But it's fun to comment on this stuff!

But it's true: Cherniak is using this to his advantage, and anyone can be next.

"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."

A very good point!

"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."

Why would anyone be worried about "Star Chamber Jay" or any other net crusader for that matter, as long as they keep their noses clean?

Dinosaur discovery named after Alberta rancher

CBC News - 21 hours ago
A recently discovered species of dinosaur has been named in honour of an Alberta rancher in recognition of his efforts to help fossil hunters. ...-
google news

Speaking of "trying to make a name" for oneself, it's rather pathetic that in a quest to become a Canadian Ann Coulter, you have found common ground with McClelland.

By the way, I loved that post where you hoped for an avalanche to bury Justin Trudeau, just as one did his brother. (Ha ha ha!) And that we should dope the St. Bernards so that he could suffocate with no chance of rescue. (Hardee har har!!!)

Now that's quality blogging. Let no criticism stifle its scintillating creativity.

Two points:

1) maz2 - that appears to be an off-topic link dump...please use readers tips...Kate would not be amused.

2) I think SDA and its commenters should tread carefully regarding the Islamic issue. Some of the comments I read are, IMHO, over the line in terms of Islamists / Muslims...some could be easily termed racist. Granted, the comments are those of the individual commenters, not of SDA or of the other commenters as a whole, but Kate and the other SDA commenters get tarred with the same racist brush. My unprofessional advice: do not fear or avoid discussing the issues, but do so in a manner that focusses less on the possible "inferiority" of the individual Muslims and more on your complaints against the validity of the religion.

As an example, the individual muslim worshipper / follower is not necessarily evil...but what they believe and are exhorted to do/think by their religious leaders may be. They should (again, IMHO) be considered to be severely misguided, NOT inherently evil.

We should be more diligent in discouraging any appearances of tolerating racist comments or viewpoints toward the individual.

Thus ends my un-merited and ill-advised attempt at censorship.

But what if I don't feel like "keeping my nose clean", Richard? That's kinda the point of the post...

Surly, I write outrageous stuff then people like you condemn it. That's what it is all about. What I object to are self-appointed guardians of the blogosphere declaring this or that topic/vocabulary off limits. Your reading comprehension skills are still in their infancy, I see.

"that appears to be an off-topic link dump...please use readers tips...Kate would not be amused."

OK. Let's play safe, er, safely. No more con-troversy. It's not the Ganadian way-values.

Here is a revelant topic:

Buzz Hargrove is talking hockey. That's a safe topic? CAW... CAW...

Eeyore, Islam is not a race.

I was taken up into a spaceship last night, and the aliens all looked like Eeyore. You know the stuffed donkey with the pinned on tail from Winnie the Pooh? The guy that just keeps moaning "Whoa is Me!" all of the time?
Well, they told me that they want to take over the world and cover the earth with donkeys.

"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."

Sadly how true. Since the dogmatic left politicized every mundane act of daily existance, we no longer debate or engage in polite conversation,...every statement has "political intent" or has an "agenda" to be defended or attacked...we go to war for the "cause" of the day, not to reasoned public discourse.

As public discourse becomes more and more uncivil and ad hominem, people naturally "ghettoize" in groups of like-minded individuals to avoid the unpleasantness of having to engage in warfare every time an opinion is expressed. This is also detrimental to reasoned debate as the natural tendency of these cells is to become singularly partisan and lockstep themselves.

It would be nice to debate the dogmatic left without the vile reactionary personal attacks but after years of trying and seeing the incivility grow, I just gave up...debating the dogmatic left is a waste of bandwidth and intellectual output.

But censorship is another evil altogether....as much as I believe doctrinaire crusader buffoons like McClellan really have little of value to say, I do belive deeply that as long as he's free to say it , my right to disagree with him is intact as well.....that doesn't seem to click in Jay-boy's realm of reality

As a lawyer all that counts is winning....forcing your opponents to do as you will...that mindset is evident in his treatment of bloggers...even those allegedly in his sphere of partisanship.

sad really.

Well said, WL.

You've actually pinpointed what's been bugging me:

Lawyers are ruining blogs.

