Living in a fantasy world

[Norman Bernstein]

THE FANTASY WORLD OF GEORGE W. BUSH....Does George Bush really believe that actual evidence doesn't matter if it happens to conflict with his own instinct? Apparently he really does. Here's what he had to say last year about steroid use:


"The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous....So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now."
Now here he is on Baltimore Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro, who was suspended today after testing positive for steroids:


"Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him," Bush said, referring to Palmeiro's denials under oath to a congressional committee on March 17. "He's the kind of person that's going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him. Still do."
It's like listening to a small child. He doesn't want to believe it, so it isn't true. This is the man currently running our country.

(from www.washingtonmonthly.com) (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com))

[Garrett Lowell]

Isnt' this the same kind of crap over which the Greshams were run off? If JCSOH wasn't just like you, he'd be siccing himself on you as well as Nelson. What a bunch of mental midgets.

[LeeG]

bad Norman, bad, bad Norman. Ok that's out of the way. So what so important about professional athletes that steroid use gets mentioned in a presidential address? I just don't get it. Why not talk about Hollywood actors drug use. It's all kind of dumb.

[High C]

Buzz off, DNC troll.

[Keith Wilson]

Do you have anything substantive to say about his point, Garrett and MIke, or will you content yourself with calling names? I will admit it takes less effort.

[Norman Bernstein]

bad Norman, bad, bad Norman. Ok that's out of the way. So what so important about professional athletes that steroid use gets mentioned in a presidential address? I just don't get it. Why not talk about Hollywood actors drug use. It's all kind of dumb. I agree, Lee... and that is precisely the point of the C&P. When I heard George Bush make the initial mention of steroids in professional sports, I was absolutely flummoxed... and couldn't believe that he wasn't torn to shreds in the press the following day... am I the only person who thinks that occupying a portion of te State of the Union speech to this subject demonstrated a lack of ability to set reasonable priorities? Is this the Commissioner of MLB, or the President of the U.S.? Was steroid use a topic worthy of a President's direct attention?

It was the recent statement that caused me to want to C&P the piece... because President Bush is often lauded for his loyalty to his friends... and loyalty is a very fine attribute... but, taken to excess, demonstrates a remarkable lack of judgment... and judgment ought to be the PRIME ability of a President.

Or am I the only one here who thinks so?

[ljb5]

I love it!

Two comments, straight from Bush's lips --- and who's to blame? Democrats!

The evil Democrats make him say stupid, contradictory things.

The evil Democrats reprint his words.

It's all part of our evil, un-American plan -- to get you to pay attention to your own president.

[Norman Bernstein]

Some folks must suffer from short memory loss.:
I do suffer some memory loss, Mike, but this is not one of those times. The C&P I posted was a pretty reasonable criticism of George Bush, based on what I think is a substantive issue... namely, that of judgment.

However, once again, it's yet another case of dismissing ANY criticism as 'whining'.

Why don't you try, instead, to make a case for supporting George Bush's initial statement (with regard to whether he should or should not have interjected himself in a topic which I and many other think shouldn't have even been on his radar screen...) and then defend his subsequent statement, in which he defends a 'friend' who apparently has been caught committing the very offense he spoke out against?

I'm a reasonable person... if you've got a good argument, I might actually change my mind... I've done so, many times. But instead, all you do is make the same tired accusation of 'whining'. Why not address the issue itself?

[Ian McColgin]

I can't figure out how the first two responses address any issue at all. At least LeeG asks about the importance of it all.

We read in the media all the time of Hollywood drug use. Some politicians and pundits have a wonderful time blaming same for most forms of social depravity. The President made quite a point of believing his "friend" a couple of months ago. That was the news.

I think it a tad early to worry about whether Bush now realizes that Palmeiro was lying.

If the President behaves as he has with the truth-impaired in his administration, the Roves and the Rices and the Boltons et al, then we can expect him to either silently treat this as a non-story or to actively assert that Palmeiro did no wrong.

Who knows, maybe he'll get as far as regretting how the mighty are fallen and praying that we all forgive Palmeiro's weakness. . .

It's news but it's not quite a gotcha moment yet.

[brad9798]

Not a dim or rip issue.

Due process folks.

Although it appears likely that Palmeiro lied under other ...

Steroid test are subject to error, scrutiny, etc.

I test positive for drugs once in college ... fought it tooth and nail, and it was, in the end an errant test.

Not saying that's what is happening here (with Palmeiro) but let's not rule it out without DUE PROCESS!

My gut says he probably did test hot ... but let's show some maturity.

I see nothing wrong with Bush's statements ...

The small child to which you refer, Norman ... well, he just may be in the mirror on this post! tongue.gif

[Norman Bernstein]

Not saying that's what is happening here (with Palmeiro) but let's not rule it out without DUE PROCESS!

My gut says he probably did test hot ... but let's show some maturity.
Did anyone suggest that Palmiero should be denied due process? The original C&P has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the issue of whether Palmiero did or did not take steroids... it has to do with the propriety of a President commenting on the issue to begin with... and then making public statements in support of someone accused of doing exactly what he decried earlier, BEFORE 'due process' has occurred.



I see nothing wrong with Bush's statements ...

The small child to which you refer, Norman ... well, he just may be in the mirror on this post! Well, if you see nothying wrong with Bush's statements, then we simply disagree.

However, suggesting that my objections to Bush's statements are somehow 'childish'... simply because YOU disagree.... precisely demonstrates my earlier points.

By all means, disagree with me. Argue, discuss, illustrate. But... call me 'childish', simply because of my opinion?

[High C]

Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
I can't figure out how the first two responses address any issue at all....Here's how: A group of about a half dozen juvenille delinquents ran off a member for posting in a fashion similar to Norman. They harrassed this member for months, calling her vulgar names, and saying vile things about her. The sorts of things they wouldn't dare say face to face.

Wooden Boat management allowed it, despite numerous protests.

Now we have a member who trolls in similar fashion, but with the preferred political slant, with nary a peep of complaint from the aforementioned delinquents. The hypocrisy speaks for itself.

Has it now been established that people who post radical political opinion pieces are fair game for personal abuse? Should we Conservatives now treat Norman as his fellow travelers treated Karen?

It won't happen, for obvious reasons, but the precedent has been set. Those who sat quietly by while this took place have no right to complain if Norman takes a similar bruising for his posts.

But again, it won't happen. Decent people don't behave like that.

Edited to add: In fairness to Wooden Boat, they did expell one of those who mistreated Karen. I hope the others have learned a lesson. It seems apparent that some may have, while others certainly have not. :(

[ 08-02-2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

[ljb5]

I think an errant test is unlikely. The modern test are pretty sophisticated.

His new denial is not very credible either.

He now says he didn't take it 'intentionally,' but it may have been in some 'supplement' he took without a prescription. He refuses to name the supplement.

First, he knows about the new policy and he knows he's under suspicion. He shouldn't be taking anything without knowing what's in it.

Second, his team has a nutritionist, trainers, and doctors. He should not take anything that has not been cleared by the team.

Third, if there is an over-the-counter supplement with steroids hidden in it, it's a public health issue. The FBI, CDC or DEA needs to get involved immediately because there might be others taking it accidentally. If there is a hidden source which he refuses to reveal, he might be endangering thousands of people, not to mention impeding a criminal investigation.

If he's truly innocent, why would he protect the person who not only slipped drugs into his body, but ruined his reputation and chance at the Hall of Fame?

There are many good reasons to doubt Palmeiro -- physical evidence being only one of them.

That Bush disregards all of this in favor of 'loyalty' tells us a lot about his logic process.

[ljb5]

High C, I don't know why Karen left. I wasn't involved in that at all.

The difference between Karen's C&P and Norman's is that Karen trolled the lowest, most partisan, least respectable sources for biased information.

Norman quoted the president.

Can you explain why paying attention to what the president says is an attack against him?

[ 08-02-2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[George.]

Originally posted by Garrett Lowell:
Isnt' this the same kind of crap over which the Greshams were run off? Not at all. First, Norman actually posted selected quotes, tied together with words of his own to form an argument - not mere C&P. Then, he responded to those who disagreed and counter-argued - not just roll-eyes.

And finally, I don't see seven C&P posts by Norman in a single morning...

