I am sick of crappy mudslinging campaigns...
Category Opinion
Bookmark :
And no, I'm not talking about the advertising campaigns between IBM and Microsoft, Miller and Budweiser, nor Coke and Pepsi. I am talking about the outright lies being put out by the presidential campaigns. Now spin is a part of all campaigns, and even a little mudslinging. But I am pretty disgusted with the actions of some Bush supporters, namely the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. These slimy bastards have been proven to be outright liars (here or here or here or, hell, search for yourself) - most recently from one William B. Rood, who is the only other swift boat captain that is alive and that was actually there. And even though everyone knows they are propogating the worst kind of disinformation for a political campaign, Bush and company have done nothing to disassociate themselves from these slimeballs. I'm sorry, but I believe Bush should distance himself from these guys, or else it will look like he condones their actions. Maybe he doesn't want their (monetary) support to dry up - I dunno. But the stench of these guys definitely reeks from Bush now.
And before you think I am supporting one or the other, let me set the record straight - I am a "practical" Libertarian, which means that I believe in most of the principles of the Libertarian party, but I think they go overboard on quite a few things as well. In reality I am one of those precious "undecided" voters, and the worst kind of those - I have voted both Republican and Democrat recently, and even in the same election. I vote with my head, not because of some political demagoguery or sound bite, but because I try to vote for the person who best represents my ideals and beliefs. But I will say this: the actions (and inactions) of the Bush campaign have not endeared me to them.
Where has all the honor gone? Why can't we hear about issues, solutions, and real planks in a platform, instead of attacks, insults, lies, and soundbites? I am already sick of this election, which has to be a record for my bile reaching the disgusted level. I wish November would get here, to get this crap over with.
Get us back on the right track, Bush. Grow a spine, and denounce these lying assholes. Otherwise what little faith I have in the honor of our leaders is pretty much gone.
Rock
**Why do people with closed minds always open their mouths?
Blog Roll
Comments
If you had an idea of what your rude awakening was about, it wouldnt be a rude awakening, now would it?
"He likens my choice to emigrate from the US to refusing medical treatment for kids because you believe in some stupid religion."
Well, not really. I likened your renouncing of their citizenship--as a result of renouncing your own--to refusing medical attention for a child. You see, both instances harm a child as the result of the parent's selfish motivations. It's an analogy.
If you could correctly interpret the written language, you also would therefore be able to infer that I pretty much knew you didnt have kids yet because renouncing your citizenship after the kids were born would not affect the kids citizenship (I dont think it would, but it might.) One is automatically granted citizenship if born in the United States territory, or one of the kid's parents are citizens. Thus the term "birthright". Can you say biirrrth --riiight?
As far as 'who' would do the preventing, hopeully the US Constitution would cover that. I think it is a due process issue.
My intolerance is only for the harming of innocents. And I dont check it at the door just because someone labels it with a religion--or political dissatisfction.
Hey, I've considered renouncing citizenship before--every year around tax-time actually-- for about a second. Every time I conclude it is stupid. Maybe next year.
Some of you guys sure do like to pat yourselves on the back a lot. The last two paragraphs can pretty much be summarized as "Do you know who I am?" Pfft. Get over yourself already. Haughtiness is unbecoming to such an intellectual sophisticate such as yourself.
Here's one for you, I was one of the early adopters and beta testers of Lotus Notes 3.0a, back in the early nineties, pioneering the fledgling technology into wide accpetance by the corporate world. I hope you have enjoyed the fruits of that. Heh heh heh!
After reading your long-winded yet substantivly empty post, I am thinking you would prolly miss 85% of the irony of my site. Your comment makes it sound as if you think I accidently named my blog 'enormous incongruities' and that the irony is in the name.
Asshat. (not only is it endearing, it is enduring as well.)
Now I understand why Rob is the way he is. He is trying to be like you. Would that you could take him to South Africa too.
Good luck with your new job in South Africa. Hopefully I am completely wrong about your rude awakening. But I dont think I am. Let me know how it goes when you load up the family for a long drive into the countryside. Maybe up to the lake. Maybe drive over to the next country for some tourism.
PS: Declan did a good job on Blogsphere.
Posted by Don Callaway At 12:09:55 PM On 08/31/2004 | - Website - |
"In the year of our Lord" as a dating technique is significant? We're all still using that dating method now - does that mean this is a Christian world?
And Federalist #2, written by John Jay, who wrote only 5 of them in all? As opposed to Hamilton and Madison, who wrote 52 and 28 respectively?
I say again, if you want to know what the founders were thinking, you have to look at the debates and congressional sessions that generated the document in question. Which wordings were accepted and which denied tells us how the majority voted. Quoting individuals, unless those individuals wrote the part of the document in question, tells us nothing. Certainly some of the founders desired a Christian nation. Those who took that position lost the debate to Madison and Jefferson, who wanted a clear separation between the churches and the government.
Your extremist idea about what the separation of church and state implies about electing Christians to office has so little in common with reality that you're making my case for me.
Oh, and the comment on the relative copyrights on your blog and Rocky's wasn't a 'veiled legal threat' for Pete's sake, it was a suggestion that you pay attention to the house rules of the person whose home you're in. Overreact much?
FYI, my instructors in logic, rhetoric, history, philosophy and religion were Jesuit priests. I have no concerns about what they'd think about my writings here. I also have no doubts about what they'd make of yours.
For a second opinion, I suppose we could ask Christopher Byrne, who was also educated by Jesuits. Chris, what say you? Would the good Fathers be disappointed in my rhetoric and language skills?
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 09:51:57 AM On 09/03/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Don Callaway At 07:37:42 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
There is not a single, solitary thing in this universe that I wish to happen for bin Laden's sake.
Posted by Don Callaway At 02:10:42 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
Another thought is whenever a candidate is on tv have them hooked up to a polygraph and have a truth detector hooked up so the viewers know what are lies.
Posted by Mark Hughes At 06:25:07 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
I may vote for the Easter Bunny.
