Home / Culture and Society / Playboy Article Causes Heads to Explode

Playboy Article Causes Heads to Explode

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Sometimes something which should be a non-news, non-story becomes a huge story solely because of the ridiculously over-the-top reaction which it generates, a phenomenon which seems to be magnified by the instant networked communication made possible by the internet.

Such is the case with a recent Playboy article by Guy Cimbalo which was basically a “hate fuck” list of conservative women with commentary on why he found them physically attractive despite finding their views intellectually abhorrent. The article was clearly written as satire and has some intentionally offensive descriptions of the women and acts he’d like to perform, but nothing one wouldn’t have expected to see in similar satirical articles in outlets like National Lampoon when I was in college.

Cimbalo’s remarkable achievement is that his weak attempt at biting sarcasm was rapidly transformed into something so toxic that not only was the article removed from the Playboy website, but other articles discussing it or even highly critical of it have been purged from the internet. One site which posted snapshots of the article seems to have been taken completely offline, and an AOL writer who covered it was fired by AOL.

The progress of events was that the Playboy website published Cimbalo’s article “So Wrong It’s Right” on the Monday. Almost immediately two normally antithetical groups — right wing moralists and left wing feminists — began twittering and blogging about it. Pretty soon, the internet was ringing with complaints that it objectified women, that it advocated rape, that it was grossly sexist, that it was politically biased (duh), and so on. But the second generation of bitching about it really passed over into the surreal, as feminists complained that fellow feminist Anne Schroeder Mullins of Politico was a thought criminal just for reprinting the names from Cimbalo’s list with none of the commentary. And then the reaction went beyond ridiculous when AOL’s Politics Daily fired Tommy Christopher for writing an article highly critical of Cimbalo’s work, and possibly also for his role in blowing up the whole situation on Twitter. By Thursday, sites which quoted or even referred to the article were being shut down and articles were being taken offline, though for the time being the content of the article is still cached on Google.

Cimbalo has achieved a sort of trifecta of online journalism. He offended liberals and conservatives, he wrote something you could get slagged on for supporting or criticizing, and he managed to create a discussion so provocative it became toxic and started tumbling web pages like dominoes. Even if he’s not particularly good at satire, Cimbalo proved that he was a master of creating controversy, though he certainly had a lot of help from self-righteous twitterheads and moralistic buffoons all over the net.

Ironically all of this attention — the heads exploding, the reputations trashed, the pink slips being handed out — came over an article which is juvenile and at best mildly funny, and no more offensive than myriad articles in Hustler, The Onion or National Lampoon which are given a pass because they are clearly satire. Whether it was well written satire or not, Cimbalo’s article was still obviously intended to be humorous, if perhaps only appealing to the not terribly intellectual audience that reads Playboy and whose idea of feminine beauty involves breast augmentation and airbrushing.

What Cimbalo may have proven is that the combination of satire, partisan politics and sexism in one article is just too much to handle for the humorless and self-important moralists who think people want to actually read their tweets about the sandwich they had for lunch and how offended they are to see a woman in a burkha on their bus. Cimbalo triggered a feeding frenzy and each new contribution to the online library of outrage built it to a higher level, until the outrage was the story, and any sense of perspective or proportion regarding his original article was lost.

In fact, I suspect that many of those expressing the greatest outrage over this incident have only read reports on the article without reading the actual article itself, and if they did read it, by the time they got to it their ire was so aroused and their objectivity so tainted that they could no longer see it for the pointless piece of drivel which it is.

Coming from the perspective of a former fratboy and lover of satire who once got his fraternity on “double secret probation” for writing a party poster which offended feminists, if Cimbalo committed any real sin, it was that his satire did not go far enough. For something this offensive to work as satire it should have actually been more outrageous than it was, because clearly there are a lot of people whose sense of humor is so atrophied that they need the satirical equivalent of being hit on the head with a brick to realize that something is supposed to be funny and temporarily suspend their self-righteousness. Cimbalo’s piece seemed a little too earnest and a little too much like a personal fantasy to work as believable satire.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

Dave Nalle is Executive Director of the Texas Liberty Foundation, Chairman of the Center for Foreign and Defense Policy, South Central Regional Director for the Republican Liberty Caucus and an advisory board member at the Coalition to Reduce Spending. He was Texas State Director for the Gary Johnson Presidential campaign, an adviser to the Ted Cruz senatorial campaign, Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party and National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has also consulted on many political campaigns, specializing in messaging. Before focusing on political activism, he owned or was a partner in several businesses in the publishing industry and taught college-level history for 20 years.
  • I’ve seen bits of the article here and there, but maybe not enough to get context. What exactly about this was satire? What was Cimbalo trying to satirize?

