miss most on here. And while I agree that it sometimes gets a little too vulgar in here for my taste, the overall give & take and free flow of conversation is precisely why I check in every day - several times a day! That is all, I'm gonna go flush now!
OK everybody who would you use the 'Kill Switch" on?
My number one is up thread and he (?) mentions my number 2.
He that always mentioned Number 2 would have been on the bubble. I have my theories on why Professor Althouse tolerated Titus.
I think that a "voted off the island" test would be very interesting.
Hey Nancy, change my adult diapers. There is poopy in them.
Don't worry Paul. As Althouse notes in the next thread; "change has come".
I miss everyone who's been mentioned. I would probably miss you too, Nancy, if you decided to comment here regularly.
Oh, go ahead. Give it a try.
But then there are the times when reading the comments that I feel like I am looking into an unflushed toilet.
You can get that same effect just by reading Roissy.
Peter
Good lord...
The real "toilet" here is represented by Ann's constant sucking up to the fat man or her regular anti-American wing nuts whinging and bitching about literally anything our President says or does.
My number one is up thread and he (?) mentions my number 2.
Continuing the toilet theme, I see.
Jeremy - the wingnuts now claim Limpballs isn't a fat bloated carcass anymore. I need evidence!
El Presidente said...
I think that a "voted off the island" test would be very interesting.
Dare we call them 'death panels'?
There are 3 commenters whose comments I routinely skip, but only one of them was bad enough that I would have to give up reading the entire thread.
Sadly,
Ignorace is Hasn't-Slept-With-Meade-Yet Bliss.
Does it have to be this way?
Such is the way of "Teh Internets". Deal with it.
There are many commenters that I don't agree with, but by and large I do read their comments because they offer valid points of view. There are other posters who just spew idiocy, call names and want to pointlessly argue (we know who they are). Learn to recoginze them and skippedey do dah right over them.
Since we don't know what Nancy is referring to in terms of the comments we can come to a couple of conclusions.
1. She just doesn't like reading people's thoughts who disagree with her views.
2. She is very sensitive to off color language
3. Lacks a sense of humor
4. Net Nanny
The question could be "who would you NOT use the kill switch on"!
Heheh.
Good lord...
"Lord" should be capitalized. If we want to clean up the cesspool, we can start with proper grammar and spelling.
:-D
Threadjack alert.
Ya know one of the things I love about the internet? Things like last night, now it's happened a bunch of times. I got a book about cameras and I'm tearing through it. I come to a part that doesn't work. I try and try and try, try this, then try that, spend an hour trying things then give up. Then try again. Then think of something else and try some more. Then turn it off and turn it on and try again. Then reset to default settings and try again and fail. So the idea begins to form that this isn't working out as described in the book, and I read in the book introduction that the author has a website. I go there and find his address and write him a note asking for clarification. He writes back and says, "Thank you for pointing that out. I'll change it in the next edition."
That's what I like, the ability to talk directly to authors and get a response nearly immediately. It's very satisfying.
End threadjack.
I really don't miss Titus and his descriptions of the flexibility stretching he was doing so that he could some day be able to lick his own balls and anus. I don't miss him and never will.
Victoria wasn't bad, although her ending every post with "cheers" was a bit annoying.
How does that filekill work? If everyone checks you off, do you even know it, or could you just be commenting to nobody for years?...hello...yo...anyone...mmmm,
whistle while you work, mmmmm...hello...hog...poop...wingnut...and you a law professor...
"That's what I like, the ability to talk directly to authors and get a response nearly immediately. It's very satisfying. "
I do that with the Bible, and occasionally "The Republic".
I also miss our two English twats, Victoria, but most especially Simon.
I always appreciate someone who hates me with a passion. And Simon truly hated me. I think it was because I pointed out that he had blatantly lied and contradicted himself one too many times. But it was too easy--he often did it in the same thread. At least when I make shit up you have to go digging to find my inconsistencies.
You all made fun of me when I said Simon would be heartbroken by Ann's impending nuptials. But even to my great surprise, I turned out to be right. As soon as Ann announced she was marrying Meade, Simon disappeared, probably still thinking that the rest of the United States is exactly like whatever suburb of Indianapolis he lives in (after all living in the suburbs of Indianapolis for five years makes him an expert on the entire country).
Ahh, and Victoria. She was but a refined version of Cedarford. An unapologetic racist who just managed to seem a lot more cultured than Cedarford's skinhead nazism.
DBQ, it is entirely possible to dislike the comments of someone who more-or-less agrees with you.
Better than a flushed toilet. That would mean there weren't any comments at all.
If only Amba and Reader would do a joint blog.
iambicReader. Or something like that.
Freder,
If what you say about Simon is correct, it is kind of sad that Ann had a harum of lonely men admiring her from her blog comments. It is a good thing both they and Ann are harmless
Although occasionally, I scan through the comments here, as I just did, that's rare. Ordinarily, I read Althouse's posts and then, if I do comment, respond to the posts' content alone, even if there have been 150 or more comments beforehand. The sheer volume of comments here has, more and more, kept me from reading any of them. That's apart from any scatological considerations.
So, my advice to sad Nancy, if she's reading this comment, would be to ignore the comments and just read the posts themselves. It can be done and maybe in her case, should be done.
The only commenters of whom I really became a fan were Amba and iamreader. I totally missed the Meade-woos-Althouse comments.
Happily,
Mark
Mark Daniels,
I find the comments almost always to be more interesting than the posts.
An unflushed toilet is more interesting, even if less inviting.
I respect and enjoy many commentators here. I would even choose to use the stall from which they emerged, expecting the superior graffiti to be worth the extra flush required.
If what you say about Simon is correct, it is kind of sad that Ann had a harum of lonely men admiring her from her blog comments. It is a good thing both they and Ann are harmless
I wouldn't count on Simon being harmless. He made several comments about how he was attracted to older women.
And I don't consider any law professor at a major university who tacitly approves of torture (even if she equivocates and refuses to admit what is clearly torture by both U.S. and international law is actually torture) by the U.S. government "harmless".
"Cedarford's skinhead nazism."
Judge as you will, Freder, but Cedarford left a very impressive last response to that Polanski post a few doors down.
My definition of impressive commentary is *made me think*.
Freder - Ahh, and Victoria. She was but a refined version of Cedarford. An unapologetic racist who just managed to seem a lot more cultured than Cedarford's skinhead nazism.