Posted by Dennis Lowe At 11:10:44 AM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Think carefully before renouncing your US Citizenship, if not for you, but for your children or future children. Many consider that an act of cowardice and would prefer someone fight for the right thing than bad mouth and run. (and I know you are not running but going to a good job).
Posted by Christopher Byrne At 01:54:02 PM On 08/24/2004 | - Website - |
http://www.doncallaway.org/myweb/dcdoblog.nsf/plinks/DCAY-64AK4F
I find his arguments intriguing. For instance, I'm in for a rude awakening, though I don't know what about. I'm 5 days into my stay here and I find South Africa to be refreshing and delightful. Then again, I have many months ahead to be awakened.
It's also Don's wish that I will be prevented from robbing [my] children of their birthright. Who would do the preventing? And as my children are not yet born, (or to my knowledge, even conceived) I'm confused about how US citizenship could be their birthright. I'm quite looking forward to Mr. Callaway enlightening me on both these matters.
Mr. Callaway rightly suggests Perhaps that is a choice that should be left to them to make once they reach the age of majority. Quite so! In fact, I can't see how it would even be in my power to prevent my children, once they reach the age of majority, from moving to the US and applying for citizenship, no matter where I live! Perhaps Don envisions a different relationship between my and my unborn children than I do.
He likens my choice to emigrate from the US to refusing medical treatment for kids because you believe in some stupid religion. I'm impressed by Don's willingness to stand by his intolerance for people's religious beliefs while he defends the American way of life. Truly, this is a brave attitude.
Mr. Callaway also observes A lot of people claim they are moving out of America and will renounce citizenship, but few really do because no one is that stupid. Evidentally I was unclear in my original post, and I owe Don an apology. Allow me to clarify, I am considering giving up US citizenship. Though perhaps, given Don's remarkable powers of persuasion, I'll stop considering it, as I do not wish to be "stupid." He might lump me in with those religious people in that case!
So thank you Mr. Callaway, for making such an effective case against my plans. 15 years of studying US political history and 6 months of planning by me and my wife clearly do not hold up when we take into consideration your viewpoint. And to think, I nearly made a terrible mistake!
By the way, I notice you use the Blogsphere template from OpenNTF. I'm delighted to see that you're able to use the fruits of the organization that I created to publish your concerns about the future of this humble asshat. I'm sure Declan, the head chef of the Blogsphere project and a citizen of Ireland (where they have a considerably less enlightened viewpoint about those "stupid religions", will feel similarly blessed by your remarks.
Enormous incongruities... I do so love irony.
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 10:34:37 AM On 08/31/2004 | - Website - |
The Times happens to be the most easily accessible source of reporting but rest assured that they were not the first, nor are they the only news organization reporting on the fact that all is not well in western Iraq. Perhaps Fox might cover it someday, too. I did search their site, and didn't find anything. Are there any other fair and balanced news sites that you can refer me to? I did find this
page http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah.htm, and it provides some general support for what the Times article is saying, as well as extensive historical background, but it doesn't have specifics. It's probably at least a few months old, and I don't know the credentials of organzation that is hosting the page. They might be (gasp!) liberals.
And, yes, I am in fact saying that I support the war before I didn't. People with open minds sometimes change their mind when the evidence tells them that it is the right thing to do. People with closed minds don't. Which are you? Have you never, with the benefit of hindsight, found that you might have been wrong? President Bush, by the way, is apparently learning a thing or two from Senator Kerry about this open-mindedness business. First he said we can win the war or terrorism, then he said we can't, and now he says we can again, all in a matter of a few days. I wonder what he'll say tonight?
As for your assertion that the US is a Christian nation, you merely forgot one word. The US is a Christian majority nation. There's a big difference, and that difference just happens to be guaranteed by the constitution.
As for defining your rudeness, that's easy: http://www.doncallaway.org/myweb/dcdoblog.nsf/plinks/DCAY-64AK4F
-rich
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 03:35:53 PM On 09/02/2004 | - Website - |
PS Sorry, Rock, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls...
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 01:16:16 PM On 08/27/2004 | - Website - |
Now if both of them would call off their attack dogs, and stand on their platforms, this would be a worthwhile campaign.
But who are we kidding? The average American has the attention span of a goldfish. If the candidates were to try to stick to issues and platforms, the bulk of America would glaze over with a pretty pale patina...
Rock
Posted by Rock At 11:21:27 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
A little political reality check: Bush wants Kerry to denounce all the 527's together because they're the only place Democrats currently have a fundraising advantage over the GOP. Also, Bush knows that MoveOn, in particular, has been very effective at mobilizing average citizens who don't usually get involved in politics. He's not taking a moral position on the issue, he's playing politics like they all do.
By the way, the article you linked to doesn't include a minor detail. The White House Press Secretary offered an immediate clarification after Bush's statement, indicating the the President's position on the SBVFT ad has not changed (via CNN):
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Bush's use of the words "that ad" did not indicate a repositioning on the issue. He said Bush was repeating his previous calls for an end to 527 ads."
In other words, there's nothing new here. The White House has been calling for an end to all 527s since the liberal ones started hitting in a most unliberal fashion: hard.
The administration wants us to believe all 527 ads are equivalent. Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, there's a difference between ads that skirt the truth and ads that run right over it and turn around and stomp on it a few more times for good measure.
Personally, I think what both men did 30 years ago ought to be irrelevant. If we were all judged on our behavior as 20 year olds, most of us would be unemployed and/or in prison, and the rest would be professionally medicated. Ed Maloney has the right of it above: there are actual issues we could be talking about. Take your 527 money and run issue ads with it! How's that for a concept!
Too bad it'll never happen. Attack politics and smear tactics have been proven to work too well (see: McCain, Cleland). The GOP certainly won't stop using them until they stop working, and the Democrats have to respond (though Kerry will pretend to be 'above' such things and try to leave them to surrogates, just as Bush is doing). FWIW, MoveOn does spend a great deal of its money on issue ads. They just do it in attack mode, where they beat up on Bush's stand on an issue. Still, I'd rather see that than the jerks beating up on each other *personally* all the time.
