Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Paul Purged from Pajamas Poll
Commenter "jf" notes in the post below that Pajamas Media has eliminated Ron Paul from its weekly online straw poll. This is odd, considering that Paul had a 2-1 lead over his nearest competitor in last week's poll, and came in the second the week before.
Pajamas Media says it's implementing a new policy where only candidates who garner one percent or more of the vote in the previous month's Gallup poll are eligible for its online poll. But Paul wasn't listed as an option in Gallup's last poll. I don't know Gallup's reason for not including him. But even if Gallup's people don't find Paul credible, he obviously does have quite a bit of credibility with Pajamas Media's readership.
The only other candidate eliminated from the Republican field by the new policy is former senator Fred Thompson, who hasn't even announced.
Seems like a strange policy that eliminates the previous week's top vote-getter. It's even stranger when you consider the fact that the only real use of a straw poll from Pajamas Media would be to determine which candidates might be resonating with the blogosphere. On the right, the blogosphere skews libertarian. So Paul's ascendancy makes perfect sense. Hiding the fact that he's popular with the Internet right robs the poll of its only real utility.
Taking Paul off the list of options I guess makes the unscientific poll look more credible, in that its results are vaguely similar to those of national, more scientific polls. But you have to wonder why PM's editors would even bother with an online poll if they're just going to switch policies when they get results they don't like.
NOTE: Some commenters have noted that some Paul supporters had cheated the poll with bots and artificial voting. True. But according to the PM post on the "ballot stuffing," those votes were deducted from the candidate totals, and Paul still did very well. What's more, it isn't as if PM purged Paul from the poll to punish his supporters for their malfeasance. Supporters of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney did the same thing, and both of those names are still in the poll.
ed|2.20.07 @ 9:35AM|#
I'm thinking his purging had something to do with the relentless ballot-stuffing of his supporters? Just a guess. I really have no idea.
|2.20.07 @ 9:39AM|#
And might "ed" have any proof of the relentless ballot stuffing,
since I'm a supporter and I'd never even heard of this poll before
this blog-post, so I'm dubious. I do get Paul's occasional campaign
emails, and none have mentioned this poll, BTW...
JMR
|2.20.07 @ 9:44AM|#
I guess they should also take Bill Richardson off. There is no way he polls that high in the "real" world. He should, but he doesn't.
|2.20.07 @ 9:47AM|#
The Onion is just too good...
"Child-Safety Experts Call For Restrictions On Childhood
Imagination"
"By constantly reminding kids that they're human children with no
magical skills, you ensure that they will live a long life"
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/child_safety_experts_call_for
semm|2.20.07 @ 9:49AM|#
Yeah, some jerks where stuffing the ballots. There a post on PJ media about it. Someone at a 'major airline manufacturer' was submitting a large number of votes.
|2.20.07 @ 9:51AM|#
Unbelievable. I'm going to have to read Pajamas Media even less than the never I read it now.
Dave W.|2.20.07 @ 9:59AM|#
Pajamas Media says it's implementing a new policy where only
candidates who garner one percent or more of the vote in the
previous month's Gallup poll are eligible for its online poll. But
Paul wasn't listed as an option in Gallup's last poll.
It is always interesting when internet sites try to articulate
reasons for banning people. The reasons they come up with never
withstand much scrutiny.
Better to ban and not give a reason, probly.
Christopher Monnier|2.20.07 @ 10:15AM|#
This issue should be turned into a major controversy against Pajamas Media. It's blatant political bias.
Meanwhile Over at Inactivist.n|2.20.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Ecumenical, pro-liberty, practical Inactivist
Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators
and will be published after approval.
lol
mediageek|2.20.07 @ 10:44AM|#
"It is always interesting when internet sites try to
articulate reasons for banning people. The reasons they come up
with never withstand much scrutiny."
I dunno, dave, being off your meds seems like a pretty good reason
to ban someone to me.
Dave W.|2.20.07 @ 10:49AM|#
I dunno, dave, being off your meds seems like a pretty good
reason to ban someone to me.
