Guerillas in the Midst

|

If you can get past the alarmist tone, partisan lean, and bizarrely specific unattributed facts (like "only 23 blogs were known to exist at the beginning of 1999"), this Garance Franke-Ruta American Prospect article about the blog-scalpings of Jeff Gannon, Eason Jordan, Dan Rather and Joseph Steffen contains some useful and interesting mapping of the political DNA behind the blogosphere's most recent tempests. Franke-Ruta's interpretation of the ample evidence she gathers is that many right-wing blogs are engaging in out-and-out dirty tricks:

Scratch the surface and the same names turn up in each scandal, revealing the events of mid-February to have been part of an ongoing and coordinated proxy war by Republican political operatives on the so-called liberal media, conducted through the vast, unmonitored loophole of the Internet. […] Not only are most bloggers not journalists; increasingly they are also partisan operatives whose agendas are as ideological as they come. […]

But unlike traditional news outlets, right-wing blogs openly shill, fund raise, plot, and organize massive activist campaigns on behalf of partisan institutions and constituencies; they also increasingly provide cover for professional operatives to conduct traditional politics by other means—including campaigning against the established media. And instead of taking these bloggers for the political activists they are, all too often the established press has accepted their claims of being a new form of journalism. This will have to change—or it will prove serious journalism's undoing.

Besides that sky-is-falling last sentence, there is a point worth addressing here. Franke-Ruta warns against "partisan operatives whose are as ideological as they come," and who support "partisan institutions and constituencies," but, well, what was the American Prospect again?

[A]n authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics. […]

The Prospect also convenes meetings of like-minded organizations in Washington. We co-host a biweekly strategy meeting of major progressive organizations to exchange ideas and develop a common message and a political and media strategy.

Nope, nothing partisan there! … The line between opinion journalist and professional operative can be pretty damned blurry, as evidenced by the back-and-forth resumes of people like Prospect co-founder Robert Reich. For my money, as long as writers are reasonably transparent and factually accurate, their motivations are a curio, not a disqualifier (let alone a danger).

Advertisement

NEXT: The Feast of the Elephant

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Permit me to quote Lenny Bruce on this item: “Liberals are people who tolerate everyone except those who disagree with them.”

  2. Intolerance will not be tolerated.

  3. With a title like that, the writer should be severely punished.

  4. It’s grass-roots when you do it, a diabolical conspiracy when the other guy does it.

  5. As long as this is a tactic that can be exploited by all sides in a debate, I don’t see a problem. It’s an even playing field.

    What’s worse is that some people who should know better are taking everything they read on the net at face value. During the Rathergate thing one of the NRO hacks used as his source (for one of his assertions) “a poster at freerepublic.com.”

  6. “If I were punished
    for every pun I shed,
    there would not be left a puny shred
    of my punnish head.” –Samuel Johnson

  7. ?the proxy war? on ?the so-called liberal media, conducted through the vast, unmonitored loophole of the Internet. […] Not only are most bloggers not journalists; increasingly they are also partisan operatives whose agendas are as ideological as they come.?

    Okay, since I?m operating here in a an unmonitored loophole without a journalism degree I?ll take my liberty to project my own interpretation on her statements.

    The internet should be regulated by the government to guard against unapproved information being disseminated by those unqualified to um, disseminate information. (With a journalism degree I could have found a better ending for that.)

  8. Great…another session of liberal-bashing.

    Try for engaged, sensible debate and you get the highlights from an Ann Coulter column.

    And liberal intolerance (explain how this article is an example of that) is what…An example of a right wing commitment to tolerance? Yeah…right.

  9. madpad, there’s liberalism and then there’s hypocrisy, over which neither side of the political spectrum claims a monopoly.

    Have you read the entry on here about Llosa’s acceptance speech at the AEI awards dinner? Plenty of us have applauded the comments he made.

  10. SPD,

    I have not read the Llosa acceptance speech but I DID read the article in question.

    In all fairness, the summation has been all but ignored.

    There were no pleas to regulate blogging…merely a warning (to journalists) that they should not be passive about the partisan underpinnings.

  11. I wouldn’t dare suggest that the right isn’t just as guilty of hypocrisy, but it is the left that wears “tolerance” on their sleeve while shouting down dissenting viewpoints.

    Are right-wing blogs politically motivated, partisan operations? Of course they are, just as the left wing blogs are, and just as the American Prospect is. There’s nothing wrong with that, at least if you’re honest about the situation.