/wishing I could use my TiVo to fast-forward through all the political trash between now and November and just get to the damn election already...
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 11:26:09 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Here is a news flash for you, I am not trying to impress anyone nor am I trying to win anyone's approval. Especially not yours, even though you are the creator of OpenNTF.
I am very surprised to find out that you are a hater, Nathan. You hate rude people. You hate conceited people. And you hate America to the extent that you are considering renouncing citizenship for the sake of your children.
You even hate me. Oh, how shall I survive. That fact that you hate me when you dont even know me tells a whole lot more about you than it says about me.
The bottom line here seems to be that you hate any one and anything that is too shallow to comprehend and accept your Zen-like understanding of all things. You are a god unto yourself and you are bitter because you have no supplicants, except for Rob.
Everything you say is now discounted as it is admittedly hate-based.
Stop the hate, Nathan, its not good for you. I dont think we have anything further to say to one another. Asshat.
Rich, referring me to the NY Times to support your opinions is like linking me to the Kerry Campaign Headquarters. Quit linking stuff already. Just state your opinion. I am already familiar with the propaganda.
Are you saying that you actually supported the war, before you didnt support the war? Now I see why you identify with Kerry so well.
Rob, your beliefs are no more valid than George Bush's. FYI, the USA is a Christian nation, but just barely. It has always been a Christian nation since it was founded. If this is news to you, that would explain a lot. But I am glad you dont hate me.
How exactly do you define rude? Is it someone who repeatedly disagrees with your superior intellect? Someone who refuses to go away after being so soundly rebuked by your superior intellect? Or is that just another effort to silence or marginalize a dissenting voice?
Posted by Don Callaway At 01:44:37 PM On 09/02/2004 | - Website - |
-rich
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 08:44:17 PM On 09/02/2004 | - Website - |
Your logic will fly with sane people about as well as does refusing medical treatment for kids because you believe in some stupid religeon.
A lot of people claim they are moving out of America and will renounce citizenship, but few really do because no one is that stupid.
Rob, I hope you didnt type all that stuff because its all readily available for cut and paste. Get an original idea already.
Posted by Don Callaway At 01:19:22 PM On 08/26/2004 | - Website - |
It is this kind of crud that makes me hate radio hosts like the "Kimmer" on WGST-Radio (and he does not deserve a link) who think free speech only applies to people who share his viewpoint (sort of like Moore but at the other end of the spectrum).
Kudos to the trib Editor for standing up for what's right. I just hope he is ready for the backlash.
As you are a Libertarian, what does Boortz have to say on the subject?
Posted by Christopher Byrne At 01:09:59 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 06:49:22 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Don Callaway At 12:39:27 PM On 09/05/2004 | - Website - |
While we've been laying seige to Najaf, Falluja, Ramdi, and Anbar province have descended into ararchy. The government structures that we've tried to put into place are dissolving as the key individuals are being assassinated are fleeing from threats, or are defecting to the militias.
But while I initially supported the Iraq war, I never supported the "enemy combatant" status designation for Al Qaida and Taliban leaders and fighters. This is where I say that Bush's intellect and integrity fall short. He does not see that indefinite detentions and closed military trials are not going to be seen as justice by our own citizens, by our allies, and certainly not by the young Islamists all too eager to join the anti-American cause. We are not meteing out justice for the 3,000 this way, and we are fanning the flames for the next generation of terrorists who will grow up to attack us.
TO be fair: there are many other policy areas on which I disagree with President Bush. I've read the GOP Platform, and it is nothing like the so-called "compassionate conservative" that Bush claims to be. But I don't hate him.
-rich
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 01:16:52 AM On 09/02/2004 | - Website - |
Best of luck in S. Africa.
Rock
Posted by Rock At 12:10:26 PM On 08/24/2004 | - Website - |
Why wont Kerry do that, I wonder?
Posted by Don Callaway At 06:02:11 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
How'd you like to be the technician responsible for calibrating that lie detector? I can see it now:
"Damn it, it's NOT broken! It works fine on everybody else. HE must be broken!"
Alas, truer words were ne'er spoken...
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 08:52:50 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not open their deliberations with prayer. This was suggested by Ben Franklin, but he gathered the support of only 3-4 others and no vote was even taken on his proposal.
The following wordings of the First Amendment to the Constitution were proposed to the Senate AND defeated in favor of our current, broader statement (yeah, I looked up the exact proposals - it's not difficult, I'm sure you can find them yourself):
"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others"
"Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society"
"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another"
In other words, if your argument was correct, one of those wordings would have been chosen. None was. Instead we got:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Why? In your own words, read the founding documents. I don't mean the Constitution itself - we all know what it says. I mean the recorded debates on the floor of the Constitutional Convention and the House and Senate sessions that generated the Bill of Rights.
There is a great deal of historical material available on this subject. Unfortunately, most people are content to believe what they're told. The religious right has been repeating the particular spin you gave for decades now, under the theory that if they say it often enough people will eventually believe them.
I'm not going to give you links to the research points, because you've indicated that you aren't interested in links to information you don't agree with. I'm not suggesting you should take my word for any of this - I'm sure that idea would never cross your mind, and that's fine with me. I'm simply going to suggest that a properly informed debate on the subject begins with research into the *original sources* of information. In technical terms, the authoritative data source is the one you want.
PS Our respective levels of rudeness seem obvious to everyone but you. Your 'lifting' of entire pages of comments from someone else's blog are more than a bit outside accepted blogging etiquette (and might even be a copyright violation, since Rock uses Creative Commons and you don't - Creative Commons allows reproduction of material only if it also done under Creative Commons), but your comments on those passages can't be considered anything but obnoxious. It's your blog and you can obviously say what you like, but you shouldn't assume that the people you're talking about can't hear you.