Aww, how sweet. Alternate-universe Professor of Thermodynamics Freder makes his reappearance!
It was a tough summer for Freder. Seeing Obama involved in the extrajudicial execution of three possibly innocent noble black-skinned Somali children was a brutal blow for Freder. Especially since The One ordered several white oppressor males with guns - who had no, absolutely no regard for the piracy rights of little black children, blow their heads off.
Hope your mourning period is over, traitor. Sent your letter to the White House yet? Offering that you and your security risk wife will take in a GITMO Detainee??
"I wouldn't count on Simon being harmless. He made several comments about how he was attracted to older women."
So being attracted to older women makes you a danger to society? That is a rather odd view of being dangerous.
"And I don't consider any law professor at a major university who tacitly approves of torture (even if she equivocates and refuses to admit what is clearly torture by both U.S. and international law is actually torture) by the U.S. government "harmless".
You mean like President Obama? I will take a lot but I will not stand here why you call our President dangerous. That is just racism. Straight up.
But your post does prove one thing; I was wrong about all of Althouse's comentators being harmless.
"Does it have to be this way?"
Someone once wrote:
"There are millions of blogs. Read whatever you like."
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/09/roman-polanski-is-now-in-custody-for.html#8415915491387294740
What triggered my e-mail to Ann was multiple comments by Alex on the Rush Limbaugh thread.
It's hardly practical to open a comments thread and skip over some comments. It's true that I have the option not to open the comments at all.
In response to Dustbunny: I don't mind reading things I disagree with. I think I have a sense of humor, though as I don't find comments like Alex's funny you may disagree. I don't think I'm a net nanny b/c I brought this up as a query in a private e-mail to Ann. It's her blog and her call. I have a higher tolerance for off-color language than some people, but a lower tolerance than you.
I wonder at the implicit assumption of many commmenters that it's appropriate to use such language here. Commenters want their remarks to be read and considered. Why make them inaccessible to readers like me?
Ahh, haven't been called a traitor by Cedarford in awhile. Just like the good 'ol days.
Why don't you pontificate about how Obama's superior fast twitch muscles lower his IQ?
Nancy,
Reading those comments, I think it is safe to say Alex is a troll. Sadly, trolls happen
Vspurs' (The Real Victoria) blog has been in limbo since March. I hear she used to Tweet, but I never bothered to check that.
Why does the commenter put her in the same category as C4? That puzzled me. Vic was good, and being a Brit, had a different take on some things.
Palladian's comments were often so informative, but I think that took a lot of write time -- and then of course he would sometime get hooked into the slur slinging. But a good commenter, he.
Without Simon we tend to look less at lawerly things. I appeciated that. (The looking at the lawyerly things.) Would suggest more of that, but the Prof does what she wants. (How about the ACLU protesting a Joker banner Philly? What's that about?)
Trooper York is still running pols over at his place.
Memory Lane.
Why does the commenter put her in the same category as C4? That puzzled me. Vic was good, and being a Brit, had a different take on some things.
Because by being a Brit she was able to cover up her evil, nasty racism (every bit as evil and nasty as Cedarford's) with refined language and good manners. Brits are good at fooling Americans that way, but I am a Brit also, so they don't fool me. Simon was the same way.
Projection, much?
Examples?
Without Simon we tend to look less at lawerly things.
Simon wasn't a lawyer, he was a computer geek.
BTW - for whoever was wondering about Limbaugh's size, go find the Leno green car challenge with Limbaugh. You'll get a look there.
I just want to point out that Freder never did apologize to the people he accused of being ignorant liars for trying to educate him about the laws of nature.
I assumed what triggered the email was one of the posts about Roman Polanski, possibly the first which has over 200 comments, since I was disgusted by some of the comments too. (But I see I was wrong ~ the toilet remark was literal?).
Poor Titus. Tried to polish his own turds and failed.
Judge as you will, Freder, but Cedarford left a very impressive last response to that Polanski post a few doors down.
Did I say racist assholes can't occasionally make a good point. In Cedarford's perfect world Polanski wouldn't have survived
WWII
"In Cedarford's perfect world Polanski wouldn't have survived
WWII"
That is pathetic. Even for you, that is pathetic. The fact that you think everyone who disagrees with you is a racist beant on genocide is not a sign of intelligence Frederson. It is just a sign that you are a paranoid asshole who isn't smart enough to understand other people's point of view.
It's hardly practical to open a comments thread and skip over some comments. It's true that I have the option not to open the comments at all.
Funny, I’ve found it surprisingly easy to skip inane comments. Sometimes it helps that there are often 5 or six in a row by the same commenter and you can just skip them in a bunch to get to the people who are more interesting. It’s when the thread gets completely pulled down into the vortex that it becomes a problem.
I remember reading some pretty weird/racist comments from Victoria and I don’t really miss Titus. But others I miss.
Tough to admit, but I do miss Palladian.
Sofa King said...
I just want to point out that Freder never did apologize to the people he accused of being ignorant liars for trying to educate him about the laws of nature.
That was Freder at his finest. Narrow-minded, ignorant...and too stupid to see he was making a complete fool out of himself on a subject he had no education in.
I'll plug again for Titus. He was so over the top vulgar on some of his turd-o-mania posts and his "uncut hog" tales that it was funny. Though he tended to keep at it until he became tedious on a thread.
But Titus also had his wicked good takes on the absurdity of current events, his rare clumber stories, and he was quite an epicure..as long as he didn't combine a post of what he prepared and ate with how it looked when he shat it out.
I liked Victoria, too. Sharp wit, good insights..more like DBQ..
One I also miss is Sippican Cottage.
Nancy obviously doesn't read the left side of the blogosphere if she is so easily offended by Althouse commenters, we're pussycats in comparison.
btw-Ironically Polanski's Jewish father survived the concentration camp, his Russian born Roman Catholic mother did not.
I can't think of a better reason to have uncensored, free-wheeling debate than the above paragraph.
Once censorship begins there is no predicting where the end lies.
I too miss Paladian and Trooper and while Titus could be tedious he made me LOL; a lot.
But then there are the times when reading the comments that I feel like I am looking into an unflushed toilet. Does it have to be this way?
Nancy, in a word, yes.
The only person who does not look in the toliet after they have gone and before they flush is a blind person. I am sure they take a sniff.
The difference is, someone else's deposit is disgusting. Most of us find that offensive (even from family members and perhaps especially from family members). But we love looking at our own. We love smelling our own farts. It is just human nature.