  • Maurice

    Iron my shirt, bitch!

  • Clavos


  • It’s Playboy. Did that not give anybody a clue?

    No, Dave, Cimbalo’s article was not satire. It was a RILF list, plain and simple.

    Oy, oy, oy.

  • I think it was intended to be satire, just very badly written. Mean satire, perhaps, but these types of lists are inherently satirical in nature, because they are entirely speculative and intended to be humorous.


  • If it’s satire, it’s meant to poke fun & comment critically on something. You still haven’t really clarified what you think it’s meant to satirize.

  • zingzing

    bryan, i think it’s meant to satirize lists of sexy women. it features conservative women. whose idea of fun is it to fuck a conservative?

    it’s like a list of bad movies. or an ice cream store that only sells vanilla.

  • zinging, if that’s the case, it really doesn’t make it any less offensive. There are plenty of ways to satirize lists of sexy women without resorting to the kind of stuff you find in this article. That makes it not just failed satire, but also needlessly offensive, which I think would undermine Dave’s argument.

    Which means Dave must think it’s satirizing something else which for some reason he’s not telling us.

  • Clavos

    My take on Dave’s article is that he is simply reporting that the article was published and spotlighting the silly overreactions by everyone on both sides of the aisle.

    He said it was badly written, mean satire.

  • I got the impression that he was arguing that because it was satire, people shouldn’t have taken it seriously. Even though it was bad satire, it was obviously intended as humor, right?

    But I think the outrage is justified. Sexism is sexism, whether or not it’s funny. Dave admits it was bad satire, but he seems to say it should get the same free pass for satire that other, “no less offensive” articles in Hustler and the National Lampoon get.

    And then in the last paragraph, Dave says that it should have been more outrageous to work as good satire. I’m still not convinced though that it was satire at all. Dave seems to be evaluating it as just a bad piece of humor writing that people are overreacting to, rather than a symptom (not a cause, but clearly a symptom) of a major problem with sexism in our culture.

  • zingzing

    bryan, it’s playboy. don’t take it too seriously. really, republicans (and women) are just bitching because it makes fun of republicans (and women).

    if you pick up playboy looking for something that portrays women in a good light (other than good lighting), you need to have your head examined. i mean, what are you expecting from playboy?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Just to make some political hay out of the article, I have to mention this reminded me of far-right talk-show host Mark Levin’s comment to Hannity: “It’s not the National Organization of Liberal Women. It’s the National Organization of Ugly Women.”

    Then there was G. Gordon Liddy who recently opined that Sotomeyer would not be able to be fair, firm, and impartial due to her monthly period (or words to that effect). I’m fairly certain that – with a bit of effort – I could find similar insults against ‘liberal women’ by Limbaugh and Coulter.

    The sad part is, Dave points out that the author whose article led to the controversy above did seem to be making a weak attempt at satire. While I understand that the talk-show hosts I listed above are entertainers, I don’t think it can be said that they were in any way being satirical about their insults.

  • if you pick up playboy looking for something that portrays women in a good light (other than good lighting), you need to have your head examined. i mean, what are you expecting from playboy?

    Yes, it’s a bit like walking into a maximum security prison and complaining that the prisoners are locked up 24 hours a day…

  • After having read the article, it is definitely not satire. It’s just a mean and nasty list written by a left-wing idiot with a piss-poor sense of humor who thought he could get away it because they are conservative women.

    Please point to the article in National Lampoon, Hustler, or The Onion that is comparable. And what was the “mildly funny” part?

    While it doesn’t advocate rape, his use of the term “hate fuck” understandably has that connotation, and is another example of what a bad writer he is.

    I can see why Playboy fired the guy. I wouldn’t pay someone to write garbage like that.

  • it’s like a list of bad movies. or an ice cream store that only sells vanilla.

    Go to cracked.com — the whole site is composed of this kind of article, almost all of them more funny than this one from Playboy. They consist of lists of “Top 10” whatever accompanied by amusing commentary on each of the picks. It’s such an established format that it’s immedeiately recognized, like the “redneck” jokes.


  • Bryan, it can be bad satire AND a symptom of a problem in society at the same time. And in general I think people should lighten up and that this overreaction is an example of why. It’s satire written for teenage boys with their hands in their pants, what the hell did people expect, George Plimpton?

