I knew you would come sneaking out from behind that fool you have been manipulating, Al Barger. (You actually had Bumbling Buffoon thinking his rant was impressive, didn't you?)

The 'you are a bigot because you know I'm a bigot,' gambit you're attempting is so senseless it rolls off me like water off a duck's back. You are a bigot because you believe other 'races' are inferior to white people. I am not a bigot because I do not believe any 'race' is better than any other. It is that simple.

So, your love affair with David Yeagley continues. Why am I not surprised? But, I am not going to let your ludicrous claim that Yeagley is just kidding about being a racist slip by. A member of a white supremacist group, who has been publicly fired from a job for promoting racism and who maintains a web site promoting racism is not just kidding. Racism is a deeply held value for Yeagley, the same as it is for Barger. You both are pathologically obsessed with black people to the extent that you seem to think about little else. Such compatiblility. I think you should propose to him.

I know you consider Eric Olsen to be a fool. You've proved that time and again. But, based on this post you seem to believe he is not just a fool, but a complete and utter fool. Why else would you think you can pull the wool over his or anyone else's eyes with this pitiful attack making fun of an apology? You are telling him: I, Al Barger, run this site and will bring whomever I like to it and make fun of people who object, including your wife. I think even Eric may draw the line at that insult.

The only people who are going to buy your effort to scapegoat your bigotry onto me are your fellow racists. You wasted your time writing and posting this.

Hello, Diva. Good morning. Have at me. Peace and love be unto you.

I note that I forgot to link to your main personal blog. I'll correct that shortly.

i think what really kicked it off was actually when you were replying to MDs comments about Yeagley being a racist.
MD posted two comments, one after the other, about Yeagley being a racist. You began your reply:

"Yes Diva, Yeagley is an evil, crazy racist with no legitimate point to make about anything- of course, as is basically every person who disagrees with your correct and proper assessment of the world.

Of course, it goes conveniently with YOUR OWN racial pathologies to head this straight into some 'it's because she's black' nonsense, which has not a THING to do with Yeagley's argument"

i would disagree with this. If you read what Yeagley wrote, he was inferring that Jackson pulled the stunt because she's black and therefore wants everyone to love her. his racist comments are subtle, that's for sure, but there's enough that for me, it's unambiguous, as it evidently is for a number of others of us who visited his site. I believe some people counted your defense of Yeagley as being a racist yourself.

The premise that I somehow take responsibility for the general content of this site is simply not true: I am just the editor and largest contributor to a site that features 400 writers publishing their own work. I only edot for content under the direst circumstances. We have only ever removed one post, and that was probably an overreaction.

I DO try to steer things away from the most rancorous conflict, but that's about as far as it goes.

So no one is playing anyone for a fool: writers take responsibility for their work, and that work reflects on them, not on me other than in the broadest sense.

When I have an opinion on something, I state it, sometimes very strongly, as I did in regard to the gorilla post, which I saw as unredeemable dehumanization of a person solely due to her race, and utterly unacceptable as such. It made me physically ill.

One of the central premises of our country is that people be treated as individuals and not merely as members of a group - when this does not happen due to race, that is "racism" and this was a clear case.

Al brings up a valid point that there is an even more vile form of racism, and that is found in those who advocate or commit violence to others on the basis of race. This is a greater sin than that committed by gorilla-man.

Al seems to think his offense as perceived by the group was insufficient outrage toward the racism that he dragged to the site. This is mostly correct: there was outrage that he linked to a site that featured words and images suggesting black people are subhuman, and there was further outrage when his condemnation of such seemed insufficiently strong.

At this point I would turn the question around: at what level of expression should racism provoke outrage?

MD cries for help: "I know you consider Eric Olsen to be a fool... you seem to believe he is not just a fool, but a **complete and utter fool. ...you think you can pull the wool over his...eyes with this pitiful attack...

Gee, Al, I get that about every 15 minutes on BC. YOU got one at 3 friggin' AM! You should be thrilled that your existence causes MD to lose sleep.

Thought I'd share excerpts from a document I obtained covertly:

from MD's Debate Techniques, aka. "Little Bag of Dirty But Transparent Immature Tricks":

"SOP #3: When in trouble on the playground, accuse your opponent of dissing Eric 'behind his back'; mention it in passing, as if you're too embarrassed for poor abused Eric to point it out explicitly. Try to manipulate and/or humiliate Eric into banning opponent from BC site.