The only person who does not look in the toliet after they have gone and before they flush is a blind person. I am sure they take a sniff.
Mike O'Meara, half of the former radio team Don & Mike, used to claim (on the air) that he never looked back. Nor did he look at the toilet paper once used.
"Nor did he look at the toilet paper once used."
So THAT's why his wife buys all that bleach?
I liked Victoria, too. Sharp wit, good insights..more like DBQ..
I agree with you there Cedarford. Plus I liked her immigrant point-of-view (I'm married to a Euro-immigrant). Also, her language skills were cool-you can hide those talents but you can't fake them. Quick witted too. And I completely missed anything "racist" about her and so don't believe it. And considering who makes those charges, I'll bet they're phony too. I can't say enough good about her.
The sad thing about Palladian is that he must have put so much into commenting and gotten so little in return-the internet can be such an unrequited place.
wv: "hotiess" superlative!
Mike O'Meara is either a dirty liar or has dirty underwear, or both.
Chickelit, if Palladian, Victoria, and any of the others, except Titus, peek in here now and again, I feel certain that they wouldn't think that all their commenting was for naught. The arguments may be another story, but that's what happens sometimes when you get a bunch of passionate people together who don't walk lock step on each and every issue.
Titus, I excepted you, because...well, you're special. In a good way!
"In Cedarford's perfect world Polanski wouldn't have survived
WWII"
That is pathetic. Even for you, that is pathetic. The fact that you think everyone who disagrees with you is a racist beant on genocide is not a sign of intelligence Frederson. It is just a sign that you are a paranoid asshole who isn't smart enough to understand other people's point of view.
Wow, John. To refuse to see any commonality between someone who would politically organize and agitate to round up the Jews and kill them off, and those who would just stand idly by and think "pity, but they had it coming," is truly remarkable.
Are there some anti-Semites (or racists, or whatever, haters of any stripe) who would actually feel troubled by a genocide of the group they hate? I suppose so. But they still forfeit the right for such sympathetic distinctions to be meaningful. So why even bother to consider them?
And I happen to think that Freder's right. You think Americans become overzealous in agitating against racism - to the point where they think they can see it in anything? Well try Europe. Many on the left there make an even more conscious push to fight racism - for a couple of reasons. First, they are used to being more homogeneous societies and have become more adept at identifying a much more casual and acceptable ethnocentrism among their own midst. And second, they are classist as hell (and especially unapologetic about it in Britain) - so they are used to sympathizing with Americans for whom racism was traditionally a way of maintaining class distinctions.
I'm glad Freder can see through it.
What was obvious to me about Simon's writings (and yes, even Victoria's unctuous formalities) was what wasn't said. The space between those words where it was evident that the American "meritocratic" right appealed to their own English, classist sympathies, was where I saw their affinity to certain political sentiments leading them. And I just wish the rest of you guys knew enough about European culture (or just about culture or anthropology in general) to have picked up on the motivations for that very selective sense of charitable goodwill that they heartily extended to those with whom they shared this very community - as virtual and politicized as it is, but not one iota to their fellow man. You might not have cared where the political interests you shared with Simon and Victoria came from. But anyone familiar with classism, and the heuristics it shares with racism or any other method for defining a convenient group of "inferiors" to snub, does.
You guys need to open your eyes.
And Cedarford's response about the Somali pirates is not anywhere near as deflective as he intended, but really more revealing, actually. Clinically as much as forensically.
Aaahhh! MUL tries his hand at psychobabble!
Equal parts psycho, equal parts babble.
Especially loved his incoherent European classicism heuristics.
That was so special.
I actually miss Titus, too. I don't miss the loaves. But he was id with style.
MUD,
Puting big words out doesn't count as an argument. You have to actually know what the words mean.
Eat Cheetos.
They turn everything orange.
Puting big words out doesn't count as an argument. You have to actually know what the words mean.
So do you, John. And not only that, but you have to also know what the letters mean. You have to, for instance, know how to distinguish the letter "L" from the letter "D". It's annoying, to be sure. But if you want to convince people that you have as good an understanding of the words they use as they do, it's best to convince them that you're at least literate.
Got that?
Good. Thanks!
Now go continue providing cover for C-Fud's willing allies in the cause - Simon and Victoria. And the rest of their ilk.
BTW, I'm wondering which "big words" I used incorrectly.
And just because they're too big for you to understand, that doesn't count, John. Stop confusing yourself with me. Your inability to comprehend something (what I wrote) doesn't mean that I didn't comprehend that same thing.
Sigh.
Somewhere on the internets there must be a college-level English to 8th-grade English translator. But I guess no translator is advanced enough to merely simplify the concepts and ideas discussed in a text so that someone less intelligent can understand them. There are limits to everything. The intelligence of the reader being chief among those.
MUL,
You are a moron. Anyone who thinks that any of Cederford or even Victoria's posts, which were granted pretty out there sometimes, rises to the level of Nazism is either stupid or dellusional. I believe the proper term is "Godwin's law" which says that the first person who reverts to using the term "Nazi" is the loser of the argument.
You offer no evidence that Cederford is a racist. Further, you act on the assumption that there can be no varying degree of racism, that any percieved racism on your part is equal to support of genocide, which again is stupid.
MUL, you are an idiot and a troll. You need to go post somehwere else like KOS or atrios where you kind of cockeyed thinking passes for logic and not here. No one here, not even the resident liberal trolls, really have time for your brand of BS.
MUL must have been lurking for a very long time. That would be one theory anyway.
The quality of a comments thread is inversely proportional to its length.
cheetos
Henry,
MUL was very busy learning just enough to be dangerous about literary theory. It is all about the heuristic of the thing, you know?
Who used the term "Nazi", John? Oh, that's right. You did! So stop denigrating your own intelligence by referencing your violation of Godwin's Law (trust me, any worthy estimation of your own intelligence is already quite low by virtue of the many other idiotic things you've just written), and try to redeem yourself through legitimate means.
Those means might involve admitting that you are either an absolute ignoramus regarding C-Fud's obsessive anti-Jew rantings or completely in the wrong regarding your assessment/assumption. I highly doubt you will find any one here, conservative or liberal, who would defend him against that. Palladian certainly wouldn't. Palladian even referred to him as a good example of the extreme part of the political circle where right meets left and a communist shakes hands with a Nazi. (Again, his words -- and, when it comes to "Nazi" -- yours, not mine). But he is an anti-semite, and as far as racism goes, that's a good enough example of it for me. Maybe it's not for you, but that's your problem. As it's your problem accounting for why someone would say "Jew" this or "Jew" that in referring to any prominent Jew he dislikes - as C-Fud routinely does, for any reason other than the classic anti-semitic device of painting them all as perfidious.