    And no, I have no deeper message than that. Just that most people take this and themselves way too fucking seriously as demonstrated by the firing of Christopher and the various other sites which were taken offline. And did I mention that Playboy has no spine?


  • I can see why Playboy fired the guy. I wouldn’t pay someone to write garbage like that.

    For the $1 a word which Playboy pays I’ll gladly rewrite the article so it’s actually funny.


  • Baronius

    Remember those Muhammad cartoons that brought the world to a standstill? They became a far bigger story because no one saw them. Once they were posted online, everyone realized how innocuous they were. This Playboy story is probably similar.

  • It’s satire written for teenage boys…

    Teenage frat boys apparently. I thought it was stupidity written for adult idiots. But when Dave puts it as…it’s only aimed at teens who are developing their sexuality and their views of women…I can completely see how it’s not a problem.

    I sure hope you only have girls Dave.

  • .
    Neo-Liberalism is a mental disease. Conservative women are HOTter! But it’s not hard to imagine the justified ‘Liberal’ outrage if say, Hustler Magazine ran a disgusting parody where Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage and Ann Coulter gang-rape and tickle-torture Katie Couric, the PIAPS, and then Nancy Pelosi.

    Imagine. The outrage would last for months in the MSM. There would be calls for firings and boycotts. NOW would be apoplectic. Poor little outraged, hypocritical Libs.


    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    joke about raping women

    if they are conservative
    EVIL freedom lovers…

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    sex is the height of evil

    so is photography
    but not pornography

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    always rape women…

    who are conservative
    they’re just gender traitors

  • Jordan Richardson


  • Jeannie Danna

    # 20 was that supposed to be a poem or did you drop acid last night? You are not a Conservative at all and the Liberals don’t want you either…

  • Jeannie Danna

    What Jordan said (What?)

  • Arch Conservative

    What’s bigger news than the Playboy article itself is that self proclaimed feminists aka leftist hacks actually condemened the article.

    Was it just independent bloggers or did someone like NOW, the Feminist Majority etc come out against the article. Let’s face it, these are not women’s groups. The are left wing special interest groups that use the guise of equality for women to advance their leftist political agenda. Even zing knows that.

  • Hey Dave, I must have missed this one, I was too busy watching spongebob! Where can I find this article?

  • 20 USpace

    I think you may benefit from finding out what neoliberalism means to most people. It already has a well-established definition. However feel free to use it however you wish, particularly if you don’t want to be understood.

    I think I understood your poem, except the line about photography.

  • A very tight and nicely written article, Dave.

    There are two possibilities as far as I can see:

    1) if the author was even half-way serious about his attraction to (in my mind) mediocre looking woman with no brain, then he’s a juvenile and the article could not have been a satire.

    2) If, on the other hand, he only feigned his fascination and libidinal urges, then perhaps he didn’t go far enough, as you aptly suggest, with the satiric intent and its execution.

    Good job again.


  • zingzing

    archie: “Let’s face it, these are not women’s groups. The are left wing special interest groups that use the guise of equality for women to advance their leftist political agenda. Even zing knows that.”

    i don’t know that. (do you hate women’s groups?) i would think they have women’s issues in mind, most of the time. and if they swing left, well, that’s the kind of woman who would get out and do something.

  • Jeannie Danna

    Cindy-(I think you may benefit from finding out what neoliberalism means to most people.)
    Isn’t this what I am?
    AND Zing left balances out the right! What do you want to do, fall over?…:)

  • It might be helpful to remember the name of the publisher of Playboy – Christine Hefner.

    Someone got the publisher mad….

  • 29 – Jeannie,

    ¿Qué qué?

    You’re not as far as I can tell. Unless you are in disguise 🙂

    Neoliberalism is an economic position that promotes free-trade, business as god (ahem, there is some disagreement with my wording likely here), privatization and other abhorrant and detrimental things… it says fuck you to the poor, steals their land, enslaves them in sweat shops, and then stomps its feet and says the poor are stealing from us regarding almost any social programs at all–then it says don’t worry this is all in the interest of fairness and freedom.

    I consider Dave Nalle a neoliberal.

    Please see Naomi Klein’s short video here for an understanding of neoliberalism.

  • Jeannie Danna

    Cindy, Hand me the can opener I’m going to open this baby up!
    The last eight years of this country was run on fear to push corporate America’s agenda through. I not only believe that they knew about 911 before the fact. I believe strongly that they used it to go get the oil!!!

    I am definitely not! a neo-liberal.