    I seem to recall the DU orchestrating a massive email campaign to skew the poll results after the debates.

    What really upsets liberals about both talk radio and the blogoshpere is that they arrived late to the party. They’re engaging in the same manner of guerilla politicking as the righties, but they’re not nearly as successful at it yet. As an example, I’ll often switch back and forth from Rush to Al, and regardless of whose viewpoints I agree with, there’s no denying that Rush is a much, much better talk radio host. He’s got the experience and he’s built his own market. Al may one day accomplish the same thing, but until then he’ll whine about how Rush is wrong for doing the very thing Al would like to do.

  12. It may well be that being associated with the print culture makes for a better blog. I personally think NRO is the beat blog without comments, and H&R is the best blog with comments…with Washington Monthly a close second.

    There. I hit all three bases – conservative, libertarian and liberal. I would note that all three are asociated with above average print magazines that were around much longer than the Net. That said, I don’t see why the market-place can’t sort it out.

  13. It certainly establishes credibility and an existing market, as well as using trained and experienced writers. That said, there will definitely be some online-only blogs that establish themselves at the top as well.

  14. “it is the left that wears “tolerance” on their sleeve while shouting down dissenting viewpoints.”

    I don’t recall hearing the the Prospect was smashing people’s servers. Dude published an article in a magazine. Does “shouting down” now mean “refusing to remain completely silent when I lie about things you hold dear?”

  15. Stretch,

    You hit a lot right on the head. I have said as much in conversations of my onw. The only point where I’ll disagree with you is your first graph.

    While I’m sure it’s been the case in the past, with all due respect, the left is in a weakened position, does not control the debate and is in no position to be intolerant these days.

    Yes, there are expections to that statement, but from my observation, those exceptions are dissipating.

  16. joe — Garance is not a “dude,” in case there was some confusion about that….

  17. Joe further echo’s my disagreement with Stretch’s assertion.

    With all due respect to the liberal-bashers…people have little to fear these days from an encraoching liberal tide.

    If you haven’t figured that out, you’re not paying attention.

    “Political Correctness” conservative style is by-and-large the biggest, creepiest threat I’ve EVER felt and far more realistic a threat to life and liberty than anything the left has come up with.

    At least the left didn’t have a problem with people getting laid.

  18. “unmonitored loophole of the Internet”

    that “dang” Internet again!

    Of course she doesn’t call for outright restrictions on blogging, but slipping in the (relatively) discreet and true description of “unmonitored” implies that something is inherently missing. If she truly has free speech in mind, she could have easily stated “unrestricted”, “uncensored” or “unadulterated”.

    And don’t get me started on “loophole”. . .

  19. Nobody’s “Tom” or “Mary” anymore. Freaking “Garance…”

  20. Damn, ironchef…you’re sounding a lot like that thing from Dune…”I see plans within plans…”

    as for If she truly has free speech in mind, she could have easily stated “unrestricted”, “uncensored” or “unadulterated”.

    Come On. You know if she would have said that you would have jumped on it with phrases like “nanny state”.

  21. Anyone who calls unrestricted free speech an “unmonitored loophole” has completely missed the point.

    And if you think they aren’t on the side of regulatory controls, you are missing the point as well.

  22. Does “shouting down” now mean “refusing to remain completely silent when I lie about things you hold dear?”

    Well, if it does, by all means let us “shout down” this article.

  23. I’m not “liberal-bashing” here. The left absolutely prides itself on tolerance, and yet I find it to be increasingly intolerant. So Churchill is a hero and Summers is evil? Huh?

    Garance basically calls out right-wing blogs not for being wrong on issues, but for being “partisan operatives whose are as ideological as they come”, a statement which fully applies to left-wing blogs and the American Prospect as well. Do you not see the hypocrisy there? She’s the pot calling the kettle black…can I even say that without being labeled a racist?

    The right has more than its share of hypocrisy, but generally it’s because they go against their “mantra” of social values and small government. If this had been a conservative opiner posting about how wrong it is for the Democrats to increase the size of governemnt, I’d be talking about that hypocrisy instead.

    The right shouts down dissenting viewpoints, but at least that’s consistent with their self-view as moral overseers. Though it may actually be in direct contrast with their claim of patriotism, a view which would put them in the same boat as the tolerance brigade.

