Howard Troxler, one of the St. Petersburg Times' most excellent columnists, once told me that if you're not making people think, you're really not doing your job as a columnist, and he said that, generally, you're job isn't to make everybody happy with what you're writing about. Of course, I'm paraphrasing from a 1999 interview I had with him, but his writing is still excellent and he obviously isn't writing to make people happy. He writes to breathe life into important, yet, sometimes ignored issues that should be discussed by the public.

Blogs are opinion outlets. Blogcritics is a collective of what are mostly opinion writers, or columnists who write here for free (or for more traffic to their other websites, which may or may not be for free). Since everyone's opinions are different, everyone is naturally going to disagree at some point, but the good thing about disagreements are that they stimulate discussion, which is the foundation of our free society, however, when someone takes what is said out of context and/or personally, the effect isn't always positive.

It appears that's what happened in this case, although, I do find backstabbing (i.e., trying to get Amazon to cut its ties with Blogcritics) for a simple misunderstanding to be, well, a bit immature. After all, if you don't like Blogcritics, you can always start your own blog-collective to compete with it.

I read stuff on here that I disagree with all the time, however, I don't always let everyone know I disagree with it, and I don't take any of it personally. If I can do that, so can anyone else.

Cheers.

Thanks John, a very mature and clear-headed view of things - like you said, opinion breeds disagreement. We should all feel free to express our opinions and disagreement with opinions and not take it personally - it's called debate. There is a line beyond which debate becomes personal attack, but I have not seen that crossed here.

Beyond clear hate speech - none of which has been expressed here, and none would be tolerated - I am certain Amazon doesn't give a rat's ass. It's called free speech.

Some people simply can't tolerate being publicly disagreed with.

Some people do not come here for debate.

That said, I feel sad for MD and for Mr. Barger, for differing reasons.

I am never pleased when someone feels the need to disassociate themselves from us. I do take that somewhat personally as it is very important to me for all members to feel comfortable with expressing themselves freely, and I feel a sense of responsibility to foster that kind of environment. I am saddened when someone feels that has been violated, but I also know that in any large group of people, there will be those who feel the need to go their own ways for whatever reason and I cannot control that, much as I would like to.

hey Al, I agree with you on this one. I don't agree with every point that you post around here all the time, because that would be a ridiculous expectation. In this case, while I agree with you, I am dissappointed that you wrote this. I feel like with MD leaving and everything it should have been a dead issue. Nobody was convinced that you were a bigot by her comments on the other post. You didn't need to say anything else. You eloquently defended yourself from a silly claim already.

I don't know. If I were in your position, I would have been pissed too, but I think you could have taken the high road. This was purposely put out here to pour salt in the wound. It isn't racist or bigoted, but it is fucking mean, and unnecessary.

I am sad that MD felt the need to leave. I am upset that the boiling blood of anger blinded her from seeing that nobody was attacking her.

Hmmm as a 'person of color' (like we all arent people of color) I do not know whether this will hurt, hender or harm 'the Black Movement' but suffice it to say I must be heard or read...

Painstakingly I must admit that Al, no matter how zealous and unrelenting in its efforts still deserves the right to express his opinion, no matter how unruling it may be. His unyielding attempt to provoke reactions is exactly the main reason I love this site. Its the left field attitudes that force the rest of us to either sh*t or get off the pot(excuse my french).

I can not speak for others but I enjoy that. Being of unsound mind and body I do not take pleasure in anything too easy. If there is no challenge there is no interest, so Al, Andy and Joe are all necessary. Were some of their comments out of line? Hell yea! But so were the Diva's. She let her personal outrage remove her objectiveness causing her point to be moot. Hey, it happens to the best of us.

I don't think what the 3 musketeers (yea I said it) said warrented her resignation, especially since it seemed she had been quite a contributor. If nothing else she should have been more willing and adamant about creating a presence that would supress what she perceived as their bigotry...But eh, what do I know?

Dew, I agree with you also. Al has a right to be heard, I just felt we already heard him loud and clear and maybe he could shake up the site in a different way and let the dead horse rot.

I think Dew should be held responsible as she's the root cause for all this. I mean, it was her post that originally started the whole fracas (3 musketeers! Well, I never!). I must go now and prepare racist rhetoric to unleash on the unthinking masses.

This is purely from a technical perspective here but the part that bothered me was when MD posted that she was going to remove all her prior posts.

Huh?

Nobody should have that right, including the author. If I submit something to blogcritics then it is meant to stay there unless it contains something that would get the site in some sort of legal trouble (which I'm never going to post anything like that).

If Movable Type has this type of delete function where an author can go in and easily delete everything they have contributed because they no longer like the site that should be on the list to disable.

A window of time could be made for edit/delete if the article just totally doesn't work for something like say 1-2 hours (and also allow for spelling or small word changes which I'm sure we all make from time to time), but I think that especially once comments from others start rolling in that it is total BS for anybody to totally remove that article (save for legal reasons as already mentioned).

Over the years I've seen a few forum moderators behave this way. They get pissed and the first thing that they do is want to start using their admin powers to fuck with the website. That's weak.

If I take the time to comment on your article, review, post, etc I'm not expecting that 6 months from now when you throw a tizzy that you'll use your admin powers to wash away those words.

I hope that MD will chill, take some time away, then come back and contribute once again when she feels like it because her contributions will be missed.

Absolutely, I don't agree with everybody and I sure as heck don't expect everybody to agree with me, but I would never fuck with the content on someone's website -- anybody's website -- for any reason.

I hope this MT feature is blocked or at least modified so that new stories can only be edited/deleted by the author within a certain period of time after publishing.

This whole thing is extremely disturbing to me on a couple of different levels.

I like Mac Diva and I think she is an interesting addition to Blogcritics. She writes well and added a considerable about of flavor to the site.

I like Al, and he does the exact same thing.

Al is not a racist, but he is an antagonist and a devil's advocate on everything.

As a person who was directly responsible for another person leaving this blog, I am deeply regretful for not choosing my words more wisely.

Andy's comments I did not feel were racist, but merely stated from his perspective.

Joe, well Joe is another story altogether and seems intent on being a troll no matter what the subject.

Quitting just implies that you were beat, and I can't imagine why Mac Diva would let ANYONE beat her.

For once I will say Joe is more than correct, it's all my fault. Pinky and I have worked hard to cause discord to the masses and our plan is finally en route!!

Hey, c'mon! Are you trying to imply something about me? I'm just challenging people's positions. I may get snarky or sarcastic but I don't think I'm heaping any personal attacks on people. Does that make me a troll? Should I go away, too?