Further, you act on the assumption that there can be no varying degree of racism, that any percieved racism on your part is equal to support of genocide, which again is stupid.
That's actually not what I said. Try reading again, this time more carefully. But what's the use? You've taken to bashing me in order to defend an out, known anti-semite from charges of anti-semitism. Ridiculous.
Try finding one person here who will vouch for the stance that C-Fud does not harbor anti-Jewish sentiment. I'm pretty sure you will not find it.
Which makes you an idiot.
So, if you want to call me a troll, go ahead. I don't care. Others who speak more forcefully than you and with more clout than either you or I have here have said otherwise. I could care less. But at least I won't take a stance as quixotic and indefensible as the one you just did.
Simply amazing.
I can't read this, I said, it's depressing.
Well, Althouse's comments can get a bit Kafkaesque at times, he said.
You'd better be careful with those references to Kafka, Theo. As you can see, any reference to anything that might apply in a literary context is verboten.
Signs of evils like liberalism and such.
The quality of a comments thread is inversely proportional to its length.
I disagree. Some of the most interesting and entertaining threads have been very long -- Let's Take a Closer Look at Those Breasts, for example. That was before the 200-comment limit, however.
Good comments are at most two short paragraphs, as a rule.
Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena/ þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð/
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning.
Sometimes you need a little Anglo-Saxon to clear the air.
Good comments are at most two short paragraphs, as a rule.
With baby steps we will slowly, but surely, make it out of the era of sound-bites. At this pace, with any luck, we will return to an era of full, literate, cogent thought in about a century or two. And the television that convinced us to convert all thought into catchy or provocative slogans, so that they could be free from the editing into short clips that fit the format of the 6 o'clock news, will be but a distant memory.
I see that evolving from a deliberate state of devolution can be quite trying.
Sometimes you need a little Anglo-Saxon to clear the air.
Or to change the subject.
Theo, sometimes the desert symbolizes a relative absence of life - just as your effort to change the subject represents an effort to exclude inconvenient, but vital ideas and thoughts - and not merely a sense of clarity.
Clarity should never come at the expense of truth.
M U L...Hang in there. You will take hits from out of left field for speaking against anti-semitism. And your saying that it even exists is deemed speaking against it. The Nazi flood crested 80 years ago, and it has receded from Germany after 1945 to wait in hidden places for a more opportune time.You are also correct to see that there are not gradations of this ethnic hate, and it comes all in when it comes to the blinded men that it uses.
I think I'll go see if Trooper has found Grendel's mother yet in a warehouse in Wilmington, CA.
Ah! The refreshing smell of smog and bolts of polyester cloth. A breath of fresh air, relatively speaking.
Thank you TG. I appreciate that. And I find your comments interesting. What you say above is certainly true.
Although for some reason I put an homage to classical liberalism on my blog masthead, I think that the philosophy is one that many conservatives share. It's not the same as the way the right and left currently decides to divide. Political differences are sometimes a poor approximation of any, actual philosophical differences.
But the point I'm trying to make is that it is a canard to believe that good ideas are the exclusive domain of one part of the political spectrum or another. I don't think that half of my rants express an interest in bashing conservatism, just what certain unthinking people have made of conservatism. The same way many people here feel they're motivated by the same perception coming at them from the left.
But I think anyone should be able to agree that hatred is hatred, exclusion is exclusion, and power corrupts. And the relationships between all these things are much deeper than any analysis that believes it can confine them to "right" or "left". They just simply can't be reduced that way. Except when they are in willful or blind collusion to a bad end.
I am grateful that you seem to see that, TG. The shades of gray are what matter. But only to people who aren't blind. I'm grateful to see someone who understands as much continuing to visit and comment as you do, from whatever philosophical position or tradition you happen to find most comfortable.
Yeah, smog can be a problem, Theo!
I'm not saying I don't appreciate clarity, or even simplicity. All I'm saying is that it's usually not a good idea to use an interest in those things to stifle accuracy. That's all.
And achieving an accurate understanding of things is not always cut and dried. It can be a convoluted road, with many twists, turns and new discoveries. Sometimes it involves a level of detail that may look, in hindsight, to be wasteful, inefficient, even muddled. But there is no accuracy in one single "clear view". There are multiple views from a number of perspectives that combine to give the most accurate portrait. An amalgamation of differing perspectives is often absolutely necessary to achieve the most accurate understanding of something. I just think that if more people were accepting of this truism, there would be less divisive dialogues between people who come from different understandings of the world, more to learn, more to add to our ideas of life and what constitutes a useful and meaningful understanding of it.
%S O0500
O0500
(PLAIN ENGLISH ACCURATE TO 4 DECIMALS)
(9/29/09)
G0G17G40G49G80G90
(.059 BALL MILL FOR PLASTIC)
T9M6
G0G90G55X-.5000Y-.5000S140000M3
G43H9Z1.M8
G00Z1.0
X0.1905Y0.0
G01Z0.1F24.0
X0.1905Y1.0
X0.8095Y1.0
G00Z1.0
X0.1905Y0.5238
G01Z0.1F24.0
X0.5714Y0.5238
G00Z1.0
X1.0476Y0.6667
G01Z0.1F24.0
X1.0476Y0.1905
X1.0952Y0.0476
X1.1905Y0.0
X1.3333Y0.0
X1.4286Y0.0476
X1.5714Y0.1905
G00Z1.0
X1.5714Y0.6667
G01Z0.1F24.0
X1.5714Y0.0
G00Z1.0
X2.4762Y0.5238
G01Z0.1F24.0
X2.381Y0.619
X2.2857Y0.6667
X2.1429Y0.6667
X2.0476Y0.619
X1.9524Y0.5238
X1.9048Y0.381
X1.9048Y0.2857
X1.9524Y0.1429
X2.0476Y0.0476
X2.1429Y0.0
X2.2857Y0.0
X2.381Y0.0476
X2.4762Y0.1429
G00Z1.0
X2.8095Y1.0
G01Z0.1F24.0
X2.8095Y0.0
G00Z1.0
X3.2857Y0.6667
G01Z0.1F24.0
X2.8095Y0.1905
G00Z1.0
X3.0Y0.381
G01Z0.1F24.0
X3.3333Y0.0
G00Z1.0
X4.0952Y1.0
G01Z0.1F24.0
X4.4762Y0.5238
X4.4762Y0.0
G00Z1.0
X4.8571Y1.0
G01Z0.1F24.0
X4.4762Y0.5238
G00Z1.0
X5.2857Y0.6667
G01Z0.1F24.0
X5.1905Y0.619
X5.0952Y0.5238
X5.0476Y0.381
X5.0476Y0.2857
X5.0952Y0.1429
X5.1905Y0.0476
X5.2857Y0.0
X5.4286Y0.0
X5.5238Y0.0476
X5.619Y0.1429
X5.6667Y0.2857
X5.6667Y0.381
X5.619Y0.5238
X5.5238Y0.619
X5.4286Y0.6667
X5.2857Y0.6667
G00Z1.0
X6.0Y0.6667
G01Z0.1F24.0
X6.0Y0.1905
X6.0476Y0.0476
X6.1429Y0.0
X6.2857Y0.0
X6.381Y0.0476
X6.5238Y0.1905
G00Z1.0
X6.5238Y0.6667
G01Z0.1F24.0
X6.5238Y0.0
G00G90Z3.0M5
G91G28Z0.M9
G91G28Z0.Y0.