I can't help it if site admin's of places like Pajamas Media,
Grylliade or Inactivist.net are off their meds. Why should that
entitle them to be arbitrary and try to micromanage people's
opinions?
|2.20.07 @ 11:06AM|#
"Why should that entitle them to be arbitrary and try to
micromanage people's opinions?"
Antilibertarian bias. No other explanation fits in this case. And
has anyone else noticed the relative levels of TV exposure to the
best Democrat analogy to Dr. Paul -- Dennis "Constant Coverage"
Kucinich? I have yet to see Paul's name or face on the television
ONCE this election-season, but I've seen Dennis maybe a dozen times
on various networks. Can anything but blatant media bias explain
this? Not in my world...
JMR
|2.20.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Yes this is frustrating, but it's important to remember that PJM is a Guliani-shilling garbage blog with a smaller readership than this site and an obvious agenda.
disinter|2.20.07 @ 11:19AM|#
It was impossible to vote for him twice, at least for me. I
don't buy the "ballot stuffing" nonsense.
PJM is bought and paid for by Guliani.
ed|2.20.07 @ 11:24AM|#
It's getting so you can't trust online polls
anymore....
Well, at least you can trust YouTube comments:
Rolf68: Awesome!
booger11: Dude!
Amy989: You rawk.
Brlfq: lol
Rolf68: No, YOU rawk!
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.20.07 @ 11:40AM|#
PJ Media turned Ron Paul into a newt.
Perhaps we should use a holy hand grenade.
|2.20.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Well, there are a couple of sites that are part of Pajamas Media
that I won't be visiting anymore.
Hey PM, taking your cues from Gallup is incredibly lame. You
suck!
MikeT|2.20.07 @ 12:01PM|#
PJM is largely a sanitized service anyway so this is to be expected. They are behaving more and more like the very "MSM" that so many of their contributors have derided. There's nothing new under the sun.
|2.20.07 @ 12:45PM|#
"Yeah, some jerks where stuffing the ballots."
OK, but could they spell "were"?
grylliade|2.20.07 @ 1:47PM|#
I can't help it if site admin's of places like Pajamas Media, Grylliade or Inactivist.net are off their meds. Why should that entitle them to be arbitrary and try to micromanage people's opinions?
I don't know about the other places, because they're run for a
different reason. But grylliade.org isn't run as a place for
political discussions. It's meant as a community, a place for
people to have fun. Discussion of politics is only tangential to
the purpose of the site, insofar as people enjoy discussing it.
Having you posting there wouldn't be fun for anyone except for you,
and would indeed decrease the fun of a great many people
(myself included). Being as I'm the one paying for the site and
spending my time running it, that's a consideration.
And don't flatter yourself that it's because I'm afraid of your mad
debating skillz, that you would do too much to challenge my
opinions. I've had that done quite a bit in my life; one of my
philosophy professors did more to challenge my beliefs in a
semester than a platoon of Dave W.'s could in a lifetime. I ended
high school as a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and conservative
Christian; I'm now very liberal in my social and religious beliefs.
My friends are all Democrats; they challenge my beliefs every
weekend. I've even come to believe that anthropogenic global
warming has a sound scientific basis. So trust me, I'm not afraid
of anyone challenging my beliefs.
As I've said before, it's nothing personal. I don't hate you, nor
even dislike you. I dislike the way you discuss things online, but
that isn't the same as disliking you. But I'm fairly sure
that, were you to actually want to post on grylliade.org, and were
I to let you, you'd be banned in pretty short order. If thinking
that it's some sort of conspiracy against you, or that you're the
victim here, helps you get up in the morning, then feel free; it's
no skin off my nose. But the fact remains that, no matter what your
motivations are, you act like a troll, and so I'm going to treat
you as a troll.
I'm well aware that you probably have no desire to post on
grylliade.org; I don't flatter myself that it's the most happenin'
place on teh Interwebs. But it is a community, and you
would be disruptive to it. And that's all there is to it.
Jim Henley|2.20.07 @ 2:22PM|#
By utter and absolute coincidence the famously prowar PJM banned the only strongly antiwar Republican from their straw poll after he won it. Who knows how such a thing could happen.