What's this "For once" business, Dew? I think what you meant to say was "As usual".

Nope, 'As Usual' I got it right the first time. :-)

I agree with both Dawn and TDavid. And that's all I'm going to say on this subject.

I read this and thought at first it had to be a joke. Mac Diva, guardian of rights for all, quitting just because people disagreed with her? Give me a break. If this is all it takes to make her take her ball and go home, well, jeez, that's pretty weak.

Maybe others have left Blogcritics with less brouhaha, but this I think is a pretty sad day for Blogcritics. People should leave because they've lost the desire to do this, not because they've been disagreed with. I hope others don't feel this way, I hope Mac Diva is overreacting. Most of all, I really hope we don't see others leaving because of crap like this. If you use this as a reason to leave, it's just an easy excuse.

Oh, HELL no, Dew. You ain't getting credit for this. I am the one and true Professor Chaos! This is my handiwork. XOX.

I'm still mad, though, because I'm not getting near enough SYMPATHY. OK, Natalie feels sorry for me, so we're good between us. All the rest of you though, still owe me PITY for the horrible abuse I've suffered.

Craig, did you take it from this post that I was angry? "What we have here is failure to communicate." Actual anger would have been near the opposite from my intent. Perhaps my literary skills failed me here. Sorry.

Mac Diva didn't do anything to hurt me, and her problem ain't me to begin with. I wouldn't take something like this personal. Nor do I feel defensive in the least about my or our content. That'd be SILLY.

I don't really have any beef with her. She just happened to pick my doorstep as the place to throw a little crazy fit. She obviously wants attention. I'm simply trying to oblige a lady.

As I said at the top, I'm just having a bit of sport with ol' girl. Perhaps I might legitimately be accused of not taking the highest road in mocking her, but in fairness I am playing MUCH nicer than her.

"Perhaps I might legitimately be accused of not taking the highest road in mocking her" Thus this is where the pity died...

Quit yer' whining, Al. You and Andy get passes and I'm singled out as a dirty, nasty troll...again!

go back under your bridge and eat some goats Joe

Et tu, Andrew? Maybe you're the one that's truly at fault here. If it weren't for you trying to inject your vaunted personal experiences into everything, we wouldn't be in this kerfluffle. And what? Who doesn't love mutton?

Technically it is my fault haha. The thread was harmless enough until I had to go share my stories of discrimination and rascalism while living in "da hood". After that, the bigot word came out of hiding and a full scale assault was launched on my good loving nature!

You know what? This is a bigger issue in some ways than it appears. And yep, I am going to tell you why.

There are probably few of us who have followed this thread who don't feel that Mac overreacted and sort of lost her way in this discussion. But what I think we are failing to see, but I am sure Dew or Natalie and even myself can see, is that she has a legitimate complaint with the world at large.

Racism is real, it exist and it is cruel and painful to deal with. But how would we know, we are white. We don't know what it means to be black AND female do we? We haven't the slightest clue what it would be like to merely try and exist in a world where a certain percentage of people assume something about you based on something you have NO CONTROL OVER - your color.

Dew, Mac and Natalie can dress appropriately, act appropriately, speak appropriately in a way that wouldn't never deceive who they are, but as soon as you open your eyes and see them, there they are: black.

I don't REALLY believe that anyone involved in the comments or posts is truly a hateful racist. But I think some of us don't take racism as seriously as someone who lives with it.

Empathy is a hard thing to have when you can't even imagine what it's like to be that person.

I can't imagine being black, but I am of minority status and I feel persecuted from time to time. When I am in the park alone, or driving at night by myself or in any vunerable setting - my gender comes to the forefront of my mind.

I am weaker physically than a vast majority of the population and I can be a victim just because of something I have NO CONTROL OVER.

Mac may be right, that bitch who wouldn't let her in the door may be have been a raging racist, or she could just be an asshole.

But Mac will never know, and in many cases lots of black folks just don't know what white people REALLY think.

I feel sorry for anyone who can't take a minute to think about that and say - hmmm... that must suck and I bet it might affect my outlook on life sometimes.

Just my two cents anyway.

Um, OK.

Hey, look at it this way. MD could be doing Blogcritics a favor by trying to sever the tie between Amazon-dot-crap (I cringe every time I post because of those goddamned Amazon links -- I would never spend money there). In all seriousness, would it be possible to consider partnering instead with a reputable independent, such as Powell's Books?

Completely off the point, and I apologize for that. Pardon my digression, please, but think about it.

Dawn, you're right. I wasn't trying to downplay racism in any of my posts. I realize it's real(because, being the only white person in an enviroment can make you feel the same way sometimes), and I probably wasn't totally sympathetic to Mac Diva. It's hard for me to be sympathetic to someone who ALWAYS plays the race card the way she seemed to do. Either way, I hope that no one downplayed racism in that thread.

Natalie, There is nothing magical about Amazon and I had no intention of going with them when we started, but the reality came crashing down: there is no other site that has the system they do which gives us the pictures, etc, with just a bit of code. We looked at other sites, we even tried to switch once, but they have the market sewed up. And because people are so used to seeing the name, thee is also a comfort and trust level that comes from having such a ubiquitous name.

Our financial deal isn't good, but we couldn't find one better, and the picture/info arrangement is gold. That's the reality right now.

we could always go to pop up adds, if that's better than amazon...

*The Theory... is joking and would kick some serious bootay if pop up adds were added to blogcritics*

Eric / Phillip - did you see my comments above about a possible timed edit / delete function? Seriously, you might want to take a look at this. Reply via private if you prefer, but a reply or acknowledgement of some sort addressing this would let me know that you got the message.

Thank you ;)

Thanks T, we're all over it. Nothing can really be deleted anyway. Everything you said is exactly what we thought. Editing, fine - deleting, not fine.

could you clarify that, eric? like, the "nothing can really be deleted anyway" part...

Eric: Nothing moral either. The whole thing makes me feel unclean. Of course, I would not be the first to say that reality bites. At least in politics, I have the option to vote Nader.

Powell's? Right here in my home town? Don't even think about partnering with them, Eric. I would be at Mike 's (the sole owner and a friend) giving him an earful about Barger's take-over of Blogcritic's the next day. Let's just say there's a price to pay for abetting the neo-Confederate movement. (BTW, why is it some folks think they are never supposed to be held responsible for the things they do? You allowed Barger to take over the site. So, you are responsible for the outcome.)