Ever since lawyers discovered blogging they've adopted the form and promptly ruined it with their badly written, boring "one the one hand, on the other hand" posts and arguments, dragging in Roberts' Rules of Order and old fashioned laws of rhetoric.

Kathy: "Lawyers are ruining blogs."

Yes that was the point...ans when they do the blogosphere/debate takes on the proportions of their professional mindeset...which is essentially, to go to war for a "agenda/dogma/party/"....this is essentially what has also devolved public and parliamentary debate...to may lawyers in partisan politics and too much partisan politics in our lives.

A poll of 12 "major" nations.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070306/popularity_poll_070306/20070306?hub=TopStories

looks like the outcomes where predicted by who was judged to be a major nation first.

our higher status may be a result of moving out of the mode of maple syrup sucking surrender minions back to the front lines.

Cal2 : I wouldn;t put too much credibility in what is being extracted from that poll...it seems that the respondents also think That Chinsa and Iran are adding "positively" to the world...I have no idea where they found 28000 hermits to poll but we see the results od their "perceptions" does not meet the light of realities.

WL Mackenzie, I like your point about the left having politicised every aspect of life. It's so true - even to the point that humour must be political parsed, which inevitably makes for boring conversation. It reminds me of the Chinese cultural revolution.

Tim Blair's folks keep up a vigorous strain of humour though.

This total politicisation which I became aware of in the 1980s, the invasion of political correctness into our lives, was what started me down the right road :-)

Cherniak better be worried about the can of worms he is opening.
After they get rid of offensive bloggers they'll come after the stupid ones. Cherniak won't survive the low-IQ purge.

"But what if I don't feel like "keeping my nose clean", Richard? That's kinda the point of the post...

Surly, I write outrageous stuff then people like you condemn it."

Check again Kathy. Not once have I condemned your stuff. And, If I remember correctly, I was booted from the BT's because some little net-crusader thought I was being politically incorrect. Hence the start of the Anti-PC League blogroll which, I've noticed, you're not on. Can I add you as an honorary member?

my point exactly. I think the "major " nations were chosen to make a point.

I dont see Germany, Italy or Iraq on the list. Syria?

Isreal? looms large only to a select crowd.

Kathy - why not Armpit MB or Ontario or North Dakota- why SK? I am saddened by the complete lack of coverage on the entire Walter Reed affair on this and most other blogs I visit. Instead of railing against how staid blogging has become use your voice for good. This is a huge issue that few are talking about it. Are Canadian soldiers getting better treatment? This is not a left / right issue, it is a human issue yet FoxNews and many of the blogs on the left of this home page have said virtually nothing about the mistreatment of the injured or the fact that the guy in charge lives across the street from Building 18 at Walter Reed Hospital but did not know about the problem because he "does not do barrack checks" You want to rail against something regarding blogs - rail against this.

Sorry Richard, I meant to write "people" not people like you. Not enough coffee. Sure, I am anti-PC anything and everything. It is why I left the Left and what is ruining blogs Left and Right. "Keeping our noses clean" is the problem.

Kevin: FOX did lots on Walter Reed last night. It is a national disgrace and Michelle Malkin has it covered day in and day out. (the other problem with blogging being that we too often mimic what other bloggers are already writing about...)

'Armpit' is not located in Saskatchebush, but in Oinktario. (Timmins, Oinktario, is the asshole of the known universe).

Kathy, this is the internet. Jason Cherniak has precisely the same impact and coercive power that Rube-ert has: zippo. Nada.

That being the case, if the NDP yank their sign off the Blahg because of the blog postings of a self described Liberal activist, what does this tell us about the NDP?

This is not the most foul thing McClelland has said by a long shot. My history with him goes back to the merciless mocking I (and many others) gave him over his support for the Flight 93 "Crescent of Embrace" proposal. www.michellemalkin.com/archives/003513.htm

'Member that one? Good times!

Then there was the time he posted a (really lame) picture of Christ as child molester.

I could go on. And on and on...there's just so much! But remember that NDP sticker? It was up there the whole time. Not a peep out of them.

So now Jason "hall monitor" Cherniak gets the NDP to finally stir their sorry butts and disavow this trog? Too late dudes!