[Norman Bernstein]

Has it now been established that people who post radical political opinion pieces are fair game for personal abuse? Should we Conservatives now treat Norman as his fellow travelers treated Karen?
I paid little or no attention to those who were immature enough to abuse Karen... and am sorry that their attacks were hurtful enough to force her to withdraw from the give and take which happens here. I personally thought she was one of the most interesting people (of the opposite political persuasion) to have a discussion with.

However, I won't be run off. I've always tried to state my opinions with some reason and rational argument (I haven't always succeeded, but at least I've tried), and I do respect those who disagree with me... at least, the ones who aren't calling me a 'whiner', 'childish', a 'mental midget', an 'America hater', etc.

I've said it many times... I'm very open-minded, and have indeed changed my mind on many issues, given a rational and reasoned argument by someone who doesn't merely use hateful contempt in an effort to 'disarm' me. For THOSE people, I have NO respect!

[Norman Bernstein]

And finally, I don't see seven C&P posts by Norman in a single morning... George, it takes ALL of my self-restraint to NOT post seven in a day! :D :D :D

[Keith Wilson]

The difference between Karen's C&P and Norman's is that Karen trolled the lowest, most partisan, least respectable sources for biased informationI also had nothing to do with Karen leaving, nor with what were apparently pretty nasty personal attacks against her; they happened when I was away from the forum for a while so I didn't even see them. I don't like personal attacks on anyone.

Another major difference between Karen's C&P and Norman's is that he adds his own thoughts and analysis. The C&P was background information for his own thinking, not a substitute for it. You may agree with him or not, but he is not just pasting others' opinions..

[Ian McColgin]

Thank you High C. I'd not realized that anyone could equate Karen's massive C&Ps with Norman's pointed observations.

One might, before rashly asserting that Norman trolls as Karen did, note that Norman used C&P from news stories to establish the factual basis for the irony, shall we say, he wished to point out. He does not just fill bandwidth. Secondly, and still unlike Karen, he can rationally discuss his points.

I found quite a few of Karen's C&Ps offensive enough to deserve some careful rebuttal, certainly more careful than the not infrequent obscure photoshop jokes and one-line non sequiturs that have greeted some of my own profundities here. I'll agree, however, that there were folk on this forum who's exasperation with Karen exceeded my own and who made that plain in terms unrelated to whatever topic she'd trolled.

So?

A little disrespect around here is not new.

Regrettably, the soft focus that sees any equivalency between Norman's posts and Karen's is not new either.

[ljb5]

So, having established Norman's right to post....

...does anyone have any thoughts on the subject of this thread?

Is anyone concerned that that the president apparently gives more weight to gut feelings than to facts?

Is anyone concerned that this tendency may not be limited to baseball -- and might extend to other, more important, subjects?

[High C]

Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
...Regrettably, the soft focus that sees any equivalency between Norman's posts and Karen's is not new either.I see, Karen was "worse" than Norman. His political C+P is "pointed" and embellished with personal commentary. This explains the mistreatment of Karen. :rolleyes:

A difference without a distinction. There is much equivalence in the content and motivation of these two posters.

Was Karen abused for her refusal to engage in commentary about her C+Ps, or because of its content?

[ 08-02-2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[ljb5]

Originally posted by High C:
Was Karen abused for her refusal to engage in commentary about her C+Ps, or because of its content?I don't know if 'abused' is the right word. Like I said, I wasn't involved.

Long before she left, I asked her to engage in commentary. After she left, I said my only complaint was that she refused to engage in commentary.

[Chris Coose]

"He's the kind of person that's going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him. Still do."
dubbya

I could understand why dubbya and this guy would be friends. They think alike, they talk alike, they lie alike.

Thanks for being the messenger Norman.
Hey, are you posting on company time?

[Donn]

It's pretty obvious that there's alot of shooting-off of the mouth in this thread.

From George:

"Not at all. First, Norman actually posted selected quotes, tied together with words of his own to form an argument - not mere C&P.

From Keith:

"Another major difference between Karen's C&P and Norman's is that he adds his own thoughts and analysis. The C&P was background information for his own thinking, not a substitute for it."

From Ian:

"One might, before rashly asserting that Norman trolls as Karen did, note that Norman used C&P from news stories to establish the factual basis for the irony, shall we say, he wished to point out. He does not just fill bandwidth."

It's apparent that none of you bothered to go past the broken link that Norman posted, because, had you done so, you'd find that Norman's entire post is a verbatim C&P from Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum. There is not only no original thought from Norman, but no attribution, either.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Regarding sources of 'news." This is from Washington Monthly's "Mission Statement;"

"Why Read The Washington Monthly?

Are you fed up with the imperial Bush White House? The timid Democrats? The spinnable national media? Well, now is the time to join people such as Warren Buffett, Paul Krugman, Garry Trudeau, Molly Ivins, Bill Clinton, and the producers of "60 Minutes" and "The West Wing" who turn to The Washington Monthly each month for journalism that isn't afraid to shake some sense into the system. If, like them, you're hungry for the inside scoop on what's really happening in Washington and what can be done about it, you need our incisive and original coverage."

Not to belabor the obvious, but this line from Mr. Drum is very telling:

"This is the man currently running our country."

That's very accurate. The reason he's running our country is that he was elected to that office. The left was unable to prevent it, just as it will be (barring any flagrant criminal actions) unable to organize his un-election. Bashing him for everything you can find, including parroting a left-wing wacko's dissatisfaction with the way he exhibits his friendship of anyone, is a pretty impotent activity.

One would think that upon returning from a 3-week cruise to Maine, in a new boat, Norman might find something other that Bush-hate to share with a boating forum.

[Norman Bernstein]

Thanks for being the messenger Norman.
Hey, are you posting on company time? Yes... but I own the company. (Don't be impressed... it's just two shabby rooms and a bathroom in an industrial park... but it's a pretty cool computer smile.gif )

[Alan D. Hyde]

Bush sees the world differently than you do, Norman.

What a surprise.

He is an idealist. Remember what Bob Kennedy liked to say (via Dick Goodwin, who filched it from a Greek :D )?

Some see things as they are, and ask "why?" I see things as they might be, and ask "why not?"

So Bob, too, was living in a "fantasy" world...

Alan

[Norman Bernstein]

It's apparent that none of you bothered to go past the broken link that Norman posted, because, had you done so, you'd find that Norman's entire post is a verbatim C&P from Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum. There is not only no original thought from Norman, but no attribution, either.
you're partially right, Donn... and partially wrong.

Yes, it is true that the piece was indeed a C&P from www.washingtonmonthly.com. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com.) I rarely post a C&P without making a comment... although in this particular case, I didn't think any comment was necessary in the initial post... and was prepared to make my own comments on the content later on, and indeed did so. For those of you who think that posting a C&P without commenting is somehow intellectually dishonest, I agree with you... and my only excuse is that I DID indeed comment. The C&P was meant to get the discussion started.

The part where yo're wrong, Donn, is that I did provide attribution... at the end of the posting.

[Chris Coose]

Yes... but I own the company Ah good. Thanks for quelling my suspision.
Otherwise, I would make you quit the forum for posting about political moral depravity while stealing from your own boss.

[ 08-02-2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Bush sees the world differently than you do, Norman.
He most certainly does, Alan... but it's not just me, it's also slightly less than 50% of the citizens of this great country, at least at the time of the election... and meaningfully MORE than 50%, based on the bulk of the polls of major issues having to do with the Bush Presidency.

So, why do we struggle to object? It's because unlike many conservatives, the 'rest of us' (which includes moderates and centrists, as well as liberals and pogressives) don't think that the Presidency is a 'winner take all' game. I have admiration for people who stick to their principles... and hold in poor regard those whose principles transcend into blindly rigid idealogy.

[ljb5]

The genesis was a C&P. No one denies that.

The difference is that, unlike Karen, Norman is willing to go beyond the C&P and comment during the subsequent discussion.

It seems no Bush supporter is willing to make a comment on the subject or engage in discussion.

[Ian McColgin]

As my first post on this thread indicated, the President's loyalty to people of doubtful veracity is well established. His use of the State of the Union address to remark upon drug use in sports is consistent with his sense of proportion. But it's still a bit early to say whether this is more of his obduracy or just the rigor of rigmarole.

So, having little actual interest in further examination of presidential hypocrisy in this context, I'm happy to join the thread-hijack to look at the question, "Was Karen abused for her refusal to engage in commentary about her C+Ps, or because of its content?"

She did not always refuse to actually debate, but she may have felt driven back from the days when she did attempt her own remarks. Remember how she carried the torch for that scurrilous story about Kerry and the intern? Even when the story had been proven false, she asserted that she'd nothing to apologize for and time would bear her out. After that and some other factual drubbings, she settled in to C&P and run.

In fact, she settled into escalating C&P&run. And she was interestingly candid about doing it on company time. All of which indicates to me increasing emotional conflicts that spilled out here.

Was Karen abused for her tendency to Cut, Paste and Run? (Eats Shoots and Leaves)

Does ljb5's stolid facticity contribute to the dyslectic tendency to confuse him with a good time?

There's a wonderful moment in "Die Hard" where Bedeilia's character mutters to one of the other hostages that she thinks her husband is out there. "No one else can piss some one off that way." Or words to that effect.

There are folk of all political stripe who just plain piss others off. Karen was one. But she garnished no more and no less opprobrium than others here of pungent personality.

So, sure she got hounded and there was some unseemly rejoicing at her departure, but she's not suffered the worst abuse and the choice was always hers.

Norman, on the other hand, attracts far more debate than abuse. That's a pretty big difference.

[Norman Bernstein]

One would think that upon returning from a 3-week cruise to Maine, in a new boat, Norman might find something other that Bush-hate to share with a boating forum. you're also both right and wrong, Donn.

Wrong in that I refuse to be categorized as a Bush-hater. I don't hate the guy whatsoever... he seems to be a very congenial fellow. I DO disagree with his world view, policies, and actions while in office, and don't think there's the slightest thing wrong with taking the opportunity to criticize him when I believe there are substantive reasons to do so.

You're right in that I DO have interests aside from criticizing the President, and since you seem to be interested in my trip to Maine, take a look here:

http://www.marisystems.com/maine

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by ljb5:

It seems no Bush supporter is willing to make a comment on the subject or engage in discussion.Wrong ljb, Don added quite a bit to move the discussion.

Bashing him for everything you can find, including parroting a left-wing wacko's dissatisfaction with the way he exhibits his friendship of anyone, is a pretty impotent activity.

[Garrett Lowell]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Do you have anything substantive to say about his point, Garrett and MIke, or will you content yourself with calling names? I will admit it takes less effort.This thread is not worthy of a substantive post. As for name calling, it was more of a tactless observation, and took as much effort as it took to begin the daily whine.

"Not at all. First, Norman actually posted selected quotes, tied together with words of his own to form an argument - not mere C&P. Then, he responded to those who disagreed and counter-argued - not just roll-eyes.

And finally, I don't see seven C&P posts by Norman in a single morning... "

So, it's just a matter of style and degree? I'm not buying it. And the words of his own, forming an argument: "It's like listening to a small child. He doesn't want to believe it, so it isn't true. This is the man currently running our country." Nothing substantive there, despite the lack of rolleyes (but I'm sure it was difficult not to put them in). The only difference is, Norman didn't C&P the entire article.


"Regrettably, the soft focus that sees any equivalency between Norman's posts and Karen's is not new either. "

That's a bit of a whitewash, and could easily be turned about. What's good for the flap is always good for the jack, though.

[George.]

Originally posted by Donn:
It's apparent that none of you bothered to go past the broken link that Norman posted, because, had you done so, you'd find that Norman's entire post is a verbatim C&P from Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum. Touche, Donn. Norman, you should have used quote marks around the entire quotation. Fooled me, and I didn't check.

That said, Norman did provide commentary and counter-argument based on the C&P - just not on the original post. And what irritated me and most people irritated by Karen was that she didn't - not on the first post, not at all.

If the bilge were composed of a bunch of Normans of different political stripes, we would have lots of discussion and debate - which is what brings most of us here.

If the bilge were composed of a bunch of Karens, we would have just a bunch of C&P's flying past each other, of no interest whatsoever to anyone whose neurons actually fire up once in a while.

[George.]

Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
Does ljb5's stolid facticity contribute to the dyslectic tendency to confuse him with a good time?

:D :D :D

[Bruce Taylor]

Remember how she carried the torch for that scurrilous story about Kerry and the intern? Even when the story had been proven false, she asserted that she'd nothing to apologize for and time would bear her outIan, I think the Drudge intern thread was posted by Alan.

If it was wrong to hound Karen and call her a troll then surely it's wrong to badger Norman?

Do I have to get my mom in here to explain what two wrongs don't make?

[Norman Bernstein]

If the bilge were composed of a bunch of Normans of different political stripes, we would have lots of discussion and debate - which is what brings most of us here.
That is precisely what I'd like to engage in... honest discussion of issues, not endless posts about decorum... or constant harangues about style.

Tell ya what... I'll agree to avoid ANY posting other than that which is germaine to an issue worthy of discussion... if you (and by 'you', I mean whoever wants to engage in debate) will avoid and refrain from mere contemptuous dismissal of my arguments, in favor of rational counter-arguments.

And I'll ignore the ones who DON'T agree to those reasonable and civil ground rules.

Any takers?

[John of Phoenix]

I'm in.

[Bruce Taylor]

It's a nice idea, Norman. However, you've spelled the word "germane" as if its last name were "Greer" or "Jackson." Therefore we are forced to reject your request.

[ 08-02-2005, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Bruce Taylor ]

[John of Phoenix]

Damn Bruce, that was my loophole.

[Norman Bernstein]

Damn, one lousy spelling error, and you guys think I'm seafox :D :D :D

[Jim Hillman]

Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
Norman, on the other hand, attracts far more debate than abuse. That's a pretty big difference.You hit the nail on the head Ian, though I don't think you really meant to hit that nail. Norman posts C&P and his ideological opposites debate. If an ideological opposite of Norman's posts a C&P he/she receives abuse/derision and comments concerning their intelligence. You have made a better case than anyone concerning the conduct of several members on this board. Now let's hear from George., who will dispute this point and when he starts to lose the argument will switch to vulgar innuendo's.

[ 08-02-2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Jim Hillman ]

[Bruce Taylor]

It's game over, Norman. Now we can't take you seriously.

[High C]

Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
...Norman, on the other hand, attracts far more debate than abuse. That's a pretty big difference.And that's because those who disagree with Norman have chosen not to be abusive.

This morning's tiny sample of abuse was done, speaking for myself anyway, as a reminder to those who are so intolerant of opposing views. I refuse to accept a double standard in which C+P trolling is acceptable only when it meets the standards of the liberals on this board.

If Norman can do it without being asked if he takes it up the ass, then we should all expect to be treated similarly.

Norman, I don't really want you to "buzz off", though I genuinely do believe you to be a garden variety political troll. But that's OK. That's AOK. I can take it or leave it, as I see fit. It should've been OK for Karen, too.

[PatCox]

High-C, I have to say that on this one I disagree with you; what Norman did was not "cut-n-paste trolling."

Karen used to cut and paste huge passages from partisan commentators, and the only comment she would offer is "so there" or "What he said" or "nanny nanny boo boo, you liberals."

What Norman did here was make an original observation, based on two separate news reports, and he only posted enough of the reports to support the logic of his obsservation.

Its might well have been a troll, but I also think its a fair observation about the character of the president, who, in his speech patterns, does tend to reveal some interesting things about the way he thinks (as for example where he personalizes everything, and also his perspective on things is always, always, by reference to himself).

[George.]

Originally posted by Jim Hillman:
Now let's hear from George., who ... when he starts to lose the argument will switch to vulgar innuendo's.You must have me confused with some of the right-wing losers in this bilge. tongue.gif

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, I don't really want you to "buzz off", though I genuinely do believe you to be a garden variety political troll. Well, let's see... I can now add 'garden variety political troll' to the various names I've been called. Today has been a jackpot: 'mental midget', 'childish', 'whiner', etc.

I guess 51 posts reflecting on the entire issue of things that essentially amount to 'name calling' aren't sufficient. Maybe I'll start a new thread: no C&P, no political discussion, just insult-hurling....now THAT ought to be fun!!!! smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

[ 08-02-2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[TomF]

C'mon gents, we can each cite chapter and verse of where our crowd or someone else's crowd has behaved boorishly, or well. There are bad-tempered liberals, conservatives, protestants, catholics, whatever. As Norman (and others) said, I'm all for fostering civility, even in disagreement.

As a general rule, I find that C&P can be quite useful, but most so when it illustrates someone's own thought. The occasional piece really can stand alone; it's a judgement call. I agree that there should be no double-standard on this, depending on where we sit on the spectrum of opinion.

t.

[ 08-02-2005, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: TomF ]

[George.]

Originally posted by High C:
It should've been OK for Karen, too.It was OK for Karen. No one made her quit the forum. She simply couldn't take the heat she generated, so she left. Voluntarely.

[Donn]

Originally posted by PatCox:

What Norman did here was make an original observation, based on two separate news reports, and he only posted enough of the reports to support the logic of his obsservation.
Guess who isn't paying very close attention.

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
It should've been OK for Karen, too.It was OK for Karen. No one made her quit the forum. She simply couldn't take the heat she generated, so she left. Voluntarely.</font>[/QUOTE]So the "heat" is OK? That sort of behavior is going to be acceptable here? I say NO! Did you see what went on? Did you see the vulgarity?

[High C]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Norman, I don't really want you to "buzz off", though I genuinely do believe you to be a garden variety political troll. Well, let's see... I can now add 'garden variety political troll' to the various names I've been called....</font>[/QUOTE]Hey, what do you expect when you post such as "living in a fantasy world", and "like talking to a child"?

That's Anne Coulter kind of stuff. What has the reaction to her been here?

If that's not being a garden variety political troll, then I don't know what is.

[Donn]

Originally posted by George.:

If the bilge were composed of a bunch of Normans of different political stripes, we would have lots of discussion and debate - which is what brings most of us here.
(emphasis added)

Aye, there's the rub. Perhaps we should ask Scot to change the name of the forum to The Politics and Philosophy of Wooden Boat Lovers.

:rolleyes:

[carioca1232001]

George wrote:


.....Voluntarely. Volenti Non Fit Injuria - to a volunteer, no harm can be done.

A legal principle picked up during my attendance of "Law for Engineers" lectures smile.gif

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
I can't figure out how the first two responses address any issue at all....Here's how: A group of about a half dozen juvenile delinquents ran off a member for posting in a fashion similar to Norman. They harrassed this member for months, calling her vulgar names, and saying vile things about her. The sorts of things they wouldn't dare say face to face.

Wooden Boat management allowed it, despite numerous protests.

Now we have a member who trolls in similar fashion, but with the preferred political slant, with nary a peep of complaint from the aforementioned delinquents. The hypocrisy speaks for itself.

Has it now been established that people who post radical political opinion pieces are fair game for personal abuse? Should we Conservatives now treat Norman as his fellow travelers treated Karen?

It won't happen, for obvious reasons, but the precedent has been set. Those who sat quietly by while this took place have no right to complain if Norman takes a similar bruising for his posts.

But again, it won't happen. Decent people don't behave like that.

Edited to add: In fairness to Wooden Boat, they did expell one of those who mistreated Karen. I hope the others have learned a lesson. It seems apparent that some may have, while others certainly have not. :( </font>[/QUOTE]Bwaaaaa ha ha :D

I would have said it to her face to face in a NY minute.

Wooden Boat management allowed it, despite numerous protests. DID YA GET THE HINT YET :D

The fundamental difference that you are too neocon blind to see is that Norman backs up his C&P he never runs away or smirks nor is he snide but he is eloquent and thoughtful in his responses. And although we may share the same ideology I find him much nicer and more polite than the aforementioned Karen. Who is always referred to as a polite southern lady BY ONLY THOSE WHO SHARE HER OPINIONS.

Also Norman post about other topics even above the bilge - He is ONE OF US. She was never one of us.

Oh yea and I'm still here, same SN and all 13,000 posts in your face :D
ya want a band-aid HiC cause your soprano is starting to sound a lot like crying.

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
I can't figure out how the first two responses address any issue at all....Here's how: A group of about a half dozen juvenile delinquents ran off a member for posting in a fashion similar to Norman. They harrassed this member for months, calling her vulgar names, and saying vile things about her. The sorts of things they wouldn't dare say face to face.

Wooden Boat management allowed it, despite numerous protests.

Now we have a member who trolls in similar fashion, but with the preferred political slant, with nary a peep of complaint from the aforementioned delinquents. The hypocrisy speaks for itself.

Has it now been established that people who post radical political opinion pieces are fair game for personal abuse? Should we Conservatives now treat Norman as his fellow travelers treated Karen?

It won't happen, for obvious reasons, but the precedent has been set. Those who sat quietly by while this took place have no right to complain if Norman takes a similar bruising for his posts.

But again, it won't happen. Decent people don't behave like that.

Edited to add: In fairness to Wooden Boat, they did expell one of those who mistreated Karen. I hope the others have learned a lesson. It seems apparent that some may have, while others certainly have not. :( </font>[/QUOTE]Bwaaaaa ha ha :D

I would have said it to her face to face in a NY minute.

Wooden Boat management allowed it, despite numerous protests. DID YA GET THE HINT YET :D

The fundamental difference that you are too neocon blind to see is that Norman backs up his C&P he never runs away or smirks nor is he snide but he is eloquent and thoughtful in his responses. And although we may share the same ideology I find him much nicer and more polite than the aforementioned Karen. Who is always referred to as a polite southern lady BY ONLY THOSE WHO SHARE HER OPINIONS.

Also Norman post about other topics even above the bilge - He is ONE OF US. She was never one of us.

Oh yea and I'm still here, same SN and all 13,000 posts in your face :D
ya want a band-aid HiC cause your soprano is starting to sound a lot like crying.</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you, Joe. You've made my case for me.

(you have noticed that Memphis Mike has been expelled, haven't you?)

[Alan D. Hyde]

Carioca, literally it translates, "He who consents cannot receive an injury."

Alan

[ 08-02-2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by High C:
(you have noticed that Memphis Mike has been expelled, haven't you?)I know juuuuuust where the line is and I don't cross it like he did ;)

Still I will make ya bet MMike will be back before KM ;)

KFD BABY !!!!!! Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa

Only down part is she has become the martyr for the WBF NeoCons. Ewww why? :rolleyes:

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
Only down part is she has become the martyr for the WBF NeoCons. Ewww why? :rolleyes: I think to qualify as a martyr you have to be mauled to death by the opposition. A martyr would not quit.

Man, were they quick to maul this messenger.

Touchy bunch. Wonder if the rapid response had anything to do twith the truth of the message?

[ 08-02-2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

[George.]

High C, I did not see what went on in the particular ethilic evening that finally persuaded her to leave. But I did see what went on on a daily basis.

This is an internet forum. People are going to be much less polite than in real life, and some will be very offensive. It takes a bit of a thick skin. We may disapprove and wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.

I myself have been insulted and libeled many times here because of my posts. That's OK, that's the price I must pay for being opinionated and argumentative. Others, like Keith, Margo, or TomF, are extremely polite and careful with their posts, and as a result they are rarely mistreated on-line.

Karen had a choice: she could be partisan and in-your-face, and take the expected reaction, or she could be polite and conciliatory, and be treated accordingly. Unfortunately, there is no way to be spicy and be treated blandly. Not in the real world.

[carioca1232001]

Take you word for it Alan.

I recall Dr. Hargrove, our lecturer and a forensic expert, say so - and me jotting it down ;)

[ljb5]

Originally posted by High C:
And that's because those who disagree with Norman have chosen not to be abusive.Oh, dear me!

High, you are a card! Either that or you live in a fantasy world...


Originally posted by Garrett Lowell:
What a bunch of mental midgets
Originally posted by High C:
Buzz off, DNC troll.
Orignally posted by brad9798:

The small child to which you refer, Norman ... well, he just may be in the mirror on this post!

[Norman Bernstein]

Jeeez, i take my eyes off the Forum for a half hour to do some actual client work, and the place disintegrates again... after a fervent plea for decorum (the latest in a long line of them). Ahh, well... people are people, I guess.


Hey, what do you expect when you post such as "living in a fantasy world", and "like talking to a child"?
Those were the words of Kevin Drum, not mine, and my apologies are extended for not making it explicitly clear that it was pure C&P, not MY own conclusions. My conclusions came later... and, even if my words were not as incendiary, I was feeling more or less the same as Kevin Drum was...not that you'd be surprised.


That's Anne Coulter kind of stuff. What has the reaction to her been here?
I honestly don't know... I don't get Ann Coulter on the radio. I DO get Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage (nationally known), as well as Jay Severin (Boston based, but getting national recognition). I've read some Coulter, and have as much respect for her as I would for ANYONE who considers anyone who disagrees with her perspective to be sub-humanoid. In other words, none.... and I'm surprised that conservatives aren't more embarassed by the likes of her. Michael Savage is so far beyond Coulter that he really doesn't deserve criticism... only pity.

However, it's useless and moronic to talk about right wing radio hosts as if they actually represented anyone's viewpoint... since they have a VERY clear agenda, and it's ratings, not politics. Lest anyone think I'm biased, I feel precisely the same way about Air America Radio... it's often equally as stupid... with the rather astonishing exception of Franken, who, while also puerile and juvenile, is capable of articulating a perspective now and then without blatant prejudice or disparagement. I've NEVER heard Hannity, Ingrahm, or Savage do that.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Again well said Norman, and look he used his own words and thoughts again something Karen would never be able to do ;)

[Chris Boers]

Joe (A**hole On Hudson), are we going to get some Joe Free Days when you go to Mexico next week? I am praying for them!

[Donn]

Originally posted by Chris Boers:
Joe (A**hole On Hudson), are we going to get some Joe Free Days when you go to Mexico next week? I am praying for them!Don't count on it.

[High C]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
Those were the words of Kevin Drum, not mine...I realize that. But when you post the words of others, you associate yourself with those words. Don't act so surprised when the deliberately provocative provokes.

Ann(e?) Coulter, BTW is not a radio host. She writes a political column, a very provocative political column. She tends to say things like... Democrats are children who live in a fantasy world, stuff like that.

A number of members here have practically had online strokes in response to her colorful musings.

[High C]

Joe, your fly is open.

[TomF]

I miss Karen.

We rarely agreed, except on recipes, and some matters of child rearing. It irritated me no end when she would not write substantive responses when challenged on her posts. It similarly irritated me to see what felt like a blinkered loyalty to her political leaders, especially in one who is clearly pretty sharp.

That said, she represented a valid perspective ... however far removed from mine. I'm glad to see some others with conservative views holding that line ... even when I think they're full of ... I've found it most thought provoking.

Karen's responses when folks had personal adversity hit were invariably swift, genuine, and well meaning.

I am sorry that she chose to withdraw from the forum, and sorrier yet that she withdrew because of personal attacks. I'm glad that Charles still frequents this place, and with any luck, may point out things of interest to her.

T.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Chris Boers:
Joe (A**hole On Hudson), are we going to get some Joe Free Days when you go to Mexico next week? I am praying for them!Bwaaaaaa ha ha :D

80% of my posts these days are from this :D

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid174/pd83689dc4489a31219f808e73a42a2df/f39a941a.jpg

[George.]

Originally posted by High C:
Don't act so surprised when the deliberately provocative provokes.

My point exactly.

If you can't take the heat, don't spit gasoline into the fire.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by High C:
Ann(e?) Coulter, BTW is not a radio host. She writes a political column, a very provocative political column. She tends to say things like... Democrats are children who live in a fantasy world, stuff like that.Yes, she certainly does. I suspect that's why some people C&P her stuff.

So why would someone C&P her stuff, yet act offended when Norman C&P's someone else's stuff?

Double standard?

When you post Coulter, we disect her 'logic.'

When we post similar stuff, we expect you to discuss it.

[Norman Bernstein]

Ann(e?) Coulter, BTW is not a radio host. She writes a political column, a very provocative political column. She tends to say things like... Democrats are children who live in a fantasy world, stuff like that.
Actually, High C, you get a 'better' impression of Anne Coulter by reading some of her ACTUAL quotes (and these are hers, not mine!)


"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
Actually, High C, you get a 'better' impression of Anne Coulter by reading some of her ACTUAL quotes (and these are hers, not mine!)Shame on you, Norman! We all know that the one, unforgivable sin is to tell a neocon what another neocon has said.

You must understand that they live in a fantasy world where words are not expected to have any relation to reality. They are allowed to say things, but not mean them, contradict themselves, accuse without evidence, slander and lie.

All of these are perfectly forgivable, because, in the neocon world, there is no concept of 'accountability.'

What's said today has no relation to what was said yesterday -- and tomorrow the slate will be cleaned anew.

If the president says something, he does not say it because he means it. He says it because, at that moment, it served some purpose for him. Tomorrow, he may have a different purpose, and different words will flow to him from it.

The system works perfectly so long as no one ever remembers what was said. You're not expected to believe him -- you're only expected to walk away with the vague impression that something forceful was said by a strong, decisive man.

To confront a neocon with a fact (or heaven forbid, two statements in opposition) is not merely an argumentative tactic --- it's an attack on the very structure of their world.

[Garrett Lowell]

Originally posted by ljb5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
And that's because those who disagree with Norman have chosen not to be abusive.Oh, dear me!

High, you are a card! Either that or you live in a fantasy world...


Originally posted by Garrett Lowell:
What a bunch of mental midgets
Originally posted by High C:
Buzz off, DNC troll.
Orignally posted by brad9798:

The small child to which you refer, Norman ... well, he just may be in the mirror on this post!</font>[/QUOTE]I stand by my statement. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So feel free to get out of the kitchen. Or not. IRDGAF. (Man, I picked the wrong week to give up coffee)

[George.]

For the record: in my opinion, High C and Garret are not neocons. They are thoughtful men, who happen to have bought into the neocon line for a while, for diverse circumstancial reasons. They will not blindly stand by any dogma, though they may take varying amounts of time to recognize dogma as such.

In other words, give them a break.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by George.:

In other words, give them a break.I give as good as I get
and I got rhino hide

posted from my phone smile.gif

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Don't act so surprised when the deliberately provocative provokes.

My point exactly.

If you can't take the heat, don't spit gasoline into the fire.</font>[/QUOTE]George, given the fact that you didn't see what took place, I really think you ought to back off on this and give a little more credence to those who actually witnessed it.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Od that I didn't witnes or participate in the Karen bashing thread. It happened during one of my rare periods that I actualy sleep smile.gif None the less I continue to get credit for part of it :D I never even got to read it

phone post

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by High C:
George, given the fact that you didn't see what took place, I really think you ought to back off on this and give a little more credence to those who actually witnessed it.And what a train wreck it was.
The mourning that has been going on around here since the slaying could allow a person to get an idea of what a crime those heartless bastards played on the poor thing though.

[Nelson]

Originally posted by Chris Boers:
Joe (A**hole On Hudson), are we going to get some Joe Free Days when you go to Mexico next week? I am praying for them!ROFLMAO :D

[George.]

Originally posted by High C:
George, given the fact that you didn't see what took place, I really think you ought to back off on this and give a little more credence to those who actually witnessed it.High C, I have no doubt it was as low as it gets. I did see some of the aftershocks, and I did condemn it by inference, even having missed the main event - you may recall I did so at the time.

If it had lasted longer than a few hours before deletion, and I had actually seen it, I would have been one of the lions who would have jumped in in her defense, make no mistake. And you know I mean it.

But I still maintain that a single, unjustifiable, condemnable, alcohol-induced evening event should not be enough to drive away a poster with a minimally thick skin. And if she had a thin skin, fine, and honourable. But people in glass houses should not throw rocks.

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
Od that I didn't witnes or participate in the Karen bashing thread. It happened during one of my rare periods that I actualy sleep smile.gif None the less I continue to get credit for part of it :D I never even got to read it

phone postDamn liar. :mad:

[Donn]

Originally posted by George.:

But I still maintain that a single, unjustifiable, condemnable, alcohol-induced evening event should not be enough to drive away a poster with a minimally thick skin.Unfortunately, that was not the case. It was the culmination of months of badgering by a variety of members, most notably, The Malignant Dwarves.

Now, George, you not only make the rules about how one should post, when and how one should argue, and how one should react to abuse, you've even taken it upon yourself to determine who is, and who is not "one of us."

Hot flash for ya, Geo. I'm not one of you.

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
...If it had lasted longer than a few hours before deletion, and I had actually seen it, I would have been one of the lions who would have jumped in in her defense, make no mistake. And you know I mean it.

But I still maintain that a single, unjustifiable, condemnable, alcohol-induced evening event should not be enough to drive away a poster with a minimally thick skin....George, I know that about you. I've seen you come to Karen's defense on more than one occassion. But it wasn't a single evening of drunkenness. It was a months long concerted effort to harrass. It was obscene.

And now we have a couple of the culprits chiming in that they missed it, too. :rolleyes:

Damn liars, a lot of us know who you are, and remember what you did. :mad:

[George.]

Originally posted by Donn:

Now, George, you not only make the rules about how one should post ...

I do not. No one does. There are no rules.

This is the real world. You want rules? Go play games, child.


... you've even taken it upon yourself to determine who is, and who is not "one of us."I have not. You are drunk, as usual for the hour, and confusing me with someone else.

I granted you a "touche" when you were right about me, but I expect no return courtesy, or indeed any courtesy at all, from you.


Originally posted by Donn:
Hot flash for ya, Geo. I'm not one of you.You most certainly are not. And I am grateful for that. ;) :D

[Donn]

Originally posted by George.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ... you've even taken it upon yourself to determine who is, and who is not "one of us."I have not. You are drunk, as usual for the hour, and confusing me with someone else.
</font>[/QUOTE]
"On the other hand, the arse-whole who bumped this up is most definitely NOT one of us..." Just who am I mistaking you for...hmmmm?

"This is the real world"

ROFL! Keep telling yourself that, Geo.

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
...There are no rules....But there are.

A key excerpt:
"if you use our site, you agree not to:
a. upload, transmit, post, email or otherwise make available to the site, any content or other material in any format that: (i) is false, inaccurate, misleading, fraudulent, unlawful (including, but not limited to, laws governing consumer protection, unfair competition, antidiscrimination, or false advertising), harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, libelous and/or otherwise objectionable"

There ARE rules here.

[George.]

And one more time, before someone tries to misrepresent me:

I do not favour harassing Karen into leaving. I believe that whatever happened that evening when she left was despicable. I hereby publicly call anyone who insulted her as a woman, or as a human being, a worthless piece of manure.

I complained about her, and will still complain if she returns unreformed. But I DO NOT support any attempts to silence her by humiliation or unbearable insult.

[High C]

deleted due to weird forum hiccup double posting

[ 08-02-2005, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[George.]

Very good, Donn. You can pull something from another thread, out of context, into this one.

Cross-reasoning, is it? Or just a bit of ethylic cross-threading?

[George.]

Originally posted by High C and WB:
... you agree not to.... post ...any content ... that...is false, inaccurate, misleading, fraudulent, unlawful ... abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, libelous and/or otherwise objectionable"

There ARE rules here.Well, that just about excludes Donn, Dutch, MIke, Karen, Anne Coulter, SamF, John Boulton, and George W. Bush from ever posting here! :D tongue.gif :D

[Donn]

Originally posted by George.:
Very good, Donn. You can pull something from another thread, out of context, into this one.

Cross-reasoning, is it? Or just a bit of ethylic cross-threading?Nothing complicated, Geo. Just an example of you, as I stated, deciding who is and who is not "one of us."

Now I'll have my first drink of the day. tongue.gif

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
THE FANTASY WORLD OF GEORGE W. BUSH....Does George Bush really believe that actual evidence doesn't matter if it happens to conflict with his own instinct? Yes. He really does.
And then there are lots of people who believe him on every matter.
That's the strangest part.
Then they go crazy if you pull the covers off.
Then they start hollering about Karen somebody .

[ 08-02-2005, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by High C:
Damn liar. :mad: HiC I am a lot of things on this forum but the one thing I am not is a liar.

From what I have peiced together a late night thread by MMike got out of hand. I was not involved as much as you would like to think I was.

Someone involved in it posted in Donn's who's next thread that I was not involved.

That said I do rejoice and heartly rejoice in MMike sacrifice

HiC I expect you being a man about your mistake an apology forthwhit :D

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Donn:

Hot flash for ya, Geo. I'm not one of you.Ahhhh but you both are one of us. yoy don't only post resent hate filled political C&P&Smirk. You both post above the bilge and you both own WoodenBoats

So deny as much as you want you are both one of us :D

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Damn liar. :mad: HiC I am a lot of things on this forum but the one thing I am not is a liar.

From what I have peiced together a late night thread by MMike got out of hand. I was not involved as much as you would like to think I was.
</font>[/QUOTE]Pieced together, my ass! You know damn well that you had a parallel thread going, where you and the other miscreants goaded MM to keep up his attack on Karen. A number of people, including, I think it was, Ed Harrow, told you guys to knock it off. You deleted a bunch of your posts, and Mike couldn't stop himself.

You guys hung your friend out to dry. You prodded him, like kids on a playground circling some hapless victim, to keep it up. You got him to do the dirty work. Then you bailed when the grownups showed up. He paid the price while the rest of you got off easy.

And now you pretend it never happened.

You're a damn liar.

[Chris Coose]

Going on a quite a jag here High C.
15 posts to this thread and not a single word on the topic. Not one.
Misery and suffering are characteristics you seem to treasure.
Wicked miserable.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

HiC with all candor and honestly you do not have your facts strait.

I make no alusions to my dislike of Karen but I did not participate or witness MMikes thread.

YOU ARE WRONG !!!!!!!

[High C]

Joe, you need help.

[High C]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
Going on a quite a jag here High C.
15 posts to this thread and not a single word on the topic. Not one.
Misery and suffering are characteristics you seem to treasure.
Wicked miserable.Oh, I'm on topic, all right. Isn't this thread about fantasy land? There are some people here who are living in it. Are you gonna play Joe's game, too? Or are you bigger than that?

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by High C:
Oh, I'm on topic, all right. Isn't this thread about fantasy land? There are some people here who are living in it. Are you gonna play Joe's game, too? Or are you bigger than that?You are in fantasy land to think you are on topic.
This is a thread about dubbya's perceptions and pronouncements that are contradictory.
You haven't written one word to it.
All you've been is angry at everybody who steps in front of you.
You want to start a "Mourning for Karen" thread go to it.
That is where you have been since she chose to split. Flailing all over the place.

[ 08-02-2005, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

[High C]

Chris, are you still a drunk?

You sure act like one sometimes. :rolleyes:

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Hey Mike get yourself a new pair of glasses and get back to me as who brought Ding Dong Karen into THIS thread?

HiC if I need help you need medication

It all maters not to me Karen QUIT !!!! and I'm still here .... you do the math

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by High C:
Chris, are you still a drunk?

You sure act like one sometimes. :rolleyes:
All you've been is angry at everybody who steps in front of you.
I haven't had a drink in a long time. Found out I had an ability to change.
How bout you? You always going to be an angry Son of a Bitch?

[ 08-02-2005, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

[Chris Coose]

Jeez Joe, I did a little bit of research and it was the Oyster who raised the dead very early on in this thread.

And he carries on about the problems here?

Oyster, it was you who hijacked this thread!!
You are a nut.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by High C:
[qb]Chris, are you still a drunk?

You sure 

[ 08-02-2005, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[High C]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Chris, are you still a drunk?

You sure act like one sometimes. :rolleyes:
All you've been is angry at everybody who steps in front of you.
I haven't had a drink in a long time. Found out I had an ability to change.
How bout you always going to be and angry Son of a Bitch?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I'm angry at you, and Joe, and the other clowns who did what you did to Karen.

I just wish you'd learn to behave like grownups. Failing that, just obey the dang rules.

[ 08-02-2005, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[Chris Coose]

What I did to who?
(I think this one is going to take a new thread)

[High C]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
What I did to who?

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

HiC time to up your dose.

Karen QUIT no one made her leave. Get a grip man

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chris Coose:
What I did to who?</font>[/QUOTE]Behaving like an adult would require you to answer the question, specially when you go thrashing around angry as you are.

[PatCox]

From what I see, Joe does not "bring up" Karen, other people continually bring up Karen and her supposed "persecution." Joe then simply responds, I don't think Joe is the one living in the past here. Both sides are at least equally to blame for flogging that dead horse.

She posted provacative posts, and when she got strong responses, she left. Thats it. Its over. No "conspiracy" of "leftists" can force someone to stop posting on a website. Noone burned a cross on her lawn. its just talk. More people talked against her than for her, thats not a conspiracy, thats just someone poking a hornets nest until the hornets came out. Don't poke the nest unless you have your beekeeping gear on.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by MIke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
HiC time to up your dose.

Karen QUIT no one made her leave. Get a grip manNever know it by your continued trashing of her, Joe. Give it a rest, Joe. Thats all anyone is asking, and go about your merry way. She is not bothering you with one post, one smiley face, or anything else. Whats the big deal? Get a grip on yourself.</font>[/QUOTE]I did not bring Karen into this thread DID I ???
DID I MIKE??
DID I????
HUN???

She was called fat and she left. I just had someone bring up my still born nephew as a pro Karen commentary.

BUT in your logic THAT'S OK eh MIKE??? EH????

One Sided hypocritical neocon fools the whole lot of ya. :mad: :mad:

They USED A DEAD CHILD :mad:
A LITTLE BABY LOST BEFORE HE WAS BORN TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT KAREN HOW F@#KING SICK IS THAT?????

Thats OK with you MIKE ??? Thats OK ???? :mad: :mad: :mad:

How about you HiC is that what I deserved HUN??? :mad:

Well screw you all I will OUTLAST EACH AND EVRY ONE OF YOU
I got Rhino Skin and I can out post and out think and out photo every damn one of you. GIVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT LOOSERS.

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
...They USED A DEAD CHILD :mad:
A LITTLE BABY LOST BEFORE HE WAS BORN TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT KAREN HOW F@#KING SICK IS THAT?????

Thats OK with you MIKE ??? Thats OK ???? :mad: :mad: :mad:

How about you HiC is that what I deserved HUN??? :mad: ...LOOSERS.You reap what you sow, Joe.

We also remember that you did the same thing yourself. You taunted someone about his dead son. Repeatedly, right here. We all saw it.

People don't forget that kind of thing.

Loser. (note the correct spelling)

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by High C:
You reap what you sow, Joe.

We also remember that you did the same thing yourself. You taunted someone about his dead son. Repeatedly, right here. We all saw it.

People don't forget that kind of thing.

Loser. (note the correct spelling)Fine HiC I will not forget your words and unlike Alterane and Karen I will remain on this forum to make you eat them.

I am beyond livid my spelling may not be precise enough but I assure you will understand what I say.

You justify this act ?? You are OK with it?? You say I reap what I so? You think honestly in your heart that it is OK ??? You HATE me that much ?? HUN YOU HATE ME HiC to allow yourself to be blind to the fact that someone USED a dead child to make a pro Karen comment ??? THAT IS SINCERELY OK with you?????

How can you defend one side and then applaud the other for even a more revolting act??? How can you justify that ??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

LET'S GET THIS STRAIT!!! I never contributed to MMikes Karen bashing thread, I NEVER brought Karen's name up in this thread first ? WHO BROUGHT HER NAME INTO THIS WHO ??? WHO??? WHO???

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Hey Mike get a mac ya wont miss so much. tongue.gif

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid176/p1f5919fcd2c01f63c624100679c83131/f36268c9.jpg

Still standing, still posting. Always have always will. Na Na Na tongue.gif

[High C]

Joe, you know damn well that I disapprove of what was done with regard to your nephew. I said so on another thread, a thread started by Pat.

And I disapproved of it when you did it, too. But you have to realize that you don't behave the way you do in a vacuum. People who do sick, vile things to others are going to see those things come back to haunt them.

I don't want you to be in pain. I want you to mature, to learn how to get along with others. Something you have a great deal of trouble doing.

Stuff like this is going to keep happening to you, Joe, if you keep on behaving as you do. Some day, when you realy are face to face with someone like Charles Gresham when you shoot off your mouth, you're going to be squashed like a grape.

I don't want that for you, and maybe that's why I have provoked you, to bring this to a head. You can do better. This community needs for you to do better. I wouldn't have done it if not for your ongoing gloating, posting that stupid sign, etc. It's really pretty sick. When I say that you need help, it's not meant as an insult, though I know it's hard to take any other way. I sincerely mean it.

I don't want to be your enemy. I don't want to be anyone's enemy, but enough is enough. I want this to get better. I sincerely do.

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by High C:
I don't want to be your enemy. I don't want to be anyone's enemy, but enough is enough. I want this to get better. I sincerely do.Then maybe you'll answer my question. Put that bit out of the way. Until tonight, I didn't know I was on your list.

[PatCox]

Insisting on an admission of fault from your enemy as a condition of forgiveness, understanding, or even civil treatment, is not consistent with the teachings of christ or buddha, which, regardless of any faith in divinity, I find to be pretty fine teachings.

Lets please let it go, all of it, the personal stuff. I implore someone on either side to plead for peace without making it conditional on a concession (and without passive-aggressively saying "I'll be a bigger man than my jerk adversary and forgive.)

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

HiC deeeeep breath, there was some redemption gold in what said and I thank you. I have always thought you even tempered except when it came to me on occasions. But I am abrasive to those of your political persuasion ONLY.


I don't want you to be in pain. I want you to mature, to learn how to get along with others. Something you have a great deal of trouble doing. ONLY NeoCons don't get a long with me. The rest I go to BBQs with or go sailing or play Lawn Tractor Polo with or go to Mystic EBS, have them come over and hang out. I'm kinda well liked so I don't see the great deal of trouble I have. People in my life LOVE me I get along with everyone. THE ONLY people who attack me on this forum are those who don't like my politics. THATS IT. Take a survey.

As far as Charles kicking my ass. Let me tell you I have gotten along with Charles he is one of us. I have no beef with him. I even get along with Karen's Son and have had some nice conversations with him. Butttttttt lets get real there are not a lot of old men on this forum that could seriously kick my ass in real life fight, folla? I don't care how tall or tuff they think they are. I am one of the few that would gladly say exactly what I post to ANYONES face with out fear.

OK now that the testosterone has passed :D
I think some of you need to see my Karen comments as a response to the Neocon Taunts. Who are quick to use her name as a rallying cry FIRST.

Don't bring her up FIRST and I won't simple as that.

I choose to get a long, but if pushed I push back. That is NEVER going to change.

[ 08-02-2005, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Nelson]

I hereby publicly call anyone who insulted her as a woman, or as a human being, a worthless piece of manure.
ROFLMAO :D

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Nelson, Who the hell are you???
What right do you even have posting on such a topic??

You look like an idiot. :rolleyes:

[High C]

Originally posted by PatCox:
...Lets please let it go, all of it, the personal stuff...Pat, you're quite the peacemaker. I am impressed.

I seek no admission, nothing like that. Just a cessation of the gloating, the KFD sign, and the like. I can let it go, if the gloating stops.

To put it behind us, it has to be behind us.

Joe? Howz about it? Deal?

[Nelson]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
Nelson, Who the hell are you???
What right do you even have posting on such a topic??

You look like an idiot. :rolleyes: Its all part of my fantasy, and THAT is the topic. ;)

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by High C:
Joe? Howz about it? Deal?
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
Don't bring her up FIRST and I won't simple as that.Deal.

( I am having a very difficult time trying to control my anger over the "Worst News" thread bump. Im trying TRYING very hard. )

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Joe? Howz about it? Deal?
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
Don't bring her up FIRST and I won't simple as that.Deal.

( I am having a very difficult time trying to control my anger over the "Worst News" thread bump. Im trying TRYING very hard. )</font>[/QUOTE]Deal.

[George.]

smile.gif

Peace, gentlemen. Let Karen rest in peace, too. Let's no one bring her up anymore, and if someone does to make an agressive point, as happened on this thread, let's condemn that, not the inevitable reaction.

I can assure you that if she is lurking, and thinking of coming back, this perpetual re-hashing of the events that led to her leaving is likely to dissuade her. If you really feel bad because she left, don't keep bringing it up to make a point against others. And if you are glad she left, why keep her here in spirit by using her to create dissent?

[Norman Bernstein]

Hi... remember me? I started this thread, I think smile.gif

For the record:

1) I didn't see the events which resulted in Karen deciding to leave... the thread was deleted while I was away. I have 'faith' that she still lurks smile.gif

2) I enjoyed Karen's posts, enjoyed what little discourse I had with her, admittedly wished she'd discuss the topics more, and was highly dissapointed to see her leave.

3) I castigated JoeCSOH on more than one occasion for being over the top and making personal remarks that I thought were utterly unwarranted... doesn't matter if he and I see some things the same way or not... when a guy is out of line, he's out of line, and I'll say so.

4) I'm still waiting to have a sensible, reasoned, intelligent, and informative debate on an issue... ANY issue... with people who won't descend into personal disparagement in a attempt to discredit those of opposing positions. I'll discuss/debate pretty much ANY topic ya like.... right up to the point where the name-calling starts.

[Chris Coose]

My concious tactic seems to be working in that thread. Except for one post.
Join in! It is a worthwhile and informative thread, by some pretty smart guys.

[Don Olney]

Wow, last night was Fishwife Night
on the WB Forum and I missed it.
Looks like fun and time well spent.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_pc_0/0_post_card_portraits_-_hartmann_newhaven_fishwives.jpg

[Garrett Lowell]

I would like to make a public apology for my "mental midget" statements made earlier in this thread. I should have just avoided the forum whilst in the midst of lacka-caffeine DTs. The apology is sincere.

[TomF]

Good on you, Garrett.

[Chris Coose]

They do the best monitoring of christian science.

[Ian McColgin]

Most people interested in good factual reporting like the Monitor. Seems that they are putting without spin the various ways this story could play and the information still needed to know which from what. Had the President been supportive of this friend in this even-handed open-minded way, there'd have been no thread here.

[Gary E]

the thread started with results of a drug test being postive, without looking into it, and slam dunking that the guy is guilty Well... HE IS!!!!

If you think for 10 freekin seconds that he would not have demand a 2nd and a 3rd test IF THE DRUGS were IN THE LEGAL SUPLEMENT.. and TROT OUT THOSE LEGAL SUPLEMENTS FOR PROOF... Because he was going to loose 10 days pay, yes over $160,000 !!!

The league cought him, and he's as guilty as a kid cought with a mouthfull of cookies and shaking his head no not me to Mom.

IF anyone including the SHRUB can believe him is just plain stooopid. Nobody would just take that lying down and loose over $160K if he was right. To believe otherwize is to believe in the tooth fairy...

You probably also believe Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame... sheesh...

[ 08-03-2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Gary E ]

[Gary E]

Yo Mikee
NObody other than the OFFICIALS at the LEGUE NEED TO VERIFY ANYTHING...

IF he was so railroaded.. he should trot out the freekin PROOF that the suplements are legit...

Sheesh your gulible...

[Donn]

I love to watch a couple of illiterates sluggin it out. You both make seafox look like Shakespeare.

[Ian McColgin]

We knew from the start that Palmeiro was not being railroaded.

He was the only player to be suspended AFTER all his appeals were completed. The other (what is it?) four or so were suspended and that was confirmed by appeal.

Palmeiro is now speaking publicly as if he'd never taken anything and it's an educational process about other suppliments. Regretably he has continued not to identify any reason he could have had a false positive.

That's why he lost the appeal.

It's also plain dumb enough that it's got Congress provoked enough that Rep Tom Davis (R-Va) has been charged with looking at perjury charges. The first step will be to review the drug test and appeals material.

Palmeiro was never railroaded. His arrogance led him to this place. The President's gratuitous and blind endorsement put him there as well.

I'd said in my first remarks on this thread that it all seemed a little early, not a "gotcha" moment and all.

In a way I'm beginning to change my mind. Partly that's due to the disporportionate defense of the President that's been mounted in the media. Why the big deal?

I really thought it was pretty trivial in the first place when the President injected it into his SoU speech and when Congress wasted its time with hearings. But as it roils about, the very triviality, the veniality of the wrong and the idiocy of the President's position, make it still very trivial but perfectly emblematic of the administration.

[Ian McColgin]

Adding to my change of mind on this issue, here's a longish C&P from a reporter who has followed the issue for some years.

RAFAEL PALMEIRO AND THE POLITICS OF DISTRACTION

by Dave Zirin

A close compatriot of President Bush squats in a scandal so malodorous it led news shows from coast to coast. It's a scandal that some say is too hot for Bush to comment on. But there was the President, speaking without a stammer or stutter on this issue of pressing national concern.

There was only one curious twist. The scandalized bosom buddy was not the bosomy Karl Rove, but Baltimore Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro. Yes, in an era of war and economic crisis, Bush took time to rush to the defense of a four-time All-Star who has become the highest profile casualty of Major League Baseball's steroid testing program.

Bush called Palmeiro a "friend" and said, "He's testified in public [to being clean], and I believe him.... Still do." Presidential lickspittle Scott McClellan also made clear at a White House press briefing that Palmeiro has the full support of the Oval Office.

It no doubt will puzzle future generations (or present ones, for that matter) why the President felt compelled to comment on what a 40 year old ballplayer may or may not have ingested. But the reasons are clear enough. This is a case of how the Bush administration's Politics of Distraction have turned around to nip the President in the tush. It all began at the January 2003 State of the Union address when Bush inexplicably took time to talk tough on steroids. As New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady grinned next to the First Lady, Bush put the plague of steroids on the front burner of the national consciousness. This was Politics of Distraction 101, a classic ploy to give the public something to chew over instead of those two pesky countries the US armed forces happened to be occupying.

But a fly flew into the flaxseed oil when bankrupt former all-star, Jose Canseco attempted to capitalize on steroid mania by releasing an inject-and-tell book called, appropriately enough, Juiced. In Juiced, Canseco names every buttock that cozied up to his all-star syringe. Two of those cheeks, Canseco revealed, belonged to Palmeiro. The repercussions were immediate. Palmeiro had always presented himself as a Holy Joe, a rock ribbed Republican, a podium thumper for the American Dream. Thanks to Canseco, Palmeiro found himself subpoenaed and forced to testify in front of congress last March. Grimacing with indignation, Palmeiro wagged his finger and said under oath," Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never."

The performance was convincing. So convincing Palmeiro was even named to a Congressional committee that would work to "clean up the sport." Canseco was the liar. Palmeiro the hero dragged through the mud. Never mind that after Canseco joined the Texas Rangers Palmeiro's home run averages jumped from 19 per year to 37. Never mind because the steely-eyed Palmeiro made you believe that his anger was righteous. Now, in the wake of this latest test, he looks like the one thing worse that a liar: a sanctimonious liar. As Tom Boswell of the Washington Post wrote, "In this culture, heaven help you if, after playing that once-per-lifetime, I-swear-on-a-stack-of-Bibles card, you get caught."

But Palmeiro thinks he can whip out those Bibles for an encore. In a teleconference Monday, Palmeiro said, "When I testified in front of Congress, I know that I was testifying under oath and I told the truth. Today I am telling the truth again ...I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period." [the guy has to lay off the periods.]

Palmeiro's state of disgrace also means that we are now treated to the sight of Canseco, last seen living with Omarosa and Bronson "Balki" Pinchot on VH1's "The Surreal Life", posturing like Abe Lincoln, parading around talk shows saying things like (and I love this quote) "Palmeiro test proves that almost everything in my book is true."

If we are now to accept Canseco's book as holy writ, we should also remember that his Texas Rangers team had an owner named George W. Bush who Canseco describes as "most certainly knowing" that the players were on the juice. This went wildly underreported when the book was released, largely because Canseco's credibility was in constant question. Now that Canseco has morphed into Honest Abe, we should start asking whether Bush should receive the next congressional subpoena about steroids in sports. We should ask what Bush actually knows and when did he know it. We should press Palmeiro on what his friend in the owner's box, the former cheerleader from Yale, did and did not allow. We should take these Politics of Distraction, which Bush hoisted into our lives and drop the whole stinking, steaming, anabolic load on his front door.

Dave Zirin's new book "What's My Name Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States" is now in stores. You can receive his column Edge of Sports, every week by e-mailing edgeofsports- subscribe@zirin.com. Contact him at whatsmynamefool2005@yahoo.com.

###