**writing tip o' the day: Try to avoid glaring cliches like "complete and utter fool..."; try not to write in the throes of an estrogen imbalance; that's when one tends to overkill with the ad hominems. Use "racist" a bit more sparingly; constant usage tends to lessen the impact; find synonyms.

Eric, do you crawl to get around? It takes a well-developed backbone to stand up straight and walk and you don't have one. Al Barger is a racist, pure and simple. He did not need to drag racism to this site because it is already here in the form of him and several others, such as Blog Bloke, Robbie Port, Tom Mapp and recent addition Shark. (You thought we didn't have enough of them, eh?) By continually making excuses for Barger, you enable his racism. So, he hasn't murdered anyone as far as we know. That doesn't mean he hasn't done pyschological harm to hundreds, if not thousands of people.

Nothing Barger said in this piece of crap made any sense. He knowingly made that entry, happily aware of its racist content. He invited David Yeagley here. He then went to Yeagley's site and hung out with him. The evidence could not be more damning. And, you go along with his claim that all that was 'accidental.'

And, what about me? You know, that professional writer who has been providing content to the site that you can actually sell? Who isn't paid one red cent for material that she could sell elsewhere? You use that material and then sit quietly while your Right Wing white guy bigot chronies abuse me as Barger has above. Have you no sense of shame?

"But, I am not going to let your ludicrous claim that Yeagley is just kidding about being a racist slip by."

Diva, I am not taking a stand on this one. I am not supporting Barger with this comment. I am just going to point out that I don't think in the post above Al said Yeagley was just kidding about being a racist. I think Al will admit whole-heartedly that the man is a racist.

The question I think that is being posed is; How much attention is allowed to be paid to a racist, and how much condemnation is appropriate to disclude a third party from being considered a racist?

Like I said, I am not supporting anyone on this because I don't know exactly how I feel about it, other than the fact that Yeagley's site was one of the more offensive that I have ever visited.

I have an entry that should come up today that addresses people like you Craig. The silent complicits. The ones who stand by and appear to support wrong by not speaking up.

Could you do the not at all bright Shark a favor? He hasn't heard about time zones. Explain them to him. He also doesn't know the difference between a press release and a newspaper article, but that can wait.

"...there was outrage that he linked to a site that featured words and images suggesting black people are subhuman, and there was further outrage when his condemnation of such seemed insufficiently strong.

"At this point I would turn the question around: at what level of expression should racism provoke outrage?"

Outrage is fine, but the outrage at the 'gorilla' picture approached the level of a group-think lynch mob. (To continue the analogy, Al didn't 'rape the white girl'; he pointed out that someone else did.)

There's no doubt that he wanted to be provocative, but the site wasn't his to defend. (Al's game is to demonstrate the hypocracy of the bleeding heart, and too often, liberals do respond like a bunch of frothing facists when things don't go their way. I've never seen more calls for censorship than I have from a BUNCH OF WRITERS ON BLOGCRITICS.)

As I've said before, there is no greater argument against racism than to allow racists to freely express themselves.

Or you can cover it up and forget about it.

People like Bad Eagle don't scare me. I KNOW where he stands. They do us a service by reminding us that in some minds, it could be 1920 in Alabama.

The people to fear are the people you never hear from: those who harbor such thoughts and pretend to be a fair friend to all.

Often, they do the hiring and firing; they hand out the purchase orders. They are quiet neighbors who assemble bombs.

PS: Don't forget: while some radical Islamic kid was throwing rocks in the street in Jerusalem, a quiet, average, mild-mannered Mohammad Atta was buying a box cutter and a plane ticket.

MD goes nuts: "Eric, do you crawl to get around? It takes a well-developed backbone to stand up straight and walk and you don't have one."

Insert sound of fingernails sliding into the abyss of outraged insanity.

I am hurt. This isn't exactly fair in my mind. What you view as silent and complicit is really just me being out of my element. I don't know what it's like to be discriminated against, at least in the same way as someone who has been racially discriminated against. Maybe I should speak up more, but it seems to me that more than a few of you had it covered.