M30
%
M U L may freely use the above to engrave a sign for her desk, as a keepsake from ol' Theo.
I was surprised to see the number of regular commenters that dropped out once Althouse got engaged. We have such a tenuous relationship with the hostess and with each other that it is difficult to imagine anyone feeling insulted or rejected or jealous here. But even in this ethereal dimension where we have no nerve endings, we find ways of feeling hurt. Human beings are exquisitely designed to cause each other unhappiness.....I enjoy Cedarford's posts. For all his bigotry, he has a wide range of knowledge and interesting, off beat insights. His bigotry subverts his intelligence, but, sometimes, the reverse happens.
You're reverting to douchebag mode again, Theo. You don't read what I write because you hate the ideas behind them, not because you have trouble comprehending them. And, unlike Althouse, even impersonal dissent bothers you. That's because you are bad at making your own case (or even someone else's) against said dissent.
Up until this comment I have not said anything rude to you. So if you care to explain why you feel the need to present Matrix code gibberish to me in the ostensible form of a sarcastic gift, by all means, explain. Until then, why not just have "a quiet evening" and enjoy the idea of interacting only with people who don't interrupt your utopian sense of desert purity?
Your search - %S O0500 O0500 (PLAIN ENGLISH ACCURATE TO 4 DECIMALS) (9/29/09) G0G17G40G49G80G90 (.059 BALL MILL FOR PLASTIC) T9M6 G0G90G55X-.5000Y-.5000S140000M3 G43H9Z1.M8 G00Z1.0 X0.1905Y0.0 G01Z0.1F24.0 X0.1905Y1.0 X0.8095Y1.0 G00Z1.0 X0.1905Y0.5238 G01Z0.1F24.0 X0.5714Y0.5238 G00Z1.0 X1.0476Y0.6667 G01Z0.1F24.0 X1.0476Y0.1905 X1.0952Y0.0476 X1.1905Y0.0 X1.3333Y0.0 X1.4286Y0.0476 X1.5714Y0.1905 G00Z1.0 X1.5714Y0.6667 G01Z0.1F24.0 X1.5714Y0.0 G00Z1.0 X2.4762Y0.5238 G01Z0.1F24.0 X2.381Y0.619 X2.2857Y0.6667 X2.1429Y0.6667 X2.0476Y0.619 X1.9524Y0.5238 X1.9048Y0.381 X1.9048Y0.2857 X1.9524Y0.1429 X2.0476Y0.0476 X2.1429Y0.0 X2.2857Y0.0 X2.381Y0.0476 X2.4762Y0.1429 G00Z1.0 X2.8095Y1.0 G01Z0.1F24.0 X2.8095Y0.0 G00Z1.0 X3.2857Y0.6667 G01Z0.1F24.0 X2.8095Y0.1905 G00Z1.0 X3.0Y0.381 G01Z0.1F24.0 X3.3333Y0.0 G00Z1.0 X4.0952Y1.0 G01Z0.1F24.0 X4.4762Y0.5238 X4.4762Y0.0 G00Z1.0 X4.8571Y1.0 G01Z0.1F24.0 X4.4762Y0.5238 G00Z1.0 X5.2857Y0.6667 G01Z0.1F24.0 X5.1905Y0.619 X5.0952Y0.5238 X5.0476Y0.381 X5.0476Y0.2857 X5.0952Y0.1429 X5.1905Y0.0476 X5.2857Y0.0 X5.4286Y0.0 X5.5238Y0.0476 X5.619Y0.1429 X5.6667Y0.2857 X5.6667Y0.381 X5.619Y0.5238 X5.5238Y0.619 X5.4286Y0.6667 X5.2857Y0.6667 G00Z1.0 X6.0Y0.6667 G01Z0.1F24.0 X6.0Y0.1905 X6.0476Y0.0476 X6.1429Y0.0 X6.2857Y0.0 X6.381Y0.0476 X6.5238Y0.1905 G00Z1.0 X6.5238Y0.6667 G01Z0.1F24.0 X6.5238Y0.0 G00G90Z3.0M5 G91G28Z0.M9 G91G28Z0.Y0. M30 % - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
* Try fewer keywords.
MUL - "Try finding one person here who will vouch for the stance that C-Fud does not harbor anti-Jewish sentiment. I'm pretty sure you will not find it."
And your point is?? Perhaps you believe Jews should be given an immunity amulet from all criticism...as they are special...they claim. But any group that seeks to actively transform societies has to realize that various people in various societies may have opinions about that, good and bad.
And what applies to Jews applies to other groups. I am critical of French, Chinese, inner city black thugs and their poverty pimps and liberal apologists. I think Communism and radical Islam suck.
Others have pointed criticism about the gay lifestyle, or about the Mormons who tried blocking gay marriage..
Deal with it, MUL. And Jews can't milk "us poor victims!" schtick forever. You only get so much mileage out of Victimhood. At some point, as a very powerful group, they will again not be able to stifle criticism..
her desk
And again, with this weird gender issue you seem to have.
