“Blogging used to be fun because you could be an asshole without some Kinsella Mini-Me screaming that you were this or that and then reporting you to this person or that person.
“All you Blogging Tories currently cheering over RC’s predicament should take some time to mull over what you will do when Star Chamber Jay shows up at your electronic doorstep. ‘Cause you may not be an anti-semite, but the Liberal Party still thinks you are a racist anti-immigration anti-indian neo-nazi white supremacist separatist sack of shit. You can become as boring, as bland, and as uninteresting as you like…”
***
The blogosphere is becoming boring, precisely because of these stuck up, self-appointed hall monitors, trying to make names for themselves in Party/MSM meatspace — newbies who lecture me on the “rules” of blogging, even though I’ve been at it since 2000 and they started two years ago.
I can see why the socialists and liberals are bores, but conservatives? Come on, guys. Can’t you think of anything for interesting to post about than the lastest Decima poll or some MP from Armpit, SK? What a waste of pixels.
how civilizations like the Roman collapse
THEY BECAME TOO LIBERAL:-))))
Absolutely, Kathy, blogospheric discourse has been completely ruined by people like me making “on the one hand, on the other hand” comments and arguments and dragging in Roberts’ Rules of Order and old fashioned laws of dialectics, rhetoric, and wit, which are, as you decree, boring to all. Please accept my apologies, but if that’s not enough, let me know and I’ll take my Bach and go home, leaving the resulting tragedy of the commons clear for those who want only to wallow in the mud of off-topic comments, ad hominem broadsides, and poorly executed profanity.
On the other hand, if you were just indulging in a little old-fashioned rhetoric on a point of order, then I should like to note that I agree with Paul and ET, so I’m glad they decided to agree with each other 😉
Sheesh, I’ve been at the beach too long…….
Many good points on this blog but IMHO you need a good Beach Bar, cold beer, hot conversations and maybe a good smoke, an easy walk home…
Sorry Vitruvius, guess I should wear my white gloves when I blog, too? You call it ad hominem, I call it fun. I enjoy profanity, poorly executed or otherwise. Mud, schmud. Bach, schmach.
What I dislike immensely are amateur “writers” who adopt an archaic, pompous faux elegant prose style to (unsuccessfully) hide their lack of actual talent or original ideas. You’ll be in Grade 12 next year, I take it?
Your site get many readers?
Actually, Kathy, the single biggest clump of visitors received by my publicly accessible Sagacious Iconoclast blog was the about 500 readers that found it when you linked from your Relapsed Catholic blog to my essay on Pope Benedict’s Regensburg Lecture: tinyurl.com/pxb9a (I’ve also had a private members-only blog since 1998, but that’s beyond the scope of this comment). So please allow me to assure you that I thank you for recommending my archaic, pompous faux elegant prose style unsuccessfully hiding my lack of actual talent or original ideas.
I mean, sure, we can’t expect engineers to be any good at writing in the first place, eh what, so my doing so on-line since 1974 [sic] is probably the only reason you were so kind as to drive traffic to my site. Anyway, look, I like you Kathy, and I’ve never criticized your style, even if you’re not a borborygmic logophile. Meanwhile, for me, given the high market value of the time I spend writing my comments, I think I’ll try to stick to commenting on content, not style, even though I’ll no doubt continue to stumble on my humanity and occasionally stray.
On the one hand, life is too short to drink bad wine.
On the other hand, people like different kinds of wine.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Kathy Shaidle,
Your response to Vitruvius is classical projection….you are projecting upon others or accusing others, of exactly what you yourself are guilty of.
How many readers does your blog get? I notice your site meter has been non-existent for quite a while. Furthermore, you do not allow comments on your blog. Obviously you enjoy slinging mud but are incapable of taking it!
You are an arrogant, pompous fraud and I must make this comment here because you are not woman enough to take the heat on your own blog.
Paul: Thanks, dad. What I write on my blog has consequences? No kidding. I can be sued if I libel someone on my blog? Who knew?
Love the “only have fun until someone loses an eye” chatter. I’m quite aware that my calling someone stupid is not fun at all for the stupid person. It is nevertheless a barrel of monkeys for me. I’m also aware that said stupid person can come back and call me stupid. Only problem with that: I don’t write stupid things.
What I do write are things that Liberal magical wood elves like Mr. JC will immediately view as racist, sexist, homophobic, genocidal, disgusting, horrifying, and just downright mean. Like “Same-sex marriage is silly.” And given the chance, they’ll stab their tiny little daggers in my back for writing those things. Kind of like what McClelland has just experienced.
So let’s think: Can everything that you write on your blog pass the Liberal Party of Canada acceptance test? If it can, maybe it’s time to re-think your place on the ideological spectrum or mercifully start having some fun. If not, have some empathy for McClelland. Because if JC can screw him over, then imagine what he’d relish doing to conservatives like you and I.
Kathy,
Whatever – but take a peak at the visitors at SDA, your blog, and myblahg.
http://tinyurl.com/yt248c
Any ideas why SDA is much higher?
Does anyone know of anything more contemptible than a little fink-boy?
The problem is, Peter, that if one declares some identifiable person to be stupid, and one can’t prove it in a court of law, then one may find oneself liable for libel.