I went to Yeagley's site after seeing links from various places and I commented on Dawn's post against his site and subsequently his opinion.

Granted it was on Dawn's site and not here on BlogCritics, but I said about Yeagley, "Truly unbelievable. Some people don't deserve life. Maybe this dude WASN'T breastfed as a child? Or maybe he was dropped on his under-used noggin?"

I don't think this makes me a silent complicit.

(To continue the analogy, Al didn't 'rape the white girl'; he pointed out that someone else did.)

I disagree. Al didn't point out that someone raped the white girl at all! And when faced with that fact, he gave a "so what?" type of response.

Yes, it *does* matter that the opinions of someone you quote have developed from a racist [one race is naturally inferior to others] view of the world. It's relevant to the argument being presented, and to say otherwise is just b.s.

I think Al likes to stir the pot and use the race ladle to do it, so I guess I'm just asking for some intellectual honesty here.

That said, I agree that squelching speech only creates more problems, and I still can't see any reason that the Gouda comment thread was closed down.

I also don't think the calls for violence [or self-inflicted wounds] were appropriate AT ALL, and they cast a bad light on BC, just as bad a light as all the front-page BC infighting casts.

MD, The grand irony here is that this site just went through a very public and universal condemnation of a clear case of racism.

Collectively, essentially as a unit, racism and a racist were condemned in the strongest terms.

Just because people don't agree with you or attack your methods doesn't mean they are racists.

I do not know what lies in the hearts of individuals, and neither do you unless it is expressed openly as in teh case of gorilla-man and his cohorts, so all I can go by is behavior.

I will always condemn racist behavior in the strongest terms. Where have the people you are attacking and apparently demanding being removed from the site, expressed racist behavior? And disagreeing with you, your methods, policies or online persona is simply not prima facie racism.

Are you deaf and blind as well as lacking a backbone, Eric? You were right there on the thread when screeching imbecile Shark and doofus Blog Bloke tried to claim I am the stereotypical dumb darkie. 'Mac Diva can't write.' 'Mac Diva isn't really educated.' 'Mac Diva had better shut her hole.' In fact, Shark is doing exactly the same thing on this thread. And, not a word of criticism from you about it. Craig, either. If neither of you believes what Shark (who again, should not be here at all) and BB say, why don't you speak up? Why don't you tell Shark that I am a fine writer and he is a lunatic and a liar? It is the truth, after all. The only thing you really have in common wiht BB and Shark is skin color. But, that is enough to silence you. Just like all those white people who made parties of lynchings and then claimed only the men who did the actual hanging were responsible.

Craig, silence is not good enough. I explain why in my entry, "The End of Racism." It critiques what Barger actually is and did, not the Big Lie posted here.

What the fuck am I doing here? This isn't fun. I joined this site to write reviews. Maybe I better cower into my silently complicit hole and just stick to media reviews. I won't be made to feel guilty in my spare time with my hobby. I think I have been supportive because I really do think guys like Yeagley are despicable. I am sorry it isn't good enough.

I am really frustrated.

MD, I have seen Eric come to your defense many times, both as a writer and as a valuable contributor to the site. I get the impression that he wants you here.

I also get the impression that he wants Al here. I don't necessarily always like Al's tactics or tone -- or that of other BCs, not to single Al out -- but I DO like the open forum of BC.

Eric's vision seems to be that the content of posts should remain as open as possible so that the site reflects many viewpoints. I like that approach [although I'm not a fan of the BC infighting in posts, I'll admit].

I guess I'm an antiauthoritarian at heart. I'd rather it be a free-for-all and let the people speak -- or the BCs write -- and let the reactions in the comments speak for themselves, as well.

I can understand, however, how if you think racist posts are being made, that the site therefore tacitly supports those views. I see it differently -- as long as Eric allows ALL views, then no one view is being endorsed. It's up to the readers to decide whether or not they like what they're reading and whether or not to come back. And its up to the BCs to call each other out on the carpet -- preferably in a civil manner [hey, a girl can dream, can't she?] -- when we feel someone has crossed the line.

I guess I'd rather hear ugly comments and identify them as such, rather than bury them and not address them at all.

But it's Eric's site, so he can always tell me to mind my own business!