  • Lumpy

    Jeanie. Neoliberalism as you define it sounds a lot like the sttatist corporatism of the obama gang.

  • Lumpy

    LOL. Jeannie is a troofer. Not surprised. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • I sure hope you only have girls Dave.

    I do, Cindy.


  • I consider Dave Nalle a neoliberal.

    Either you got your definition wrong or you’re very confused lumping me in there, because I don’t believe in neoliberalism as you define it.

    In fact, most would probably consider me a “classical libera” which is something else altogether.


  • zingzing

    yeah, dave, you’re a libera. a liberal with his l cut off.

  • Jeannie Danna

    It is Sunday morning and time to make my “weekly apology” to the right wing…:(

  • Good morning, Jeannie. I left you a response on my blog to your last comment. I was asking for your advice.

  • Dave, #36,

    I don’t see how exactly you do not fit Cindy’s definition in #31, as you say you don’t.
    It behooves you to tell us, in that case, in what respect(s) you’re different.


  • Clavos


    Or not.

  • Assertions to the contrary are not proof. It doesn’t behoove him if he cares not whether he’s misunderstood. But I should think it’s Dave’s decision to make, not yours. All I can do is implore – and “behooves” was used with no other purpose in mind.

  • The fact that grown men, even in satire, compose a “hate fuck” list is the toxic part.

    It is exactly this kind of thing,along with pornography,read by teenage boys before they have developed any sense of women as human beings, that is the problem.

    I’d bet, for those who assume this is something written for teenage boys (frat boys really should be considered almost adults by the way, at least by their age) that may even be a bigger problem.

  • Cooper, why is this “the problem” for that matter, what do you think “the problem” is?

    I don’t see a teenage interest in sex as a problem. Why do you?


  • Now you’re going to incur the wrath of Dave, Fernando. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  • Just kidding, Fernando. But he will disagree with your characterization of him.

  • But Fernando. I think you do have a rather skewed version of the Republican Party. You do realize, of course, it’s not homogeneous anymore (or whether it had ever been). There are kinds, from the religious Right and the (ex) KKK members to moderates (like Bush). So I think you’ve got to expand your definition somewhat or insist otherwise that people like Dave leave the Republican Party and . . . join the Liberals perhaps?

  • zingzing

    fernando: “How can a “Real” Republican support hate speach…”

    ha. how about freedom of speech? and where’d you get the idea that republicans DON’T support hate speech, if you’re going to put it that way? and this is hate speech? where’d that idea come from?

    i don’t think you understand much about your own party. i’m sure you fit in with parts of your party, but there are other parts, clearly, that you don’t even know exist.

  • zingzing

    what the hell are you talking about, fernando? being homogeneous is a bad thing… it means you’re a bunch of old, rich white conservatives. and that’s just not the case anymore, or at least you shouldn’t want that. and it’s your own party saying that it’s not what you claim it to be, not the dems. or the media. the dems and the media decry the the homogeneous quality of your ranks.

    are you sure you know which party you belong to? i think you’re more of an anti-dem than you are a republican.

    of course, i suppose you could say that people like dave and clavos aren’t “real” republicans, and i’m sure that, to a certain degree, they would agree with you. but you seem to believe that only people who believe exactly what you believe are “real” republicans. and that’s what you don’t get. the republican party has bunches of different beliefs that don’t neatly fit together (the religious right, fiscal conservatives/social liberals, etc) and all co-exist (to some degree, although there has been some fracturing) under the overall banner of “republican.”

    if the republican party was only made up of people like you, they’d never win an election. there just aren’t enough of you.

  • Shoot, zing. You’ve just echoed what Bliffle had said of Dave. And you, too, Fernando, get a load of this: “that Dave is more anti-left than a true Republican or conservative.”

    Gee, the world is coming to an end.

  • zingzing

    heh. well, i think i have to qualify what i said to fernando in light of… what i said to fernando. he really does embody SOME republican traits. or at least those traits that he has are definitely republican. so he’s a republican. he just doesn’t seem to understand that other people who are also republicans can hold different beliefs than he does.

    so, it’s not that he doesn’t know which party he belongs to, it’s just that he doesn’t know his party all that well. or at least i hope not. maybe he does know something we don’t.

    i think bliffle’s comment was more accurate than mine.

  • Check out, though, Fernando’ astute challenge to Dave on Dave’s newest article, just posted.