Theo, repeat after me: "Not everyone who disagrees with Theo is a part of some big, bad, amorphous monster. Sometimes many, many, different people will disagree with Theo. And this will always be the case. Live with it. Accept it."
Breathe in deeply, then exhale while you do this. Repeat until you feel less scattered.
That's my gift to you. A thousand times more useful... and heart-felt. Not just a put-down.
What was obvious to me about Simon's writings (and yes, even Victoria's unctuous formalities) was what wasn't said.
@MUL: WTF do you know about Europe, or anything else?
You're the biggest phony to come around here (and elsewhere) in quite a awhile.
Transparent is what you are.
And your point is?? Perhaps you believe Jews should be given an immunity amulet from all criticism...as they are special...they claim. But any group that seeks to actively transform societies has to realize that various people in various societies may have opinions about that, good and bad.
You are a bad deflector, C-Fud.
No one claims that any one person deserves immunity for their crimes or transgressions because they are Jewish. That is a fantasy that you build in order to bolster your own, necessarily fantastic defense.
First of all, you speak in such a way as to define Jews exclusively as a collective.
Second, when you have an ostensible problem with something Alan Greenspan does, or with something Madelaine Albright does, what a normal person would do is to say what they're pissed about vis a vis that action. They don't preface their complaint by saying, "The Jew, Alan Greenspan."
Why don't they do that? Because they don't see religion or ethnicity as having anything to do with what they're upset about. But you do.
Why does C-Fud say that he's pissed about what "Alan Greenspan, the Jew" does, and not about what "Alan Greenspan" does? Well again, Greenspan's being Jewish is the problem in C-Fud's mind. He even goes so far as to cover for this possibility with collectivizing Jews (as he does with other groups) so as to promote intolerance. And not some ridiculous attempt at understanding what "Jews", "French", "Chinese", etc. have supposedly got wrong as a culture. He has no interest in that. You see, all these groups are irredeemable in his paranoid mind until proven otherwise. Or not.
But what is certain is that emphasizing a collective, and inherently flawed, identity, helps C-Fud rationalize hatred instead of focusing on any sort of reasoned argument about how any single individual committed any wrongdoing for which our society would hold that person, as an individual solely responsible for his own actions to account.
I get the impression that C-Fud, as interesting and as wacky as he is, doesn't understand the significance of this. And that is because his hold on reality and reason when it comes to such things is too shaky to assist in identifying his true motives. Whether he actually hates people as members of a group or is just too paranoid and lazy to do the legwork to focus on the things that matter and resist becoming distracted by a "group" identity is not really certain. Or relevant. It's hatred all the same. And it's blatantly racist.
And everyone here can see it.
Get some help, C. Or take some Zyprexa.
@MUL: WTF do you know about Europe, or anything else?
I don't know, little. Nothing I can't read from Charles Dickens, though.
You're the biggest phony to come around here (and elsewhere) in quite a awhile.
This from a guy with a fast-food sign as an avatar.
Pollo, have the balls to take to task the obvious racist, C-Fud, as I just did (something no one else here has ever really done other than Palladian) and then we'll talk about which one of us has the courage to stand for our convictions, and which one is "phony".
Transparent is what you are.
Why thank you!
Someone who has the courage of their convictions should always be as transparent with them as I am.
I apologize if I have made you feel less comfortable, by comparison.
MUL, I don't disagree with you at all, insofar as I can make out your ideas through the haze of Latinate gibberish you write.
What I sent you was standard G-code, which will control engraving and/or milling machines, and indeed should make a nice desk sign to remind you both of accuracy and the Anglo-Saxon roots of English.
If you knew anything and wanted to read it, you would know how to find a G-code backplotter, many of which are readily available online.
It's odd. Trooper York, whom I enjoy a lot, seems to have a soft spot for MUL. She may be a relative.
For many of the rest of us, MUL looks to be a semi-troll. A troll writes to irritate, not for the sake of any legitimate dialog, but simply to disrupt. I don't think MUL intends to be a troll, but she wins my personal award for Most Irritating Commenter. The negativity with which she is met here pretty well shows I'm not alone in this.
Many people attempt to improve their writing on the internet. MUL seems to be perhaps two people, because I've seen quite well-written things from her. And then there is the usual polysyllabic crashing nonsense.
She should do us all a favor and just go away until she can get either an editor or someone to translate her very ordinary thoughts into English.
In that case, I suppose it's an interesting gift.
I appreciate it - in an odd way.
Theo, in my line of work, polysyllabic words with Greek and Latin roots are necessarily utilized more than they are here. So as much as the Angles and Saxons and their language (and their folk technology - of which I doubt engraving and milling was included) intrigue me, I'm not sure they can enrich my work life as much as they could my general interest in them - which is I suppose all well and good for me and the many other non-lawyers who chime in here in an avocational capacity.
But if I find a way to access one of these machines, I will surely make use of your gift. And hopefully, I will find a way to use it to make something which will enrich me in the manner that you propose.
(I would say "thanks" here in Anglo-Saxon but lack access to a translator for it and a font with the appropriate orthography).
♠
Theo, perhaps you have the problem. Commenters who are held in much higher esteem here than you are have said the opposite. And Trooper is a much more interesting and accommodating person than you will ever be. Perhaps those two attributes have something to do with one another.
He also doesn't switch schizophrenically (Greek root, did it cause you distress?) from saying something well-mannered to me to saying something rude.
I'm very certain that your problem revolves around an intolerance for dissent. You do not object to - or remove, let's not forget that - comments that are entirely ordinary as long as they fall within the scope of your own ideology.
So allow me the favor of telling you something in very straightforward (and monosyllabic) terminology. Until you stop with this gender-bending nonsense ("she") and accusing me of duping you with multiple identities (who on earth would do something so bizarre with a Blogger profile?), (and telling me which sites that you don't own to frequent), you can fuck off. Is that clear?
I hope it is. It really should be.
And once you get that down, then you can offer me your disingenuous advice. And then you can learn to come to terms with your own disparate drives, and integrate them into more coherent behaviors.
And btw, thanks for taking C-Fud to task, AGAIN! But I guess I'm one of those silly people whose sense of virtue tends to revolve around calling out actual wrongdoing, and not using writing as an exercise in mental masturbation - but in order to focus on the ideas with which you can't even tell whether you agree or not.
Swallow that, get back to me, and then we'll see if you've become any less irritating according to standards that are just as arbitrary as your own.