Try trying to get a cab in a city and having all them pass you by. Try going shopping and having the security guards follow you in all the stores. Try attempting to rent an apartment and being told one after the other is already taken when you show up. Try being the target of Shark, Barger, Blog Bloke, Tom Mapp, TDavid, etc. Then, you will know what it means to be frustrated, Craig.

Sucks being a victim.

That is so he can exploit my talent, bhw. I am good enough to write sellable copy for Eric, but not good enough for him to tell any of his far Right wacko white guy cohort to eff off on behalf of. However, that is going to change. My sellable material will be posted elsewhere until I see some sign of backbone in that man.

What you have seen is 'surface.' You don't see the email correspondence. You don't know that I told Eric about Tom Mapp's Aryan Nations gathering place and sent him a link months ago. You don't realize that many of the better writers here loathe the know-nothing commenters who bully those of us who actually contribute. I don't think you were around when some good writers were driven off by the likes of Barger and Blog Bloke. You may not be aware that some of the neatest people on the BC roster spend as little time here as possible because they are weary with being harassed. Not just people of color, either. Eric has let a cabal take over that annoys just about anyone with a brain.


If you have looked at my bigger blog, you may wonder why there is not a Blogcritics banner on it. That one gets a few hundred visits per day. It would send some of that traffic to this site. I decided against putting a Blogcritics banner on Mac-a-ro-nies because of the shameful way I am treated here. Why should I support people who don't support me?

I guess it's time to be totally frank: I like Mac Diva, I enjoy and appreciate her contributions to Blogcritics and would like them to continue. I am empathetic to the VERY REAL damage caused by racism and deplore it and want it removed from here and society at large.

But I also believe that she is inclined to see racism as a cause of conflict before she considers any other possible cause, that she can be elitist, condescending, dismissive, arrogant, and insecure when there is certainly no reason to be given her talents and accomplishments as a person - not as a black person, a black woman, just as a person, which is how I see her.

I do not agree that the personal antipathy toward her displayed by Blog Bloke and Shark, specifically, are signs of racism. They are personal antipathy, plain and simple. there has been nothing about "stereotypical dumb darkie" from them or anyone else who belongs to this site. When we encountered that from the outside, we spoke as one against that person, and if fact banned his participation.

Unless stated or implied obviously, criticism of a person does not equal criticism of that person's race, or even identification with that person's race. It's just criticism.

Regarding sellable content: I don't know what that means. We don't sell anything to anyone. Our sources of income, such as they are, are a small referral fee on items we sell through Amazon, and advertising - the combination of the two do not together even cover operating expenses. This is a deficit operation. My hope is that someday our traffic will be high enough that the Amazon and advertising actually generate profit beyond operating expenses, and/or that someone will buy into the site and/or hire me to run it for them.

We have an arrangement with the Advance sites where we share reviews with them in exchange for links back to Blogcritics. There is no money involved.

If members choose not to link back to Blogcritics that is unfortunate and I am not happy about it, but there isn't much I can do about it.

Lastly, I cannot possibly state any more strongly that NO ONE is being exploited here. This is a place where writers can share their writing with a larger and/or different audience. It is my hope and desire that this results in a higher profile and better traffic for those who participate. If anyone feels his or her needs are not being met by this arrangement then there is nothing to force them to participate. if the arrangement is not mutually beneficial then there is no reason for it.

So far a total of about 500 people have signed up for Blogcritics and about 100 of have fallen by the wayside, around 1/3 of the members can be considered "active" at any given time. We have tried to reward "active" members as best we can by highlighting their "activity."

I appreciate the input from our members and enjoy the relationship. If anyone has an insurmountable problem they are free to go, and they do, but we are always sorry to see them go and always welcome them back if and when they return.

I believe I have explained myself thoroughly.

Regarding sellable content: I don't know what that means. We don't sell anything to anyone. Our sources of income, such as they are, are a small referral fee on items we sell through Amazon, and advertising - the combination of the two do not together even cover operating expenses.

I think I made a comment on another thread to you being busy trying to "sell" content to other sites. Poor wording on my part. "Promote" would have been a better choice, which is what I meant by selling. Not so much a sale/purchase agreement but a "look at the great stuff we have here ... let's make a deal" kind of thing. Didn't mean to misrepresent it.

Just for the record:

I'm an accomplished playwright with 4 productions that played to sell-out crowds, both locally and nationally.