  • Baronius

    Roger, in what capacity are you:

    suggesting to Dave that he needs to clarify his position, as if his political beliefs aren’t well-documented?

    talking to Jeannie about private conversation?

    telling Fernando to watch out for Dave’s wrath, as if disagreeing with a false characterization is a personality flaw?

    crossing threads during a discussion?

  • Dave’s wrath was a joke, Baronius. Do you suggest now that only Chris or Doc are entitled to what looks to you like editorial comments. It’d seem to me that it’s you rather than I who’s trying to squelch the conversation.

    Physician, heal thyself.

  • And do try not to censure me here, Baronius, because that’s definitely not your job – not even if I violate the comment policy.

    If you don’t like the thread, move on.

  • The Republican Party has always been homogeneous…it has been the Democrats, the media and politcal kooks that are the ones stating that it is not!

    Fernando, read some history. Look up Nelson Rockefeller. Read some of the speeches of Teddy Roosevelt. The idea that the GOP is homogeneoous is pure ignorance. Would you kick Roosevelt or Lincoln out of the GOP if they were alive today?

    As for my opinion of the Playboy article, I feel about it the way I feel about any other “hate speech.” The whole idea of “hate speech” is ridiculous. I believe in freedom of speech. If Cimbalo wrote something negative about Republicans that’s his right under our Constitution. Do you believe in the First Amendment?


  • Dave,

    I’m sure glad you’re here to answer some allegations, because Baronius was taking me to task for egging you. I hope you realize I wasn’t doing that. And besides, I’d rather hear your own account rather than Baronius’s account of where you stand, which would be second-hand.

    Besides, I do think you’re perfectly capable of speaking on your own behalf.


  • Clavos

    Baronius has a good point, Roger. In fact, several of them.

    You have attempted repeatedly to arrogate to yourself authority nobody has vested in you.

  • I’m not going to discuss this.

  • Baronius

    In the future, Roger, when I complain about thread bullying, you’ll know what I’m referring to.

  • Clavos

    No discussion sought, Roger.

  • “I’m not going to discuss this.”

    Oh, no. How ever will the site continue?

  • 44 – Dave,

    What are you talking about? How does anything cooper said have anything to do with condemning teen interest in sex?

    Are you that far gone Dave? Misogyny is just about ‘sex’. It should be accepted and promoted to teens, in your mind?


    The fact that grown men, even in satire, compose a “hate fuck” list is the toxic part.

    It is exactly this kind of thing,along with pornography,read by teenage boys before they have developed any sense of women as human beings, that is the problem.

    I’d bet, for those who assume this is something written for teenage boys (frat boys really should be considered almost adults by the way, at least by their age) that may even be a bigger problem.

    An understanding worth repeating. I agree with that. I also support teen sexuality. I hope they all go out and experience sex with another human being at the time that is appropriate to each of them. Unlikely that they will have that chance to do that before they have to suffer the warping of their sexuality. Especially with all the people who think sex is only ‘bad’ when you actually engage in it with another person, pornography is just ‘natural’.

    Warped society.

  • Well, you’re fucking wrong then. And I don’t give a shit if you take a poll. Get it.

    As to you, El Bicho, apparently Baronius was under the impression that it was already corrupted. So I’m sure glad I can always count on your wisecracks to save it.

    [personal attack deleted]

  • Baronius,

    I pay less and less attention to what comes out of your mouth, so don’t you worry. I don’t even read your comments anymore unless you confront me directly. And when you do, rest assured that I’m capable to pay you back in kind.

  • Blogcritics Comments Cause Head to Explode

  • Take a ride!

  • Re # 71

    Was that “head” in the anatomical or nautical sense? When a marine head explodes, things get quite messy.


  • Cindy, I was referring to Cooper’s neopuritanical attitude as expressed in his hostility towards Playboy in general rather than this specific article.


  • Just a question, Clavos. You are a Politics editor – unofficially, I should say – because you don’t figure in the figurehead yet. But I didn’t know you were also Comments Editor. I thought Doc and Chris were still doing their job. Did you get a promotion?

    In any case, your comments here as to my style of posting on this or any other thread must therefore be in your unofficial capacity – which is to say no capacity whatever, unless I hear otherwise from the management about your eagerly awaiting promotion.

    But until that happens, I must therefore consider whatever you and your buddy here, the infamous El Bicho, as having no greater validity than any Joe Schmo that posts on this site – unless you want to claim seniority.

    So am I right in assuming that what you say here as regards what goes on on these threads is just your personal opinion, or should I regard it as carrying some kind of weight? Do let me know, because I certainly don’t want to rock the boat.