Grotius|2.20.07 @ 2:38PM|#
grylliade,
But grylliade.org isn't run as a place for political
discussions.
Is this why political discussions dominate the commentary
there?
Dave W.|2.20.07 @ 3:21PM|#
But I'm fairly sure that, were you to actually want to post
on grylliade.org, and were I to let you, you'd be banned in pretty
short order.
So, David, it is the "why" that I don't understand. The best clues
I can find in your explanation are "disruptive" and "act like a
troll." But I don't even know what that means.
In ordinary conversation, being disruptive means that you interrupt
speakers or otherwise claim too much of the floor. But with typed
conversation, you cannot interrupt, that is not how these boards
work -- they don't work like verbal speech -- I cannot break into
the middle of somebody's reply -- a person's reply starts when they
start typing and ends when they hit "Submit Comment" and there is
not a darn thing I can do in between. Even if being disruptive
means too many responses in a single thread, there can be standards
on that (applied to all of course), so that nobody falls afould of
expectation. Frankly, when my comments are responsive to new things
that other people said (and I think they generally are), then it
would make sense that my comments take up a lot of the thread. Sort
of like how Socrates questions take up a lot of his books. Was
Socrates being disruptive because he commandeered half the
dialogue?
"Troll" is even more mysterious to me. I want social security cut.
A lot. I want the military cut. A lot. Ergo: I am a small-el
libertarian, regardless of the fact that I may be sympathetic to
some (and certainly not all) forms of government regulation. How
could other people of a libertarian bent consider me a troll. It
seems like you are using "troll" as a synonym for "contrarian" best
as I can make out. This is considered a bad thing in libertarian
circles?
Ultimately, I think that "troll" means that I draw a lot of
complaints from a lot of other posters. It is like being voted off
Survivor Island. the democratic majority decides who is worthy of
posting and not. And once they decide, you get banned on that basis
(or, in this case, pre-emptively banned).
Well, frankly, if that is what you are really about here (hang on,
I am about to sound like your old professor): you are wrong and
should change. People's speech shouldn't be suppressed because they
are unpopular -- not by the government and not by you. Sure, you
have the power to suppress my speech. I don't question that. I am
just saying that you are exercising your admitted power in a bad
way here. Since neither of us dislikes the other, it is not too
late.
|2.20.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Okay, I know I should know this, but who's Ron
Paul?
A one-hit-wonder transvestite from the '90s. I'm not sure why he or
she is suddenly getting a lot of attention again. Maybe there was
something on an episode of Robot Chicken?
|2.20.07 @ 4:04PM|#
TPG,
I just saw Spamalot--I was surprised to see the duck-witch
non-dichotomy scene excised. Tsk, tsk.
The powers that be in the GOP rather dislike limited government
thinking, while recognizing that plenty of their number actually
have some libertarian leanings. Thus, frequent and violent purging
is necessary.
Lee|2.20.07 @ 4:28PM|#
"The best clues I can find in your explanation are "disruptive"
and "act like a troll." But I don't even know what that
means."
That pretty much explains why you would be both if you have no idea
what that means.
|2.20.07 @ 6:38PM|#
Ron Paul sounds nice to me. I am no expert.
I know you guys like him, but the he could never be elected.
I don't say this because he is to libertarian or anything. His name
just sounds too much like "Rue Paul" (sp?) the cross-dresser from
Atlanta. I don't have anything against cross-dressers (Atlanta is
another story), and I would prefer an out-n-out cross dresser to a
closeted one, but I just don't think people are going to be willing
to vote for a person whose name remindsa them of a really tall,
obnoxious cross-dressinng black man.
|2.20.07 @ 7:34PM|#
I can't help it if site admin's of places like Pajamas
Media, Grylliade or Inactivist.net are off their meds. Why should
that entitle them to be arbitrary and try to micromanage people's
opinions?
Have you considered the fact that their blogs belong to THEM, not
YOU? I seem to recall having this conversation with you before, no?
If you don't like the way they run their blogs, don't post there.
It's teh American way.
Dave W.|2.20.07 @ 8:10PM|#
It's teh American way.