    I don’t disagree that “”Political Correctness” conservative style” is supremely terrifying, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the topic. Just because I call bull on the left, doesn’t mean I’m “liberal-bashing” or that I agree with the right.

  24. Ah yes. My favorite tactic. Everyone — but you, of course — is equally as bad, so therefore anyone claiming the “other side” is worse can be dismissed without question as a baseless partisan.

    How thankful I am to live in such an American where I can, blithely and without need of reflection, know to the core of my being that left is as bad as right and that I need trouble myself no further.

    For what the right does, the left does in equal measure. I know this is true, because if it wasn’t, I’d have to actually read articles and think upon them.

    No, it’s best that they’re both equally vile, incorrect, hypocritical, misbegotten, ignorant, sold-out, extreme, and any other pejorative you can think of. It really makes you feel so much more superior to be an independent, doesn’t it?

  25. revealing the events of mid-February to have been part of an ongoing and coordinated proxy war by Republican political operatives on the so-called liberal media, conducted through the vast, unmonitored loophole of the Internet.

    I thought it might be helpful to put the FULL quote up there for context.

    Considering the author’s assertion, I think folks are being just a little sensitive and irrationally focused on a phrase that dares to describe their precious internet in terms other than “wonderful”.

  26. On a more serious note: The piece seemed pretty damn straightforward and unobjectionable. Quite a few of you seem to be overreacting.

    What part of: “Not all bloggers are the ‘New Wave’ of reporting. Some of them are hacks. Journalists need to verify which are which, instead of treating them all the same” is a problem to you?

    Is it that the examples of paid political flacks were all on the “right” side and the leftwing side were a bunch of partisan, but unaffiliated, bloggers?

    Has it occured to you that, maybe, the facts have a liberal bias here? He seemed to have gotten all the “Blogs Crush Media” stories. I’m not aware of any he missed.

    Nor was his point that “Lefties are pure, Righties are paid hacks”. His point was “They’re not all the same, and no journalist should assume so”.

    And then to see all the whining about censorship, “shouting down”, and the rest? Overreact much? Damn. I’ve seen less drama from 13 year old girls.

    You’d think the naughty liberal had kicked you in the ‘nads.

  27. Morat — Garance is a “he.”

  28. Matt wrote

    For my money, as long as writers are reasonably transparent and factually accurate, their motivations are a curio, not a disqualifier (let alone a danger).

    As long as one writes with facts and logic that can be verified, who cares about the motives and/or possible hypocrisy? If a murderer tells others not to murder, do we question whether the statement is correct because the one giving it isn’t necessarily the best messenger?

  29. Morat,

    I wouldn’t say superior, though I am a proud Independent and am registered as such.

    If I feel superior at all, it’s in the notion that unlike my more partison bretheren, I don’t simply buy the party line when they claim that black is white and some such. (No party single out here, BTW.

    And in all fairness, It is not ME that labels me (with venom) a “liberal” or a “conservative” whenever I dare to disagree with a particular point…it is my more partisan associates that choose that approach.

    It is not me who utters irrationalities and unpleasant names when I mention a political figure I do or don’t like that happens to disagree with their POV. I leave that for my more partisan friends (of which I have VERY few and with whom I avoid politics).

    So yes, I DO like being an independant. I’m proud of it.

  30. seems to me mr. morat is overreacting to what others are saying. isn’t that a great tactic, a favorite one perhaps?

  31. It really makes you feel so much more superior to be an independent, doesn’t it?

    Eeeeeeyup.

  32. In all fairness, morat has made some very good points.

    What’s lacking can be summed up in this:

    “it’s best that they’re both equally vile, incorrect, hypocritical, misbegotten, ignorant, sold-out, extreme, and any other pejorative you can think of.

    Morat, a lot of folks feel this way.

    Further, many feel that the most crushing limitation of both the left and the right is that they both see the world in terms of only themselves and their opposition.

    Since alternatives to themselves inevitably become “the opposition” frankly, it’s not the independants fault that:

    a. Partisans tend to have a crappily limited view of the world

    b. extreme Partisans are generally no damn fun to hang around when you’re independant enough to point out the loonier prospects of their philosphy

  33. joe — Garance is not a “dude,” in case there was some confusion about that….

    Comment by: Matt Welch at March 7, 2005 04:39 PM
    ————————————————-
    Morat — Garance is a “he.”

    Comment by: Matt Welch at March 7, 2005 05:23 PM
    ————————————————-

    O.K….I’m confued here

  34. Matt,

    I got that in the response to Joe…my confusion was in your response to morat…read it. you say “Morat — Garance is a “he.””