As for Barger's latest lie, I abhor Tupac Shakur and have never said anything defensive about him in my life. (Yes, I know he has a lot of fans, but I don't understand why.)

T, so far my entries have not fallen off though I definitely did delete all of them. I think it only fair to remove them at my request. Why should Eric benefit from the work of someone he disrespects and who has asked he return her work product? I can't think of a good reason. It is not as if Eric needs good writers for Blogcritics. He has Joe, Al and Andy. Who could ask for more?

FYI: Andy is not a blogcritic. just a reader.

And, that somehow gets Eric off the hook for aiding and abetting Andy? If anything, it is worse that he eagerly supports someone who doesn't contribute content to the site while insulting someone who does.

Perhaps Eric intends to support Al Barger and the neo-Confederate movement. Perhaps not. Either way, he is doing so by providing a platform for Barger. (Which is unnecessary. The movement has its own forums that Barger is doubtlessly active in. I can tell by what he posts here. It is largely content from those sites.)

As for the latter's mental health. Anyone who supports that movement, which is not only racist, but believes the South should again secede from the U.S., is in no position to throw stones. Methinks Barger is just very upset about being outted. You see, where he is coming from is so shameful people in the know will think he must be crazy.

Mac Diva I have to respectfully disagree with this statement:

I think it only fair to remove them at my request.

I know that having my citations to Blogcritics will cause my linkage numbers to fall a lot, T. I am willing to accept that rather than be on a site dominated by Al Barger, a neo-Confederate. I started participating in blogs by exposing that movement and what it stands for. Remember the Trent Lott controversy? I began gathering information about the neo-Confederate movement while a reporter in the South years ago. I provided much of the material big name bloggers have relied on in exposing the movement, which Lott shares with Barger and about 70,000 other members. (Atrios and Josh Marshall did a lot of digging on their own, too. They are credited with having brought Lott down.) It would go against everything I believe in not to expose Barger's affiliation and why he is looking for a platform. Posting side-by-side with him would undermine my position in regard to that dangerous (yes, it has been linked to violence) movement. So, the reasonable thing for Eric to do, since he apparently wants Barger to continue to rule Blogcritics, is to remove my material from the site. Understand?

Note that I am sticking to the big issue, not addressing Eric's apparent approval (he did not disagree) of Barger calling me insane and worse. However, my tolerance stops at coddling neo-Confederates.

My blog stats have been very high at times because knowledgeable people who are good writers are rare in the blogosphere. The way to keep them high is never to take a meaningful stand on issues. Just echo everyone else. Brown-nose the big names. Beg for links. I would rather have my stats drop than do any of that.

Oops! "I know that deleting my citations to Blogcritics will cause my linkage numbers to fall a lot, T."

Mac Diva, I am surprised that I have to respond further to this since I thought you made it clear that you were leaving - that, deleting your posts, and threatening some kind of action with Amazon made your point.

I do not control the site, I am merely first among equals in terms of participation, ownership, etc of the site. Writers - such as yourself - post on their own. Al is not a neo-Confederate. You know this. You also know he is not a racist. You DID act in a disturbed and irrational manner. I told you I didn't want you to go. Several others have done the same. What is left to discuss? Either join in on equal terms or go your own way. There are 330 writers on this site. No one dominates it - not even me. That is what is so good about it. If you can't take a wide range of opinion - including those 180 degrees from yours on many issues - then it's not for you.

You are obviously intelligent, a fine writer, and I thought you had a sense of humor - there is no need to make this kind of spectacle.

In fairness, Eric, you don't know that MD knows that Al is not a racist or a neo-Confederate. She may very well believe that he is. Her statement does not mean that he is or isn't; it merely expresses her opinion. If I am to believe what I have read in this horrible thread, all participants here have the right to say what they want however they want, no matter who is hurt by it. What's good for the goose...

Maybe I should just leave then too. As a "non contributor", I apparently have no right to comment on anything written on this site? Screw that man. I may not be the deepest thinker or best speller on this site, but I have a right to comment on what I want in any way I want, whether you find it insulting or not. That's why this comment field exists. Again Mac, I am sorry if I insulted you. I'm sorry you see me as a racist too, but...the feeling's mutual.

Miss Natalie- You say "all participants here have the right to say what they want however they want, no matter who is hurt by it." Well, I try to play nice myself, but I suppose that's optional.

One thing that IS required though is honesty. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ms Diva does not appear to be dealing in good faith.

Further, the "horrible" element, the psychic disturbance, the viciousness is all coming from this same one person who obviously doesn't work and play well with others.

Oh, don't try it, Al. We all know that sometimes you say offensive things and post offensive topics just to get a rise out of people (and then play nice, falling into that tiresome "aw, shucks, I'm just a dumb guy from Kentucky" routine after you've wounded someone through hurling your sharp semantic axes). You have admitted to same.

That is the truth, and frankly, one easily could wonder which is the "honest" Al.

Personally, I find much of what you write horrible. And while I certainly have not agreed with many of the things MD said or her approach (to which she is entitled, same as anyone else, and I say that as someone who also has felt the sting of her words), I don't see where she has not been honest, even if some find her honesty painful.

Which leads me to a question: If your intent is to be honest and not to disrespect people and cause them pain, why in hell did you begin this thread anyway? I don't see why it was necessary unless, on some level, you wanted to incite a conflagration.

If that was your motivation in whole or in part, one could suspect that at least a portion of you is enjoying all this sturm und drang. So, IMO, and with all due respect to you and ALL participants in this shameful thread and the other ones, you ought to be very careful about pointing fingers and casting blame here. As Craig posted above, you are the one who started a topic that has proven itself to be nothing more than "fucking mean" and "unnecessary." Let's see you try a little honesty and assume some responsibility here.

Natalie, I was struck by your use of the word "offensive." You present it as though it was the opposite of "truth." I accuse MD of not telling the truth, even though I make "offensive" posts. Offensive or not is not my principle criterion, truthfulness is.

Thing is that I purposely dive into highly sensitive topics, because they are often the most important. I expect a certain amount of dissent. I care more about saying things I think need said than I do about the possibility that someone's feelings get hurt.

I don't say things I know are going to anger other people just to make them angry. There is generally some point to my provocative comments other than mere provocation. There are other points to consider than that someone might decide to get their feelings hurt.

I do, however, try as much as possible to be personally nice to people with whom I have differences of opinion. You seem to be criticizing me even for that.

I just tries to tell the truth, best I can make it out. It's possible that I might get overheated or overanimated in how I express things from time to time, but I'm trying to give an honest opinion.