I respectfully disagree. I think free speech is the American way.
Speech controlled by business owners is the Japanese way.
|2.20.07 @ 8:37PM|#
I respectfully disagree. I think free speech is the American
way. Speech controlled by business owners is the Japanese
way.
I agree with crimethink and not you, Dave, but that was really
funny. Please don't tell me that you are one of the many incredibly
ignorant Americans that think that the first amendment applies to
businesses, individuals, etc. You do know that it's only a
restriction on the government, don't you?
Dave W.|2.21.07 @ 12:38AM|#
Please don't tell me that you are one of the many incredibly
ignorant Americans that think that the first amendment applies to
businesses, individuals, etc.
I think the First Amendment applies legally in the public skewlz,
but only teleologically to D. Watz
grylliade|2.21.07 @ 1:42AM|#
Ultimately, I think that "troll" means that I draw a lot of complaints from a lot of other posters. It is like being voted off Survivor Island. the democratic majority decides who is worthy of posting and not. And once they decide, you get banned on that basis (or, in this case, pre-emptively banned).
And see, this is why the signal-to-noise ratio is so low in most
places on the Internet. Trolls think that they have as much right
as others to post on forums; bad commentary drives out good. If the
majority of people on grylliade.org are happier without you there,
then I think that constitutes sufficient justification. We're
weighing the happiness of one person (you) against the happiness of
about fifty people.
How could other people of a libertarian bent consider me a troll. It seems like you are using "troll" as a synonym for "contrarian" best as I can make out. This is considered a bad thing in libertarian circles?
OED definition of a troll: "A person who posts deliberately
erroneous or antagonistic messages to a newsgroup or similar forum
with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective
response."
I would personally leave out the "deliberately." I'm more concerned
with results rather than motives. You are constantly posting
erroneous messages, to which you will brook no correction. Whether
you intend it or not, your posting style is quite often
antagonistic. And it often elicits a hostile or corrective
response.
Maybe you're the innocent victim in all of this. Maybe you don't
mean to be a troll. But considering that you know what
bothers others about your posting, and yet you refuse to even take
under consideration that they might be right (this despite your
oft-repeated mantra of "teaching" us) - this suggests to me that
you would be more trouble than you're worth as a poster.
Trolls often play the "I'm a victim" card. They try to appeal to a
moderator's or admin's sense of fairness, in pointing out that
others often provoke them or somesuch. I don't think that you're
doing this deliberately (if you are, then I commend you on your
skill). But I don't much care. If it's innocent, it's still not
going to change.
People's speech shouldn't be suppressed because they are unpopular -- not by the government and not by you. Sure, you have the power to suppress my speech.
Really? And how am I doing that? I'm restricting your ability to
speak wherever you please, which is not the same as restricting
your speech. You can't come into my house and start yelling at me,
calling my wife a whore and telling me that you're going to kick my
ass. Even if I invited you in, I would be well within my rights to
boot you out on the street without a second thought. Likewise, you
have no right, legal or natural, to come to a site that I maintain
and set the standards for (however loose they may be) and start
posting whatever you like. The fact that you're arguing with me
here suggests that if I were to allow you to post, you would try to
play the "free speech" card if I told you to play by the rules. I'm
not interested in semantic games. I'm interested in running a site
where people can joke around and have fun, and discuss things that
are important to them, with a high signal-to-noise ratio.
If you haven't noticed, I don't ban people just because I disagree
with them. There are a number of atheists there, with whom I
disagree strongly about the existence of God. I'm probably a little
less blasé about corporate infringements of rights than some others
there. I disagree with Jennifer about Peak Oil. I could go on and
on. If all you would do is challenge my beliefs, there'd be no
problem. But for all intents and purposes you are a troll, and have
proven yourself so on several sites. I'm not interested in trying
to reform you, and I doubt I could anyways.
I think the First Amendment applies legally in the public skewlz, but only teleologically to D. Watz
So you think that I have some sort of obligation to curtail my
enjoyment and that of others in a site that I pay for and run so
you can have free speech?!?