    I’m all clear now

  35. Garance is neither a dude nor a poet.

  36. Loney — But her ’97 web-design skillz were mad!

  37. Morat, what exactly are you saying about 13 year old girls? Are they irrational by nature, or does society make them that way? Does this end when they turn 18? Do you work at Harvard?

    Sorry, wrong thread.

  38. I read the article by Franke-Ruta this morning, and I was thinking it would be good H&R fodder.

    I know she doesn’t speak for any Dems other than herself. But between Robert B. Reich’s advocacy of a national ID, and Franke-Ruta wanting to squash any free speech on the internet, I’m perplexed. The way to a majority party is certainly not by casting aside civil liberties.

    I also found the Dem attempts to squash Ralph Nader distasteful. Apparently it was OK for Perot to run, but throw in Nader, and suddenly they scream “no third parties.” Lovely.

  39. madpad: “the left is in a weakened position, does not control the debate and is in no position to be intolerant these days.”

    Obviously you haven’t been on a college campus or in a college course recently.

    “‘Political Correctness’ conservative style is by-and-large the biggest, creepiest threat I’ve EVER felt and far more realistic a threat to life and liberty than anything the left has come up with.”

    Then I think you’re pretty lucky. What exactly is the threat? Look, I dislike the rightwing attempts to teach the creation myth as science, to push the “war on drugs” and to try to stop me from seeing titties on cable TV as much as the next libertarian, but in my daily life I’m much more affected by leftwing policies. As Steven Landsburg noted, there’s no danger of my local government sending me a King James Bible but they do send me a recycling bin (and in some places it’s mandatory!). Whether it’s being told how you can use your property, being denied admission to a school because of one’s race, being told not to smoke on private property, required to wear one’s seatbelt, forced to wait to buy a gun, compelled to pay the extremely progressive income tax, forced to comply with voluminous regulations to engage in virtually any business, even being told how much water we can use when we flush a toilet for Christ’s sake! The litany of leftwing encroachments on our freedom go on and on and on. So while I am concerned by the prospect of increasing right-wing interference, they have a long way to go to come anywhere near what the left has managed to put in place in terms of government intervention in our daily lives.

    And as for the creepiest thing ever – I’d say the left was the fount from which sprung communist totalitarianism and brutality as well, which killed far more people in the last century than anything the rightwing managed to do. Again, not to defend rightwing excess, but let’s not get carried away either. The left is hardly neutered.

  40. “Does “shouting down” now mean “refusing to remain completely silent when I lie about things you hold dear?”-joe

    No, it means bitching about “partisanship” when someone tells the truth about your lies.

  41. At least the left didn’t have a problem with people getting laid

    Yes they did, if you didn’t formally ask permission before proceeeding through each step.

    (As long as one is wielding the broad brush here.)

    And the Left sent you to re-education camps to get “sensitivity training.” I or someone I know is more likely to end up in one of those classes than at Gitmo.

  42. Regarding the comments of both brian and stevo…what the blue fuck are you talking about?

    I’d say the left was the fount from which sprung communist totalitarianism and brutality as well, which killed far more people in the last century than anything the rightwing managed to do.

    Think you got your timeline reversed there, buddy. Marxism – mid 1800s, Soviet russia – 1917, communist china – 1920s, American communists – 1930s, American liberals – 1960s.

    Yes they did, if you didn’t formally ask permission before proceeeding through each step…And the Left sent you to re-education camps to get “sensitivity training.”

    I was talking about average American liberals, a wide ranging group, most off whom would be the first to disdain communism.

    Not once have I ever heard of an American liberal having to get permission to have sex with anyone OR being OR wishing anyone to be sent to a reeducation camp.

    So let me get this straight, you’re going to automatically assume that “left” means communism (a stupifyingly dumb assumption) and characterize any statement about the (obviously American) left as automatically referring to people embracing communist ideals (an equally idiotic assumption).

    Boys…you need to take off your tin foil hats and come up for air.

