Web & Blogs

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.

NEXT: Injecting Speed

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. I’ll just have to save my vote for the ‘real’ primaries.

  2. Hey joe,
    Who’s cheating now?

  3. 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.

  4. Yep, more blatant antilibertarian bias. Nothin’ new…
    JMR

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. Unbelievable. I’m going to have to read Pajamas Media even less than the never I read it now.

  10. That’s why these things are meaningless.

  11. Answers first, questions later.

  12. 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.

  13. Pretty MSM of them.

  14. Ron Paul weighs as much as a duck.

  15. This issue should be turned into a major controversy against Pajamas Media. It’s blatant political bias.

  16. Someone please remind me why anyone should care.

  17. Ecumenical, pro-liberty, practical Inactivist
    Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval.

    lol

  18. “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.

  19. Okay, I know I should know this, but who’s Ron Paul?

  20. 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?

  21. It’s getting so you can’t trust online polls anymore….

  22. TPG,
    PJ Media turned Ron Paul into a newt.

  23. “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

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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!

  27. PJ Media turned Ron Paul into a newt.

    Perhaps we should use a holy hand grenade.

  28. MP,

    Yeah, I was wondering that as well.

  29. 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!

  30. 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.

  31. I feel your pain, Dave W: I was briefly banned from grylliade also.

    🙂

  32. “Yeah, some jerks where stuffing the ballots.”

    OK, but could they spell “were”?

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. grylliade,

    But grylliade.org isn’t run as a place for political discussions.

    Is this why political discussions dominate the commentary there?

  36. 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.

  37. 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?

  38. 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.

  39. “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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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?

  44. Will the anti-war Republican vote shift to Chuck Hagel now?

  45. 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

  46. 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 blas? 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?!?

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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?

  54. It appears that someone has gotten into the HFCS.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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).

  58. “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.

  59. 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!

  60. 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.

  61. “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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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:

    http://www.farceswannamo.com

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. “meet my faith as bravely as Jesus and Socrates did.”

    should have been

    –meet my fate as bravely as Jesus and Socrates did theirs.–

  67. “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?

  68. 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!

  69. 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?

  70. 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.

  71. I for one would liek to see all of those links. It’s just too, too typical!

  72. 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…

  73. 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=

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.