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 6:56AM|#
Dave W.,
If you saw the large number of threads dedicated to discussions
regarding yourself you'd realize that a number of folks at
grylliade aren't keen on you. Whoever is in the right, all you'd
likely get is a lot of grief there.
Dave W.|2.21.07 @ 7:33AM|#
OED definition of a troll: "A person who posts deliberately
erroneous or antagonistic messages to a newsgroup or similar forum
with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective
response."
The people who respond to me do this. I don't. They are the trolls
under your proposed definition. I am not. Ban them. Not me,
then.
Oh, and btw, my mesages are not "erroneous." (except maybe spelling
and grammar sometimes, but I don't think that is what you
meant.)
What you propose as your definition of troll is not your operative
definition, grylliade. Your operative definition of troll is that
Survivor Island definition of troll. Your definition of troll is
the one the ancient Greeks used when they made Socrates drink
Hemlock. Your definition of troll is the one that was used by the
people who decided to nail up Jesus. Your definition of troll is a
poor one, but it is not to late for you to take corrective action
because I am likely to be with us for a long time, unlike those
other catz.
So you think that I have some sort of obligation to curtail my
enjoyment and that of others in a site that I pay for and run so
you can have free speech?!?
Yes, I think that is the responsible thing for you to do as a
libertarian. No one can force you to do it, of course. I can only
persuade you.
|2.21.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Dave, sweetie,
A website costs what? 30 bucks a year + bandwidth?
If you so desperately want to make your voice heard, why not just
set up your own forum? then you can have all the teaching moments
you want.
Grylliade wants a place for people that interest him to hang out.
Evidently, he not only does not find you interesting, but he finds
your conversations make it more difficult to attract people that
interest him. As the owner, it's his right to decide who posts on
his property.
He's not executing you. He's not shutting you up. He's merely
telling you to take your soap-box elsewhere. You are welcome to
homestead your own section of the web, or find someone else who
will provide you with a spot out of charity.
Dave W.|2.21.07 @ 11:51AM|#
If you so desperately want to make your voice heard, why not
just set up your own forum? then you can have all the teaching
moments you want.
I want to talk specifically to the people who post at grylliade.
that is what I am trying to persuade grylliade to let me do.
so far, no luck, but I think I may be softening him up.
persuasion is a tricky business. my little brother said that the
post-9-11 generation things that it is "impolite" to argue. I
really, really think he is on to something.
but, the fact of the matter is that it is not impolite to argue. if
I can make grylliade and the other posters at his site understand
that, then I will have achieved a small victory for the cause of
all that is right and good.
lunchstealer|2.21.07 @ 5:23PM|#
but, the fact of the matter is that it is not impolite to
argue. if I can make grylliade and the other posters at his site
understand that, then I will have achieved a small victory for the
cause of all that is right and good.
There's a big difference between argue and preach. Stop trying to
make us understand things, and start discussing things. This isn't
a courtroom, so you don't have to go the adversarial route.
And seriously. Lay off the idea that you're trying to bring
everyone to the side of right and good. Unless you want to get your
own guest spot on the 700 club.
lunchstealer|2.21.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Grotius | February 20, 2007, 2:38pm | #
grylliade,
"But grylliade.org isn't run as a place for political
discussions."
Is this why political discussions dominate the commentary
there?
Mostly it's run as a place where Stevo Darkly can win at the
internets. The political discussions are just there to give him
fodder.
Dave W.|2.21.07 @ 6:45PM|#
There's a big difference between argue and preach. Stop
trying to make us understand things, and start discussing things.
This isn't a courtroom, so you don't have to go the adversarial
route.
This is exactly how I know the terrorists won. Still,
futile as it sometimes seems, I fight back every day of my life.
The fight is lonely. My base of operations is cold and snowy and
loaded with nannystatists. Still, I persevere. Sometimes I am
called names. People think I have lost my mind.
But I have not forgotten how it must have felt that day. To see our
homeland under fire
and her people blown away. I have not forgotten when those towers
fell. We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell. We
shouldn't have worried so about bin Laden. Rather more the old
social freedom we had forgotten.