For many of the rest of us, MUL looks to be a semi-troll.
I haven't seen an 'and other lurkers agree' with me post since Usenet.
Usenet, pre blogging but with the same snark.
Keep the faith MUL.
Those who have made unsolicited assertions of their view of me as something other than a troll were those who have treated me with the most, and harshest "negativity" - thereby obviating Theo's retarded assertion. And certainly obviating Beau's assertion.
(Actually, it's not that retarded an assertion. On a topic thread concerning "trolls", I made a self-deprecating comment. The individuals in question made unsolicited comments in response that confirmed that their negativity resulted from an interest in vehement disagreement of the sort that makes Theo wet his pants, and not from a view of me that conforms to his own. And one of them even came to my site to say as much).
Otherwise, I had been thinking of staying away from this blog. They said that wasn't necessary or desired. It was someone else they had a problem with.
But my interest in staying away was bred of a distaste for reinforcing ideological and political purity. And I continue to voice vehement disagreement when I see this.
Again, I'm confident by now that it is precisely that strong disagreement that vexes Theo Boehm. It's just amazing that someone who obsesses over making one's language more "Anglo Saxon" can't even understand that it's their inability to tolerate dissent that makes others objectionable to him. (Or should I
say "her"? "Theo Boehm" is, after all, just another pseudonym as well.)
"Theo Boehm", I have no obligation to only voice disagreement if it conforms to your view of what is the most articulate way to express it. An idea is an idea is an idea. And this is the internet era. Get used to it. The style of writing only matters in a more limited capacity than the one you propose here.
So get over yourself. And decide whether or not you want to fully come out of the closet or not with the pseudonymity. Don't half-ass the identity thing. Either be who you really are or be "Theo Boehm".
And if Althouse wants me away, I'll go. But that tends not to be her policy. And her husband's been very nice to me when he's commented -- on my blog.
These things might cause Theo's head to spin. As I keep saying, he doesn't seem to be someone who has an easy time integrating conflicting thoughts, ideas and even conflicting facts into his mind.
MUL, I'll say it straight up and to your face: You are an insufferable irritation. I don't disagree with you. Your ideas are ordinary and dull. There's nothing there worth disagreeing with.
You don't seem to understand: It's your phony, pretentious, ignorant writing that I can't stand. Is that clear enough?
As to your gender, I always assumed, along with Palladian, that you are female. I frankly don't care. If you say you are male, fine. Most women could not possibly be as tone deaf and pretentious as you are.
And beau, I'm not talking "lurkers." You might want to take a look at other comments on this thread, not to mention plenty of other threads where MUL has evoked negative responses.
Some people like MUL. Palladian, Chickenlittle, and I, for example, don't.
Oh, and I'm not related to Trooper York. (More desperate, conspiratorial attempts at self-serving explanations). Trooper's just human enough to realize that variety's the spice of life. Or, as he says it, not everyone is of a piece.
I think that's a piece of advice Boehm would be well advised to consider.
And in case I didn't make the point clearly enough, there is no one, proper, correct writing style either. The point of blogs is primarily to exchange ideas, not to bask in the supposed glory of well-constructed phrases. If someone doesn't fully understand what another person is saying in every detail - as any intellectually honest person would admit that we are all wont to do - the proper thing to do is to ask for clarification.
But when the proprietor wants to post something having to do with the uses of language, I comment appropriately.
The majority of the rest of the posts tend to devolve around a political matter, or divergent views of a political matter. At least, that's how the commentariat tends to intepret them. And when that happens, I expect my comments to be read with the view in mind that I am interested in addressing those political ideas - whether they were reasonable or not, whether they were comprehensive or not, and not how well I wrote about them.
To confuse style with substance is unforgiveable, and I expect better from Boehm.
Or how about this. I'll make him an offer: For every comment he posts that actually includes an original(?) thought that addresses the substance of a discussion, I'll post a comment that would win essays based solely on the strength of the writing. Is that fair?
If I come up with more well-written comments than he does well-thought out comments, I win.
And vice versa.
I predict I would school him.
Are you up for the challenge, Theo?
MUL, I'll say it straight up and to your face: You are an insufferable irritation. I don't disagree with you. Your ideas are ordinary and dull. There's nothing there worth disagreeing with.
Theo, I could insult you in just as meaningless and opinionated a fashion as you do to me here. It doesn't get either one of us anywhere, but especially you, because you seem to have more invested in this than I do.
But let's get one thing straight: You don't know me. So stop with this "to my face" rhetoric. Either say what you mean all the time, or don't talk to me.
You don't seem to understand: It's your phony, pretentious, ignorant writing that I can't stand. Is that clear enough?
What's clear is that it is, like everything you write, incredibly opinionated - and offers no interest in a factual dialogue. What's clear is that if you find something I write ignorant, you could say what it is that I missed. What's clear is that you are, once again, obfuscating between discussing factual matters and discussing aesthetic matters. Perhaps there is no difference between the two in your mind. But that's your problem. Some people can actually discern the difference. And many people, in fact, find that difference crucial in order to have meaningful dialogue between many people who will, inevitably, disagree.
And your garbage on "phony", "pretentious"? You don't know me. You don't know if I really believe what I write or not. Your inability to entertain the good-faith assumption that I do, though, is not my problem.
Your list of people who supposedly hate me includes people who have come to my blog and said otherwise.
Read it sometime - if an interest in getting your facts straight is something you can dare to stomach.
But I'm going to bed. As I said, if the blog proprietor wants me gone, I'm gone. But don't complain about me being pretentious and then pretend that you're the one who has that right.
So, MUL, has Palladian come round and made nice with you on your blog? I wouldn't know, because I don't read it and never would. All I know are several of his memorable fights with you here. Do you really want me to Google them and start quoting the very unpleasant Palladian on the subject of you?
Chickenlittle just said upthread in a few well-chosen words exactly what I think.
Those are the only two other commenters I quoted, so if one has made nice, as I say, good for you.
My point is that you irritate people. But I'll narrow it and not presume to speak for anyone else, and only say you irritate ME.
As for, "to your face," it is, indeed, a piece of rhetoric. Sorry if my rhetoric offends you. Yours offends the hell out of me.
And, yes, your writing is pretentious. A few words from the thesaurus: affected, pompous, overambitious, inflated, sophomoric. I don't really need to know you personally to know those things about your writing, do I?
