Feb 19 2008
Washington, Wisconsin, Hawaii
The last significant presidential primaries until March 4 will be held tomorrow our time: primaries in Wisconsin and Washington for both parties, plus caucuses in Hawaii for the Democrats. Discuss them at your leisure here.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
KR 798- The Aztecs put almost anyone to shame in terms of deaths. Their worst excess was 80,000 human sacrifices in a four day massacre.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
801-
well, they ALL need a life so we are talking wholesale prices now.
(memo to self - try and be serious occasionally).
February 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
But there are all of these people around me that are pro-choice and it makes the ultimate decision really hard.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
William,
I am happy to mix it on this blog with others and give and receive but when things get down to the level of gratuitously offensive a long the lines of davidoff’s comment then its a different ball game.
That comment was just a whole new level of offensive and your actions were unfair in leaving it on.
No intention of barking orders and its your blog but this level is inconsistent with my continued participation. If you choose to run a mutual masturb.ation session for 2 or 3 people on this blog thats your business.
I withdraw.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
my #800 blog was based on historical logic and that and my #731 blog this morning remains unchallenged to the swiftboating “snake oil salesman” claim
February 24th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Zino, a tip of the hat to ya! LOL
Now, what’s this Clinton stuff about the health policy brochure, is she trying to get the fangs out? Or what?
February 24th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Ron- I’m confused by the term “historical logic”?. Logic requires no evidence and is, in fact, completely abstract being the study of valid arguments. History consists solely of human interpretation of evidence. I am familiar with many forms of logic; inductive, deductive, philosophical, mathematical, modal, syllogistic to name a few. I haven’t come across historical logic before. At best, it could be trying to find a linkage between historical events (which is not logic) but I cant find that in 731 or 800.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
As you wish ESJ, but I’m not sure why you’re fetishising comment deletion. I would have deleted the comment if I’d picked up on it earlier, but now there’s no point. I have accurately described the commenter as “extremely childish” and “weak as piss”. That ought to be enough, I think.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“I withdraw.”
Well, Sherlock, what we have here is a clear case of …… “Eddy Interruptus”.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
808
William Bowe
The issue is about the possibilities of histrionics, and for someone who’s reknowned on this blog for endless gratuitous and pompous insults (often, although by no means exclusively) directed at yours truly, it’s nothing short of gobsmacking to read a fit of pique so acute that it has cut short the blogging life of yet another troll.
Such is life, always funnier with clowns.
As for davidoff’s little attempt at satire, well, let’s be adult, it wasn’t all that great, but the point was essentially the same one that’s been made over and over and over by numerous bloggers ie ESJ couldn’t help himself.
And the irony? Well, ESJ obliged by ‘terminating’ himself!
Gotta call that funny, or what?
February 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I sort of withdrew for a couple of hours to have dinner with the old cheese and son. It was a very nice Szechuan dinner of hot, very hot stuff. Now let see what we had: Stuffed Crab Claw for entree. Then we had chicken in chilly oil, plus Mopu Tofu and braised Barramundi in Black bean sauce. Topped it off with home made mango pudding with vanilla ice cream.
But i notice that things were also hotted up here in WB’s Boxing Championship. Not too sure who won the bout but there was plenty of hot air and someone did a hara-kiri.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
809
EC, that’s too funny for words!
Is that the first case, medically, of ’self-termination’? Maybe a special award should be instigated, a Darwin Award, for timely ‘withdrawal’ and thereby ‘terminating’ one’s blogging existence.
I’m sure Dr Who would have something to say about it, you know, stuffing up the time sequence with such an act, but for our purposes, it is allowed in the blogging universe.
The award could not have gone to a more deserving candidate.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Davidoff made no such “point”. You’ve got to stop reading imaginary redeeming features into idiotic comments made by those you identify as being on your side.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
The Finnigans, I can tell you who lost the bout: Davidoff, who followed an inexcusable display of childishness with a pathetic, mealy-mouthed non-apology. He won’t be welcome back unless he makes a proper acknowledgement of his wrongdoing.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
WB, i thought that Davidoff was the rationale one. It must be the bad influence of the Removalist.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
#814
William - I’ll have you know that Hillary meant every word of it.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I’d call it a KO to davidoff. Unfortunately for the victor it seems that the referee has discovered the horseshoe in his glove after the bout.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
813
William Bowe
I just went back and re-read davidoff’s ‘offending’ post, and quite frankly, I can’t see what all the fuss is about.