  43. madpad: “Think you got your timeline reversed there, buddy. Marxism – mid 1800s, Soviet russia – 1917, communist china – 1920s, American communists – 1930s, American liberals – 1960s”

    What “the blue fuck” are you talking about!? Thanks for the condescending history lesson, buddy, but I really didn’t need it. Where did I reverse anything? I was referring to your post which said, ugh, need I quote it again: “…anything the LEFT has come up with” (emphasis mine). Yes, it’s a reasonable lefty timeline you created – but Soviet Communism was certainly leftist, as were all the other’s you point out. I didn’t equate them all; that would be ridiculous. What I did was point out where leftist extremists have been the cause of a great deal more death than rightist extremists in the previous century, which clearly refutes your “anything the left has come up with” comment.

    Secondly, that was but an after-thought to the main point of my post which is in day-to-day life, liberal or leftist or whatever you want to call them, limitations on our freedom are far greater than conservative or rightwing limitations.

  44. Oh Christ on His throne! I take it all back. No sooner do I make that last post and I see over at The Agitator that the Utah senate has voted to ban internet porn… Ok, the rightwing assault on freedom is now officially a bigger threat to my day-to-day life than the lefties.

    They’ll get my internet porn when they pry it from my cold dead hand…

    Oh come on, I meant the mouse, not THAT! Geez.

  45. Mad, you haven’t been paying attention to life in these United States. Or maybe you were just too little to remember things from 10 years ago — I don’t know how old you are.

    Here’s the kind of stuff I was referring to:

    In 1990, a feminist group from Antioch College demanded that the administration of the college institute a sexual consent policy binding upon all Antioch students. The group, Womyn of Antioch, sought the policy out of frustration after two rapes were reported that year on campus, neither of which was prosecuted. [A real problem, granted. Now, here is their solution.] To demonstrate their resolve, they threatened the college with ?radical, physical actions? if their demands were not met. The campus furor instigated by the Womyn of Antioch resulted in a formal “Sexual Consent Policy,” issued in 1992.

    From page 1 of the policy:

    If the level of sexual intimacy increases during an interaction (i.e., if two people move from kissing while fully clothed — which is one level — to undressing for direct physical contact, which is another level), the people involved need to express their clear verbal consent before moving to that new level. If one person wants to initiate moving to a higher level of sexual intimacy in an interaction, that person is responsible for getting the verbal consent of the other person( s) involved before moving to that level. (Emphasis in original.)

    In other words, it is official university policty that you have to constantly ask, “May I kiss you on the mouth? May I kiss you on the neck? May I touch your breast? May I slip my hand down the back of your jeans?” to ensure you’re not raping somebody.

    Source: http://www.enotes.com/rape-campus/ (An article sympathetic to the policy.)

    But at least the Left doesn’t have a problem with people getting laid. Nope. It’s only the Right that is dangerously intrusive in people’s sex lives.

    “Re-education camps” is an exaggeration. I was actually speaking of groups of wrong-thinking (or presumed-to-be-wrong-thinking) people forced to attended classes that are designed to mold their minds in more politically correct ways — sometimes as a form of punishment, sometimes as pre-emptive indoctriniation. Which is, of course, way different from forced re-education. I expect Larry Summers of Harvard to be sentenced to such any day now, as part of the price for keeping his job (if he is offered that option).

    https://reason.com/0003/fe.ak.thought.shtml

    http://www.alabamascholars.org/page14.html

    and Google “mandatory sensitivity training” to find out more about this stuff that no liberal would ever make people do.

    I am, of course, painting with a broad brush — just like you. However, like Brian, I think the Left’s encroachments on our freedoms have already embedded themselves pretty deeply in our institutions, and are therefore the proximate threat.

    Meanwhile, the dreaded Right-wing American Taliban has expended most of its energy over the past 30 years trying to get a human fetus something like the same legal protection currently enjoyed by the endangered spiny mussel, without a whole heck of a lot of success. (And they never will, either, because they are tactical and P.R. dumbasses.) Ooh, scary, scary.

    It’s just that I think the drama-queen hysteria I’ve heard about “an impending Right-wing theocracy” ever since GWB got elected the first time, while downplaying what the Left has already done, is pretty blind.

    That’s my opinion, anyway. Sorry about the tone, I don’t know where I picked that up.

  46. Stevo,

    Understood…but there’s painting with a broad brush (I’ll plead nolo contendre) and then there’s taking a fringe incident and making it an example of the whole…

    I understand your point but I don’t think I’d color the actions of some fringe extremists as an example of trends in modern liberalism.

    And I’ll confess to a little paranoia…I spent time in a pentacostal church and ever since I left, the right has been a chafing, creepy influence that (to me anyway) makes nanny state liberals look like a tea party.