The NDP apparently approve of foulness and bile, so long as one sticks with the official party target list. Jews are on the "hate quietly" list. McClelland either didn't get the memo or was having a mental moment.

Frankly, beyond the enormous fun I've been having kicking McClelland when he's down, I find the entire affair silly. Yeah, some commie doofus said a bad thing. How is this a surprize? Commies are bad people, that's why we don't like them.

Malkin - 1 entry on March 5 about Walter Reed most entries about CPAC, her dislike of the Coulter "quote" and Newt.Search other blog sites and very little pops up. Kathy if this was perceived as being only a Democrat issue every blog would be scrambling to outdo each other in blaming the"left". The Fox coverage you are referring to could have been Brit Hume saying with a straight face that this was looking bad politically. Really Brit - how about the Secretary of the VA ( I Believe) telling Bob Woodruff that the majority of people visiting VA hospitals were there for Dental work - after Woodruff ( who spent months in these hospitals himself) listed off a litany of numbers and injuries. He also mentioned that people would be surprised that there are "only" 600 amputees. I am surprised but the real issue is the Post Traumatic Stress syndrome that will affect these people for years to come.

OT but, Newswatch has a story re the cause of global warming-soot from all those factories in China-, also, a gw scientist has reversed his stand, co2 not the cause. Kyotot is being debunked in all the right places. No comment on these developments from algore/suzuki.

Those bloggers whining like babies that they want to be able to say what they want without consequences need to find another planet. What a bunch of ninnies.

1. Everything you do or say in life has consequences, especially when it’s done in writing. There is no difference in spewing your crap on blogs or spewing on CBC or writing a letter to your MP. As soon as you put it out there for all to read, you are responsible.

2. As soon as you blog about something that is in any way controversial, you open yourself up to a counter push … so suck it up. The harder you push, the more you can expect a pushback.

3. If you don’t like being pushed back as a blogger, then don’t allow comments; or have only registered users.

4. If you want to be a bitch; a potty-mouth; or an asshole; then don’t be surprised if you get trashed by others. You’ve simply got what you dished out and if you are half a man or women you’ll suck it up.

5. If you want blogging to be only “fun”, then stick to uncontroversial topics and have fun. Stay away from politics, religion, war, etc. Talk about kittens or art or share with us the good things in your life.

6. If you want blogging to be a sharing of yourself, then tell us about your aunt with cancer or your son who smokes crack … or your marriage that is falling apart and how proud you are of your Doctor Son or your new child.

7. And finally, realize that anytime you write something down and publish it, you completely open yourself up to legal action if you have spread false or exceedingly defamatory things about anyone. That’s the way it works, so suck it up.

8. And never forget that what may be “fun” for you, may be offensive to others. Once it’s in print … it has become part of the public domain.

HOLEY TAMOLEY -- If the blogoshere is getting politically correct, I better post these right away, before I'm arrested! These are designed to entertain, not offend....

GREAT HISTORICAL FIGURES OF THE MIDDLE EAST
Mahatma C’oat – Famous tailor who sold Western-style men’s clothing across the middle east, shops were called, “Mahatma C’oat ma Store” ,ca. 1880........

Mustafa Blanket Ibn Qold – Famous Muslim mountaineer, lost in the Himalyias, 1800-present........

Ibn Saad Qos d’Kat D’yed – Famous Egyptian philosopher, topics mainly concerned with cat symbolism and depression, 1182-1255........

Ibn Qot WrdHnded In D’Qooqi J’ar – Great eunuch leader of Byzantium. Had 14 children before he was beheaded, 1530-1569........

Ikn’t Tak’it Ziziz so Bo’rin’g – Great Muslim historian, committed suicide, 1120-1200........

Al Igot Izmi C’oat – Famous Persian belly dancer, famous for her revealing costumes, 00-1300........

Moor an moor Ozat Nooki’l Qosta lot – Great Muslim courtesan, famous for her wealth, 1300-1400........

Ibn in de Qaqaqa N’w – Deposed Baluchistan general, spent last 10 yrs of his life in prison. 1523-1601........