They played a hell of a lot of the footage on my T.V. Said watching
was extremely important for you and me. It just bred anger with
every play. If it was up to me I'd have embargoed the footage after
the third day.
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight. After 9/11
man I'd have to say what they really wanted was social control. On
the left and on the right.
I have not forgotten how it felt that day. To see our homeland
under fire and a few of her people blown away. I have not forgotten
when those towers fell. Pumped firefighters and cops into a living
hell. We knew without asking that it was only bin Laden. And only
Al Queda. And only the imams. Have you forgotten? Nope, I am
reminded every day by fresh young people like my T. and the
"lunchstealer."
I've been there with the soldiers in 29 Palms who've gone away to
war. And you can bet they played the song this post is based on in
that jukebox, 13 miles away from the next nearest jukebox. Over and
over and louder and drunker. The song reinforced in their minds
just what they're fighting for.
I have not forgotten how it felt that day to see our homeland under
fire and one one hundred thousandth of her people blown away. And
the minds of the other nine hundred thousand nine hundred
ninety-ninths of her people's minds shut like traps. For open and
intellectual minds, the US became a living hell. Cause all anyone
worried about was bin Laden. Have you forgotten? Have you gotten
over it? ORLY? SRSLY?
Have you forgotten the initial mystery surrounding the people
killed? After checking for witnesses, they told us that some went
down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field. they still haven't let
us hear the tape. And it ends 3 minutes before the seismic impact
registered anyway. Have you forgotten about our Pentagon? You know,
that building not protected by anti-aircraft guns. All the loved
ones that we lost and those left to carry on. And then all the
other people who didn't lose loved ones but could maybe relate to
those who did, if persuaded. Don't you tell me not to worry about
freedom of speech, freedom of thought and access to people. Am I
still verboten? Why am I verboten? Is it anything you've really
thought on?
Dave W.|2.21.07 @ 7:20PM|#
my T.
And T. said... nothing you idiots! T.'s dead, he's locked in my
basement.
I'm just playin' laddies, you know I love you.
grylliade|2.21.07 @ 9:18PM|#
What are you talking about, Dave? Remember what?
Don't you tell me not to worry about freedom of speech, freedom of thought and access to people.
Worry all you want. I won't stop you.
Am I still verboten? Why am I verboten? Is it anything you've really thought on?
Yep.
|2.21.07 @ 9:44PM|#
listen grotius.
grylliade is my playground and you know it. nobody mixes
irrelevancy, good cheer, and the occasional actual point with as
much elan as me.
And, on the subject of Dave W:
I've said before, in various venues, that I actually -like- Dave W.
Then again, I've said this about many posters that the H&R
crowd loves to hate (Dan T. being a current one, and Jersey McJones
being one from the past); I think that it can often get to be a bit
of an echo chamber around here; and a bit of status-quo challenging
from people other than joe is a good thing.
I also think that the ad-hominem pile-ons that H&R commenters
treat (particularly liberal) contrarians to tends to generate bad
feeling and push what would be ordinary, polite, garden-variety
dissenting voices into troll-territory. If you think Dan T. is a
troll, he is at least partly a troll of your own making; you've
given the guy so much shit that I'm surprised he hangs around at
all anymore.
That said, I think Dave W. is an odd case. I like a lot of his
posts - he asks questions that may not get asked enough. Not to go
all Cathy Young here or anything, but on the other hand, he's a
little too quick to get a bit unnecessarily personal with his
questioning (see Ron Bailey in the past, and occasionally thoreau
still) which makes him no friends. Still, though, we've forgiven
(mostly) Monsieur Gunnels for his personal squabbles, so why not
Dave W?
Then, of course, there's Dave W's strange typing style that
occasionally appears; you know, the one where he starts typing like
a fourteen years-old boy with the omission of letters and
substitution of numbers. I'm not entirely sure what prompts it -
maybe you can "shed sum lite" on the subject, Dave W?