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 09:15:18 PM On 09/02/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Ben Poole At 08:07:51 AM On 09/03/2004 | - Website - |
-rich
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 08:43:40 AM On 08/31/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 07:45:19 AM On 09/08/2004 | - Website - |
-rich
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 09:54:52 PM On 08/30/2004 | - Website - |
Yup. Amen to that. That's what you are, no question.
What is an asshat anyway?
Posted by At 04:53:11 PM On 09/05/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Christopher Byrne At 04:58:30 PM On 08/27/2004 | - Website - |
Up here in Canada, our past election contained some of the worse accusations and mud throwing that we've ever seen. It was a real embarrasement. In the end, we end up with a minority government that will end up spending more time back dealing and begging and arguing then actually doing anything good for this country.
A new level of integrity should be brought back to politics. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where we respected and actually trusted our elected officials???
Posted by Kevin At 11:13:24 AM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
To the folks at the Urban Dictionary, it refers to someone who has their head up their a**.
Pick your poison. Or, just go here: http://www.confusednation.com/asshat/
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 03:06:51 PM On 09/06/2004 | - Website - |
While I respect your views and your right to choose your citizenship, I would like to add my own perspective, which I hope you will find useful.
I have US and Canadian Citizenship, and I like it that way as a citizen of the world rather than just one country. America is a great country, but the world is a big and complex place, and I find both passports useful at times. Dual citizenship has provided me with the opportunity to live and work in Canada, the USA, plus the UK and Australia with only minor bureaucratic obstacles (the last two are part of the British Commonwealth and have treaties ).
I could have had Swiss citizenship too. However, my Swiss-born grandparents and first-generation American parents neglected the paperwork for my Swiss citizenship when I was born (A single one-page form with my name and address). When I was 19 I decided I wanted to secure it for the future, as is my heritage, and, I thought, my right. It took me several years and great expense to get it back but not for me. My younger sister was able to obtain hers, but they have a law that states that if you are over the age of 21 and were not registered at birth, it is lost forever. Even though I applied at 19, the bureaucratic process took so long that by the time the application was processed, as I like to say, I confirmed that I am not Swiss and my time and effort provided me with the papers to prove it.
As for the USA, I applied for my Canadian Wifes US Citizenship in 1997, on the basis of our marriage (my citizenship is by birth). She MIGHT get it this year. However, we are planning to move, and associated delays with the address change will probably take the application well into in 2007. No guarantees though. Our application could turn be turned down at any time, for any reason. The bestowing of citizenship is a privilege granted by the USA, not a right, regardless of the circumstances of the application. That goes for any country.
So the moral of the story is that citizenship in any country is relatively easy to lose and very hard to get back if you can get it back at all. If you or your children no longer have it for whatever reason, its not up to you or them to get it back. Lawmakers could pass silly laws, as they did in Switzerland, and even if they dont, the final decision will be up to paper pushers at the local immigration office or consulate. By giving up your citizenship you put the control for that choice in their hands, not in yours or your childrens, and limit your options for the rest of your life and future generations.
Something you may not have thought of - Once you rescind your US citizenship you and your family will need a visitors visa to enter the USA, even in the case of a family emergency, etc ..http://pretoria.usembassy.gov/wwwhst2a.html
Also, you mentioned this: I can't see how it would even be in my power to prevent my children, once they reach the age of majority, from moving to the US and applying for citizenship, no matter where I live!
Actually, this is the kind of thinking by my parents and grandparents that lost me my Swiss citizenship. I urge you to look into US immigration law to really see what your kids will be up against. Under current law its the other way around. They will apply for citizenship at their local consulate in South Africa, and wait currently the waiting periods are measured in years until the first stage, landed immigrant, is granted, if its granted at all. During the application period, applicants are not allowed to enter the USA, even for a visit. Citizenship will take several years after they are granted landed immigrant status and arrive in the USA.
Like I said, I respect your choice in the matter, but I want to make sure you know that its a choice with little chance of turning back. Times change. Politics change. Governments change. Citizenship based on birth is one of the few things you can keep forever, unless you give it up. As for your future kids - bring them up as they will be - citizens of the world, with America being an important part of the world that they can go to if they want to, but not the only part.
Hope that helps.
Posted by At 10:59:11 PM On 09/07/2004 | - Website - |
Oh, and a word of advice: duck. Nathan's not famous for his patience with fools, and you just called him stupid and insane in one post. *shakes his head*
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 06:04:04 PM On 08/26/2004 | - Website - |
A monied idiot with an overly simplistic world-view?
Now we're getting there.
Posted by Ben Poole At 03:17:50 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
I mean what's Nathan going to say, that I am wrong or something? He laid out a pretty tough case to argue no matter how great he can slice and dice.
Since Nathan doesn't suffer fools well, you must be suffering under the false notion that he likes you. Get a clue, dude. And I don't think that's ridiculous either. Heh heh!
If you think me a fool, you better aks somebody.
Posted by Don Callaway At 11:31:06 AM On 08/27/2004 | - Website - |
The good Jesuits would be proud of you but also would be forgiving of Don. They would rake him over the coals, but in the end, they would forgive, as I guess we all should do at this point.
But there is a interesting logical problem in Don's arguments. He does not link to haters. Don is an intolerant, foul-mouthed hater. So I guess he does not link to himself? If he does not link to himslef, how can his blog work? hmmmm
Don, I have absolutely no problem with debates and disagreements. I am probably closer to your end of the political spectrum than Rob, Rich, et al. But the difference is that I do not use or condone the use of profanity in public forums, not do I like or appreciate personal attacks on others. You can attack the position, that is fine. It is wrong to attack the person.
That is the problem in this country now: if you dare speak out against the war or the President, you are automatically labled a traitor and a non-supporter of our troops. That is bull. It is called free speech, one of our basic rights. But it has to be RESPONSIBLE free speech on BOTH sides (that's right, Michael Moore is as big a putz as W and the things he made up for his movie were irresponsible).
Don, I would suggest you remove the link for OpenNTF rather than what you did with it. The courts are not taking too kindly to trademark violations these days. Show us all at least that much professionalism and decency in you. Is that too much to ask?
And by the way, one of the people who died on 9/11 was a man who was homosexual, his partner and his child. He too was Jesuit educated at my college. The Jesuits did not turn their backs on him and even had a memorial mass on campus for him and his family. This man deserves far more respect from me than you do with your hateful speech posted on your blog that is referenced above. Tell me, what if one day your son or daughter came up to you and said, "Dad, I Am Gay"? What would you do? and since Dick Cheney has made his position known on gay marriage (which, politically incorrect as this may be, I do not favor even if it differs with the views of others in here), what does that make him in your eyes? I do not hate gay people, just closed minded red-necks who think that it is ok to hate and spew venom.
Don, I would invite you to read the homilies and writings of Father Walter Burkhardt, SJ. It might do your mind and soul some good.
Personally, I do not want this thread to go on and think it is time to sleep.
Posted by Christopher Byrne At 11:04:30 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Don Callaway At 01:53:32 AM On 09/06/2004 | - Website - |
I'm moving to Johannesburg in just a few days. And I can't tell you how delighted I am to be getting away from US politics. I'm seriously considering giving up US citizenship once I'm there. Honestly, what does it really mean to hold an American passport anymore? The days of standing for truth and justice and peaceful trade are long behind us.
That's just my opinion. I encourage everyone to form their own. Just don't leave any option unexamined.
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 10:16:45 AM On 08/24/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Don Callaway At 05:38:40 PM On 08/31/2004 | - Website - |
When Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, nobody advocated that those terrorists have their Constitutional rights suspended, did they? No, we subjected them to normal due process. That hasn't been the same in the post-9/11 era -- even naturalized US citizens have been subjected to different rules simply because of their heritage. I guess it just must be different because Nichols and McVeigh were white guys and they used fertilizer instead of aeroplanes.
For his sake, I hope Bin Laden perishes in whatever battle occurs to try to capture him. Oh, that assumes that someone is actually still looking for him -- I didn't hear his name much this week in New York. I guess Saddam was considered a "good enough" bad guy.
Posted by Ed Brill At 01:31:36 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
One guy claims there were no enemy fire (Larry Thurlow), but his OWN bronze star award from the same incident indicates there was.
Kerry's commanding officer can't make up his own mind - he's contradicted himself 3 times now, once on his written evaluation of Kerry at the time, once appearing for SBVFT, once repudiating that in an interview with the Boston Globe, and then (oops) a fourth time to claim he never intended to repudiate the SBVFT ad. Very convincing.
The doctor who claims to have treated kerry's wound (calling it a pathetic excuse for a wound, basically) doesn't show up on any of the military paperwork. The military has an absolute FETISH for paperwork, they've always got 5 times as much as they need. If that doctor was examining Kerry, the medical records would have his name in them.
The other guys were "serving with John Kerry" by being in the same country, not the same boat or the same ambush.
John ONeill commanded Kerry's boat after Kerry left the country, so he's qualified to discuss the issue, how?
They could have made a credible case if they hadn't gone so far overboard - they could have tried to sew doubt subtly. But making grandiose claims opens you up to verification or denial, and their claims have repeatedly been shown to be outright fabrications.
Now we have reports from two men NOT on Kerry's boat ('cause the guys ON Kerry's boat have already come out as supporting him) saying that the attacks disgusted them so much they had to speak up about a war they'd much rather forget. Nope, no credibility there, right? The nerve of some guys, not writing a book about their nightmares.
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 06:44:12 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Some Americans must think we are invincible; that we can suffer no defeat. Otherwise it is hard to justify the luxury of such quibbles.
Last time I checked, The administration doesn't make law at all. That includes the AG. You are not trying to say that W is making up law as he goes along, are you?
Posted by Don Callaway At 12:38:44 AM On 08/31/2004 | - Website - |
Your OpenNTF hover is High-sterical, no doubt about it. Somehow, I suspect Nathan and Bruce (the co-founders), and the hundreds of geeks invested in the organization, will survive without your approval. Don't be surprised if you start to get requests from some of the other geeks you linked - asking to be un-linked.
Oh, and you don't want people to think you're a racist? Hire an editor then, to filter the sewage coming from your brain. You've said that all muslims are terrorists, in pretty much so many words. You avoid using gas stations owned by Middle Eastern people because the profits are funding terrorism? Your tin foil hat is slipping. Nobody that reads your site and understands the definition of racism (this apparently excludes you) will have any trouble deciding whether or not you're a bigot.
Glad you're enjoying the post-convention bounce (the same org that gives W the 10 point lead gave Kerry a 15 point lead after the DNC - I don't know who they're polling, but at least 25% of them change their minds a lot - must be flip-floppers...).
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 10:49:42 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
I've visited your site before, and yes, posts like this:
http://www.doncallaway.org/myweb/dcdoblog.nsf/plinks/DCAY-635M8T
and this:
http://www.doncallaway.org/myweb/dcdoblog.nsf/plinks/DCAY-636867
and the wording of posts like this:
http://www.doncallaway.org/myweb/dcdoblog.nsf/plinks/DCAY-645GTC
would certainly convince me that _you're_ a bigoted racist, even if the rest of GWB's followers aren't.
Of course, I don't think anyone is suggesting that all of GWB's followers are supremacist 'ein volk' pigs like you, but the fact that so many supremacist 'ein volk' pigs like you support the man seems quite telling.
Posted by Colin Pretorius At 05:09:07 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
In our legal system, the victim's of homicide rarely have much to say regarding the state's pursuit of justice in their name. The victim could have been staunchly against our justice system in life, and yet the wheels of justice turn.
Contrary to what you try to pin on me, I wasn't trying to suggest anything other than "wondering" whether the victims would agree with your advocacy of the perpetrator's rights. Would any one of them think that their Constitutional rights were less important than the rights of those who killed them?
Was that a low blow? Possibly. But the barely contained vitriol that you espouse in reply is just a typical liberal counter-attack used to stifle the memories of those whose Constitutional rights were suddenly suspended because those memories are so powerful and do nothing to advance their cause.
We are a nation of laws and no man is supposedly above the law. The wheels of justice may turn slowly, but they turn surely. The people you have such deep, moral feelings about were caught doing some terrorist stuff (word choice changed from original word choice) when doing terrorist stuff was not very popular. Their detention has withstood judicial review in most every case.
In one of the cases where a court hearing was ordered, the idiot started ranting al Qu'eda propaganda during his precious day in court. But that's OK, he at least had his day in court so you can feel better.
I don't think it is beyond the realm of reasonable imagination to believe that each and every one of those 3000 souls that perished at the hands of the likes of those very few people the state has detained would want to keep their families safe from having their constitutional rights so suddenly suspended as their rights were suspended.
BTW, the founding fathers did write a very different document than the one we suffer under today. Though it is still better than South Africa.
Let me see if I can get this straight. Do all you guys who hate Bush (and don't say you don't hate him, because I can feel the transference every time you reply to one of my posts) think he is breaking the law, or does he just not measure up to your moral standards?
Posted by Don Callaway At 09:01:17 PM On 09/01/2004 | - Website - |
Why is that? I guess its the lighting. From my perspective, I think it is Rob and asshat that have been rude to me in this exchange.
Look, I figured we had 135,000 soldiers in Iraq because it was like Eden over there and the troops prefer their R&R in such an exquisite atmosphere. I dint know there was a war going on there. I guess it could be a little hectic there.
I hear Afghanistan is largely unpacified as well. Who cares?
Far as I am concerned, we could have toppled Saddam and then pushed right into Syria, which is where it is likely that the WMD are. But ya'll dont wont to consider that because it interferes with your Bush lied meme. Well, you better start considering it.
The only reason Iraq and Afghanistan matter to me is because that is from where we will launch our attack on Iran and Syria if we have to do so. Iran is isolated between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. They are screwed and they know it. The mullahs are holding on in the chance that Kerry might pull off a miracle.
But, make no mistake, when Bush is re-elected, Iran will come correct one way or another. Lets just hope they dont nuke Israel first.
Oh, and read the founding documents. This country was founded as a Christian nation with the prohibition of the state establishing a national religion as part of the Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers had witnessed rule by divine right before and didnt wish to see it repeated in America.
Posted by Don Callaway At 06:20:03 PM On 09/02/2004 | - Website - |
I despise his repeated attempts to deceive the public about the reasons for the Iraq invasion (though I supported the war and they did not NEED to lie to me about WMD and terrorist ties because I thought eliminating Saddam was a good enough reason).
I hold his efforts to turn the USA into a Christian nation in the utter contempt they deserve.
I believe his refusal to hold off on his tax cuts in the face of the huge expenses engendered by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to be solid proof that he has the lowest IQ of any President in my lifetime.
I find that his implicit endorsement of the political dirty tricks of Karl Rove indicates his lack of personal integrity, though I admit it would be unusual for a politician to have much integrity.
And I certainly would agree that many liberals DO hate him. But I don't think that should be much of a surprise. Certainly many conservatives hate Bill Clinton with great passion, to an extent that is a little bizarre after so much time has lapsed. That's American politics these days: it isn't enought to say your opponent's positions are wrong, you must also say your opponent is evil.
Oh, and I don't hate Don Callaway, either. He's obviously put some significant effort into *earning* my hatred, between his unprovoked and incredibly rude personal attacks here on Rocky's site and his even more obnoxious personal references on his own site. But since that sort of vitriol appears to be his normal method of communication, I've just increased my rudeness filter by a factor of about 10. So far it's holding...
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 11:57:42 AM On 09/02/2004 | - Website - |
Rock, I apologize for toying with your friend Rob in such an unkind way and with such graphic visuals. I tend to overreact sometimes. I should have shown more respect for your property. Having said that, I will defer responding to your resident twit.
Posted by Don Callaway At 12:39:21 AM On 08/30/2004 | - Website - |
record number of home foreclosures
record number of personal bankruptcies
record number of americans with "food insecurity"
record number of americans without health insurance
record federal deficit
record trade deficit
Yup, what happened 30+ years ago is certainly what I'll be thinking about in November.
Posted by Ed Maloney At 06:51:32 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Anyone who helps them I want dead. Anyone who gives them money I want dead. Anyone who gives them aid and/or comfort, I want dead.
Anyone who does not do any of those things, I have no problem with. No problem with at all. None.
But "stinking rag-head terror fags" are people we are at war with. People we are at war with, I want dead. Sometimes I even get mad and call them names.
You seem to subscribe to the notion that I put politically correct filters on everything I say. I do not. That would make me like you and your friends. I mean, who knows what any of you really think.
You dont know me at all. There is no type like me. I am one of a kind. Asshat.
And no you dont have any moral authority. Finally one of you are correct about something. How refreshing. But I prefer your brand of self-righteous indignation more than Christopher's brand, which is the type that is so pretentious that he even looks down on his fellow self-righteous, indignant Blogsnobs.
Offending a hateful idiot does not make one guilty of being a bigot or racist.
Posted by At 12:31:53 PM On 09/05/2004 | - Website - |
Rock the Vote...
Posted by Tim H. At 03:29:48 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Mark Hughes At 12:07:46 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Allah akbar.
Posted by Don Callaway At 10:17:14 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Dennis Lowe At 01:30:39 PM On 08/24/2004 | - Website - |
For what it's worth, Don, I don't have a moral authority, just a lot of experience. I grew up in a society full of people spouting the same stuff you do. I know your type only too well.
Posted by Colin Pretorius At 09:22:24 AM On 09/05/2004 | - Website - |
1. No post has been lifted in entirety
2. Links are provided back to the original
3. The majority of the text I wrote
Lets just say I like to archive spirited conversations like this for posterity's sake, in the unfortunate but frequent event that the thread should meet its demise.
Who's this "everyone" you are talking about? Did you learn that sample inclusion trick from your "buddy"? Do you carry a bunch of mice in your pocket? Or is that just the consensus or your many personalities? Your English & Rhetoric professor would have marked that as bad form. Besides, the only ones I hear is you and asshat. In fairness Christopher thought I was a bit crude, maybe rude, but he did mention crude. And Rich thinks I am ignorant, but not rude.
Personally, I think ya'll needed a breath of fresh air.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
...
Clearly you misunderstand my stance on this issue. I agree that there should be no religion based doctrine in our government, especially in accordance with the little tidbit you so wonderfully outlined: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The type of seperation guys like you want would in effect disallow Christians from holding office. Point me to something in the founding documents that supports that radical stance.
Fedralist #2: "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. "
I also bet a dollar I could find a speech given by each and every president of the United States that invoked God's blessings. Most probably did so in every speech.
Personlly, I dont think the fact that the US Constitution is dated "in the year of our Lord" is insignificant. Few non-Christian nations would put that on their founding charter. Ya think?
I know you guys think you are talking down to me, but I can assure you its all in your imaginations. It is you who make the assumption that everyone is in agreemnent with you. Statistically speaking, that is not the case. Beating people down with outrageous attack rhetoric is not the same as agreement. Its is more akin to tyranny.
And finally, I just wish ya'll could find it in your hearts to demonstrate towards the terrorists who are being so unfairly detained a small portion of the contempt and hatred you have demonstrated towards me. Open your mind to that.
Posted by Don Callaway At 06:49:59 AM On 09/03/2004 | - Website - |
Rock
Posted by Rock At 12:42:58 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
I'm looking forward to your comparative analysis, although it's probably best served on your own site.
http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst.html?rebookmark=1
It's strange to see how a relatively lighthearted chuckle at my point about how politicians lie has been transformed into venom on Don's own blog. I made no accusations or judgements about his own political beliefs until he started refering to me as "asshat." And yet he accuses others (Rich, clearly. Rob, maybe. I have no idea if he's accusing me.) of hate transference in discussion with him.
I'm not sure whether I could fairly say I hate Bush. I don't hate him any more than any other politician, certainly. I regard anyone who would choose the pursuit of governmental power as their life's mission as a pretty low form of human.
However, I'm quite sure I hate Don Callaway. Not because of his support of any particular candidate or policy, but simply because he's monstrously rude and unjustly conceited. I might even find myself starting to transfer hatred to Pres. Bush from Don.
One wishes that Mr. Callaway would take a clue from the political blogs he lists on his site. Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green and Megan McArdle would likely offer only a sad shake of the head at his comments here.
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 09:33:55 AM On 09/02/2004 | - Website - |
MoveOn attacks W's Air National Guard service, or more accurately the lack thereof. The claim they promote, that he was AWOL, has not been proven. But it also has not been disproved. And those of us who've been in the military know perfectly well how much paperwork is involved in everything involving one's presence or absence. So the absence of records indicating W's presence is sufficiently suspicious to make MoveOn's position reasonable. Not certain. But definitely well within the realm of the possible.
Contrasted with SBVFT, whose claims have been repeatedly disproved, as you cite above. There's no question these individuals are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Their second ad is, if possible, more inherently dishonest than the first. Through clever editing, they present Kerry's report about the hearings in Detroit and the war atrocities that veterans there reported to Kerry as though Kerry himself was accusing other veterans. Leaving off the first three sentences of Kerry's statement may leave you with a quote that serves your needs, but when those three sentences describe the source of the words that follow then there's no question about the truthfulness of the chosen quote.
Comparable? Equivalent? No. Not even close. Oh, and before somebody invokes Godwin and claims MoveOn ran ads comparing Bush to Hitler, check your facts. That is another dishonest claim from Rove et al, repeated often enough some people actually believe it. MoveOn was running one of their 'get people involved' challenges, and they asked people to submit their own ads. They then left the ads on their website (dozens of them) and let people vote to choose the ones MoveOn would run. The Hitler ads (two of them) were never aired by MoveOn, and the members who voted chose very clearly NOT to air them - they were in last place. But the GOP has claimed MoveOn wrote the ads, and that they were run by MoveOn. Both statements are wrong, and given the context, likely to be deliberate misrepresentations. Certainly when presented with the facts, nobody from the Bush team has withdrawn the absurd claim.
By the way, see here for an interesting comparison between Bush/Kerry and Clinton/Dole: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/22/big_lies_for_bush?mode=PF
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 02:15:14 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2004/08/20/news/opinion/opinion01.txt
(it's a letter to the editor, but the author's been verified by the paper and the Washington Post - he was where he says he was)
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 03:15:47 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
So, what do you guys consider a troll? Someone who curses while disagreeing with you? Or is it someone who would rather tweak your nose than beat the same old tired democratic talking points?
Pfft. You libs cant argue your own viewpoint so you always, always, resort to ad hominem attacks in an effort to exclude whomever goes against your current groupthink. Proof is in this very thread.
You do know what ad hominem attacks are, right? If that's the game you want to play, I'm your guy.
Rob, I think I'll get by OK without any of your respect, and I am quite sure I dont require any of the 'utmost' variety. You sound like a whiny snob, am I right? Or do you just pretend to be a whiny snob with your surely new-and-improved internet personality?
Go sell your superficial horse crap someplace else, I'm all stocked up here.
And I am also pretty sure I will manage to get by without a link from Mr. Byrne. Thanks for injecting that tidbit into the conversation. I'll give you a link, though. I'm nice that way.
Besides, you guys could not feed me even if you wanted. I eat red meat, not sissy finger foods.
I dont do little cliques well. So par-done mwah (thats French for excuse me) if I dont fit in with the conventional wisdom around here. But for everyone else, I'll be serving red meat, medium-rare, at my place.