    Sorry if my tone was over the top as well.

  47. Madpad, I’ll also confess I may be a tad under-sensitive to the Left’s fears of church-going busybodies trying to run their lives, just because I don’t see a lot of that happening around me. Maybe in other parts of the country (the South? smaller towns?) there’s a bit more church-lady totalitarianism going on.

    On the other hand, I did work for a while for a state university, and while it was nothing like the Lefty-looney-bins some universities are supposed to be, it was an eye-opener. Most of my friends are left-liberals, too, so I tend to worry more about their seemingly pervasively statist opinions, than those of church-tyrants I’ve never actually met.

    I guess we just tend to be most sensitive to the dangers that we see actually impinging our own lives — that goes for you, me, Brian and everybody.

    Anyway, thanks for seeing my point of view. And actually a little over-the-topness can be kind of fun, as long as none of use are hurt when we pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off afterward.

  48. Oh no! Some college did something stupid which PROVES ALL LIBERALS ARE THE SUXXOR!

    Jesus Christ, stereotype much?

  49. It’s not a unique event, but representative of a much broader trend. Ever hear of “political correctness on campus”?

    Zeus and Zoroaster, read the paper much? 🙂

  50. Stevo,

    True, a little over the top can be fun.

    I don’t know about your leftist friends – I tend to have a lot of rightist friends (though I have no idea why). Sadly, I can no longer talk reasonably about politics with most of them so I avoid the topics.

    Glad this board is here…look forward to sparring with you again.

  51. Madpad — One of my leftist friends and I, we used to work late a lot, and around midnight we’d hang it up, have a couple scotches on the rocks, and debate gun control, free-market capitalism, pacifism, the land-mine ban, France, all kinds of stuff, from opposite sides. We both just enjoyed the give and take, without taking anything very personally, and not really expecting to change each other’s minds — it was just good “exercise.”

    I really miss that.

    Years later, he has moved on to another job, but we were both at a gathering of friends on the lake, and at night we’re all sitting on the dock drinking beers. The subject of gun control comes up, and I’m the only one who doesn’t think concealed carry is a terrible idea and that gun-owners just have a penis problem. But what the hell, I decide to just be quiet and listen to everyone else rant about it — dammit, I’m on vacation. Lo and behold if my lefty friend doesn’t speak up with a mildly pro-gun position. So, you never know who you might influence if you can find someone even remotely receptive.

  52. It’s not a unique event, but representative of a much broader trend. Ever hear of “political correctness on campus”?

    *snort*. It’s not “representative of a trend” so much as it is “lazy-ass stereotyping”.

    How pathetic is this? Your all in a twitter about the occasionaly antics of some idiotic college or something. Yes, indeed, one college or another doing something ridiculous and then getting slapped about in the media for it IS indicative of a trend towards the leftist destruction of the United States!

    Yadda-yadda-yadda. Do you really expect to be taken seriously? Do you even take yourself seriously? How can you and spew such pathetic bullshit? I’ve seen smaller leaps of logic by Creationists.

  53. morat,

    Even though I agree with you…we get it. Stereotyping is bad. Let’s move on, shall we. I’ll give you one thing…you sure are passionate.

    Stevo,

    To your last nicely illustrated post, I hoist a single malt in your general direction and follow it up with a “Hmmmmm…I’ll have to give that some thought…”

  54. Morat:

    Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

    Yes. Kneel before Zod!

    Do you even take yourself seriously?

    Actually, not nearly as much as you do.

    I’ve seen smaller leaps of logic by Creationists.

    Hey, watch it — now you’re, you’re … stereotyping!

    —————–

    Actually, is stereotyping always bad? Isn’t your blanket condemnation a stereotypical stereotyping of stereotypes?

    OK, that’s enough for tonight.

    —————

    Madpad:

    Morat’s passion reminds me of my friend’s, and that was part of the fun — but your civility reminds me of the underlying respect that kept it fun. Hasta la vista.

  55. Morat, maybe I’m being kind of a dick for winding you up.

  56. Eh, if it wasn’t for the idiocy at work I wouldn’t be wound up in the first place.

    Tell you what, if you promise to think dark thoughts about my boss, I’ll promise to go have a beer. 🙂

  57. Deal!

  58. Geez, what’s this love-fest going on here? Can we please get back to smacking each other – I’m starting to feel ill… 🙂

    Oh, I give up. Bartender, a round of Guinness for everyone!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.