    If it’s official position, I’ll bite the bullet and play the game. And if not, you know you can take a hike.

  • Dave,

    36 – Milton Friedman was a neoliberal. The way I define it is probably holding you back. I define it by way of its effects, which you likely don’t acknowledge. If you say you are not a neoliberal, that’s fine, but why do you seem to support all neoliberal policies then?

    35 – “I sure hope you only have girls Dave.” (me)

    “I do, Cindy.” (you)

    Dave – Playboy in general is something I have a problem with myself. Let’s see how we compare on neopuritanical attitudes.

    Dave, can I ask you what you will do if your 13-16 year old teen girl is ready for sex? (as determined by her after discussion) Will you help her understand about birth control options and pregnancy? About what saying no means? Keep an open line of communication? Will you give her a key for her bedroom?

    When you say ‘what’s the problem’ with teen boys and pornography and misogynistic ‘satire’…’what’s wrong with sexual interest’?–I am curious to know if you will support actual healthy sexual interest.

    Will your daughter have privacy, education and freedom? Or will she be like most daughters–daughters of people whose son’s read Playboy, btw, cuz it’s so, you know, natural to see women the way it portraits them…good clean fun and all–caught unaware in the back seat of a car with one of the Playboy educated fellows?

  • Dan, if you read back through the comments, I think which, or better yet whose, head should be clear.

    I thought you weren’t going to discuss this, Roger. With the new site structure, it’s best to wait 20 comments before contradicting yourself.

    btw, my horse said you first.

  • Dave,

    Proposition 1 and 2 appear contradictory, unless Cindy misquoted you as to #1:

    1) “Dave – Playboy in general is something I have a problem with myself.”

    2) “Cindy, I was referring to Cooper’s neopuritanical attitude as expressed in his hostility towards Playboy in general rather than this specific article.”

    Can you explain?


  • I changed my mind, El Bicho. Shoot me for it.

  • Roger,

    #1 is not a quote of Dave, I should have used a comma instead of a dash…it is a statement to Dave by me.

    I inserted it later and didn’t realize it was a problem. I usually put the name, though, after everything the person said, if there’s any doubt.

  • Well, that’s why I asked because it’s just too blatant. Sorry, Dave.

  • Just a question, Clavos. You are a Politics editor – unofficially, I should say – because you don’t figure in the figurehead yet.

    Roger, there is nothing unofficial about Clavos’ status here. We have no “unofficial” editors — one is either an editor or one is not.

  • My question Lisa, was about Clavos’ capacity as comments editor, because this seems to be the point of contention.

  • But that’s not what you said, Roger. You stated that he was a politics editor “unofficially.” I am merely pointing out that this is not the case.

  • Point taken, Lisa. It was a dig. As to the relevant question, I’ll take no response as indicative of the fact that comments are not under Clavos’ jurisdication. And thank you.

  • Dave,

    Do you have a name for the article in question? Perhaps there’s a way to retrieve the content by some other means?


  • “So Wrong it’s Right.” Indistinct.

  • Baronius

    “If you don’t like the thread, move on.”

    Roger, I’m not trying to draw blood here. I just want to make sure that I get this idea across: you don’t direct the action on the boards. It’s not your place to tell me to move on. That’s not a personal attack against you; I’m not devaluing your contribution. It’s just that online, we’re equals. I can’t and shouldn’t let how much/little you respect me affect whether or not I add comments, and it’s unrealistic for you to expect me to.

    (If this comment is posted multiple times, blame the Technorati monster, not me.)

  • Clavos


  • No sweat, Baronius. But you’re not a censor, and neither is Clavos, though you both seem to act in that capacity. Yes, we are equal online. And I’m sorry if you perceive my postings to mean what you say they mean. But so be it.

    And apparently, Clavos doesn’t have any more to say about the nature of anyone’s comments, including mine, but to express his personal opinion. And it will remain so, nothing more than a personal opinion, until the gods declare otherwise.

    I don’t feel any grudge towards you, and I did say things in haste. Well, shit happens.

  • And Baronius – let’s taking in context.

    My saying “move one” is the exact same, in my humble opinion, as your trying to chastise me for the way I post. And since the comments editors didn’t say boo, then why should you. As I’m concerned, we’re even.

    And think about it really. Except for the “move on” statement, have I ever really objected to your posting whatever you want to post. But if we are all equal, as you say we are, then don’t take any superior attitude with me either.

    Have a good one.

  • Sorry, the above post is full of typos, but the meaning is clear.

  • Personally, I think they should all get a room Tom. 🙂