Those who still have the ability, try to free your mind a little. Like Bob Marley says, "Emancipate your self from mental slavery, only ourselves can free our minds."
Hey Rock, I appreciate the link. But dont feel obligated to keep me linked if it is causing grief with your 'friends.' I'll still keep you linked anyway. I like your site, I just wish you cussed a little bit more.
PS: This troll has been in the 'puter game since 1982 and I have forgotten more about this shit than a lot of you will ever know. Damn, I almost made it through the whole post without cursing.
Posted by Don Callaway At 07:22:20 PM On 08/27/2004 | - Website - |
It's a good thing we have people like you around to keep people like me in line.
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 01:07:49 PM On 08/31/2004 | - Website - |
-rich
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 01:56:12 PM On 09/01/2004 | - Website - |
by the New York Times. It's too late to denounce. The desired effect has already been achieved. Dirty politics doesn't clean up after the fact.
-rich
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 02:26:21 AM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
One more piece of unsolicited advice, then Ill stop ..On the other side of the citizenship coin, one of the common reasons for giving up a US passport used to be income tax. The USA is one of the few countries that require non-resident citizens to file tax returns and pay taxes on a portion of their foreign income. Other countries such as Canada (luckily for me!) do not require citizens to file tax returns if they are not residents. The logic is that if you dont live there, you dont use the government services, and you dont have to pay for them. The US IRS has no such logic ..:) On top of that, a few years ago the US passed a law that states that you cant rescind your US citizenship for tax reasons. Countermeasures, depending on your income: its wise to look into structuring your income to ensure that you dont get taxed twice on income (foreign corporation, etc), just like the big boys do (defense contractors, large corporations, probably Rocks client in Bermuda :)).
If youd like more perspectives on being an American living abroad (I was overseas for five years), let me know.
Posted by At 12:56:36 PM On 09/08/2004 | - Website - |
Bush came out and denounced all of these ads, and called on Kerry to do the same. Guess who's not denouncing them now?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040823/D84L3UO01.html
Posted by Adam Slagle At 10:12:19 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
All I can say is I am glad you or no one like you is in charge of the safety of my family. Asshat. You South Africans sure do carry the mantle when it comes to moral authority--whether you are white or black. How bout you get back in your place now.
Ben, ironic isnt it? But OpenNTF link has been removed. I left the label in the list so I could put a nasty message in the hover. I dont link haters. Besides, OpenNTF is about to be deprecated anyway. Maybe OpenDB2 is more apropos.
Personally, I think most of the complicated issues of the day are complicated becasue we make them so. Or we allow our politiicans to make them so. We need politicians to solve complicated problems. Therfore, it is in the poiticians interest to complicate everything.
Most every problem has a simple solution.
I think we can all rest easily in the knowledge that each of us only has but one vote. I know I find it reassuring.
By Rob's definition, it seems to me that ya'll are the ones trolling here. And, silly me, I am feeding the trolls.
The simpleton has opened a 10 point lead. Mwuhuhuhuh! Looks like 4 more years for Bush.
Posted by Don Callaway At 09:17:31 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Greg At 09:17:19 PM On 08/30/2004 | - Website - |
Rock
Posted by Rock At 05:44:48 PM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
BTW, the link I have to the Rood article is a reprint of the original article from the Tribune in the AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution).
Rock
Posted by Rock At 07:28:02 AM On 08/23/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Ben Poole At 07:08:21 PM On 09/04/2004 | - Website - |
I am not sure what I missed here. Prententious? never, just stating my convictions. Looking down on the others? hardly. Looking down at you and your views? absolutely.
Ain't America great?
Posted by Christopher Byrne At 01:38:51 PM On 09/05/2004 | - Website - |
Sorry, for taking so long to get back to you, I've been busy stydying for the WSAD Servlet and JSP test.
Posted by Don Callaway At 01:12:07 PM On 09/01/2004 | - Website - |
This country was founded on Judea-Christian ideals and beliefs. The founders were smart enough to give the government no authority or control over religion.
Thats how important it was to them. After all, the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Why do you got to try to get other people to support your blatherings on every post?
I dont want to bore Mr Poole any longer, so I concede that you have way more free time on your hands than I do.
The Jesuits must be very disappointed in how you turned out.
Looks like 4 more years for Bush. Ha!
Posted by Don Callaway At 05:53:12 PM On 09/03/2004 | - Website - |
I'm accused of initiating ad hominem attacks to cover up my inability to debate (*snicker*) by the person who launched the first ad hominem attack in this thread (quote: "Get an original idea already.", thus attacking the person instead of the idea, the definition of ad hominum). Verdict: Nope, your ad hominem detector is off by 180 degrees.
I'm being called a whiny snob by somebody who apparently has issues with people who use complicated words (since your dictionary must have gotten lost a couple of decades ago, from thefreedictionary.com: Noun 1. utmost - the greatest possible degree; "he tried his utmost"). Verdict: What a moron. Why am I arguing with someone who can't even understand the words I'm using?
I'm instructed to sell my superficial horse crap somewhere else, because Don is all stocked up. Verdict: Why, yes, you are at that.
FYI, Don, in this newfangled internet thing some of us have been working with for a while, a troll is a person who posts comments online for the sole purpose of aggravating other people, frequently by misrepresenting themselves or their position in the most inflammatory terms possible. Oh, sorry, that's the snobby version, isn't it? In your terms, then, a troll is somebody who's just trying to piss people off. Conventional wisdom for the past 25 years or so has been that the best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore it, while the best way to keep it around is to argue with it. Arguing with a troll is called 'feeding the troll' because the troll lives on argument. Get it, now? Working in the computer industry (sorry, there I go snobbing it up again: 'puter game) since '82, having forgotten more about it than a lot of us will ever know, and you don't even know what a troll is? Verdict: Unlikely, which makes it all the more probable that you really are trolling.
/Really need to stop feeding the troll...
Posted by Rob McDonagh At 10:28:02 PM On 08/29/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 02:59:13 PM On 08/24/2004 | - Website - |