It could be that I'm overly charitable, but I think a lot of
semi-regulars who are too-quickly derided as trolls have something
to offer. These aren't people who drift in from NRO around
convention-time; they're people who can be engaged with, if a
little contentiously at times. But for the most part, I'm willing
to give Dave W. the benefit of the doubt as long as he doesn't do
anything -too- screwy (which sometimes seems like a tall order, i
know).
dhex|2.21.07 @ 10:44PM|#
"Your definition of troll is the one the ancient Greeks used
when they made Socrates drink Hemlock."
you are now officially king shit of fuck mountain, dude. fer reals.
a shining star of the innmost light, for whom even the darkness is
something to see.
but i'm still not going to farces wanna, moo.
Dave W.|2.22.07 @ 7:26AM|#
Putting that song ("What Band Begs Its Own Music?") third was
the one "running order" mistake I made on the last record. "The
Tumidity" (the short, heavy metal one) really should have third.
"What Band Begs Its Own Music?" should have been bumped back to in
between "The Tumult" (that horror movie sounding one) and "Feed me
Buttered Waffles." Then "Succumb," "What Band...?" and "Succor,"
which songs all sound vaguely like would have been distributed with
some temporal symmetry.
Still, and even with that minor issue, nobody released a better
album last year or a more challenging one.
O, what one can do musically when the shareholders and board are
not an issue!
Dave W.|2.22.07 @ 8:06AM|#
I'm not entirely sure what prompts it - maybe you can "shed
sum lite" on the subject, Dave W?
Oftentimes it is because I don't want to embarrass the person I am
arguing with too badly. I figure if the intellectual smackdown is
in l33tsp33k then they can kind of shrug it off and that ppl will
think it is just some 14 year old boy under house arrest for
stealing cars or summat. Then they won't take things so personally
as T. sometimes does.
Sometimes it is to establish personal identity and develop a unique
narrative voice. Like the way you can tell a Sanchez post is a
Sanchez. Or, over at the Pitchfork, where you can usually spot a
Bower about 25 words in. I pride myself on having a unique
narrative voice. I would like to think that ppl could recognize my
replies even if I didn't sign them with the alias "Dave W."
L33tsp33k doesn't have to be part of that, but it can be. So can
typing normal much of the time, but occasionally letting yalls know
I am bi-lingual. Like when an old fashioned pulp author drops in
Latin or French.
Sometimes it is because I have a lot to say and not much
time.
Sometimes it is because I am drinking sherry or vodka. Drinking is
way fun, but it can make you feel lousy the next day, especially
when you get middle aged.
dhex|2.22.07 @ 10:56AM|#
"Still, and even with that minor issue, nobody released a better
album last year or a more challenging one."
seeing as venetian snares is from canada (dunno what province
though) that sound you hear is the universe coughing the word
"bullshit!" into the crook of their arm.
dhex|2.22.07 @ 10:57AM|#
also, you have no idea how tempting it is to remix the shit out of you, dude. my mpc was showing me some leg yesterday. i kept trying to tell it i was married, but you know how these things go.
Dave W.|2.22.07 @ 11:01AM|#
seeing as venetian snares is from canada (dunno what
province though) that sound you hear is the universe coughing the
word "bullshit!" into the crook of their arm.
Actually I just ran into them on West Queen. They admitted that I
kicked their ass musically and suggested that everyone reading this
thd go visit:
www.farceswannamo.com
lunchstealer|2.22.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Oftentimes it is because I don't want to embarrass the
person I am arguing with too badly.
Oi, this guy. He thinks he's Frank Zappa and Mencken's over-polite
evil twin rolled into one.
You be you, man.
Dave W.|2.22.07 @ 11:51AM|#
To respond to some of the other commentary on this thd floating
around the blogosphere:
1. I am not comparing myself to jesus and Socrates. Rather I am
comparing you Grylliade guyses to Sokraytz and Jesuses
contemporaries. Different thing.
