The Mystic / Bitwiseoperator: Transexuality and Transgenderism
This is good, and the discussion is really, really good.
If there's a prominent place I disagree, it's that I'm not quite so convinced that we have to be so relentlessly honest and truth-seeking about such things. I'm inclined to think that it's ok for people to have their little fictions...we've certainly all got them. But they aren't allowed to insist that others share them. If Smith is a man and wants to act, dress, etc. like women have traditionally acted and dressed, I don't care. It's the tradition that's kooky, not Smith so much. If Smith even wants to tell himself that he's really a woman--still no big problem. But currently the lefty-left is demanding more than that--it's insisting that (a) Smith actually is a woman, and (b) everyone must say (and believe) that it is so. And that's not ok. In fact that's right out. You don't get to insist that people assert--much less that they believe--falsehoods. It might be polite to do so--and that's a discussion worth having. But it's going to be a long row to hoe.
If there's a prominent place I disagree, it's that I'm not quite so convinced that we have to be so relentlessly honest and truth-seeking about such things. I'm inclined to think that it's ok for people to have their little fictions...we've certainly all got them. But they aren't allowed to insist that others share them. If Smith is a man and wants to act, dress, etc. like women have traditionally acted and dressed, I don't care. It's the tradition that's kooky, not Smith so much. If Smith even wants to tell himself that he's really a woman--still no big problem. But currently the lefty-left is demanding more than that--it's insisting that (a) Smith actually is a woman, and (b) everyone must say (and believe) that it is so. And that's not ok. In fact that's right out. You don't get to insist that people assert--much less that they believe--falsehoods. It might be polite to do so--and that's a discussion worth having. But it's going to be a long row to hoe.
Don't forget:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:37 AM
25 Comments:
But currently the lefty-left is demanding more than that--it's insisting that (a) Smith actually is a woman, and (b) everyone must say (and believe) that it is so. And that's not ok. In fact that's right out. You don't get to insist that people assert--much less that they believe--falsehoods. It might be polite to do so--and that's a discussion worth having. But it's going to be a long row to hoe.
Don't forget:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
Good for you, Mr. Smith. I'd given up on you, but I couldn't bring myself to give up on you. I'm glad I checked back on you.
Scientifically, you have serious back.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/11/surgical-sex
"Women psychiatrists whom I sent to talk with them would intuitively see through the disguise and the exaggerated postures. “Gals know gals,” one said to me, “and that’s a guy.”
I miss us, man. Cheers.
o
mgawd
It's TVD.
I feel like some sort of WWF intro is warranted.
Winston, I always thought your best argument was about good governance, your best argument against the GOP congress's high-handedness pre-2009.
The GOP lost, your people moved in, esp Harry Reed, and made a joke of it all. Power politics, brute majoritarianism, even parliamentary manuevering. And not just 51% subjugating the other 49, but far worse.
By any means necessary. The nation didn't want Obamacare, doesn't want the Iran deal. They want a wall with Mexico, even Dems, blacks @ 55%.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/sorry-jorge-64-of-americans-do-want-a-border-wall-with-mexico/
This was designed as a consensus society, checks and balances. I know political philosophy ain't your thing, but we used to agree on the consent of the governed.
---Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.---
;-)
Greetings, Tom.
Hope all's well with you man.
Yo, Tom, thanks for the link. Very, very interesting. Will post a link to it.
But...you're still doin' that old thing where you exaggerate the errors on the left side of the aisle and ignore those on the right I see...
Obama's been ten times the president your man Bush was... And I don't find your sketch of an argument at all persuasive.
It's always possible to spin, spin, spin. One can always find some angle if one looks hard enough... Iran deal a good deal? Can't criticize it, overall, on the merits? Hmmm...there must be something, something, some...wait! I've got it! Most people don't like it! Of course most people don't understand it...but still! We'll pretend it's a *consent of the governed* issue! As if that meant that every treaty must pass a popular vote... This strategy works particularly well if your side is pumping disinformation into the population.