Ibn Aman Ina’a W’mans Bodi — Famous Persian courtesan and cross-dresser. 1066-1154........

Izzat da B’st UkinDo – Famous Iraqi general, fled more than 16 separate battles; sometimes called the “Peacemaker”, 1740-1769 ........

Ibn ded Qos ob Dis – Famous Islamist self-exploding martyr from Bam, Iran (Near Balaram, close to Kaboom), 1843-1860 ........

D’nt W’rry B H’ppy – Guru from Ajerbaijan, famous for his positive teachings, 1920-1930 ........

Izzat yr N’am? – No, it’s not my name, it’s yr name! (Repeat as needed).

The problem with the Net is that people will say and do things online that they would never think of saying in a face-to-face conversation. Nothing breeds caution like having your nose within swinging distance of someone else's fist.

So you prefer bloggers who say outrageous things, but you get outraged if anyone points out that what they have said is outrageous?

And you don't object to criticism, just to lawyerly, well-ordered, well-reasoned criticism?

I'll let your ad hominem attack pass. You can even add another one if you like.

Paul:

Point counter point in political debate and all the vulgarity that it can devolve to are fair game ...granted. There was a time when it was not so.

As for being "responsible" for what you say...if you have read any of the major judgements in libel cases, you must realize that I am not responsible/liable for your hurt feelings...i'm not even responsible for direct damage to you if what I say/print is the truth...or to the best of my knowledge is the truth.

Responsibility is also a double edged sword in law and if you accuse me of libelling you without justification you can also be held liable.

My post was not on points of law....law is the last thing we need screwing up open debate....my complaint was about the devolved level political discourse has sunk to since civil propriety gave way to political agenda driven reactionary rhetoric.

It's made much of the un-moderated chat rooms a cess pool.

I think it was wrong of Jason Cherniak to work to 'outlaw' Robert McClelland's blog and posts. It was an act against our basic rights to freedom of speech.

I certainly object to McClelland's comments when he visits Kate's blog; his comments are usually ignorant and insulting one-sentence blips. But so what - he's readily either ignored or his illogical assumptions confronted. The same with his blog. Top-down censorship isn't the answer; open debate and peer pressure is.

And that's the function of freedom, which includes 'Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression" - it puts the concepts out into the public arena for debate, dissension, questions, critique. That's very important.

To reject this public expression means that the individuals hold onto their beliefs, because their beliefs are never 'put to the test' so to speak. The opinions are never challenged, questioned. By denying opinons a public 'airing', we move these opinions into deeply held dogma. Into irrefutable truths.

After all, in all totalitarian countries, freedom of speech is one of the first rights to disappear. You cannot critique the axioms of the state - and these axioms then move into dogma, into irrefutable truths because they cannot be questioned, tested, debated.

I think that what Jason Cherniak did had more to do with trying to maintain a Gap between the Liberals and the NDP - which gap is narrowing under Dion. But, it betrayed a basic 'social engineering authoritarianism' of the Liberal mindset. Very similar to the mindset of the NDP. Hmmm. So, they really are alike, Jason.

Paul - your inistence that we say nothing about anything that might offend someone - well, I find such a statement deeply offending.

Butte, Montana is the arsehole of the known universe. at least that is where it looks like it will be given an enema.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17456

ET: " your inistence that we say nothing about anything that might offend someone - well, I find such a statement deeply offending"

Please explain where I suggested what you are claiming I suggested.

I didn't say that. All I'm saying, is that you'd better be ready to take what you dish out. It seems like people want to be able to say whatever they want, without consequence. For example: I just made my points above ... now what if I go all whiny because people take issue with it.

Free Speech goes both ways: so suck it up.

and I remember driving through this place that acutally had a sign saying they were voted "armpit of america", Timmons wouldnt say that but there are a few towns in Alberta that might build a giant armpit if the suggestion came- Assumption comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Mountain,_Nevada

If Soozuki and his financial tax-free heritage preservation trust fund friends were focused and on the ball, why is there no mention of priority ONE? Clean coal technology. We can*t stop coal, but we can clean it up.

Thousands of coal fired Generation plants in China and India spewing tremendous tons of airborne carcinogens and not a peep about our exportable clean coal technology.