HOW you say something has at least as much to do with communication as the content. I complimented traditionalguy upthead, even though I probably disagree with him more often than not. But frankly, I seldom have any idea of WHAT you're trying to say, simply because it is so badly said.
C-fudd, how about a round of "ball-licking Christian Zionists" to raise the level around here? Or you could reach back to the good old days at AOSHQ:
http://minx.cc/?post=66320
I'll take more time to digest what you've written later, T.B. In the meantime, I find it amazing that you take the opportunity to tell me all this (including how offensive I am) during the course of a thread in which my point basically consists of taking an anti-semite to task.
As for this:
My point is that you irritate people. But I'll narrow it and not presume to speak for anyone else, and only say you irritate ME.
Thanks for that clarification, as well as for the less pompous/pretentious/egotistical conclusion. But if the worst you can say about me is that I evoke "negative responses" - as you did upstream, I shudder to think what kind of discourse you find meaningful if the only responses it includes are positive ones.
People disagree, and it is not "tone-deaf" of me to call out an anti-semite. If it is, then who gets to decide what is an acceptable "tone"? Not you, I hope. And how ironic of you to invoke Palladian on one of the few threads in which he would have likely (based on his writings in the past about this) agreed with me more strongly than on any other thread.
It might be irritating to someone for me to call out an anti-semite. But in that case I have to wonder about the motives of the person who was irritated by that. Thanks for clarifying yours.
I scroll over MUL entirely. Just won't read his stuff.
So put that in the count as +1 for MUL being a crank/troll.
Not interesting and nothing to think about in what (s)he posts.
I mostly lurk here-- I'm just not a compulsive communicator. If I have something to say, I'll comment, but mostly I just read.
And I read this blog every day, have done for two years now. The single reason I do is that Ann has the best commenters on the web.
I believe this is because Professor Althouse really believes in free speech. I tried at least a dozen times to get a comment posted on HuffPost without any luck, since I invariably took issue with the leftist hate exhibited over there. That experience taught me something about the internet.
So if Titus liked to talk about shit, and worse, well you just have to take the bad with the good. His wit occasionally made him worth reading, but I don't miss him. Still, it would take a lot worse to drive me away from here.
"I scroll over MUL entirely. Just won't read his stuff.
So put that in the count as +1 for MUL being a crank/troll.
Not interesting and nothing to think about in what (s)he posts."
Yean, MUL is in my "scroll" file. Now only if it were automated.
Despite every good intention, I have failed in my own pursuit of automatic scrolldom past every known assclown. Ergo the flamewar w/MUL.
Insofar as I can tell what MUL means in this last brain fart, MUL is wrapping MUL in a cloak of self-righteousness about MUL's attack on Cedarford.
Talk about two who deserve each other.
At least Cedarford can write well, if not sometimes brilliantly, but his well-known Jew-hatred makes reading him an exercise in wince-avoidance.
His well-stated comments have thus become for me yet more potholes on the information superhighway to be gotten around as quickly as possible.
But you really need orange barrels and blinking lights for MUL.
The problem with MUL is that is doesn't matter WHAT MUL might say. It's hardly possible to get that far.
Any trace of objective content is instantly torn away by MUL's manner. The affect BECOMES the content in a haze of clichéd, offensive, meaningless Latinate polysyllabic cant.
I can't believe MUL doesn't realize this, and is in fact playing the "wordy" troll, a type we have seen before. And, as someone with serious troll-like characteristics, MUL got me going, which I suppose was the point, and which I now repent of.
MUL has earned pride of place on my own personal autoscroll and autoignore settings.
Carry on.
A spiteful Jew-hater is but a nuisance, but a bad writer is so unforgiveably distracting as to merit a giant warning sign.
These are the priorities of Theo Boehm.
Since kcom has never even bothered to post a comment of his own, I won't feel guilty for skipping his critique.
Anyways, since I don't fancy myself a troll - i.e. someone with the sole intention of just getting under people's skin, I would leave it at that.
But Boehm's efforts at psychoanalyzing and labeling me leave me feeling obliged to return the favor.
So let me tell you what I think.
Boehm's problem is that he is a passionless bore. He strikes me as someone who grew up in one of those families where everyone was told to shut up and paste a fake smile on their face, rather than say what they actually felt. Tragic, really - assuming that's the case.
But I don't have any other explanation for why someone would value congenial, boring pleasantries and quality of writing over whether or not any actual points are being made.
Do any of you?
Read his own blog. He's notorious for not being able to make a point.
Now, I've got no problem with meandering text that goes nowhere in particular. Exploration is a good thing. As our friend Theo indicates, he seems to feel I do the same - just with too advanced a vocabulary, too much feeling, too "conventional" a mindset, too discomforting a way of expressing it. At least, that's the way he sees it.
But the problem is that he's a hypocrite. He does exactly what he accuses me of doing - especially when it comes to having too conventional a mindset - (and minus the ability to express things in outrageous ways. Oh well, what can I say? That's passion for you - something Boehm lacks entirely). He doesn't get points for merely distinguishing his own writing from mine with a passionless, highbrow tone and a richer sense of word choice. He has to do something that actually justifies the long-repressed childhood(?) outrage that he just unleashed on me here, with a sense of fury that might be notable for the clinical concern it would raise. But the reasons he gave just don't cut it.
One other thing. The only person with the possibility of achieving any financial or professional gain for what he or she writes here is Ann Althouse. None of the commenters are going to attract the attention of professional authors or people who judge writing contests by coming here; they are not going to win writing awards or book contracts based on the literary quality of their posts. And if they need to rely on posting things here in order to generate traffic for their own blog, then they are not serious enough to make a living or supplement an income off of it.
So what's the point of coming here? Other than to say something witty (something that can only be subjectively determined)? It's to make a point and say what you feel about something in the broadest sense possible. That's what I do, and that's what almost everyone else does. That's what's expected on a blog.
But Boehm obsesses on considerations that are entirely extraneous to what's expected in a blog comments section. Certain things, while entirely normal to most people - such as passionately held beliefs, divergent opinions, arguments back and forth, and a focus on what's being said, rather than how it was written - seem to cause him a distress that he needs to explore a bit more carefully in himself, rather than use as an excuse for raging and lashing out at noncomformists.
And only a pompous assclown wouldn't see that.
Ahem.
MUL
I'm sorry, but could you summarize that long, boring post? I fell asleep somewhere in the first sentence.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा