Had It With This $#!T

SPoDE never banned me, but I'm going to comment anyway...

Why do you continue to comment on Mr. Wonderful posts? Ignore him! He isn't funny (at least not in written form). He isn't creative. He never has a point that deserves a serious response. Stop taking the bait. Let Rosemary realize he is a significant "headwind" (in corporate speak) and bench him, whoever he is.

Ignore this galactic idiot and eventually he will go away. QOAE is fun about 95% of the time. I'd rather not have to change bookmarks to banter will all of you good people with whom I often disagree, but with whom I share a desire to debate the issues that affect us all.

It's her blog we all enjoy; let her come to the realization in her own time.

It's no longer what it was. I had hope it was just a phase, but sadly it's a chronic disease. This is a boycott.

The fact that Rose has not condemned this crap in unambiguous terms or done anything to end it, to "distance herself" if you will is what is most disappointing to me.

I have to forcefully agree with EricM. The only thing to kill a beast like Mr. W is to starve him out - permanently.

For me, QOAE stopped being fun quite a while before Mr. W showed up. I still read it, for some reason, but I still read SPoDE too, for that matter. I don't see ever commenting there again.

Rosemary is obviously not going to condemn Mr. W, because she invited him there! She loves his posts because they stir up the crowd in ways she's not able to do anymore. There's no "realization" for her to come to - she loves this crap. She always has, but in the past it's just been easier to ignore.

Rosemary has herself catapulted and defended all sorts of condemnable shit for as long as I've been reading her blog. She's a "Conservative" in the most shallow, slavish and hypocritical meaning of the term. And she's having a rebound fling with the gasbag. She won't be "distancing herself" from him until something better comes along.

I still prefer the mockery. Maybe it's too easy but it's still fun.

Part of the problem, at least from my eyes, is that Rose does indeed not care. Her hit-meter will barely register the difference. That's why I was hoping some combination of shame/outrage/reason would do some good.

Alas, I'm out of ammo and tricks. It's over for me there. But from their perspective, they've either "won" or don't give a damn.

Slightly off topic, but only slightly.

Ara, I'm personally offended by the banner ad on top of your blog endorsing John McCain.
IWH

Apparently for Mark and shep, the issue has been decided. I hope rubyan.com will be just as much fun, but seriously doubt it can provide the diversity of opinion. I'll bookmark your new location, check in regularly, and hopefully comment.

"I have to forcefully agree with EricM. The only thing to kill a beast like Mr. W is to starve him out - permanently."
That is what I was hoping for, a permanent ban on comments for any Mr. W posts. Voice your displeasure with permanent silence. Nothing he types is worth the time of day it requires to construct a cogent argument.

shep, I still hold out hope that you'll come around to seeing that both parties are equally worthy of scorn and are driven by the major media outlets to pander to their (MSM) interests. But, I enjoy our repartee anyway.

Apparently for Mark and shep, the issue has been decided. I hope rubyan.com will be just as much fun, but seriously doubt it can provide the diversity of opinion. I'll bookmark your new location, check in regularly, and hopefully comment.

"I have to forcefully agree with EricM. The only thing to kill a beast like Mr. W is to starve him out - permanently."
That is what I was hoping for, a permanent ban on comments for any Mr. W posts. Voice your displeasure with permanent silence. Nothing he types is worth the time of day it requires to construct a cogent argument.

shep, I still hold out hope that you'll come around to seeing that both parties are equally worthy of scorn and are driven by the major media outlets to pander to their (MSM) interests. But, I enjoy our repartee anyway.

So, everyone appreciated Rosemary's efforts to provide a forum for free speech - and now you're trying to suppress Mr. W.'s free speech by boycotting the site?

Rose lets everyone say their piece, even if SPoDE dismissed their opinions as crap. She's being consistent. The boycotters are not.

Holy crap! I attend my kid's band concert for a couple of hours and this is what I find when I get back?!

What a pleasant surprise!

First things first: Mark, if McCain wants to waste money advertising on my blog, I'm happy to drain his pockets. I haven't seen anything objectionable (e.g., no swastikas) so I'm going to let it be....for now.

As for Rose's blog, I stopped visiting when Jerry K. began rewriting my blog comments. Rewriting comments is worse than sock-puppetry, it's worse than banning commenters, it's worse than deleting their comments.

Once you stoop to that, it turns your blog to pure crap, a veritable stinking pile of dog excrement, if you will. And who wants to be associated with that? Not me.

Anyway -- on a more upbeat note: did y'all see that Childers won the special election in MS-01? That is YOOGE!

Mary:

So, everyone appreciated Rosemary's efforts to provide a forum for free speech - and now you're trying to suppress Mr. W.'s free speech by boycotting the site?

Not sure how walking away from Rose's blog amounts to "surpressing free speech." Can you explain that for me?

He's got the same soapbox he had before I walked away.

Am I missing something here?

Just walking away doesn't amount to suppressing free speech, but "everyone with a sense of decency should merely avoid and shun him as well that blog he's ruined unless and until his sickness is treated -- preferably by amputation" implies that people want to force Mr. W. off the site.

That's not "wrong", but since Rose was being so generous with the free speech, especially towards people that SPoDE was not generous to, it seems she should get the same generosity in return.

But rewriting blog comments is not good.

Yeah, saw the Childers thing. A much more important election than West Gy God. Check the next entry.

Mary, free speech included the choice not to listen. You know, "choice?" You do know how that concept works, right?

Sorry Mary, we cross-posted.

It's not really a speech issue, or a lack of gratitude or friendship with Rose, at least no on my part. It's a hate-game, one I don't want to play and I think demeans rose and her blog. It's not opinion he's sharing, or arguing or defending. It's a sick game to him where he sets the rules and wins because he's the only one who will play anymore.

Come on, Mary. That crap is pretty disgusting. With freedom comes responsibility, and neither one of them is acting very responsible since he started his schtick.

Mary:

people want to force Mr. W. off the site.

Again, I left because Jerry K began re-writing my comments. If you want an example of "supression of free speech," look no further than that.

since Rose was being so generous with the free speech....

Please see my comments above.

Mary: Obviously, choosing not to comment on Mr. W, or leaving entirely as I have done, isn't suppressing or denying anyone anything.

As EricM said, and as I have previously referred to the "writings" of the du Toits, Mr. W's rantings aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. At this point, though, they're inflammatory enough that people still feel the need to respond. Only when that changes will Mr. W find the game not to his liking.

In the end, the problem isn't with Mr. W - it's with Rosemary. My problem with Ann Coulter, for example, is not with Ann. Crazy women are shouting racist inflammatory garbage on street corners all over the world as we speak. But they don't have publishers and journalists and talk radio hosts willing to give them legitimacy and a nationwide platform. She does.

"shep, I still hold out hope that you'll come around to seeing that both parties are equally worthy of scorn and are driven by the major media outlets to pander to their (MSM) interests."

Then. Give. Up. Now. There is absolutely no equivalency between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to governing and, by extension, politics. Democrats actually want to use government to advance social progress and have some clue how to do it. Republicans seek public office to undermine government (i.e. "government is the problem"), especially against its essential role to regulate corporate business and help level the playing field against the moneyed interests.

Your false equivalency is an exact product of "conservative", corporatist, (mostly) Republican indoctrination (you've been brainwashed).

Alright, the gang is just about all here, but this was DPU's idea. Where the hell is that lurker?

Adam, you make a great point. Rose often boasts about the size of her hit-meter. She's the one broadcasting that fool, giving him a forum he never, ever could "earn"

"...this was DPU's idea. Where the hell is that lurker?"

And wasn't he just sure that Mr. Whatanass was just a big joke/parody of "conservative" orthodoxy? What say you Double-plus, still think this guy isn't the exact reactionary throwback he always appeared to be? It's not your fault really, American "conservatives" are barely believable to Americans afflicted with then for more than a generation.

Wow, shep, I've been brainwashed to dislike a political party by that exact party just so that I'll dislike that other party as well? That's fantastic marketing.

I'm not a fan of Mr. W, but I don't think he's a racist. He's just demanding the rights and privileges he thinks he's entitled to. It's a white male conservative thang, you wouldn't understand.

It's basic identity politics, and if you find this kind thing offensive, biased and whiny, that's because identity politics are offensive, biased and whiny. He's certainly not the worst of the lot. Glenn Sacks is unreadable.

Mary, how about just broadening your definition of racist to include offensive, biased and whiny white-male conservatives demanding any sort of privileged entitlements based on their white-maleness?

Bias based on a sense of being entitled to privilege because you are part of the dominant race and gender, who by their sheer majority hold sway over nearly all cultural, wealth and power in this nation -- save for the founding principles of this country that all men (and women) are created equal -- is simply ignorant racism/sexism in it's raw, inexcusable form.

And no, it doesn't work quite the same way in reverse. While there is widespread prejudice among minorities, by virtue of being a minority they cannot impose their will through the ballot box the way white-males can -- with dangerous results and repugnant precedent.

As for Glenn Sacks, just because you can find worse examples of unapologetic prejudice out there doesn't make W any less offensive. Do we really have to break Godwin's Law to make this point?

I've broadcast many fools. I've offered a soapbox to anyone that wanted it. Shep has posted on my frontpage and God knows we hardly ever agree. I've let that deranged nut Kevin D. to post AND Tim was posting with fair regularity.

Anyone that wants a soapbox on my blog is welcome to it. I've welcomed all and that isn't going to change. The only time I would apologize for one of my writers or even my commenters is when they attacked someone's CHILDREN or issued a death threat. SPoDE did that to both Ara and Mark. I deleted the offensive remarks, apologized via email and ripped SPoDE a new asshole publicly and privately.

Everything else has been fair game from Day 1. If you guys don't want to play anymore, that's fine. But I'm not going to stop being an advocate for free speech because you think, wrongly, that someone is a racist. Nothing he's ever written could be construed as racist by a fair and open mind. That's SPoDEish behavior you are all guilty of...in the highest order. Look in the mirror. The last post was a direct attack on liberal media bias, not on African Americans, of course a closed mind will only see what's in their own soul.

I have been liberal baiting since I started blogging 6 years ago, I also post serious stuff. What I do I do for myself and if others enjoy it, I'm glad. If not, then not.

Rose:

Jerry K rewriting blog-comments is God's way of telling you that your blog has become a SPoDE.

The End.

Saying that the aim of the QOAE site is to be "an advocate for free speech" is both laughable and offensive. Its aim is to stir the pot, nothing more or less. In that capacity, it's been spectacularly effective. Mr. W just ratchets things up to the next level. Anyone who is surprised by this "development" hasn't been paying attention. Anyone who believes QOAE is about "discussing issues" is deluded.

Being compared to SPoDE is also both laughable and offensive, but again, just part of the package. From now on, I'll let other people entertain Rosemary by being constantly mocked, insulted and prodded for predictable reactions. But that's just me.

While there is widespread prejudice among minorities, by virtue of being a minority they cannot impose their will through the ballot box the way white-males can -- with dangerous results and repugnant precedent

Mark, conservative white males are not the majority in the country. Numerically, they're a minority.

Women of all races/politics are technically the majority. Your argument, if applied to the actual majority in this country, would imply that feminists are The Man.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but this is just one reason why identity politics in general should be discarded.

Ara. Question.

Had linking on QOAE been disabled, would you have written Kill Whitey all those times? Or did you only do it because you had the link showing someone else said it first??

pardon the rambling of a long time lurker. I'd have chimed in ages ago at QOAE but somewhere along the way my comment account became disabled there. Probably for the best, because between the attacks on Dean, the baiting by W, and Rose's repeated recyling of talking points wrt Obama, I'd probably have contributed very little of genuine substance.

I have to say that W has every right to say what he wants, and Rose has every right to open her doors to all maner of viewpoints. The decision to apply a filter of decency, or quality, or even sanity, on those viewpoints is of course utterly voluntary. I've long wondered why Ara, Shep, et al didn't pack their bags and leave earlier, I guess they had a large balance of sentimental attachment to what QOAE used to be, to burn through first.

All in all, I don't see much difference between the excesses at Dean's blog and the routine at QOAE. Dean has far more diversity of viewpoints at his site, in terms of front page bloggers. Dean has also been exemplary in his restraint since his ill-advised reposting of the news about his breakup with Rose (he'd actually posted the same thing a few days earlier - I talked him into removing it). Rose has attempted to provoke Dean ceaselessly and publicly, but Dean has not said a single word in response. I understand that Rose believes that Glen Sacks' entire rationale for existence is to function as a proxy attack against her from her ex, but Dean's interest in men's issues predates his breakup with her by quite a long time. Overall, I think that a lot of the community rift between the two sites stems from Dean and Rose's own rift and, speaking as a liberal who is admittedly outnumbered in the threads at DW by the conservative mob, I do sincerely wish that the rift could be healed.

Let me be frank. Some of the best discussions I've seen on the issues online have been at DW and QOAE. The QOAE contingent who delivered the highest SNR is pretty much everyone commenting above, ie the protesting-W exiles. But you do the DW community a disservice to ignore the quality that exists there too, and buy into Rose's frame of DW as a pool of pestilence compared to her pristine garden.

I propose a reunion of sorts. I will ask Dean to give accounts at DW for anyone here. The worst he can say is no. But if he says yes, then I think that there's a real chance for some light as well as heat. I ask that you read the frontpage of DW with an open mind and ask yourself, isn't that a place where we can have again that which we used to?

Mary: point taken, and ignored because we all know who "The Man" is. White males still constitute the majority of voters in America and enjoy the overwhelming share of wealth, prestige and power both financially and politically. You got a long way to got baby!

Rose: acknowledged, wrong and ignored.

Jerry:

Had you simply deleted my comments, or banned me outright, or created a dozen sock-puppets to create a phony posse, it would have been less destructive to your blog than what you actually did.

In your effort to protect your sister's blog, you destroyed it.

Aziz:

For me, both DW and QOAE have become weird "through the looking glass" experiences, albeit in different ways. There was a time on both sites where I attempted to engage in some real discussions, but came to realize (too late) that that was not the point of either site. Why should I want to participate in places where I and my points of view are regarded with absolute scorn? Hitting your head against the wall only feels good when you stop.

White males still constitute the majority of voters in America..

Ignoring facts does not make them go away. I was talking about conservative white males. Do you have proof that conservative white males constitute the majority of voters?

Shep, Mr. W is so over-the-top that it was hard to believe that it wasn't a put-on. I was sure it was Tim and Rose playing a practical joke. You gotta admit, if it had been, it would have been pretty damned funny.

As it isn't an act, it's repulsive. Unlike most here, however, I don't so much mind the extreme viewpoints. I have friends who espouse similar rantings, and can I argue them down to a position of mutual respect. But Mr W has all the personal charm of a case of herpes. He's smarmy, smug, pretentious, intellectually lazy, and has that pitiful "I was just joking, what's your problem" passive-aggressive quality. In short, all of the worst qualities of the worst of the right-wing blogosphere. The dregs of the scum, if I may.

I'm not boycotting QOAE, I'm just not reading it anymore. The pond has been polluted, and the tadpoles are all dead.

Aziz - thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I'm done with the train wreck that is Dean Esmay.

Mary - stifling free speech by not listening? Really?

Rose - sorry babe, you know we all love you to smithereens, but that guy is way too much. Good luck with all that.

Ignoring what "facts" Mary? Are you still trying to find a way to defend "W" by insinuating that he is somehow part of an oppressed minority?

He's indefensible and your position is ludicrous. Period.

Ignoring what "facts" Mary? Are you still trying to find a way to defend "W" by insinuating that he is somehow part of an oppressed minority?

I'm asking you to provide numerical, up to date proof that white, conservative males constitute the majority of voters in 2008 America.

Ara,

Sometimes things have to be destroyed and rebuilt to become good again. For the longest time QOAE has been known as the site that house's DW rejects. Maybe it's about time for those folks to find a new sandbox to play in?

I've wanted to ban you for years, just as you probably wanted your comments to be deleted. Rose would not allow either of those scenarios to take place.

Jerry

Jerry:

What will the point of QOAE be when no liberals are there to be baited? It's not much fun shouting down a rain barrel. If there is some other point to QOAE, I'd love to hear what it is.

Mary:

I'm asking you to provide numerical, up to date proof that white, conservative males constitute the majority of voters in 2008 America.

Well, they are a dying breed. What's your point? As someone around here said recently: Attention White Conservative Males. Even if Obama wins, you still will own and control everything.

Jerry:

Sometimes things have to be destroyed and rebuilt to become good again.

You're too young to remember the time when the Pentagon gave the order to "destroy that village to save it." It didn't work so well that time either.

Maybe it's about time for those folks to find a new sandbox to play in?

Fine with me. But whether you ran them off or they left on their own, the end result is identical to another SPoDE: you have a blog with zero respectability and credibility. But then again, even Dean never tampered with someone's comments. He simply deleted the comment or banned them outright.

What you did destroys whatever credibility and trust your audience might have in you. No reasonable person can be sure that you aren't altering their words wholesale to suit your agenda. What's next -- redirecting the links in someone's comments to a porn site?

Jerry, a wrecking ball would have done less damage than you did to your own blog.

Bottom line: you've destroyed your blog. Saving it now will be a tall order.

Of course, why bother? Just register a couple of dozen sock puppets and provide all the comments yourself. Nice. Clean. Easy.

There -- problem solved.

Mary:

conservative white males are not the majority in the country. Numerically, they're a minority.

I know I'll regret pointing this out (because I'm not much interested in the inevitable ensuing discussion) but you're missing the big picture: "conservative white males," with very few exceptions, pretty much describes the entire power structure in this country, past and present.

Government: check.
Business: check.
Military: check.

Am I missing something?

"Wow, shep, I've been brainwashed to dislike a political party by that exact party just so that I'll dislike that other party as well?"

Stick to the point, Eric. I'm not talking about politics, though Democrats still run a cleaner game of it (which is the only reason Republicans ever win office), I mean public policy. Do you really see both parties as equals in their desire and ability to competently run government "of the people, by the people and for the people"?

"Shep, Mr. W is so over-the-top that it was hard to believe that it wasn't a put-on. I was sure it was Tim and Rose playing a practical joke. You gotta admit, if it had been, it would have been pretty damned funny."

I get why you thought that but I guess the reason my bullshit detector didn't go off is that he sounded exactly like the typical whiny, self-centered, self-important conservative type we've come to know so well. As Colbert proves, you need to go way beyond that to actually parody conservatives these days. There's barely a top to their many psychopathologies to go over.

Why register sock puppets?? I'll just wait for you guys to come back.
This isn't the first time you've washed your hands of QOAE. You'll be back. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. You just can't admit it.

Jerry:

I'm confused. Do you want QOAE to "become good again" (translation: everyone leaves and doesn't come back), or do you want your liberal monkeys back so you can throw trash on them for fun? Which is it?

Jerry:

Why register sock puppets?? I'll just wait for you guys to come back.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

In current usage, "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."

Ara, Mark

The point is, Mark said:

While there is widespread prejudice among minorities, by virtue of being a minority they cannot impose their will through the ballot box the way white-males can -- with dangerous results and repugnant precedent

White males like Mr. W. can't impose their will through the ballot box. They are, literally, minorities.

That doesn't mean that they're entitled to victim status (for whatever that cheesy 'status' is worth. It just means that they are in the minority.

shep, this is the same as the "what it can be" versus "what it is" debate, but oh well, I'll type out a reply anyway. There is ample rhetoric to support your position, but I haven't seen any evidence to back it up. Both parties are responsible for a bloated federal government that spends WAY too much money every year (for decades, I'm not talking about a single administration), actively avoid accountability in all but the most superficial scenarios, actively seek celebrity status through "news" television, and are generally out to "get" the members of the other party in whatever compromising manner possible.

The level of play on both sides has fallen far below any standard that would allow me to support either party. There will always be exceptions, but they are hardly a blip on the radar screen at this point in time. Maybe the "change you can believe in" branded candidate this year can make even a small change in the direction of civility, but the last time we had an election without an incumbent we bought the same idea packaged under the "uniter not a divider" brand. How'd that work out for us? (Please, no stolen election stuff I have no desire to head off in that direction if you want to continue this.)

Here's DW and QOAE in a nutshell, so no one has to read either of them ever again.

DEAN'S WORLD

Dean: Black is white, and any fool can see that, if they weren't being given a snow job by the "establishment."

DW Sycophant: Black is *so* white! Thank god someone has the courage to say it. Dean rocks!

DW Apostate: Actually, white is white.

Dean: Get out of here, you traitor. You're banned.

QUEEN OF ALL EVIL

Rosemary: Liberals are stupid, venal dupes. I would spit on them, but laughing at them is funnier and easier.

Liberal: Actually, your hyperbole is stupid, and here's why.

Rosemary/Surrogate: How *dare* you speak to me that way! For shame!

I think that about covers it.

Excellent summation, Adam.

"(Please, no stolen election stuff I have no desire to head off in that direction if you want to continue this.)"

For some reason, I get the sense that you are educated enough to understand the profound difference between the motive, governing style and outcome of Democrats versus Republicans so, know I don't.

Jerry: I'll just wait for you guys to come back. This isn't the first time you've washed your hands of QOAE. You'll be back.

This is the first time that I have. And I'm not reading it anymore because I end up feeling like crap too often when I do. Why would I go back to reading it unless that changes?

That's fine, shep, it was running a usual path for our discussions. As always, I enjoy the mental exercise even if I disagree. I just disagree with "and ability" as well as "and outcome".

BTW, I meant my original post about you to be jovial, but that is so hard to properly convey in a blog comment. Maybe someone will fix that in the future. My vote is for color coding for text comments. Until then, I'll try to be more diligent about using fake coding like /sarcasm or /joke.

Until our next exchange, be well.

My vote is for color coding for text comments.

**Sniff-o-blog**? **Smell-o-net**?

That way you could instinctively filter out comments that just stink -- like this one? [Winkie Insertion Point]

Mark, don't miss your opportunity to corner the market on scratch and sniff LCDs. Just imagine the upside in the porn surfer market. Can I get pre-IPO shares?

Sorry, forgot to add "/somewhere between LOL and ROFLMAO".

Ara,
But then again, even Dean never tampered with someone's comments. He simply deleted the comment or banned them outright.

That is simply false. Dean has on many occasions changed and/or completely rewritten comments he disagreed with. He stopped doing that and became ban happy but he often tampered with comments written by others. And not just redirecting links - actually rewriting their words. THAT was not done to you.

Adam, Double, Mark and Shep: Sorry you feel the way you do. I still love ya though.

To Aziz: You are naive if you think that Glenn Sacks presence on that blog is simply because Dean is a longtime advocate of men's rights. You do not know Dean. You know only what Dean allows you to know. You have no clue as to what has been going on behind the scenes...because I highly doubt you'd be friends with and defend the man, if you REALLY knew.

Go on and believe the fantasy that is poor misunderstood Dean. Father of the Year and Champ husband with a nasty ex-wife that left him and took the kids - all because he "earned" a college degree. Thank God for Glenn Sacks!

So that's your defense Rose? Not as bad as SPoDE? Weak tea indeed. He's a vile, deliberately irredeemable POS. Pretty low bar you set there. I think you can do better than that.

Like, ah ... not as bad as the KKK when they formed lynch mobs: we just don't let black go to the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, eat at the same restaurants or use the same facilities, so that's an unfair comparison.

We're not as bad as the Nazis gassing jews: we just don't hire them, unfair, unfair.

Not as bad as SPoDE.

Whatever.

Perhaps that's an essential difference between the conservative versus liberal world-view. See, we see the world as it is and aspire to a better ideal. You guys also are capable of seeing the world as it is, and insist that's good enough and make the most of it. It's the essence of conserving versus progress, conservatives vs. progressives, right v. left.

We also think you are better than that, better than what you are and how you and your associates have administered your site. Even in the midst of the dramatic changes you are dealing with, you're better than what you can now only aspire to, you can become something you might have thought impossible before. Something noble, something better than you can even imagine today.

But you don't get there by defending where you are and where you were. You have to acknowledge it, reject it and move on to a better place. You may be doing that personally, but your blog went in the wrong direction. You ignored all warnings and it's now going to be that much harder to bring it back, with or without us, to even something even close to what it was. Whistling past its grave is more SPoDEish than Rosey. You're better than that.

Or so we thought.

Mark,

I was referring to my brother redirecting Ara's links. Nothing more nothing less. I was simply correcting Ara's assertion that SPoDE was better than Jerry.

As to the rest, you are correct. My life is evolving and so is my blog. I don't claim to be perfect but reading all the comments here it's clear some of you have had a problem with my blog for a lot longer than the last month or so that Mr. Wonderful has been periodically posting.

You don't like him, you think he's a racist and/or worse. He's not but clearly my say so isn't going to convince you. That's not why I'm here. I'm only here to say that I heard all of you. You are disappointed in me, my blog and the way I choose to run it. Of course, not one of you (except Shep a few times) has taken me up on my offer to hand you the keys to add more diversity to the frontpage.

So, what I have now is a conservative blog with conservative writers that range from moderate to far right. I cannot write from the left because I do not think from the left. Until I can get some lefties to join it will be a hard right slant. My door is open and always will be. That is never going to change.

Rose:

Don't blame me for not "taking you up on your offer" to add more diversity. It isn't about me. It's about you and the esteem and respect that you pay your readership.

You destroyed your own blog.

I'm not blaming you, Ara. I was merely correcting you. I also don't think my blog is destroyed anymore than my life is. My blog is about ME. I respect those who respect me. Those who don't...usually leave.

Rosemary:

Don't correct me; I'm well aware of what Jerry did and you should be too.

And get off your pity-pot, OK? All you're proving is that you can dish it out but you can't take it.

It appears you didn't know what Dean did. So the correction was needed. As to the rest...I'm here talking to you while you fled with your tail between your legs. You can't take it, I can.

"BTW, I meant my original post about you to be jovial, but that is so hard to properly convey in a blog comment. Maybe someone will fix that in the future. My vote is for color coding for text comments."

You're new here (I had to have it explained to me). When in doubt: "IWH" ;^)

Rosemary:

"Can't take it"? What a crock of shit. Why exactly should we "take it" from you or anyone else? Since your site exists to ridicule and taunt people who think differently than you do, it's the people who stay who have a problem, not the people who leave.

It appears you didn't know what Dean did.

It appears you way-overestimate how much I care about it.

I'm here talking to you while you fled with your tail between your legs. You can't take it, I can.

Jaysus, Rosemary, you sound like one of that pathetic, homeless, street people begging and haranguing anyone who they can make eye contact with.

You know I have half a mind to disemvowel your comments when you get like this. What is disemvoweling?

In the fields of Internet discussion and forum moderation, disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling), which appears to model the word disemboweling, is the removal of vowels from text either as a method of self-censorship, or as a technique by forum moderators to censor unwanted posting, such as spam, internet trolling or rudeness. The net effect of disemvoweling text is to render it illegible or legible only through significant cognitive effort, thus suppressing unwanted comments and discouraging such comments from being made in future.

Had I disemvoweled your last comment, it would have read like this:

t apprs y ddn't knw wht Dn dd. S th crrctn ws ndd. s t th rst...'m hr tlkng t y whl y fld wth yr tl btwn yr lgs. Y cn't tk t, I cn.

So you never know.

Okay, that read like Matoko and gave me a headache.

Bottom line rose, for me anyway, is that your boyfriend is a one-trick race-baiting pony. Plus his interpersonal skills and debate style are beyond redemption. I don't want to engage with that let alone put my name and reputation along side it.

I don't interact at your blog for the pithy posts you write, I go there for the discussion. With him involved it's like someone let go with a giant smelly fart that not only ends the discourse, it makes everyone leave. And he lets it rip deliberately, actually wanting that result.

There's no meeting of the minds with him, his is closed off -- at least that's how he writes. It seems like mere amusement to him, like setting fire to a cat's tail. Destructively juvenile.

Enough is enough. I won't even get into Jerry's antics, that's been covered.

Rule one of communication, before you even tailor a message to be effective in the chosen medium, is to consider your audience. Consider the fact that your audience Rose, is righteously pissed and alienated.

Geez. Had I known changing a couple links would have gotten rid of the filth on Rose's site, I would have done it long ago.

Enjoy the echo chamber, dickhead. If you're goal was to emulate SPoDE's "sucess," Mission Accomplished.

Thr r stll plnt f thghtfl lbrls t thr t ngg n cvl dscrs. Y gys r bnch f whck jb rcsts WTHT CL, s 'm gld y dcdd t rtrt t yr wn CH chmbr. Jst s y knw, y stpd pc f sht: Th xct mmnt y drppd th P wrd gnst m fml, s th d y bcm n nm. Yr wrds mn bsltl nthng t m. n fct, hp y chk n thm n d..

Rose: I don't claim to be perfect but reading all the comments here it's clear some of you have had a problem with my blog for a lot longer than the last month or so that Mr. Wonderful has been periodically posting.

Not true. The liberal-baiting was above-board, and I didn't mind it at at all, as long as you could take what you dished out. You're as tough as nails, so that wasn't an issue.

But Mr W is an issue. It goes well beyond baiting, and into out-and-out nastiness. I can do without that, and as he's driven off most of the regulars, the blog has lost almost all of its appeal for me.

You might well ask yourself why this has happened. Mr W seems to be patting himself on the back and saying that the issue is jealousy over his relationship with you. I can see that idea appealing to you, but (a) sorry, but it just ain't so, (b) what kind of a person jumps to that particular conclusion rather than entertain the possibility that they may have been offensive (hint:DE for example), and (c) the majority of dissent occurred before your relationship became public knowledge.

Jerry: Geez. Had I known changing a couple links would have gotten rid of the filth on Rose's site, I would have done it long ago.

Grow up. This isn't grade school.

DPU,

Tell that to the disemvoweler's, Reitmeisters Rubyan & Adams.

"...what kind of a person jumps to that particular conclusion rather than entertain the possibility that they may have been offensive...

"Grow up. This isn't grade school."

They're into self-justifying rationalization now and, as we all know, conservatives are very, very good at it - they have to be. You won't get through to them.

Mark:

What the hell is a "Reitmeister?" Does he think he just called us Nazis or something?

P.S. Notice how I got top billing. IJS.

Tell that to the disemvoweler's, Reitmeisters Rubyan & Adams.

And the grade-school arguments continue. C'mon Jerry, I know you're better than this.

Riding Master?

Jerry, that's so 80's S&M of you. Should I bring my spurs and whip?

OK, now you're just freaking me out.

Mark: I'm sure you and Ara are smart enough to figure it out. I'm certain this wouldn't be the first time you took each other for a spin. If that were the case, I would have called you Reitjungfrauen.

I guess QOAE personnel can poison anyplace they go, huh? Sad.

What a dummer polnischer Schweinbumser. Or if the skurwysyn doesn't get that, how about Odurzona polska świnia ficker. Hope fully he's groks that and will just odpierdolić.

To Aziz: You are naive if you think that Glenn Sacks presence on that blog is simply because Dean is a longtime advocate of men's rights.

ok, either I am naive or you are paranoid. That seems fair enough. Maybe a little of both.

You do not know Dean. You know only what Dean allows you to know. You have no clue as to what has been going on behind the scenes...because I highly doubt you'd be friends with and defend the man, if you REALLY knew.

OK, I will interpret this as a compliment of sorts.

Look, none of what went on between you and Dean is my business, and Dean at least has (except for one lapse) chosen to keep it private. Since you may think I am blindly loyal, I will say that there are things I wouldn't forgive him for, like cheating on you, or being consistently and violently abusive, etc. But for me to even know about those kind of things, would require me to be a hostage to your private lives in a sense. I don't want to know, and I don't need to know - my friendship with dean and acquaintance with you exists on the INternet in the sole context of the blog communities. I suppose if I were to meet Dean (or you) in person there would be no such firewall. But until then, invoking unknown events in your private life as proof that Dean Very Bad Man Very Bad - while simultaneously (and falsely) accusing him of dragging your personal affairs public, just carries no cred with me. You can label me naive and that's your right to believe and interpret. But I'm not ditching Dean on your say so.