Similarly with Obamacare. Most people actually approved of its actual provisions, but only *disapproved* of it under the description "Obamacare." Lead hypothesis, of course: someone(s) had convinced them that they didn't like it...false though that was...
So the Dems are the Dems...waddaya gonna do? They're, to a large extent, crooks and morons and people who think they know better than we do how to run our own lives. But the GOP is flat-out deranged.
I wish your boys would get back in the game. If we had an even hemi-demi-semi-sane, reasonably centrist conservative party, I'd be looking at them hard right about now.
"But the GOP is flat-out deranged."
Indeed.
As Mike Lofgren (who witnessed the sausage being made for almost 30 years) so aptly put it:
"But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.
To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy...
It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant..."
And my personal favorite money quote:
"A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner."
How patriotic.
In case you haven't yet Winston, I would recommend that you, as they say on the intertubes, read the whole thing:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult
President Obama sneers at the rule of law. "I have my phone and my pen." Harry Reid made a joke out of the rules of the Senate. My objection remains formal.
I'm about good governance, about consensus over brute majoritarianism. This Iran deal is contra Congress, contra any poll measurables.
That is not principled leadership. This is not leadership atall. Ronald Reagan--nor either Bush nor Clinton either--ever strong-armed the American people like this. Barack Obama has broken our social contract, set us each and all against each other.
Hobby Lobby was so fucking unnecessary, but it was Barack Obama who provoked that war. And don't tell me that John Boehner or Mitch McConnell are the least bit confrontational or radical. They have been statesmen, for all the good it has done the country or their party.
If it comforts you, I remain a moderate. A Kasich man, and I would vote Bill Clinton over Trump in an instant. Probably even Biden, although he is a weak man and a fool. The communist or that lying incompetent witch, no. If it comes down to that, give us Barabbas and we'll take our chances. At least he's competent.
Cheers.
Whoa, LC, long time no hear from.
Oh yeah, that Lofgren piece is well-known.
As a friend of mine puts it: Republicans think that government doesn't work, and every day they set out to prove that they are right.
> President Obama sneers at the rule of law
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Tom, you're not even *trying.* You've never been able to be even vaguely objective nor even-handed about the Dems and the GOP, the left and the right. To assert what you do above shows that you're completely out in--in this case--right field. You scratch around for any even vaguely plausible criticism of the Dems, and assert them as if they were fact. You ignore even the most egregious failures of the GOP.
Given a sufficiently double-y double standard, one can believe just about anything one wants. I know you desperately want to believe that the 'Pubs are the good guys and the Dems the bad, but it just ain't so, and ain't nearly so.
"And don't tell me that John Boehner or Mitch McConnell are the least bit confrontational or radical. They have been statesmen..."
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Oh Tom, c'mon, man. *Even you* don't believe that stuff. You can't.
Obama came into office bearing an olive branch, and dedicated to the proposition that politics need not be bloodsport. The GOP proceeded to spend the next 6.5 years focused primarily on destroying him, even when the country was collateral damage. I'll agree, Boehnert was less bloodthirsty than the people he was trying to control. Is that what counts as statesmanship now?
And Mitch “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" McConnell? The member of the gang of 15 who met *on inauguration night 2009* and agreed to thwart Obama's every effort?
I don't know whether you've been hanging around folks who buy what you're selling, but nobody who's even been paying a little bit of attention could do so man. You gotta get out of your echo chamber.
Seriously, man.
www.dailymotion.com/video/x5nn81_raw-22-4-2002-william-regal-vs-shaw_sport?start=40
If only I were more of a connoisseur of these matters, I could've probably located a better video, but that seems about right from a visual standpoint, at least.
Blogger Winston Smith said...
> President Obama sneers at the rule of law
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Tom, you're not even *trying.* You've never been able to be even vaguely objective nor even-handed about the Dems and the GOP, the left and the right. To assert what you do above shows that you're completely out in--in this case--right field. You scratch around for any even vaguely plausible criticism of the Dems, and assert them as if they were fact. You ignore even the most egregious failures of the GOP.
Given a sufficiently double-y double standard, one can believe just about anything one wants. I know you desperately want to believe that the 'Pubs are the good guys and the Dems the bad, but it just ain't so, and ain't nearly so.
"And don't tell me that John Boehner or Mitch McConnell are the least bit confrontational or radical. They have been statesmen..."
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Oh Tom, c'mon, man. *Even you* don't believe that stuff. You can't.
Obama came into office bearing an olive branch, and dedicated to the proposition that politics need not be bloodsport. The GOP proceeded to spend the next 6.5 years focused primarily on destroying him, even when the country was collateral damage. I'll agree, Boehnert was less bloodthirsty than the people he was trying to control. Is that what counts as statesmanship now?
And Mitch “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" McConnell? The member of the gang of 15 who met *on inauguration night 2009* and agreed to thwart Obama's every effort?
I don't know whether you've been hanging around folks who buy what you're selling, but nobody who's even been paying a little bit of attention could do so man. You gotta get out of your echo chamber.
Seriously, man.
This was a mistake. Socratic dialogue requires a good sport, a co-operative interlocutor.
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.
You control the horizontal. You control the vertical. You control all that your readers [and students] see and hear. It's you with the echo chamber, with only "The Mystic" even left anymore.
Most everything you said over those years turned out to be invalid. The Dems were bigger tyrants in Congress than the GOP had been. Obama is more autocratic than Dubya. Scooter Libby didn't give up the Wilson's Colin Powell's man did.
You're the dead-ender this time, Brother Winston. Obama has left the Dems a wreck as a party in both Congress and the statehouses, and unlike Bill Clinton, brought neither peace nor prosperity. His strong-arming of neither a congressional nor popular majority for the Iran deal is his greatest betrayal of "consent of the governed" yet, and Bernie, Hillary and even Joe are running against his economy.
You still don't get the point about good governance, about consensus and civility, as you behave here, you don't attempt to convince--you shout me down. Obama's definitely your man. Justice is in the interest of the stronger; punish your enemies, reward your friends, as he [in]famously once said.
Half your front page is quite sane, BTW, well done. Believing you're a woman and surgically altering yourself to counterfeit one doesn't make you one. I'll check back in another 5 years after the Obama record is revealed, just as Bush's is, finally.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-george-w-bush-popularity-obama-popularity-118576
Peace. If you ever want to try your luck on a neutral, level ground
newreformclub.com
that goes for "The Mystic" too, if you permit him to see this.
Oh, Tom. I worry about you man. I really do. I used to think you were just BSing, but then I came to realize that you really believe this stuff.
You make a show of friendship and civility, but it's no more than a show. You--like so many conservatives--have it in your head that you're civil and your enemies aren't. So you put on a kind of show of it when, in fact, the wild eyes, froth and bile are only thinly veiled. In fact, they're the important bits, the driving bits. The show of civility is just stalking-horse.
Having lost the argument--yet again--you stoop to childish, oblique accusations. I usually try to ignore your tantrums though, just for the record: all comments get published except for advertising spam and a handful of genuinely crazy ones I've gotten over the years. For instance, I published but then deleted the childish, ad-hominem-laced tantrum you left after your last faux-friendly visit here... Mostly because your pretense of friendship and bizarre imaginings about my personal and professional life were grotesque, and it occurred to me that I don't have to publish that shit.
Your other m.o. is just to assert what you wish were so--over and over and over again, as with the nonsense above. My favorite though is "Obama failed to bring peace and prosperity." You know the arguments there, Tom. Even you know them, at some level. There's no need for me to rehearse them. You want to believe, and the grip of your desire on you is stronger than the grip of the evidence.
There's a thread somewhere where, just to see what would happen, I continued to engage with your BS for something like fifty or a hundred comments back and forth on the divine command theory, a topic I understand pretty well. One thing that accomplished was that it provided me with irrefutable evidence that arguments have no effect on you. You will not be moved from the conclusion you prefer. So there is no reason for me to waste my time with you. You and I are engaged in different projects, Tom. With you, conclusions come first, and are immovable.
I can't find one thing that's true in what you write above. The Woodward crap is crap, as is well known. Many have clearly explained that Bush *did*, in fact, lie at points about the war (e.g. during the infamous State of the Union address), though most of the administration's claims can plausibly be called deceptive non-lies. ("Evidence of consciousness of guilt" is a handy concept in this vicinity...) The stuff about popularity polls is so laughable that it's not even worth discussing. The fact that you're still pushing all the same old nonsense is, again, evidence that discussion with you is futile.
Hey, your boy Cheney has risen from his crypt to again try wreaking his terrible vengeance against reason, truth and history...shouldn't you be fanboying him instead of me?
Well, that says basically everything which needs to be said here.
But also, you may recall Mr. Van Dyke, I visited the "New Reform Club" once. Why, here it is:
http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2007/05/thompson-in-race.html
wherein I ask simply what it is that makes someone a social conservative, and you and your cohort outright refuse to make sense of the concept despite rambling endlessly about it on your blog. It is, as it turns out, little for you and your friends beyond a pretense by which you permit yourselves constant engagement with nonsense.
To substantiate WS's point about your empty show of civility, your colleagues began by addressing me politely, and even going so far as to assert "That is a good question" regarding my inquiry! We started off so darn polite...but that was before anyone realized I was actually asking a serious question and not merely interested in joining the word game fun. Once that became clear, you and your friends descended into accusations of trolling and musings on the very impossibility of generating an answer (until... you actually generated an answer). My consistently charitable attempts to distill nebulous, flippant, disjointed responses into something serious and substantive for analytical purposes were dismissed before being accepted by your colleague as follows:
"Going through all this stuff about what a social conservative is doesn't get us anywhere, because we all know what a social conservative is."
And if that weren't enough, you, yourself, dismissed the very act of definition:
"What can I say? I'm not very into definitions---they depend on the skill of the definer, and can rise and fall on his skill and not anything resembling truth or understanding."
Until, of course, another colleague provided a simple definition and turned you all into sophists, I guess (see the bottom quote from you in the same thread).
I recall being dumfounded then, and to revisit it is a nice reminder of the character which you and your friends work so hard to maintain:
When an outsider (such as myself) does no more than ask what you're talking about, you refuse (on principle, even!) to offer anything close to a coherent explanation. And that is, of course, because your goal is not really to find the truth, but to make playful use of certain kinds of speech patterns which you find attractive in order to clandestinely agree with one another while masquerading as serious investigators.
You band together to reject any falsifiable formulation of your endless stream of words out of preference for vague, pseudo-esoteric banter pretended among yourselves to be most witty, enlightened, and proper. Any attempts at deriving such a formulation are met by the outsider with accusations not only of trolling but of already understanding and refusing to admit it. The false esotericism is both a prize and a punishment, whereby those who "get it" are lauded for the voluntary restraint of their critical faculties, and those who have the gall to question "it" are lambasted as lesser-minded trolls.
Your club is nothing more than a circle jerk seeking to entice others to join and, above all, to prevent any disruption.
Forty-some comments filled with nonsense, non-sequiturs, dishonesty, and false accusations were required to merely gain a simple definition. And why? Because the definition makes the entire post utterly uninteresting. When the terminological fogbank dissipates, you're all just standing around naked, holding your wangs, and no one wants to be a part of that.
Finally, in that thread you remarked:
"It's been my experience on the internet that as soon as definitions are insisted upon (and god forbid somebody starts cutting and pasting the dictionary), useful discussion is at an end. It is an invitation to sophistry, not philosophy."
For what it's worth, it's been clear to me from the day we met that you are, if anything, an Internet philosopher.
Thx for printing the above, albeit with an almost purely ad hom reply, and that goes for your droogie too. Neutral ground anywhere, anytime, my friend. You do not permit that here.
It would be good for you to get out once in awhile and try your luck outside your classroom and your--sorry--dingy and claustrophobic blog.
Your comments will not be moderated.
newreformclub.com
Dingy? Dingy?
I cried myself to sleep last night over that comment.
What I can't figure out is how Tom knows where I go on the internet, what I read, where I discuss things and who with... He also indicates that he knows these things about me IRL... But how does he know? How??? HOW???????...
And how does he know of my secret fear of open discussion on neutral ground?
Of course he knows I'll never subject myself to the withering intellectual/philosophical firepower of the "NewReformClub"... The combination of conservative civility ("...the communist or the lying, incompetent witch...") and the inherent power of its arguments...why, I'd finally see right through Obama's facade...see him for the terroristic Kenyan hose of an alien reptilian parasite that he is... And then were would I be? Where I ask you???
He's got my number, that TVD... All I can do is hunker down and hope he decides to be merciful and keep the tattered shreds of my dignity and self-respect.
And still I can't help wondering...what would Chesterton say about all this...?...
I'll call your bluff. Take the comment moderation off, tough guy.
Love, TVD
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
OHMUGAWDOHMUGAWDOHMUGAWD he's CALLING ME OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111oneoneoneone WHAT DO I DO??????????????????
Oh Tom...
You really are an idiot man.
Every silly comment you've ever left here has been posted except for one temper-tantrum about my personal and professional life. To be shit-canned, a comment has to be either (a) and advertisement or (b) grotesquely shitty / borderline crazy.
Your comments don't make you look like a fool because I posted then deleted one... Your comments make you look like a fool because you are foolish.
Now...don't you have a blog of your own to pollute? Don't you think that trying to pollute two is a bit greedy?
The point around here is to try to keep things civil and reasonable.
Those are projects to which you have never been much good at contributing.
* '...an advertisement,' not 'and advertisement'
I gotta admit, Tom: I have kind of a sick fondness of having you around. It seems so in line with the motif of this blog; you know, "Imagine a hand palming a human face forever"? You have a way of inspiring facepalming like few I have ever encountered.
But that leads me to really wonder about you. You seem kind of like...an unreal person to me. On one hand, you seem like a troll trying to prove the incoherence of philosophy by engaging philosophers incoherently. On the other hand, no troll would dedicate this much of his time to such a project (would he?).
It seems like you've never really understood that we're not just effing around like you are...that we're actually trying to understand the truth of the matters at hand. Instead, you seem as though you're interested in something entirely different...like a rhetorical word game, perhaps, and you can't even conceive of the alternative endeavor in which we are invested. Whereas we want to understand the right moves to make and the reasons behind those movements, you have already selected the movements you want to make (which you will not change at any cost), and you just want to dance.
And if we try to examine the movements you've chosen against their alternatives, you attempt to address that examination by dancing even more. You don't want to examine your premises. You just want to play around with them. You are a part of a blog with other seemingly like-minded people (weird) where you all perform this incessant dance, and every once in a while, you come over here and try to get WS to dance with you, but then he declines because he's not interested in that, and then you get mad and throw kind of a fit.
And given that, it's just kind of oddly charming to think that you are seriously writing something like "Take the comment moderation off, tough guy". Are you really so weird as to think you're in some sort of Internet dance-off? Do you seriously think, after literally hundreds of comments and failed arguments, that you are now going to Stomp the Yard so awesomely that WS will fearfully prevent others from seeing how hard you throw down?
I really want to find some way to get through to you. I'm really not trying to be condescending, either. I'm just trying to express to you my wonder about you and why I have it. I can't even imagine what you think of me, to be honest, because, as I said, so much of what you do seems so...unreal?
I'd suggest that we actually change course here. That we actually take one of your many, many seemingly absurd comments, dissect it, understand it, and recognize that it doesn't make sense as you think it does.
But that's what we've tried. It hasn't worked. It is clear to anyone who reads the stuff that you are being outclassed. It's like a canoe vs. the Bismarck. It doesn't even come close to being anything other than your utter destruction. And yet, you remain COMPLETELY unmoved.
On this very blog, I have seen WS admit that he is wrong. I have admitted that I was wrong. I have seen WS do a full 180 on his reasoning (check out his position on the Trayvon Martin case, for example). I have seen an introspection and interest in progress and self-correction in WS that I see in myself. But I have never once, not ONCE in HUNDREDS of comments FULL of apparent errors, seen you admit error or change your mind in any way whatsoever.
Which is, again, why you seem sort of unreal.
What do we do? Do you have any idea how we can correct this apparent inability to communicate and make rational progress? Does the observation of your utter intellectual stasis in comparison to the dynamism of we, your two interlocutors most relevant to this conversation, not move you to think about what's going on here?
Wow, that reform club thread was painful.
It almost reads like the banter of some first year philosophy students' attempt to impress at the local coffee house, complete with historical name-dropping and rhetorical wing men. The term 'meretricious' doesn't even adequately capture it.
And more substantively, the gist of *social conservatism* does seem to be an admonition against rash change-making, lest society suffer from some deleterious unintended consequences. This is implicitly a consequentialist argument, and it actually has some merit.
But what to do when the changes they were rallying against in fact have genuinely beneficial consequences?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=2 (to choose one example)
By God, there gotta be some nefarious effects out there somewhere, since SCs are still out there railing against things like free birth control for the indigent.
It distills down to some sort of reverse ontological argument. Yes, we see the benefits of (insert innovation/reform which was bitterly opposed by *social conservatives* at the time, such as women's suffrage, interracial marriage, child labor laws) but there are potential negative consequences, which exist theoretically and which are greater than your really existing benefits.
For old time's sake Winston, maybe you'd like to re-read one of TVD's greatest hits, where over the course of many many comments regarding abortion, he basically argued that if the government doesn't enforce morality, moral relativism will result:
http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/2006/02/all-your-uterus-are-belonging-to-us.html
Holy God LC...
One thing about Tom--he's never wrong enough to give up...
Also, as a side note: the last comment in that thread shows why I went to comment moderation. Daggum comment spam. I freaking hate that crap.
Also:
You're a better man than I am, Mystic.
I feel as if I've been pretty laid-back about TVD's BS in the past...but his schtick is getting old.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
I've just deleted the second non-advertising comment ever deleted on this blog. As with the first one, this one was from TVD, who seems to have possibly completely lost his shit this time.
You need help man.
I'm serious.
You have some kind of problem.
[tvdspeak] Good sir, I'm sure none of this nastiness would have occurred if you'd left the lugubrious colloquy of your echo chamber and taken this jolly good debate to the neutral confines of the esteemed New Reform Club. One might hope you would learn from this mistake, Winston. Our founders demand no less. [/tvdspeak]
PS, please post the tirade.
'gut:
Damnation that's funny.
Sadly, I deleted it straight off of Blogger, and don't even have it in email form, so it doesn't seem to be recoverable. The Mystic already harangued me about not saving it for posterity.
It was distilled essence of TVD bullshit, including at least one vulgar personal insult. I decided I have no obligation to post that shit. It would have earned a punch in the head if delivered in person. I figured I had no obligation to post moronic insults against myself from halfwits. He can post it at his own digs if it's important to him.
Other than that, it was just largely the comments moderation policy pasted in over and over again.
Dude's got problems.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home