Purposely starting conversations on known sensitive topics means that I do volunteer for some criticism and misunderstanding. OK. I can take being the butt of a joke, and I can take serious criticism.

But the fact that I discuss sensitive topics (even in an occassionally flippant manner) does not mean that I should assume fault or shame for someone comleting going off the deep end for no reason whatsoever. Neither I nor anyone else on this thread did anything whatsoever to bring on MD's little hissy fit.

I refuse to self-censor my expression based on the worst way that the most foolish or immature person could possibly decide to take it.

Indeed, this MD situation is not based on anything that I have said. She's just making stuff up wholecloth about me supporting slavery and such. It wouldn't have mattered what I said.

Natalie, you like to be regarded as the voice of conscience. I do trust you to be truthful. Yet I'm finding it difficult to understand how you could honestly look at the abusive and dishonest manner in which MD has acted, compare it to my much more restrained and HONEST, reasonable and mostly fairly friendly replies- then decide that ol' Al is The Goat, or even co-goat.

What's up with that?

Wow. I didn't even know about this whole to-do until now. I was busy raping and killing Bill O'Reilly, and even worse things were apparently happening here.

There's no way I could possibly catch up with all of the threads and all of the details of who said what when.

I'm just bummed that Mac Diva is gone.

Since I can't possibly get familiar enough with the basic body of evidence here, I'll refrain from any defense/condemnation/judgment on the dispute, and I want to be clear that my comments below do not address this specific matter.

That said, I do want want to comment more generally on something this whole issue brings up in my mind: When should a Blogcritic leave as a protest of the strain of conservatism that runs through this site?

I have considered it myself. Among the handful of people who could be termed the leaders of Blogcritics, all have made statements that, if I were sitting at a dinner table with that person, I would have left the table in disgust.

I do know, from email communication, that others have ceased posting and visiting Blogcritics because of the dominance of conservatism here, and because of the frequently low quality of the debate, especially on political topics. It gets old posting some actual thoughts on a political matter only to receive in response an ad hominem attack. It gets really old.

And I have personally wondered if I am doing the right thing by remaining here and endorsing the site.

Every time I consider it, however, I determine it is better to be here than not. The solution to bad speech is more speech. Blogcritics has readers. I want to reach them.

A tip to those who may experience the same frustration as I do when comments threads degenerate: I always imagine the eavesdropping audience. I especially did this during the war. Whenever I could manage it, I didn't imagine myself in conversation with the people attacking me, I imagined someone unbiased perusing the comments threads (there are many, many more readers than posters), forming their own opinions on whatever the subject was. I tried to advocate for my position with them in mind, and let the other side embarrass itself with its crude arguments. It got me through.

I am alarmed by some of the misconceptions I am encountering: there is just as much "liberalism" as there is "conservativism" here. I didn't realize there was a political litmus test that the site must pass. This is a group site, I control nothing other than what I personally post and minor copy editing. Read the bottom of the page: the copyright remains with the author, each is responsible for him/herself.

This is a forum, an outlet, an opportunity. There are 330 people who have equal access to creating the site's content. The "flavor" of the site changes with every single post. I guarantee no particular "flavor" at any given time, only that things will not be allowed to veer into hate speech.

People come and go all the time - that's what happens with a group site. I am never happy when someone leaves but there isn't much I can do about it except try to create as open and welcoming environment as I can, which I do.

To insist the flavor of the site reflect your personal political bent is absurd. It's a big, fat, hairy popular culture magazine that allows people to talk about most anything they want. I disagree with things I see here all the time and I say so - you are all welcome to do the same.

Queue Applause

Come on now people... we need to get off of all this seriousness and enjoy my post of Christina Britney and Madonna acting like drunk college co-eds on the latest incarnation of "Girls Gone Wild." We all need a day of thoughtless gratuitous content to cheer everyone up and make everyone colleagues if not friends. How better to do that, than with some hot photos?

Now everyone kiss and make up! :-)

/shameless plug

:-P

peace.

Completely shameless. I just figure their are now flies circling this horse's carcass. I think everyone needs to put down their Louisville sluggers.

Just saw thi from Dawn: "Dew, Mac and Natalie can dress appropriately, act appropriately, speak appropriately in a way that wouldn't never deceive who they are, but as soon as you open your eyes and see them, there they are: black."

If you were to look at me, Dawn, perhaps that is what you would see, but in my case, at least, you would be wrong. There is a difference between brown and black. Sorry, but I will not sit for erroneous categorizations.

Oh, and Al, you didn't address my point. You claim MD is dishonest but you fail to demonstrate how. I believe she is AT LEAST as honest as you claim to be. And I don't buy that you started this to address a necessary topic. Other already active topics offered avenues for that. I believe you started this one to be unkind and to watch the fireworks, and you haven't changed my mind in the slightest.

Back to Dawn: "dress appropriately, act appropriately, speak appropriately"... What in heck does that mean?

Natalie, please don't overlook Dawn's point. It was a good one.

Yes, put aside the fact that she said something incorrect. As always, patronize the well-meaning but wrong and ignore what the one wronged has to say. MD was correct about some things, apparently.

As I said, I won't sit still for or suffer erroneous categorizations made public. Had a judge thrown off of a trial for something similar the last time I had jury duty. That, my dear, was a blast.

I feel like this is the real world and we are slipping into our roles as they have them cast on the show. The problem is that because we are in a less rich environment than face to face, we end up saying things that piss each other off. Ok? So if everyone goes into this knowing that everyone is ignorant about everyone else maybe we would be better off. My experience as a man from a certain class from the suburbs of Cleveland Ohio is vastly different than other people's.

I still can't figure how this dropped into a morass of negativity, but I for one would like to let it end. Everyone who is on one side or the other seems intent on getting the last word.

AT WHAT POINT DO WE MOVE ON? Right, wrong, disaffected, involved or otherwise? I think we have wrong on both sides, but also, I don't think we are getting anywhere.

At least on the Real World the different hand-selected stereotypes have to come to some sort of agreement because they live together. Here in the blogosphere, there is no such necessity because we don't share the same physical space.

Who will let this end?

Queue Curtain Close

well said Craig

TDavid (#9), you're right. As Eric has said repeatedly in this thread, we are a community of equals, and MovableType is based on that concept, so anybody is allowed to do anything they want to with their own posts.

Or they were, at least. Unfortunately, this is at least the second time that people have chosen to delete posts, and so I've taken the step of modifying the source code to remove that privilege for all but a couple of site-admin people. So now I guess that some of us are more equal than others.