One of my shows has toured the country since 1995, and is performed by an ensemble of African-American performers.

My four musicals were developed by an African-American theatre relatively well-known in the southwest.

And within days of signing on with Blogcritics, I have to defend myself in public against the shrill rantings of a psychopath.

Too bad everybody that Psycho-Diva attacks as racists can't whip out part of their resume in order to defend themselves.

Un-fucking-believable.

This shit has gotta stop.

So, an overt racist has been around black people. What is new about that? It occurred during slavery and it is occurs now. (If he is even telling the truth. The clown who calls himself Shark is barely literate and doesn't know the difference between a newspaper and a press release.)

If this hate page, posted by Blog Bloke, is not about bigotry, nothing is. This is the picture of a racist and a misogynist -- and a stupid old fool. Furious because I 'use big words.' Screaming at me to obey him. Claims he has been tapped to defend Al Barger and David Yeagley from uppity darkies. The man resides in a racist fantasy circa 1860 or so. Do read it if you haven't. It and Barger's depraved behavior are what Eric Olsen, a man who should be depicted in the dictionary next to the word 'coward,' is defending.

Have you ever considered that the problem most people have with you might have nothing to do with race?

Re: #4 Eric wants to know "at what level of expression should racism provoke outrage?" This is a good question, and just exactly the kind of question I'm trying to ask.

The closer something looks to violence, the more agitated I will likely be. If I hear some ugly joke, I'll mostly shrug it off with maybe a dirty look or a disapproving frown- mild discouragement.

On the other hand, if someone is lending public support to mass murderers, such as defending or perhaps encouraging the Palestinian intifada- in a forum likely to be read by just the people who would be likely to act on it- that's a lot worse.

On these grounds, it seems like we should all be making a big display of attacking someone like Hanania in worse language than anything any of us used on Yeagley.

Yeagley, after all, is just a disgruntled guy venting on a website (as opposed to us Blogcritics). He's not raising some army to go hurt people- he's just spouting a bit. He obviously holds a low opinion of some other ethnic groups, but he's not given the least hint of favoring any kind of violence or oppression.

You might even manage to talk reason with him. Note that he took down the offending gorilla picture when our people pitched a bitch. That's a start. He suggested at one point the desire to have discussion with a- I believe he used the word "proud" black person. Maybe someone of color might try sparking a CIVIL discussion with him. He ain't Hitler.

On the other hand, if someone is saying "go team" to Palestinian murderers, that has real consequences. It's not just somebody talking like a jerk. It could real directly get people KILLED.

However, it doesn't seem like simply getting mad and venting does much good. What do you accomplish?

I'd like to emphasize that I meant to bear the brunt of judgment here on myself. If you're going to be mad here, I would appreciate having the mad directed at me rather than everyone else.

I'm offering myself up as the guinea pig for clinical examination. Feel free to give me all the hell.

A worthy approach - please note the gorilla picture was put back up at some point and the diatribe against black people intensified. I don't believe you will find anyone willing to concede anything like good will toward the mentioned subject.

Kissy kissy with Barger already, Eric? Haven't noticed any arrogance in his personality though he is bursting with it, have you? But that is fine because white men are entitled to be any way they want to. But . . . there's no racism here.

While I am inclined to ignore this:

"It and Barger's depraved behavior are what Eric Olsen, a man who should be depicted in the dictionary next to the word 'coward,' is defending."

I can't. Mac, either shut the hell up with that kind of fucking crap, or you can deal with me. I will take all kinds of shit from people, but don't insult a person just because they aren't willing to things EXACTLY the way you do.

I am not nearly as diplomatic and you are being an asshole.

"You sit down...You've had your say, and now I'm gonna have mine!!!!"

That didn't work, it was supposed to have a picture of Howard Dean blowing his cork

MacAttack: So, an overt racist has been around black people."

Reality Check:

SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT I'VE MADE THAT'S OVERTLY RACIST AND I'LL LEAVE BLOGCRITICS FOREVER.

here's a link to my body of work

If you can't come up with one, you leave forever.

DEAL?

heh.

Too many to list, cretin. But, you are not worth the trouble. I have no interest in your body of work or your body, unless it is mouldering in a grave.

That looks like a threat.