Essentially, he takes the rhetorical question about ‘apologising’, and runs it backwards to see who should take the blame for ESJ’s chronic behaviour.
It’s obvioulsy tongue in cheek (explain how else it could possibly be read??), and essentially makes the point that ESJ is the way he is, almost despite himself, so perhaps we could blame his mother?
Having seen the behaviour repeated an nauseum, stirring up other posters with often quite nasty and unpleasant little swipes, it’s a pretty harmless post in comparison.
Maybe I’m more used to coarser stuff William, but seriously, it’s pretty tame.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Featuring Soon At A Blog Near You……
The Eddsorcist:
He’s Back!……And He’s Spewing!!
February 24th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Davidoff has been banned.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I think Edward has gone off to get his own life, and he’ll be back soon to tell us where we can get them.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
KR, I’m afraid I don’t suffer from your selective myopia. If the comment came from ESJ and was directed at somebody of the left, you’d have no trouble at all seeing what the problem was.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
WB
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo- he’s my friend.
Please, plaese just make him pick up all the papers.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
820
William Bowe
For quoting Hillary Clinton????????
‘Tis a pity, he’s not the boor!
In fact, davidoff has given a substantial amount to this thread, has rarely engaged in slagging, and the one time he makes an effort to retaliate, he gets the boot.
Poor decision I think, William, but hey, you is da man.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Court of Appeal needs to convene.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I agree, poor decision.
ESJ is a snide troll who contributes nothing.
Whereas Davidoff has provided numerous insightful posts.
ESJ loves giving it out and trolling but has an extremely thin skin on the return.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
No, KR, for being told to apologise when even you had to admit that his “attempt at satire … wasn’t all that great”, and responding yet again like a child.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
822
William Bowe
Except for one outstanding difference: davidoff’s post was a tongue in cheek soliloquoy, and NOT a nasty bit of grubby insulting language that we saw endlessly from ESJ.
Your call, but I think as bloggers they are chalk and cheese. One came here ONLY to pick fights on most occassions, while the other never did.
Go back and look at the record, speaks for itself.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Of course, KR - ESJ is pompous, Davidoff writes “soliloquies”.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
827
William Bowe
OK, but maybe he felt that what he’d said, being satire, and not outright abuse, did not warrant anything more than a satirical answer.
Hardly seems like a hanging offence.
I don’t recall ever seeing ESJ apologise for any flagrant insults, abuses, lies, and endless nastiness.
Not once.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
It’s a question of emphasis. The question ESJ asked of davidoff was:
“Tell me davidoff what do I have to apologise for?”
If davidoffs response was on the “what”, WB’s assessment is correct. If the response was to “I”, KR is correct. I think most people would think the emphasis was on the former rather than the latter.
I’m not going to comment on the right or wrong of anyone being banned but I do wish to add that I think both ESJ and davidoff make worthwhile contributions to this blog and will be disappointed to see either go.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Above all else, Davidoff has been banned for wilfully ignoring my wishes. This site simply can’t work if I allow people to do that.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
#823 - Jen, David is OFF. So long, farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, adios, sayonara, aloha, selamat tinggal, zai jian, Au revoir, Salaam, Farvel, Zbohem, Tot ziens, Khairete, Shalom, Slán agat, Ciao, Vale, Aroha nui, F**off
February 24th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Meanwhile, back at the ranch. Stop the world, i want to get off. Crazy thing is happening here. PT109 Swiftboat was supposed to be aiming at Obama, but its torpedo is heading straight for “sexy Leg” McCain. Please, somebody tells me what is going on here?
“Files and McCain Letter Show Effort to Keep Loophole - WASHINGTON — In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole. The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?bl&ex=1204002000&en=ae0d714ce3b8d3ae&ei=5087%0A
February 24th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Seems her loophole was a very precious thing to him.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Finns- The NYT vs McCain battle is shaping up as more interesting than the Obama vs Hillary one. The NYT has clearly been sitting on this for a while and released it after Macca got nasty after the affair story. I heard they only ran with the affair story this early because they thought another group (Newsweek I think) was going to use it before them. It would have had more impact later but you’ve got to fight your battles when you find them I suppose.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
835
Robert Bollard
Touche! (no pun intended)
February 24th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Like I said a while back, the swiftboating is coming home to roost. Macca’s not going to be able to claim he’s clean if he keeps getting this stuff brought up, and eventually, he’s going to make a blunder, like denying he spoke to the CEO when in fact, he’s on the record as saying that yes, he in fact spoke to the CEO.