Something we should have installed in our BC coal-gen plants a long time ago.= TG

Speaking of "trying to make a name" for oneself, it's rather pathetic that in a quest to become a Canadian Ann Coulter, you have found common ground with McClelland.

It's not surprising that you don't understand it since it has to do with honour amongst combatents. Kathy and I have crossed swords on more than once occasion but neither of us have ever run to a higher authority to do our fighting for us like Chernyuk the Sniveler has done.

I think Cherniak should be given a bit of kudos for stirring the pot so effectively!

Who cares what his motivation was/is?

As for McLalaland ....... he's been less of a blogger and more of a troll for at least the last 1 1/2 years. I originally went to check out his site because of the interesting name and found it ...... well if you 've seen it you know how I found it!
Perhaps the trashing he's getting is a well deserved comeupence??

OT but breaking news. Scooter Libby has been found guilty on 2 of the charges against him and not guilty on one charge. Just watched the cbc reporter give the verdict. Funny how he sort of missed the not guilty verdict on one charge. Typical cbc biased coverage. Neil should be fired.

Wyl: I agree with you; my point was aimed only at bloggers. I'm simply saying that you get back what you dish out. I make a lot of blatant Left bashing comments on my blog ... if Dr. Dawg comes around and slams me on it... who am I to complain. I asked for it.

If I make a reasoned logic point that refrains from ad hominem; then at least I can expect the same in return.

If I slander ... no matter where, I'd better be ready to deal with the one I slandered, and if that means legal action; I'd better have deep pockets if they do. I'm not talking about punative legal actions ... I'm talking about well deserved liable and slander.

I am not in anyway suggesting that free speech be banned; I’m simply saying that publishing one's views always comes with responsibility. Period.

you have to dig deep to figure he was a liberal, its actually never said in the pravda piece.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/03/06/nb-scottstepsdown.html

but CBCpravda has a "cheney is bad" story at the top of the headlines.

The blogosphere without McClelland is like a toilet without the turd. Cleaner but somehow missing something

Paul - you already have started to snivel. You are rejecting the consequences of your own post. I am critiquing and questioning your post - and you are already on the defensive.

Your whole post was based around a kinetic allegory of force being met by its opposite. Speech and cognition really don't fit into this mechanical reductionism, but that's another issue.

But your post was asserting that IF you say something - anything - other than the most bland statements, THEN there will be a strong and hostile reaction. So what? Your whole 8 points were to warn people that if they say anything debatable, if they question anything - then, they should be prepared for an onslaught of critical reaction. So what?

You equate analysis, critique, debate, with hostile reactions. That's your kinetic analogy where one force is met by an opposite force. But analysis isn't mechanical and binary; it sets up a topic where questions, debate and critiquing a situation is necessary. This isn't the same as an anti-or hostile reaction.

In your outline, any topic that can be debated, operates in this binary framework of X and Minus X. That's where I think you are wrong.

Indeed, in cognition, this opening of a topic to critique, questions, debate, is the ONLY way for the issues to be explored and knowledge developed. Knowledge requires this constant debate. Your claim that debate puts one into hostile interactions, ignores the basic requirement of knowledge development.

A long time ago, my Grandfather used to say; there was three sure-fire ways to lose friends.

1) talk politics
2) talk religion
3) lend them money

Two of them are the same as they have always been. But 'religion' now also means topics like so-called global warming.

The problem is, we have to risk 'the talk' as all three are fundamental to our way of life.

Just think of how 'Liberal politics' have changed Canada. Reward failure, free lunch, present hoaxes as documentaries, kill the goose, only govmit can "fix" things, ect

Religion is now not just the church on the corner. It is also the unelected United Nation bureaucrats imposing their way and their taxes on the world.

Lending money to someone still means risking anger if they cannot, or do not want to, pay it back.

ET: Being on the defensive is simply not agreeing with you; I'm not name calling; I'm not changing the topic; I'm dealing with you respectfully. I'm being defensive of my point of view; how is that sniveling? I suggest that you are taking what I said and going far beyond its intent. How can offering a counter argument to what you said be “sniveling”.