Not at all, but if I were to hear of his demise, which I wouldn't because I have no identifying information, I would not care. However, Shark did wish me dead on another thread. Do you feel a need to chatise him for that?

If I knew about it, I surely would. Which thread?

Exterior: DAY -

DAWN breaks over a stormy landscape: cue "Ride of the Valkyries"

Close-up: two steely eyes staring from beneath the brim of a dented army helmet.

VOICE OVER: Mac, either shut the hell up with that kind of fucking crap, or you can deal with me. I will take all kinds of shit from people, but don't insult a person just because they aren't willing to things EXACTLY the way you do.

Cut to: hand reaching for keyboard;
Close-up: eyes narrow with concentration;
Close-up: fingers pounding keyboard;
Cut to blood splattering against a brick wall;
Close-up: Dawn blows smoke from her mouse and slowly slides it back into its holster.

Cut to Shark huddled behind an IMAC; eyes peer over screen.

DAWN makes quick move with her hand, Shark ducks, Dawn pulls out small half-smoked stogie, bites off the end, laughs, and stikes a match.

SHARK: (trembling) I love the smell of a modem burning in the morning... it's the smell of victory.

I wish to make clear that I consider Yeagley to be a racist and I believe that most reasonable people concur. Nor did I defend Mr. Barger's position. However, that does not justify rant's made by MD and that is the point I have tried to make. End of story, so kindly leave me out of it oh Mouthy one. But if you want to continue your defamatory rhetoric I shall be waiting.

dude, get a blog.....yer effin' killing me.

Look, I didn't want to say mean things or attack Mac, but GODDAMN, the shit said about Eric, well what kind of human would I be to not declare that an outrage?

I am sure Mac has good reason for being concerned about racism in the world, it certainly exists in many incidious forms and it can be sadly "frustrating" to downright deadly.

But I will be damned if I am going to sit here and let her or anyone slander Eric, a person I know to be a good-hearted, caring human being who is fair and judicious.

Racism exists, but why invent it where it doesn't exist?

MacAttack: Shark did wish me dead on another thread.

REALITY CHECK #2:

aka: "CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING"

SHARK to DIVA: "...IF, for some unforseen reason, you don't post 20 or 30 cut/paste/insert obvious inane comment ENTRYS someday, thereby taking you off the "leaderboard" (your deluded measure of self-worth)---and you're driven to end your miserable life online because of the shame of NOT BEING the most prolific typist in cyberspace, then I will have been robbed of my dream. So keep posting, dear. If you go nuts, I wanna be the reason."

=========end of excerpt======

I thought it was pretty funny, actually.

"We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant."

...Daniel Boorstin

You are Eric's wife, for chrissakes. I am someone looking at him from a completely different perspective. What I see is someone being manipulated by the likes of Al Barger and his puppets. And, what is supposed to be so hard about standing up to Barger, anyway? I do it all the time.

What Mac, am I too stupid to see him from a perspective other than that of his wife? Believe me, I am Eric's harshest critic, but being able to stand up like a man is not a problem Eric has.

Maybe he doesn't think Al is this racist you claim him to be. I surely don't see it either. I guess that makes me a racist too.

Just stick to the facts and you will have no argument from me.

It's the projecting racism and tarnishing the names of the innocent that I can't understand or accept.

MacAttack: "You are Eric's wife, for chrissakes. I am someone looking at him from a completely different perspective. What I see is someone being manipulated by the likes of Al Barger and his puppets."

EXTERIOR: NIGHT

Cue Jaws Theme:
Shark reaches for small shovel; frantically begins digging foxhole.<

You all need to get laid, I think...

Perhaps with each other?

Love, hate... bastard conjoined twins.

Oh, and I am almost out of goat cheese. Since I will be going to Scotland next Tuesday for a week, I don't think I will buy any more.

This really makes me sad.

MS TEK: "You all need to get laid, I think..."

(clik, clik, clik)

Sound of 3000 guys quickly scanning the jpgs on TekWh0re.com

(clik, clik, clik)

Sound of 3000 keyboards racing to see who can be the first to post:

"You free tonight?"


======disclaimer=======

This post was in no way intended as:
-racist
-mysogynist
-sexual harassment
-an invitation from a happily married man
-and no animals were harmed in the typing of this entry.