(See Greenwald in Salon for this tantalizing bit of contradiction)
Macca’s going to be the first swiftboat overboard victim?
February 24th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Here is my nightly PT109 for Obama. (BTW: where is my fellow night rider, Dr. Adam, i miss his nightly fang of reality check).
The week the Obama backlash started - As the Democratic frontrunner racks up one primary victory after another, American newspapers and TV shows have started to pick over his past and ridicule his rhetoric. But will this come too late to restore the fortunes of Hillary Clinton, who needs to win both Ohio and Texas to stay in the race?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/barackobama.hillaryclinton
February 24th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I’m going now to softly weep into my linen ‘kerchief at the demise of some of my favourite bloggers.
well, one anyway.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Interesting article in today’s NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Basically, their “public editor” (I guess an ombudsman, but appointed by the paper itself) thinks the NYT’s journalistic ethics were poor in publishing an article cupposedly about McCain’s “carelessness” but where the punter was drawn in by the (unproven) implication that he was getting it on with an attractive blonde 30 years his junior.
Full marks to the NYT for having a “public editor” who can say his/her piece in this way in the paper.
Less than full marks to the NYT for dressing up a fairly blatant (and at this stage, unproven) piece of titillation about a serious POTUS candidate as a “fitness for office” concern.
Fascinating to note that much of the conservative Christian Right (hardly mates of McCain’s) did not react with shock: rather they seem to have taken the line that “the enemy of the NYT is my friend”, and got behind McCain.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Paddypower odds for Repug VP
Mike Huckabee 6 - 4
Charlie Crist 5 - 2
Tim Pawlenty 4 - 1
Mitt Romney 11 - 2
Joe Lieberman 8 - 1
Condoleeza Rice 10 - 1
Chuck Hagel 16 - 1
Rudolph Giuliani 14 - 1
Dick Cheney 20 - 1
John McCain 25 - 1
February 24th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
841
Dyno
But at least it has McCain fighting on a front other than his Democrat adversaries, and it was an excellent way to bring up the Keating Five stuff from the archives.
McCain will be dealing with this for some time, and it always has the possibility of tripping him over.
Pass the popcorn…
February 24th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Paddypower odds for Dem VP
Hillary Clinton 5 - 4
Barack Obama 5 - 2
John Edwards 5 - 1
Ted Strickland 7 - 1
Bill Richardson 8 - 1
Dennis Kucinich 20 - 1
Ted Kennedy 25 - 1
Bill Clinton 66 - 1
Bill Clinton for VP! There’s gotta be a law against that.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
839
The Finnigans
A shopping list of journalist’s barbs?
That’s it?
David Brooks, Krugman?
Oooh, ouch, that wet lettuce must really smart!
(I read these guys, and they’ve got a job to do, ie fill the page, and most times that’s all it is)
Now, when you’ve got something of substance to besmirch the messiah with, get back to us! LOL
February 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
#839 -substance? from you
February 24th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
If all you can say about a candidate is that his to good an orator and his fans are a bit scary in their enthusiasm….well. Oh I know there’s also the “substance” thing. This in a nation that twice elected Dubya and was graced by the almighty Quayle (Latin Americans speak latin) as VP.
Got to say Diogenes (you old cynic you) that I loved them VP odds! I love the idea of Cheney being available as a bet. If McCain chose him they would have to consider the alzheimers diagnosis.
I also like the idea of Kucinich as VP. If (God forbid, but it’s a possibility) Obama was shot by some mad cracker then that would deliver the US its most left-wing President ever - with a hot first lady with a tongue stud!
February 24th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
he’s too good an orator…In the immortal words of Michael Palin “I’m sorry In have a cold”.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
847
Robert Bollard
Yeah, for a nation that’s had the misfortune to have an speech deficit in the Whitehouse for 7 years, slagging Obama for the audacity to inspire with language does rather come as a surprise, eh what?