Slander-related laws exist for good reasons, namely that society has found over the millennia that false accusations are not a sign of good moral behaviour. It does not do for an individual or collective to claim to be taking the moral high-ground if they are engaging in fraudulent claims.
Of course, I believe in free speech, so I don’t think that the state should be able to prohibit anything one says other than in the narrow cases of libel and incitement of violence. But in such cases as currently are proscribed by statute, I think that if one were to want to violate said statutes, then one should do so on one’s own blog, not as a guest of some other person’s site like Small Dead Animals.
It is in that sense that I have the greatest respect and appreciation for the work of moderators like Kate and Paul, who try to keep the flow as unconstrained as they deem reasonably possible, while still preventing the mosh-pit kids from invading the adult’s lounge.
In closing, I should note that if Kate wanted SDA to be a mosh-pit, that would be her and only her decision, but given her repeated admonitions to the effect that this is not a chat room, and the undeniable success of SDA, perhaps we would be better off concluding that there are good reasons for the way things are.
Remember, everyone: You are a guest here.
Peter: JC won’t have a chance with us. I have yet to come across a single example within the BT that even remotely approaches Robert’s vulgarity and bigotry. Having said that, I’d have left Robbie alone … he’s great PR for the dippers.
“A falling camel draws many knives”
Ossama Bin Ladin
McCleland has gone troll mostly but who cares it’s a free country, I am free to ignore him.
It’s Jason the STATEIST (not Goalie mask fancier) who is to be feared, he seeks out weaker opponents and uses the collective as a weapon to elevate his own standing and diminsh his opponent.
yo, eyore, people may not choose to be born into islam but they sure as beans choose to STAY in it.
as all religions, thus heaping justified abuse onto religionists is ALWAYS fair game to me.
The Nutroots and the F Word
Wil’s Corner did a little searching to see if the “progressive” blogosphere had ever used the F word. You know. The new F word: Googled The F-Word… Lots Of It At Daily Kos.
Here’s one out of many, from last year: Daily Kos: Democrats and the Faggot Problem….-
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
“It’s Jason the STATEIST (not Goalie mask fancier) who is to be feared, he seeks out weaker opponents and uses the collective as a weapon to elevate his own standing and diminsh his opponent.”
This is what I don’t understand… Why should anyone “fear” JC unless they’ve put themselves in a position where he has the upper hand.
Sure, JC’s an opportunist butt-weasel but had RM not screwed up to begin with, JC wouldn’t have had anything on him. RM picked-up a steaming hot potato and got burned. Who’s to blame, the potato for being hot or RM for needlessly picking it up?
If we aren’t prepared/equipped to deal with the consequence of our actions (words in our case), we shouldn’t be blogging.
“It’s Jason the STATEIST (not Goalie mask fancier) who is to be feared, he seeks out weaker opponents and uses the collective as a weapon to elevate his own standing and diminsh his opponent.”
This is what I don’t understand… Why should anyone “fear” JC unless they’ve put themselves in a position where he has the upper hand.
Sure, JC’s an opportunist weasel but had RM not screwed up to begin with, JC wouldn’t have had anything on him. RM picked-up a steaming hot potato and got burned. Who’s to blame, the potato for being hot or RM for needlessly picking it up?
If we aren’t prepared/equipped to deal with the consequence of our actions (words in our case), we shouldn’t be blogging.
Political blogs suck, because all they can do is post how much blogs suck, to their political blogs. I better go blog about this now.
Actually Richard, I think richfisher’s point was spot on. He wasn’t saying to fear Jason specifically, but rather the larger forces of statist control. As in “It’s the statists who are to be feared, who use the collective as a weapon to elevate their own standing and diminish their opponents.”
Sorry for the double post…
I agree that JC used a “collective” as an end to his means but I don’t see it as a “statist” maneuver. There was no government cohersion involved. JC didn’t use the power of the state to silence his opponent. What he did do was expose Robert’s condoning/support of aurthurdeco’s rants to Robert’s peers (the NDP, prog blogs, palidea and the BD members)who then had to make a choice of whether or not they wanted to continue to be associated with him. How Robert reacts to the new peer pressure is entirely up to him. He’s not being forced to do anything.
Looking at it objectively, I would have to say, IMO, that this adventure is an example of capitalism at work. The consumer ([RM’s peers] blog readers and folks that link to Robert) Have determined that his product is substandard and have voiced their disapproval (literally as well as by boycotting his site). The choice is now Robert’s as to whether he changes his product or pulls it from the market completely.
Blogging serves no purpose. Very little that is written on a blog actually has any substance. In general, it is the worst type of journalism – journalists are expected to misquote and misstate stories, but bloggers take an extra step into lack of knowledge and manage to misquote journalists. The chance that you find any reputable sources on a blog – of any political strip, because most blogs have essentially become a soapbox for unsubstantiated, retarded, extreme political ideas – is almost nil. They are the journalistic equivalent of online editorial pages.
It really is unfortunate for most bloggers, who consider their ‘work’ to be somehow above the already miserable low-quality MSM, a fact that demonstrates clearly that you don’t need money to be an brainless ideologue.