Thanks
----The Management

"You all need to get laid, I think...
Perhaps with each other?"

Regarding sellable content: I don't know what that means. We don't sell anything to anyone. Our sources of income, such as they are, are a small referral fee on items we sell through Amazon, and advertising - the combination of the two do not together even cover operating expenses. This is a deficit operation.

Glad you cleared that up. I was feeling jealous. Beginning to think I was being left out of a Blogcritics bonanza because I'm a woman.....

I would just like to note that I got laid just yesterday, but not with one of the other BCs. Saved myself for the hubby, I did.

me too bhw, me too! 'cept the getting laid part.

How old is that baby, Dawn? Are you even back in the "it's okay to even think about touching me down there" zone yet? I stretched that post-partum no-touch rule for all it was worth after having my kids!

I tried that bhw, but then all you guys would have suffered, and we all want to end Eric's suffering don't we?

I mean that in a nice way.

And we all know NOTHING ends a guy's suffering like .... :-0

There is no suffering like the after-birth (not "afterbirth") suffering of a dutiful husband. (I have heard this is the real reason C-sections were invented, but I digress.) Woe is me. This is a syndrome that deserves an acronym every bit as portentious as PMS.

Post-partum hmmmm... deprivation, or P-cubed D. And actually, C-sections can be even worse, it's surgery, you know.

yes, but .. of forget it. Dawn's here now and giving me the evil eye

This is a syndrome that deserves an acronym every bit as portentious as PMS.

My husband calls it toxic sperm build-up (TSP), although it's not limited to the post-partum period of time. He says it starts the day after the wedding.

Ew.

That reminds me: When we got engaged, a married friend of ours asked my husband-to-be, "Why are you getting married? So you can stop having sex?"

Man, get a new job and stop posting for awhile and all hell breaks loose . . .

As a Day Oner here at Blog Critics, I find it interesting that someone who I am assuming was invited to contribute, or hell, just signed up because it is that easy, wants to control the content here and when she doesn't get her way, declares the propertier a weak kneed little girl.

If you don't like it leave. It was threatened before, but alas, a lack of follow through . . . Denounce the site all over the Net. Hell, pull a bag of tricks from your old nemesis at Rittenhouse Review and declare that you will delink any site that links to Blog Critics. But, good freaking grief, get a grip, get over yourself, and get your own blog . . . oh wait, you already have one.

Counting down to a charge of being a neo-confederate racist begins . . . now.

And, yes, due to the lateness of the hour and length and substance of the day, I am aware that there is a misselpped word in the post above.

More than one misselped word it would appear....

dat's ok chris, in an earlier comment (#38) i mistook Shark for Bricklayer.

all this racism tizzy has got me confused (either that or the NASCAR after effects)

Chris, you have never rated that much attention from me. I've considered you a flea, but now you are being demoted to a gnat. I wonder how long it will take your new employer to figure out what I already know and do what the last one did.

And, oh, you forgot to congratulate your pal Barger on his latest 'accidental' racism jaunt.

Now we know what keeps MacAttack quiet for a few precious hours:

[dawn, bhw, and Joe] talking about sex and relationships.

One could almost picture 'Diva' gritting her teeth while the white noise from her flacid keyboard hummed in the background--- waiting for some poor unsuspecting 'flea' to land in her oversensitive craw.

PS: umm, mac, you're single, right?

heh heh.

MD --

You keep getting me confused with another Chris (who can't hold down a job I guess). . . we all look alike.

Shark, while I may have displayed some righteous indignation over the way the Editor of this site is being mistreated, you sir, are just really mean.

Mac may have pissed you off, but I keep seeing you sink lower and lower to insult her. How far are you willing to sink to make a point?

I guess now would be the inappropriate moment to go into my episiotomy spiel.

spiel on Joe, we're all family.

Well, if they gotta do it and the husband is present, he really should refrain from requesting extra stitches or the installation of a drawstring.

Just some helpful advice from someone who's been there.

re: "You sir, are just really mean. Mac may have pissed you off, but I keep seeing you sink lower and lower to insult her. How far are you willing to sink to make a point?"

Here's the deal: I've been falsely accused of being an "overt racist" and 'wishing' her dead. When I asked her to produce one iota of evidence, she replied, "Too many to list, cretin." That's a pretty chicken-shit cop-out relatively serious circumstances.