If I was an American I’d be in a trance just listening to the possibility of having a POTUS who can not only string together great sentences, but can argue the details of policy, bring out the vote, out campaign the Clinton machine, and still be funny and self-deprecating.
yeah, let’s not waste this opportunity to slag off, eh? LOL
February 24th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Diogenes, you misunderstand the term historical logic in cushioning ESJ
The fact is ESJ asserted bama was a typical ’snake oil salesman’ , typical of declining Empires & the masses in those declining Empires to whom ’snake oils salesman ‘ appealed. Historically this is nonsense.
For the argument to be LOGICAL , such inspirational leaders (’snake oil salesman”) do not appear at ANY OTHER TIME.
This is also nonsense.
So based on “History” plus “Logic” , ECJ’s argument was doubly nonsense ,
hence the term..historical logic for a double fool.
the fact the ECJ argument was an attempt at ’swiftboating’ made it triply absurd
February 24th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
HELL ! , I’ve now scolled back.
DEFENCE ARGUMENT:
William , ESJ “stalked” Jen a few days ago and MANY Boggers incl. Jen said so.
You did NOT demand an apology from ESJ for what is in non cyberpace a crime
In fact you should have banned him
Finally a day later ESJ made a conditional apology
Had you banned ESJ for the ’stalking’ , he would not have been on this blog for Davidoff to ‘criticise’ him !!! , meaning Dadidoff would still be here and ESJ not
I would argue your non decision to ban ESJ for ’stalking’ is the problem ,
and request you give consideration to this different perspective argument
February 24th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Let’s not forget, while we’re all mesmerized by the primary race going on over there, that at this precise moment, there’s a financial market’s meltdown of near epic proportions.
Nobody knows where this is going, but it sure as hell isn’t headed for nice sunny ending. Here’s just a taste of the distress:
February 20 – Financial Times (Gillian Tett): “US banks have been quietly borrowing massive amounts of money from the Federal Reserve in recent weeks by using a new measure the Fed introduced two months ago to help ease the credit crunch. The use of the Fed’s Term Auction Facility…saw borrowing of nearly $50bn of one-month funds from the Fed by mid-February. US officials say the trend shows that financial authorities have become far more adept at channelling liquidity into the banking system to alleviate financial stress… However, the move has sparked unease among some analysts about the stress developing in opaque corners of the US banking system and the banks’ growing reliance on indirect forms of government support.”
Meanwhile, the price of commodities, things we use, like food and oil and minerals are screaming through the roof.
On the ground, in the US, there are massive amounts of money tied up in what was thought to be liquid bonds that suddenly have no buyers, and interest rates for the issuers are taking off.
The scale of what is happening is unprecedented in living memory, there is panic in many sectors of the financial markets, and as the gunpowder fuse whips along the ground, everyone who has even a bit of exposure has their fingers in their ears.
The big bang is coming.
And so is the November election.
Pass the popcorn…
February 24th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Ron, I must have missed Jen asking ESJ to apologise. If she had done so, I would most certainly have insisted that ESJ comply, and banned him if he hadn’t. From what I saw of the “stalking” allegations, Jen seemed to be taking the view that she was big enough to deal with it without requiring my intervention. None of this has any bearing on my decision to ban Davidoff for refusing to do as I asked.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
The other thing I find interesting is the comparison with JFK. The substance thing was an issue with JFK and a more relevant thing. What are the differences between the two candidates? JFK was a spoiled rich kid with a semi-mafiosi father who wanted FDR to cut a deal with Hitler. Leave off the womanising thing, which is irrelevant, except to the extent that is appears to have evidenced a born to rule selfishness.
His primary campaign was against Adlai Stevenson who was more genuine liberal. The Kennedy’s had to win over the liberals in the party because of their father and Bobby’s association with McCarthy. JFK’s program in 1960 wasn’t that left wing. He avoided civil rights, tried to pose as more hawkish than Nixon against the Russians (going on about the “missile gap” in the debate) and so on. As to his personal qualifications, he had aq bunch of ghostwritten books a bunch of brilliant speechwriters and he was handsome and young.
The only argument in his favour (apart from being deified by being shot) is that he does apear to have been personally moved by the vicious police attacks in Birmingham a few months before his death and began the shift that would see the Dems embrace civil rights. Before that Bobby was famously telling black activists to “stop all these sit downs and shit and get on with voter registration”.