Everybody still has edit privileges on their own posts for all time, so there are still ways for authors to cause problems, but I don't feel comfortable taking away the ability to edit even very old posts. Perhaps I'll start a poll on the subject to gather fellow BC authors' opinions. (Poll, hint, hint...you know who you are...)

By the way, the structure of Blogcritics is such that MacDiva's 18 deleted posts are actually still available, though not through the search engine. Though they were deleted from the database, the pages still exist on disk. It would even theoretically be possible for me to somehow reconstitute the database entries from those pages if that turns out to be the right thing to do. Given the passion surrounding this whole thing, I will leave them alone for now at least.

So now nobody has permission to delete any posts from the main blog but Eric and me (I think that's all, anyway). I'm sure that there are valid reasons to delete posts, such as duplicates and abandoned drafts and so on, but anybody that wants one delete will now have send email to eolsen@blogcritics.org or pwinn@blogcritics.org to request it. Sorry about that. :(

I'll post separately to comment on non-technical issues.

"I don't think we are getting anywhere."

I believe you're right. And I don't believe we ever will.

i expierenced the cruel harsh reality of being unable to delete drafts today... blah.

Natalie, did you entirely miss the fact that Dawn was trying to express empathy with you, or did you just pick up on the fact that she called you "black"? That seems to entirely miss her main point.

See how useful that can be? Now you'll be bugged and eventually maybe finish the Viva Voce piece! ;)

See, I did... and pasted it into a new entry to get the correct date and time... and clicked "save"... and then my compute chocked up and didn't save it. So now I'm discouraged and don't feel like writing a quality review now. haha.

Of course not. I certainly got the empathy bit. Surely you noticed that I used the hyphenate "well-meaning" to describe her. Or did you just pick up on the fact that someone took issue with something your wife said?

Empathy is worthless to me if the person wielding it miscategorizes me (which happens to me all the time; it makes me sick). I am sorry if that upsets you or anyone else, even if no one is sorry about upsetting me.

TT (#61) Did you know that after saving a post, you can edit the date/time? You don't need to create a new post for that. In fact, we had an issue recently where someone set a future date (accidentally) on a post, and it weirded out some RSS aggregators. Don't do that, please.

Maybe I'll have to dig into the source to disallow timestamps that haven't happened. I'll have to allow for the international date line... ;)

Nothing to do with who wrote the comment - I would have asked the same question regardless. I don't know if she's even seen your response, I haven't talked to her.

I understand and respect your desire to be treated as an individual, but in this case "black" was simply a generic collective term. I am not white, I am sort of "beige," and in the summer I am "golden brown" or something like it, yet for collective purposes I am "white." It's nothing personal. Please choose to see it that way.

Phillip: Cool. I'll finish that tomorrow night, then.

Natalie: If you don't like the word "black" being used, what would you prefer we use?

peace.

The Theory: Human, which I use on government forms. Or multiethnic, which is what is on my birth certificate (not by my choice, but I can live with that). Interestingly, some hospital personnel have labeled me as "white," others have labeled me as "black." And then I raised hell to have both of them changed.

Eric, why would you assume I am part of any collective? And why would you request me to accept such miscategorization quietly since it is "not personal"? Darling, it's all personal. I don't mean to show you or Dawn any disrespect; I adore you both. But kneejerk miscategorization IS disrespect.

Small story: The last time I had jury duty, I was part of a pool of potential jurors for a drug-possession case. Each of us was interviewed individually by the judge and the lawyers for the defense and prosecution. When my turn came, I gave my standard and honest "I don't trust cops, I don't trust judges, I don't believe in the War on (Some) Drugs" speech and was excused from sitting on the panel, although I had to remain in the courtroom until the proceedings were completed. Well, there were a LOT of people to be interviewed, and at some point, the judge was tired of the endeavor. She announced to all those present: "This is taking far too long, so I am going to simplify things. You all see that the defendant is African-American. Do any of you have a problem with judging African-Americans without prejudice?" I immediately stood up and walked out of the courtroom and down to the court commissioner's office. I filed a complaint against the judge on the grounds that you CAN NOT look at anyone and determine whether they are or are not African-American. The fact that the judge would make such a sweeping generalization and assume that everyone would take that same potentially erroneous leap obliterated the credibility of the court and of herself. The CC agreed and the judge was forced to recuse herself.

Another story: Like your wife, I am part Jewish. The Tay-Sachs gene runs in my family. But doctors, who automatically tested me for Sickle Cell disease, refused to test me for Tay-Sachs disease until I threatened litigation against them.

The moral: If you actually give a shit about people, don't trust your eyes. The darkest-hued individual may indeed be something you haven't considered; the most lily-white could be African-American. Why diminish them because of your limited experience or imagination? Talk to people and get to know them before you toss them into society's disgustingly constricting boxes.

That is my point. Taking a look at someone and making a snap judgment based on that is wrong. Slapping a label on another person is equally wrong. Expecting people to accept that sort of thing mutely, regardless of the intentions of the miscatgorizer, is worse.

is calling someone white wrong? even though they're more of a pale pink? I agree that skin color shouldn't matter, however, the world doesn't seem ready discard the concept.

and I'm not trying to be difficult or anything... just trying to understand

I know, TT. And in answer to your question, I would say, "yes, that's wrong too." If someone is pink in hue, they are pink. If they are beige, they are beige. If they are olive-skinned, that is what they are. In terms of color: That doesn't involve ethnicity or anything like that; it's a small world, after all, and one world is enough for all of us. Truthfully, most of the people you would call "black" are in truth "brown." I don't have the stomach for making inaccurate statements and I won't stand for having them hurled at me without rebutting or insisting on a correction. One blog referred to my recent piece on color-based affirmative action (which I do not support) by calling me "some brown chick who looks like a guy." That was acceptable.

The world, by and large, isn't ready to discard many vile concepts. That does not mean I have to play along. I will not. If that makes me unpopular or makes people consider me difficult, so be it. It is not my job to facilitate their wrongness or to make it easier for them to treat me or anyone else inhumanely.

In short, my rule is to go by what an individual tells me. If they tell me they describe themselves as "white" or "Hispanic" or "black" or "African-American" or "human" or "Latino/a" or "chartreuse" or "Asian," I respect that person's wishes. If I make an assumption, I state clearly that I am making an assumption and apologize up front. If I call someone, say, African-African, I phrase it as "a person societally categorized as..." In my work, I have to use the conventions mandated by my editor and/or the Associated Press stylebook. But in my life, I will not use wanton categorizations based on melanin or genetics without making all necessary disclaimers. To do otherwise would be, IMO, inhumane and indecent. People deserve respect. It's a shame so many appear so reluctant to give it for the sake of ignorance, lack of experience, or convenience.

ok, cool.

Natalie, I don't think anyone meant you disrespect. Sorry about that. Thanks for showing your point of view of the whole thing. As a person not in your shoes, I don't fully understand your point of view or what pisses you off about it. IF someone calls me white, whatever. I'm white. I don't understand your problem w/ it, but I can respect that you dont like the generalization.

Again, I have said before that I am quite aware that Dawn meant well. At the same time, she was dead wrong. Pointing that out doesn't make me necessarily disrespectful either. However, by not speaking up, I would show disrespect to myself. I spent many years silently absorbing erroneous labeling and categorizations. No more. Never again.

I apologize for my misspeaking. In no way was I trying to be disrespectful and upon re-reading that comment, I can totally understand why Natalie, Dew or Mac would be offended.

I was genuinely trying to say something that in my heart felt right, which was that white (I AM actually pink in hue) people have no clue what a person of color - ANY COLOR - feels when they are being mistreated - FOR ANY REASON, because sadly, people are racist.

As for the speak/act/dress appropriately crap, I meant to imply "WITHOUT AN OBVIOUS STEREOTYPE" thing going on.

Say, you know, like most normal people.

I don't know if that helps, sometimes I am a complete moron even when I am trying to be helpful.

Just forget I said anything, cause I sure don't want to create a riff with anyone at all.

And for the record, NO ONE is meaner and more critical of me than Eric, so please don't assume he is defending my honor, more likely he is correcting my stupidity.

Good luck sorting this out, all I wish for is peace and love people!

by the way, Al, I am quite thankful for the ":)" in the title of this article. regardless of the intentions, it has, in my mind, kept the conversation from taking on a sharp edge.

Natalie, I will say that it was easier to hear what you were saying than it was from MD because you weren't calling anyone an "ignorant bigot". So, thanks for that.

Just another thought,

It's hard for white folks to know what is the right thing to say, sometimes we are offensive even when we aren't trying to be.

thank you dawn... i agree.

Dawn: Apology accepted, although phrases like "most normal people" frighten me. Oh, and I don't consider myself a minority of any sort. I'm human, same as everybody. Variations such as melanin and sexual orientation and philosophy are merely groovy nuances.

Among my too many words is the statement that I adore both you and Eric. That sentiment was never in jeopardy and could not be.

Eric, please be nice to your wife. When my spouse was mean to me (that is putting it mildly), the situation led to a restraining order, a year-plus separation, and SU's mandated stint in anger-management counseling. One thing I learned is that verbal meanness (which can devolve into verbal abuse and namecalling, which is indeed abusive) can be worse than smacking people.

Hey Dawn, its all good. I know its my niavete taking hold, but I don't sweat the small stuff, not of course implying anyone else's plight as being small. And I think I caught on to the sentiment you were trying to convey and I am appreciative of it.

Natalie, for what it's worth, I don't think you look like a man at all. At least the picture on your site does not.

Off-topic? Me? Nah...

Yes, she was empathetic. We all know that, and we all appreciate her empathy. Dawn's a terrific, valuable, worthwhile person; I doubt anyone would question that. But the ramifications of such "small stuff," even when it comes from people we admire and enjoy and respect, can sometimes cause great harm, and that must be acknowledged. Put stone bigots aside for the time being: So much hurt comes from wonderful people who genuinely care and truly mean well but don't know any better or make unthinking generalizations or assign labels carelessly. Looking at the big picture, looking at the general cesspool that is human relations, we do no one any favors when we facilitate even the "small stuff." Sadly, I didn't figure that out until I was in my 30s. Now I know and must act and react accordingly. Far too much is at stake, for present and future generations.

I am all about obsessing over the small stuff - it's what makes us each unique.

I am quite fond of you Natalie, as I hope you know, and my fondness for Dew grows each day, and I most certainly want Mac to feel welcome any place I am welcome. We all must learn from each other, and if anything at all positive can be taken from this discussion, I hope it is that.

As for Eric, he is a truly decent and good guy and rarely tries to be difficult, but he has HIGH expectations of me and lets me know when I don't meet them. But I wouldn't be as happy a person as I am today without him, so I will accept his cruel criticism :)

Are we all warm and fuzzy yet?

I've tried to stay out of this racial discussion because the only color that matters to my family is $$ green $$

However, I am finding myself curious about something and I hope me being inquisitive here isn't taken wrong.

Natalie - I thought that it was politically correct to say African American in this day and age?

And btw, I am with others here who say I don't care if anybody of any race calls/classifys/etc me as a white male.

There are marketing studies for all different types of groups (income, sex, industry type, education/schooling) and I wonder if it is really such a problem to include race in these studies but I do find myself wondering about the appropriateness at times.

In business I can see that targeting a marketing segment makes good business sense and isn't necessarily indicative of racism, but of selling a product or service to those who are most likely -- or interested -- to buy.

BTW, I have friends, clients and associates that are african american and the only word that they've told me that they take offense to is the N word. That is if a white person uses it, but they can call each other the N word and it's somehow acceptable in that context?

I don't go around calling my friends, associates or clients "honkeys" but the reverse is true. So there are cultural differences that have nothing to do with racism.

Just my 2 1/2 rusted pennies, with a sprinkle of curiosity.

i suspect some people don't like the term african american because they were born here, not there.

As I am opposed to PC, I don't care what terminology is PC-approved. I'll call someone African-American if and only if they tell me that's what they want to be called. I do tend to use European-American rather than the usually erroneous "white," but generally to make the point that I find those hyphenate terms laughable on many levels.

Oh, and I don't buy the concept of "race" (outside of NASCAR and track-and-field events) -- human is all I see. Many scientists would agree.

Culture is about environment -- not color. Saying that there is a "black" or "white" culture is stupid, IMO. (My culture is the "purple" culture, which Gallup and Harris and Nielsen don't chart. I was a Nielsen family earlier this month; boy, did I fuck up their tally. )

I think anyone using the N word (or the H word, or "white trash" or anything like that) is doing a vile, vile thing.

"I don't go around calling my friends, associates or clients 'honkeys' but the reverse is true." If your friends are calling you the H word (does anyone really use that word?), I would suggest humbly that they are not your friends.

And I find most marketing/melanin -based demographic studies, etc. abhorrent. They are useful for those who have an interest in dividing humans. Just because people have similar skin tones doesn't mean they have anything in common.

Natalie - you misunderstood what I was saying and I don't know how I can rephrase it without violating what you define as racism, so sorry, I tried ...

If I say black people go around calling other black people the N word -- and they do this all the time, btw -- that was what I mean by the "reverse is true" above.

My question was why was this appropriate? Why is their a dual standard of the use of this word? None of my friends, associates or clients call me a honkey.

If you don't call this cultural, that's find, then how do you describe this happening? What is this all about?

This is why I rarely enter into these coversations because it's extremely difficult to discuss things from a factual basis.

Somebody always has to have a personal opinion, which I'm trying not to have here on this because as I said, green is the color that is of importance to roof over head and food on the table.

natalie, sorry, that was there, not "their", doh!

"Natalie - you misunderstood what I was saying and I don't know how I can rephrase it without violating what you define as racism, so sorry, I tried ..."

Actually, I didn't misunderstand at all. I just read your words differently than you intended them (although accurately in the way in which they were presented, in terms of grammar; read your sentence again and see what you wrote) for the purpose of drawing you out and making you speak plainly. And it worked. Thank you.

"If I say black people go around calling other black people the N word -- and they do this all the time, btw"

No. All of them do not. Perhaps certain ones of those who define themselves in the fashion you employ do, but certainly not all, and I would wager, not most of them. And all the time? That's a stretch. How do you know that? Did you take a poll? What kind of sampling did you use to paint the phenomenon so broadly and negatively?

"My question was why was this appropriate? Why is their ["there," no doubt] a dual standard of the use of this word?"

I don't consider it appropriate at all. There is a double standard because a lot of (note that I didn't say "all") individuals who have some vested interest in dividing humans are stupid and hypocritical.

"If you don't call this cultural, that's find {I assume you meant "fine"], then how do you describe this happening? What is this all about?"

The stupidity and cluelessness and hypocrisy of the individuals who engage in that sort of behavior and use that sort of language.

I just caught this, from Dawn: "We all must learn from each other, and if anything at all positive can be taken from this discussion, I hope it is that."

Indeed, that is the whole point. Discussions such as this provide teaching and learning opportunities.

Thank you for the explanation and clarification, Natalie. I can see I need to watch quantifying words with you lol. Obviously I didn't mean "all" people do that, but you took that very literally, which I understand and I should have chosen a better word.

My bad for not carefully crafting every word with you -- but I will be more careful heretofore ;) You remind me a little bit of an editor (that's a friendly compliment btw, not a criticism).

I like warm and fuzzy, but I'm not quite feeling the love yet.

Specifically Miss Natalie, comment #51 way goes over the line with me. MD says all kind of obviously baseless things, starting with her claim that I would support slavery. That is purely and patently MADE UP.

I, on the other hand, try to be scrupulously honest and somewhat self-critical. It is utterly unfair and unfounded for you to imply otherwise.

Further, you are far less than charitable with me. You insist on making the worst interpretation you possibly can, accusing me of malicious motivation in writing this original post. That's really hateful. I'm a bad guy.

On the other hand, MD can say every hateful and untrue personal thing she wants about everyone who takes any disagreement with her. She can pour pure racial animosity into the mix, and it's all good. Hey, that's just expressing her opinions.

After having her a couple day long hissy fit wherein she repeatedly expressed intention of actively trying to screw this whole site, she has chosen instead to contribute a new post. Meanwhile, the Olsens et al are so anxious to make nice and prove they're not "racists" that she is welcomed back with open arms and notes of gratitude with no further hint of criticism or question.

I, on the other hand, take a little different outlook. At a minimum, she owes the site in general, and me among others personally unequivocal apologies for her totally ill behavior.

Natalie, I'm disappointed but not, unfortunately, entirely surprised that you clearly don't hold MD to anything like the same standards that you do me. As a liberal female of dark hue, she gets to act as stupid as she wants, and it's all good. Noticing this no doubt constitutes a further hate crime on my part. She can be purposely dishonest, disruptive and disrespectful, and she gets hugs and kisses.

I, on the other hand, am scrupulously honest, and actively reach out to make nice with people of differing political beliefs and ethnic backgrounds. I have played MUCH nicer than her, or really even than you have. Considering the hateful nature of what is being thrown at me, the record will show that my personal responses to MD are quite mild and light in tone. Yet I'm the bad guy.

Let me conclude then, with the wise words of Aunt Eller:

I'm not saying that I'm better than anybody else,
but I'll be danged if I ain't just as good.

Excuse me AL, but leave me out of it as I am not a part of this problem. You, on the other hand have gone out of your way to be really negative and pissy.

I thought you were above taking this crap personally.

Al, I don't believe I have said one thing unpleasant about you that wasn't undeserved. And I know for a FACT, that Eric didn't.

I mean what the hell? I like you and have stated so, in spite of your needling and ribbing me.

In fact, I MUST like you, cause I really don't like being needled and ribbed by pretty much ANYONE.

Dawn, I didn't say that you or Eric had been critical of me at all. I said that you have been have been (perhaps overly) solicitous of MD.

I don't think the "negative and pissy" part is really warranted. At least it's not slanderous, though. So that's better than average. I purposely walk in to talking about things with negative ramifications, but that does not automatically make ME negative.

The slanders do make things a bit more serious, but I have endeavored to the extent possible to be good-humored.

It is not right or appropriate, however, to sweep such abusive behavior as Mac Diva's under the rug.

I don't take criticism from MD personally, in that I put very little stock in her. I will tend to put considerably more weight to comments from you or Natalie, however.

Don't be mad. I needle and rib with love.

Al writes: "Natalie, I'm disappointed but not, unfortunately, entirely surprised that you clearly don't hold MD to anything like the same standards that you do me. As a liberal female of dark hue, she gets to act as stupid as she wants, and it's all good. Noticing this no doubt constitutes a further hate crime on my part. She can be purposely dishonest, disruptive and disrespectful, and she gets hugs and kisses."

Al is accusing me of being a racist.

First of all, let's re-run the comments I assume pushed you to accuse the person who doesn't believe in "race" of racism.

I wrote:

Oh, don't try it, Al. We all know that sometimes you say offensive things and post offensive topics just to get a rise out of people (and then play nice, falling into that tiresome "aw, shucks, I'm just a dumb guy from Kentucky" routine after you've wounded someone through hurling your sharp semantic axes). You have admitted to same.

That is the truth, and frankly, one easily could wonder which is the "honest" Al.

Personally, I find much of what you write horrible. And while I certainly have not agreed with many of the things MD said or her approach (to which she is entitled, same as anyone else, and I say that as someone who also has felt the sting of her words), I don't see where she has not been honest, even if some find her honesty painful.

Which leads me to a question: If your intent is to be honest and not to disrespect people and cause them pain, why in hell did you begin this thread anyway? I don't see why it was necessary unless, on some level, you wanted to incite a conflagration.

If that was your motivation in whole or in part, one could suspect that at least a portion of you is enjoying all this sturm und drang. So, IMO, and with all due respect to you and ALL participants in this shameful thread and the other ones, you ought to be very careful about pointing fingers and casting blame here. As Craig posted above, you are the one who started a topic that has proven itself to be nothing more than "fucking mean" and "unnecessary." Let's see you try a little honesty and assume some responsibility here.

I know it's not very sensitive to mock someone who is obviously psychologically disturbed. However, if you insist on publicly calling me a "stupid bigot" who would actually support the institution of black slavery in modern America- well, really, you're asking to be made sport with, aren't you?

I can't speak for Al, but on the subject of dishonesty I'd offer these quotes:

As for Joe, he can always be counted on to support bigotry. He seems to come here for that purpose. He seeks out the threads dealing with race and eggs on anyone expressing a bigoted viewpoint.

Feel free to examine the see other comments from link at the bottom of the post (go with the "both", there are other Joes out there). Her first two sentences are opinion, to which I disagree. The last, well, I think I go out of my way to express my own viewpoint and, generally, I'm more interested in facts or sources.

Joe (a troll who goes from site to site posting racist rhetoric)

I'm getting a little sensitive about the troll business, how would you feel sitting under a bridge waiting for goats all day? After 100 comments don't I get some sort of membership upgrade? Kidding aside, I limit my comments to few sites and keep the content light. So if you actually have seen a site where I've posted some type of racist rhetoric, please, let me know because somebody is pulling a fast one.

Is that honest?

[Edited by admin to fix closing tag.]

Lesson: preview before post!

Thank you, Joe (and you offer very good advice -- preview, preview!). I went through and read (re-read, in most cases) all of your BC postings.

Re: the MD quotes you cited:

As for Joe, he can always be counted on to support bigotry. He seems to come here for that purpose. He seeks out the threads dealing with race and eggs on anyone expressing a bigoted viewpoint.

Joe (a troll who goes from site to site posting racist rhetoric)

I am just curious: How many people have ever clicked on the "Leaderboard" link underneath the recent comments?

I ask because it could settle pretty quickly who was or has not "taken over" the site in any quantifiable way. As I post this, for example, I see that Eric Olsen, as usual, occupies all of the top spots*. It has been that way forever, and probably always will be. Al Barger, however, is the second most prolific commenter and poster, ever, beating me out in the comments category by a few, and in the posts category by a mile.

However, more recently, his output seems to be slipping. The esteemed Natalie, whom I grow to respect more with each passing day, has posted more comments than Al in the last 30 days, with the always-fun The Theory joining that lofty rank for the last week and 24 hours (with a shout out to TDavid, who has done almost as well).

In the posts column, Al is the #3 poster for the last 30 days, but slips to #8 for the last week and doesn't even register in the top ten for the last 24 hours (though Mac Diva does).

I prefer to be able to accurately assess judgements and labels, and the leaderboard seems in this case to be a valuable way to do that. There are other factors, such as the time of day one posts or one visits, and the types of posts to which one gravitates while posting, commenting, or reading, but in general I would say that Al is definitely a strong voice on Blogcritics, but well-countered by voices such as Natalie's and others.

*Actually, Eric has all but one, the most comments for the last 24 hours. I suspect he is at a disadvantage in that category, being in the Eastern time zone, but still, what's up with that, Eric? You don't actually have a real life or anything, do you? I mean, I know you were on the phone with a new Blogcritic for a while today, since he called me next, but still! :)

Blogcritics talk to Phil and Eric on the phone?

Natalie, I know this Joe from other sites. He has been bugging me since I was a commenter and guest blogger.

Which sites? Where can I read his postings so as to see for myself whether he is, as you claim, a racist or a troll? I need to see the URLs so that I can see his words in proper context and prove that this person is the same as the one here. As I said earlier, your very serious accusations against Joe, upon inspection of his Blogcritics postings (and I have read every one of them), do not hold water.

Indeed, please do, because I really have no recollection of ever having any contact with you other than here.

My "disgusting goal" Natalie? Isn't that a bit harsh? MD came out of the blue saying that I would support slavery even in modern America, among other wicked accusations. [And how in Gaia's name do you NOT see that as grossly dishonest?] In response, I did not make similar vicious personal attacks, but instead made fairly gentle fun of the her bogus charges, if you look at the original content of the post. Seems to me that this IS playing nice.

I may be accused of pushing a point to the wall sometimes, but I make a strong effort to fight fair. I am careful not to misrepresent other people.

This is as opposed to when YOU say, he assumes that melanin-enhanced liberal women would have to be racist Now, that's not really what I said at all, is it? I made absolutely no broad statement about a group. I was responding specifically to you and this situation.

Nor did I use the term "racist." I don't go throwing that word around promiscuously. I've had that word thrown at me often enough, and I like it about as much as you would like hearing The N Word.

The relevant phrase was "liberal female of dark hue." I don't presume to speak of your internal machinations, especially not in the darker corners of the psyche that produce racism and liberalism in general.

Of those three attributes, my best guess would be that "liberal" was the main operative one. But I obviously can't say what's going on in your mind. Maybe none of those considerations was in any way prejudicial to your judgment.

Still, I struggle to find any other explanation than those for why you would defend MD here AT ALL.

Finally, after much grief, starting with comment #94 you have started to become a little bit critical of MD. Finally. Thank you.

And I'm still waiting for some love. OK, there's Mr. Barger does have some good qualities. That beats a sharp stick in the eye, but it's slim pickings for affection- and you immediately follow it with a slander.

Come on. You can do better. Show me some love. I deserve it.

I have no idea if Joe posts elsewhere.

But as the person who may have first used "troll" to describe Joe here (in a comment I addressed to Mac Diva praising her for her patience in dealing with Joe), I feel compelled to defend that characterization.

"Troll," like a lot of Internet lingo, has various definitions, but to me it means someone who enters a thread and posts comments that, on the whole, seem designed only to provoke, rather than to contribute to a useful discussion.

Comments like this...

Brian-
An impressive demonstration of your fertile imagination or lack of understanding of how intelligence works. Which is it?