My question: how far is she willing to sink to make a point?

Lower than calling Eric a spineless coward, "deaf and blind as well as lacking a backbone", "Barger-Lite", and a few other pretty friggin' low blows? She even stooped so low as to *equate him with a participant in a LYNCHING PARTY!

* Diva on Eric: "...Just like all those white people who made parties of lynchings and then claimed only the men who did the actual hanging were responsible."

Frankly, I've participated in various writer boards since 1994, and I've never seen such a tiny but prolific tail wag such a big dog as Blogcritics.

She throws the 'racist' tag around like it's a hot frisbee; that's a strong word to be using on a daily basis in a public forum. (a thread killer, too) She tries to humiliate just about everyone she encounters, and stoops to name-calling at the drop of a mouse.

Most people seem content with letting her off the hook, but I'm not going to be bullied, harassed, and have my name dragged through the mud in public without a response.

I try to do it with humor (picture me typing with a big ol' smile on my face), but she has no problem with settin' loose the hounds, so sometimes I start channeling my inner-pit-bull in defense.

ruff-ruff.

I'll tether the little beast when she does.


(or as you stated earlier: "either shut the hell up with that kind of fucking crap, or you can deal with me.")

Dawn, I must defend Shark here. I'm trying not unnecessarily provoke our unhappy camper, but what she's gotten here in the last few days is pretty mild treatment. Considering the last week of pure hostile hysterics she has subjected us to (right up to #64 here), comment 65 is not especially harsh. 'You need to get laid' is a pretty common rejoinder here- even just on this thread (ie #45). Not an especially harsh jab. Not 1% of the kind of foolishness she's subjected the rest of us to.

In short, having long extended hissy fits does NOT entitle you to special consideration. You should in fact expect quite the opposite.

Then again, I'd best shut up, lest she decide to go back into tirade mode- and then I'd be the bad guy.

Not that I wasn't Evil Incarnate before.

That sounds fair, I just don't like to see someone ganged up on. Can't we all move on?

HEY EVERYBODY!

BARGER'S BACK!

(*Shark drawing a big ol' target on Al's back and running for cover)


*gang of one

Come and get me, coppers!

Al, I thought you were more of a "Toppa de World, MA!" kinda guy.

I DO in fact have a big White Heat poster of Cagney choking Virginia Mayo hanging in the living room. (A gift from the mother of my godson.) I could go all "top of the world" as a last resort.

The flames are getting a little bit below the belt..
..Kinda mean..

Sorry for being the bearer of bad news but what the heck about me? Has everybody forgotten her sack of sh!t routine and calling me a racist because I defended 'browngirl' from her rants and didn't sink to her level over Yeagley and Barger ??? Come on Dawn, let's get with the program lest we forget and get into a poor MAC tizzy.

BB: Sorry for being the bearer of bad news but what the heck about me? Has everybody forgotten her sack of sh!t routine and calling me a... etc etc."

We haven't forgotten. *It's just that we AGREED with her in that particular case.


*~ahahahahaha: lighten up joke warning.

re: AL BARGER as Evil Incarnate

Jeez, he's got a White Heat poster of Cagney choking Virginia Mayo hanging in the living room.

I mean, what's not to like?

Oh Shark, you don't even KNOW. Ha!

Shark, you are a RASCAL !!!

BB: "Shark, you are a RASCAL !!!"

Thanks, babe, but I really prefer "Intellectual Hooligan".

Hate crimes arise from anger and hate to prevent privileges and rights. Dehumanization fails to recognize the rights as present and denies privileges of having the rights. The thought process of dehumanization and hate are distinctively different and should not be combined into one uniform hate crimes law because they are on opposite sides of the human rights dividing line. One acknowledges existence and right to exist; one does not.

I just discovered this entry. Amazing discourse. Scintillating. Stellar.

I wonder if any of those so quick to accuse others of hate really understand what hate is? Probably not, since they are apparently refulgent with it.

They want to make a anti-doctrine out of a natural emotion. This give them the sense of power, authority, and would-be control.

Aversion is something to be managed, not removed. Only a murderous idealist, a willfully ignorant robotic-minded person would think it could be removed.