And the same applies to Ara, shep and crew, who have internalized their concept of Dean's blog as some icon of vapidity, when in fact that blog has a far more diverse stable of writers on the front page than QOAE (as Rose readily admits). You all gripe and moan about SPoDE this and that but have you ever had anything to say about a post of mine? Willow's? John Burgess'? Ali Eteraz? You'd think it was just the Dean and Glenn show over there but they write 10% of the content. From what I see, rubyan.com is not much different from QOAE in being an insular environment where everyone agrees to hate the same Other. (I am scathing, but I also respect you highly, Ara, Mark, shep etc. Don't mistake my critique for a personal attack).

Go on and believe the fantasy that is poor misunderstood Dean. Father of the Year and Champ husband with a nasty ex-wife that left him and took the kids - all because he "earned" a college degree. Thank God for Glenn Sacks!

Well, since none of the above is even close to what I think, I don't know how to respond.

And the same applies to Ara, shep and crew, who have internalized their concept of Dean's blog as some icon of vapidity, when in fact that blog has a far more diverse stable of writers on the front page than QOAE (as Rose readily admits).

Honestly Aziz, I don't read his blog anymore.

And for the record, I've got a pretty good idea of Dean-the-man having worked with him; we met as instructors at a computer learning center in suburban Detroit approx. 10 years ago. So I knew him long before he launched his blog. Also, I've socialized with Dean & Rosemary on more than one occasion.

You all gripe and moan about SPoDE this and that but have you ever had anything to say about a post of mine?

Unfortunately, that's impossible as I do not have the ability to leave comments there.

Ara, you do have the advantage of knowing Dean, but I was really talking about the blog as a whole now, of which Dean is only one part. All I was asking was that you take a fresh look.

As far as being able to leave comments, I might be able to do something about that, but its not that critical. I've been reading QOAE for about 9 months now and my comment account was suspended for some reason a while back too. I cant comment at QOAE but I still think its worth reading - though with all of you exiles gone, its been pretty dead there of late.

"And the same applies to Ara, shep and crew, who have internalized their concept of Dean's blog as some icon of vapidity..."

That's not really true. I left Dean's (of my own accord) when it became apparent that Dean was unable/unwilling to argue politics honestly and/or fairly, e.g., banning people seemingly because they trounced his argument fair and square. Otherwise, it was often interesting, if contrarian to the point of silliness, and relentlessly politically biased against Democrats and genuine liberals in general.

Otherwise, I don't spend much time on blogs where I seldom learn anything new - QOAE being one exception because the conversation is sometimes fun and I always like to keep an eye on the "conservative" narrative.

Aziz:

I've been reading QOAE for about 9 months now and my comment account was suspended for some reason a while back too.

Go figure. I quit over there because Jerry was re-writing my blog comments. I think you got the better deal.

As for reading Dean's blog again, maybe I'll give it a second look.

Shep:

I always like to keep an eye on the "conservative" narrative.

You ought to try reading Ron Coleman's blog then.

"You ought to try reading Ron Coleman's blog then."

I do from time to time. But it's really the "libertarian" narrative which I find a bit too cramped and abstract for real life in the 21st Century and, from a political perspective, almost irrelevant.

Shep, sorry - i thought you were one of the banned :) I may have started at DW after most f you had your falling out, or thereabouts. I think Dean has hid blind spots, but so do I, and most everyone. But Dean is not the only one at DW - and there certainly is a right-wing bias in comments, but that can easily be ameliorated by having more liberals participate, which is exactly what I am after here. I think that you, Ara, Mark etc would bring a lot of SNR. I do my bit but I pretty muc get drowned out and lately havent had much interest in sticking around for the one sided fights. As a result a lot of the potential of the interesting topics we do discuss is wasted, even if one commentor fights the good fight. For an excellent example, see Scott's post about freedom of speech and Willow's measured dissent. I've seen plenty of threads on this at QOAE and I think that each of you three in particular would add a lot to that debate.

Ara, I think a comment is indeed sacred and should not be modified in any way. Jerry seemed to be genuinely motivated by his (misinformed, ignorant) fear of a "google bomb", however, so I don't think it was malicious. Arguably, disemvoweling is just as much a violation as editing the link. I prefer to simply ignore trolls than engage them, try to silence them via banning, or other modifications, because their failure to get a rise drives them the most nuts, with least effort on my part.

"I do my bit but I pretty muc get drowned out and lately havent had much interest in sticking around for the one sided fights. As a result a lot of the potential of the interesting topics we do discuss is wasted, even if one commentor fights the good fight."

So it is; so shall it be written. I feel your pain, Aziz. That's why most of us (who weren't banned) moved on a long time go.

I should also note one other thing I noticed a long time ago (not even starting at DW): what really makes these conversations and topics "wasted" is that "conservatives" can't really address your arguments so what ends up happening is two different conversations happening in the same space. Liberals make their reality-based and usually factually supported arguments and "conservatives" throw out their red-herrings and non-sequiturs in response. That may go farther in explaining your sense of dissasisfaction with the experience than simply being outnumbered