The point is, I think, that the character of the POTUS is less important than what they represent. I think Obama is personally more impressive than just about any US president since FDR. But then the next most impressive was Jimmy Carter and his presidency was a disaster. What is more important is the fact that - crucially, unlike JFK - his candidacy has not been a big money, media-driven exercise, but a mass mobilisation of a type that the US hasn’t seen since 1948. He doesn’t just say “I’m pretty and eloquent and rich vote for me”. He says: “I’m pretty and eloquent and you can help me change things by donating money and getting active”. The last two words are the most significant thing imho. The central problem of US politics is atomisation and apathy, disengagement etc. To the extent that JFK’s mythology has any reality it is in the way in which he did engage a generation of young Americans and set the stage for the 60s. Obama is engaging organisationally in a more profound way.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
William , Jen is a lady …she said she was being ’stalked’…her blogs became increasingly ‘nervous’….other blogers so commented.
Ladies who are stalked are scared …so asking for an Apology would be the furtherest thing for any ’stalked’ persons mind including Jen…..
She did not ask for an apology (she was nervous) but that does not make it
right nor does it make it right that ESJ should have been banned for a crime
in non cyberspace.
In the circumstances the greater crime by 1,000% is the ’stalker’,
NOT a bloger who doesn’t abide by your rulings
If the ’stalker’ was banned , Dadidoff would have had no one to ‘criticise’ and you would have had no one (Davidoff) ignoring your ruling
Appreciate you may not have been aware of all of the above , but NOW that you are aware the equitable circumstances warrant the ban on Davidoff being lifted in the interests of fair play William ??
February 24th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
You’re making an awful lot of presumptions about Jen’s frame of mind, Ron. It was always open to her to email me if she wanted me to do anything. Nor do I think it beyond argument that ESJ is guilty of stalking, unless there’s something else that I’ve missed.
No, because as I’ve said about three times now, Davidoff was banned for wilfully refusing to do as I asked. The behaviour of ESJ has nothing to do with this.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
854
Robert Bollard
Nice post.
Did you read Mega in the Woz?
This guy is truly impressive the way he’s got the younger Americans (at first) motivated enough to pay attention and vote. Clinton, although a worthy and experienced polly (as she never tireds of telling them) could not rouse that passion, nor that donation machine, and just has gradually lost her power.
As for JFK, he looked good, as you say, but Obama is not compromised by his family connections and sure isn’t beholden to ‘dark forces’ like the Kennedy’s were. Nor does he have ‘dynastic’ baggage like his opponent. So far, he’s been a phenomena, and with a lot of style.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
To be honest KR my main concern is not that they “pay attention and vote” but they discover a capacity for activity that goes beyond placing an x next to someone’s name. But that’s a whole different argument.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Well I really do appreciate you giving me a hearing William.
1/ Its fair of you to argue I’m making my presumptions about Jen’s frame of mind
If my assumtions were right , then at the time she was never going
to ask you to get herself an apology.
BUT having had experience of the subject my desciption of her is the ‘norm’
2/ The person has ‘baited’ numerous blogers & many have responded strongly but you have not demanded an apology of those blogers
SUGGESTION
Davidoff , this is his FIRST offence & he could have been given
(a) 24 hours to apologise otherwise be banned ahter than demanding an apology from an obviously emotionally charged bloger on the spot
(b) been given a FIRM caution with the 2nd offence automatically being a ban
May I suggest after reconsideration , you reluctantly lift the ban but
apply either (a) or (b).
That way you are the very reasonable one and allow blogers to dig their own grave
February 24th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
If Davidoff wants to write to me seeking to make amends, I will give him a sympathetic hearing.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Thx William for your consideration
I wish to put some comments to Davidoff , some of my comments to Davidoff will be not fully agreeing with your decision which I’ve been open & honest in saying here BUT also suggesting to Davidoff that amends should & need to be made.
You cann’t give out address’s of course so can I send my email to
Davidoff via/to you William and would you onforward it to Davidoff ?
February 25th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Happy to do that, Ron.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Dear Mr Bowe, following this…
765
davidoff Says:
February 24th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Talking of class acts and appologies - I’m assuming your all familiar with the apology earlier today from Hillary on behalf of Bill’s racial innuendoes back during the South Carolina context:
“If anyone was offended by anything that was said, whether it was meant or not, or misinterpreted or not, then obviously, I regret that,”
Clearly, both ESJ and our mate John Howard could take a leaf out of Hillary’s campaign as a lesson in the art of the delivery of a deniable apology for something that may or may-not of happened, intended or otherwise, impacting an audience that may or may not have been listening.