I stand by my point, and that is that kind begets kind. If I name call; I deserve the same in return. If I don't want to be called names, then I shouldn't call names myself.

If I call bloggers “ninnies,” then I should have no problem getting the same in return ... but why should I not defend what I've said?

I must say ET, you've entirely lost me on this one. And I don't mean that in a nasty way ... either I'm as dense as a post, or somehow you/me haven’t communicated things adequately.

Paul, I fully agree and that was what I was generally getting at with my posting. Kate runs this blog and will get included in any lawsuit that someone wishes to launch against a commenter here...my point was DON'T CENSOR, just BE CAREFUL with what you say. Unless, that is, you like being cavalier with Kate's legal situation.

And Wimpy, "Islam is not a race"...yeah, you're right, whatever, you get the point.

"Free Speech goes both ways: so suck it up."

Ok ... now that was offensive. Proves that one should not be doing three things at once on the internet. If you were offended by that... you are right to be as I just reread what I said. I meant to direct it at people who dish out crap yet can't suck it up when they get it in return. It was NOT intended at you as you never fall into the catagory I was speaking of ...

So you have my full apology.

Ahh - my apologies, Paul. I completely misread your post. I thought that what you were advocating was never, ever, saying anything controversial. Never saying anything that might offend someone - because to do so, would 'get you in trouble' because someone would post back in the same way/force.

Now I see what you mean. Again, my apologies.

OK - I agree with you. You have to be prepared to debate, to stand by your opinions (or change them is required), to act and expect reaction.

I think that Jason Cherniak's action against McClelland was wrong; he was advocating censorship from the top down. As I said, I'm always stunned by McClelland's insults and ignorance - but that can be dealt with. You don't ask a Higher Authority to intervene.

That said, I think that blogs require a moderator. That's because, in differentiation from direct interaction where your fellow debaters can easily shut up someone who is illogical and ad hominem, the indirectness of the blog means that telling someone else they are an idiot and ad hominem - is useless. That won't stop them.
So, the internet, by its spatial nature, requires a moderator to step in and oversee the debates.

That's where McClelland went wrong, when he didn't step in and tell him commentors to 'cool it'.
And Jason is wrong, in my view, because he should not go to The Nanny State and ask it to censor.

Again, Paul - now I see what you mean and I agree.

Eeyore: It fails me to understand how some think that just because discussion happens in cyberspace, that it's somehow exempt from real life. There are consequences to everything ... although the internet has made it much easier to avoid them.

If I slander or liable someone or engage in aggressive vulgar dialogue, in the very least, I can expect the same in return. It gets even more dicey if I claim to represent a group and speak for them. And unfortunately, the greater the audience to what I have to say, the greater potential for push back. I’m not saying that the push back is wrong, nor the expressing of vulgar opinion, but don’t complain when push back occurs. And like you say, commenters on a blog, can, in extreme circumstances, cause great harm to the blog owner. That’s why each blogger uses their discretion when dealing with comments.

ET: But you've got to admit, it was a novel moment for you and me to be disagreeing on something. To be frank, I'll sharpen my pencil really well and get up early before I do battle.

Speaking of which, we still have never got back to your theory on how civilizations like the Roman collapse ... your view is not conventional at all ... and someday on another thread we'll have to have that out.

McClelland's blog is an evil piece of garbage. And you know what? It was boring, too. The only insight it gave was a window into the soul of a man so wrapped up in his own hate that he is trapped by it. And I don't mean just his hate of Jews, I mean his hate of almost everything. Every sentence drips with bile -- it honestly makes me feel ill.

Respect for one's fellow -- I don't find that boring. There's so much damn shouting now, it's getting hard to hear.

But, no one's saying he can't have his blog -- maybe some people like that stuff. Just that he should live with the consequences.

This *buzz* about any individual builds political recognition. I*s a cash commodity. Just think of Howard Stern. Guess McBlahg is getting the last laugh.

One reason to ignore Sirius radio. No wonder they want to merge with XM. They are falling like a rock.

There are soooo many free alternatives.

Friday night blues collection on DustMyBroom is a good place to start. = TG

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.