2. Socrates could have fled the city. It is probable that those
that sentenced him assumed he would just treat his punishment as a
ban. Likewise, Jesus could have stayed in the desert. He could have
abided by a ban also. They both chose death over banning. I am not
that brave, although if somebody does show up to kill me in
meatspace for my outrages then I hope to meet my faith as bravely
as Jesus and Socrates did.
dave W.|2.22.07 @ 11:52AM|#
"meet my faith as bravely as Jesus and Socrates did."
should have been
--meet my fate as bravely as Jesus and Socrates did theirs.--
dhex|2.22.07 @ 12:16PM|#
"Actually I just ran into them on West Queen. They admitted that
I kicked their ass musically"
dude, how do you not know who aaron funk is?
since you are fond of education, it is my duty - NAY - it would be
a violation of my sacred trust to not educate you in this matter of
which you are so sadly ignorant. this is a crime against both man
and god.
start with these:
- winter in the belly of a snake
- Higgins Ultra Low Track Glue Funk Hits 1972-2006
- nymphomatriarch
- winnepeg is a frozen shithole
and here is the live archive - his live shows are brutal with a
capital UTAL.
http://www.vsnares.com/Audio.htm
the brooklyn show was durn good, though the quality on this dump is
somewhat dodgy. the all tomorrow's parties set is utterly
ridiculous (the "chairs made out of human skeletons" breakdown will
rip your nuts off)
and it's all done with trackers, no less:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGK-EzEa45U
in unrelated news, steven stapleton is supposedly doing a hip hop
album. what the living fuck?
lunchstealer|2.22.07 @ 12:34PM|#
1. I am not comparing myself to jesus and Socrates. Rather I
am comparing you Grylliade guyses to Sokraytz and Jesuses
contemporaries. Different thing.
DIBS! I get to be Protagoras!
Protagoras|2.22.07 @ 1:03PM|#
In an athletic contest a man had been accidentally hit and killed with a javelin. Was his death to be attributed to the javelin itself, to the man who threw it, or to the authorities responsible for the conduct of the games? Or is it the manufacture of the javelin, which could be thrown if lightly bumped? Or the makers of the athlete's processed foods, the HFCS content of which may have led him to a dangerous drop in blood sugar which clouded his judgement at the time of the throw?
Dave W. (responds to T.)|2.22.07 @ 2:20PM|#
T:
would you like to see links to the threads that got me banned at
other (non-libertrian) places so that you could see who was being
rational versus irrational. I wouldn't mind collecting up a couple
links if you are really interested in reading them.
You might get a better perspective on how YOU look to people who
don't share all YOUR political assumptions.
Maybe you will even start to wonder if the intellectual
ghetto-ization of the message board world is a good thing after
all.
dhex|2.22.07 @ 4:12PM|#
dave, have you educated yourself yet? i don't hear any breakcore
playing.
you know, i went out of my way to show you these things, to help
you expand your world and break out of your musical ghetto of 16th
note quantatized drum programming and you ignored me
you...wait...oh my god i totally understand how you feel now...
Dave W.|2.22.07 @ 4:48PM|#
I for one would liek to see all of those links. It's just
too, too typical!
near as I can tell, here is the thread that did the most towards me
getting kicked off "Glock Talk / Cop Talk:"
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=11fc67af064f4b7319f0123854e98465&threadid=621834&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=1
One guy accused me of being a "retard." WAS I acting like a retard
there?
Here is one from BABBLE (probably the one where I was being
jerkiest, if you can call it that):
http://rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001719&p=
Dave W.|2.22.07 @ 5:13PM|#
The BABBLE thd is probably difficult to understand without
context:
1. POC means people of color
2. There had been a previous discussion in the racial section of
the board about what makes white people racist. The discussion was
deemed inappropriate for the race section of the board for some
reason. Something about white people not lecturing black people. I
moved the discussion to a general section of the board (and the
admin moved it again to a different general section). That is why
we were discussing where my racism comes from.
3. It is assumed at that board that all people are racist. That is
why I felt comfortable discussing the origins of my own personal
racism.
dhex|2.23.07 @ 10:35AM|#
further education:
http://www.ambassador21.com/mp3.html
i highly recommend bong-ra, though his beats may be so fresh and so
fly as to cause you great despair.
and yeah, you come off as a self-absorbed mouth-breather in that
thread as well. i'm more of a girlban advocate myself (though to be
fair, i doubt such an un-pc terminology would pass muster with
those folks) in such cases.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245