770
William Bowe Says:
February 24th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Thank you making that well-timed obnoxious comment, ESJ. A welcome opportunity for me to demonstate my even-handedness by slapping you down as well. In particular, it won’t do for you to congratulate yourself for having apologised while simultaneously stoking up the argument again.
776
davidoff Says:
February 24th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
#767
ESJ said …
Tell me davidoff what do I have to apologise for?
This is difficult, because the more I think about the subject the more I end up in the pro-life pro-choice debate. While I haven’t reached a definitive conclusion - for the moment I’m siding with the pro-choice camp. I guess the important point here at this moment is that if I project forward my current line of thinking it basically is kind of a good outcome for you - in that you don’t need to apologise, but is your mother ready to take the consequence that this line of thought leads to - and that’s pushing back to the pro life camp - because at the end of the day - I don’t really want to give your mother a hard time and I figure individual who stuff up should be accountable for their actions - but that just takes me back to the same debate - was it Eddi, was it Eddi’s mother?
793
William Bowe Says:
February 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
ESJ, your right to plead hurt feelings is not all it might be. Besides, it’s too late to make any difference now. And please don’t bark orders at me, whatever the circumstances.
804
Edward StJohn Says:
February 24th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
William,
I am happy to mix it on this blog with others and give and receive but when things get down to the level of gratuitously offensive a long the lines of davidoff’s comment then its a different ball game.
That comment was just a whole new level of offensive and your actions were unfair in leaving it on.
No intention of barking orders and its your blog but this level is inconsistent with my continued participation. If you choose to run a mutual masturb.ation session for 2 or 3 people on this blog thats your business.
I withdraw.
832
William Bowe Says:
February 24th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Above all else, Davidoff has been banned for wilfully ignoring my wishes. This site simply can’t work if I allow people to do that.
Bill, I do feel that you have been led down the garden path here somewhat & over reacted; just a tad; ESJ is quite capable of looking after himself; “Zino’ is clearly not as gifted with humor/irony as he/she is with passion, interest and ability with interpretation & analysis.
As others have pointed out, and I do not prosecute their case for one minute, but ESJ’s prosletising on occasion encourages such ‘indiscreminate’ responses .
I personally feel this is a good thing if handled as adults, with a sense of humour and tolerance. It’s what makes this blog, yourself and ‘all’ its contributors a stand out item.
A healthy & long overdue information & brain food for OZ. It is not about right or wrong but what is…now…sure ego etc interrupts but ‘we’ all deal with that…
In short, I think your banning of Davidoff is over the top; yes I understand its your blog Mr Bowe but for god’s sake you tolerate towel head lovers & Adam beaters such as I; & Diogenes quotes Churchill to tolerate me!!! FFS.
Being somewhat to the left of Mao and seriously ILL as KR would have it, I would suggest that you let back ‘Davidoff’ and I would welcome the return of Dr Carr & of course ESJ.
When things settle down I am happy to host the NQ Pollbludgers annual picnic; BUT I get to choose the wine; sorry ESJ.
Must go more towel head sites to find.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Codger, if I ask a commenter to do something, there are only two options available to them: a) do as I ask, b) piss off somewhere else. Failing to do one or the other is the very height of rudeness, and anyone who does so will be immediately banned regardless of the circumstances. That said, being a soft touch, I will usually give them a second chance if they are big enough to express contrition after the event.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Here’s the NYTimes editor answering questions about the McCain story.
It’s worth a look over, since they’ve copped a lot of flak over it, and the issues about McCain’s behaviour versus his rhetoric need airing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/media/21askthenewsroom.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=497a8f417858d664&ei=5087%0A
February 25th, 2008 at 12:48 am
and thx william for agreeing to my #859-#862 & earlier requests re a 2nd
chance option
I shall contact Davidoff
regards
Ron
February 25th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Mr. Bowe, the logic of your piss off option is simply overwhelming; totemic…etc
a) do as I ask, b) piss off somewhere else. Failing to do one or the other is the very height of rudeness, and anyone who does so will be immediately banned regardless of the circumstances.
You diminish and do an injustice to the word ‘height’ & by default ‘rudeness’…and more to the point ‘who do you think your kidding’
But I guess the sandwhich boards will march onnnnnnnnnn….but never being rude, gosh just imagine the cosequences…
February 25th, 2008 at 4:33 am
Makes sense to me, Codger. On that note of crystal clarity, can we please move it over to the new thread.