Sen. John McCain would have you believe he is a hero and a patriot. Is he?
Senator and Republican presidential candidate John Sidney McCain III spends much of his stump time regaling his devotees with stories of how he is - at least since his release from North Vietnam's "Hanoi Hilton" prison - a genuine military hero who has always put "country first." To the contrary, there is evidence that he has always put John McCain first.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baritone
Which was prompted by a similar correction Dave made about a similar error in one of my comments - and on and on and on and on and on...
Given how we often are whipping out these comments in between doing things like - I don't know - say, making a living, that most of us make relatively few errors is laudable. I endeavor to be accurate with spelling, word usage, syntax, etc., but some things do occasionally get by me, just as they do most of us here - Clav, excepted, of course.
I rarely make reference to such flubs, but Dave chose to point one out, and I just responded in kind.
dkeD vzodr,##ldiie aloevhei. "nmpce=(( lofl" id,cl=ccoalecmo;}}}~~~!
Barreltone
27 - bliffle
Dave demonstrates that he's truly lost it:
"...Obama is evil and plans to destroy the basic principles of freedom on which our nation is founded."
28 - Baronius
OK, Dan, I'll try to put it coherentlier.
At this point, I feel like we've got a good view of the candidates' characters. We've looked at their pasts, including the parts they don't want to talk about.
Neither of the candidates has been straightforward about their ideologies, both running to their right. Obama's even been running to the right of McCain on taxes.
On the issues it's been mostly platitudes. Broad statements have their place, but come on - if you want this job, tell us what you're going to do with it. Two years ago, McCain was all about immigration, and Obama wanted an immediate troop withdrawl from Iraq. Now they won't even take their own positions on their strongest issues. I expect better.
29 - Baritone
blif,
Dave has convinced himself, despite his supposed atheist position that Barack Obama is in truth the anti-christ - far worse than any Manchurian Candidate. I usually make light of this, but Dave is dead serious. He stated on another thread a few days ago that Obama must be stopped "at any cost." I'd say that Dave is edging toward the lunatic fringe. (He isn't in the room, is he?)
B
30 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius,
Do you really think so? Senator McCain's character has been dissected, for better or worse, but I don't think that Senator Obama's has been -- at least in the popular press, which matters.I appreciate the effort, but I don't quite buy it. You say (Comment #28)
You continue, So do I. I'm sick and tired of platitudes, of which we have had a gross surfeit. That's why character and ideology are so important. As to immigration, the economic situation in the U.S. has reduced the numbers of "undocumented workers" because there are fewer jobs. Mexico is suffering from the diminution of remittances. It was a problem, and may well be one later, if and when the U.S. economy improves. But right now, it is far less critical than other issues. As to Iraq, the situation has also changed, apparently for the better. Senator Obama and Senator McCain don't seem that far apart on what to do.
Facts change and responses change accordingly. Character and ideology, generally, don't. If they have changed, it would be fascinating to learn why.
I shall now avert my eyes from BC and watch the debate, which CNN (fortunately) carries live on the internet.
Dan(Miller)
31 - Lee Richards
The more people like Dave rant, with spittle flying, about stopping evil freedom-destroyers, the longer it will take conservatives to win anything again.
32 - Clavos
As long as, when the time comes, we stop BHO from "spreading [our] wealth around..."
33 - Baritone
How are Obama's proposals any different except with regards WHO gets the tax breaks?
In "trickle down" economics the lion's share of tax breaks and other advantages afforded the market place go to the rich in the theory that the wealth will "trickle down" to the middle and lower classes. Never mind the obnoxious nature of it - the vision of the masses scrambling around the feet of the fat cats frantically grabbing drips and crumbs spewed from the gaping mouth of the rich. It simply doesn't work. That the rich are afforded total control of that "trickle" places the rest of us in that despicable posture.
Rather, if more of the wealth of this nation were redistributed to the middle and lower economic classes, it stands to reason that ultimately the rich would still benefit as more of their products and services would be purchased and used by a larger number of people having additional funds with which to buy.
I have maintained an income that, for the most part would be considered near the lower end of the middle. I have been self-employed for the better part of 25 years. I do own a home. However, I have never purchased a new car. (In fact, I have never owned a car which was manufactured in the same decade in which I owned it.) We own very few of the "bells and whistles" available in the market today - no second "vacation" home, no sports or vintage cars, no pleasure boats, not even a flat screen TV or high end sound system. We have no investments.
I'm sure we're not alone in this. I don't particularly covet "things," but, if I had the funds, I would probably endeavor to attain some of those "things" or avail myself of more wide spread travel or even actually attempt to save or invest a bit of it.
It wouldn't be a dramatic difference, but if I weren't obliged to pay $8000 to $12000 in federal taxes each year, we might take a step or two deeper into the market place. I imagine others would as well.
It seems to me that this scenario could result in a "win" for, if not everyone, certainly significantly more people than is now the case. Somehow, I doubt that the spouse of the average corporate CEO would be reduced to clipping coupons. I've little doubt that the rich would in any case manage to remain rich.
B
34 - Clavos
B-tone:
You just don't get the unAmericanness of "spreading the wealth around." What Obama proposes is forcibly removing wealth in the possession of people, wealth they earned, and giving it to other people who did not earn it. It goes way beyond "who gets the tax break:" he's proposing to take money from the wealthy and give it to the 40% of Americans who already, because of their circumstances, are not paying any taxes, in the form of a payoff.
It's a clever political move, vote wise. He takes money from 5% of the voters and GIVES (not "reduces their taxes" - gives them cash) it to 40% of the voters.
You do the math - hell of a vote getter, that idea.
35 - DaveNalle
I usually make light of this, but Dave is dead serious. He stated on another thread a few days ago that Obama must be stopped "at any cost." I'd say that Dave is edging toward the lunatic fringe. (He isn't in the room, is he?)
I'll say this for Obama. He's far less dangerous than Cynthia McKinney would be if she were elected.
The more people like Dave rant, with spittle flying, about stopping evil freedom-destroyers, the longer it will take conservatives to win anything again.
Works for me, Lee. I'm a republican, not a conservative.
Dave
36 - Silas Kain
Mark my words. There is an October surprise headed our way. As I resign myself to an Obama Presidency, I am praying that voters will be deliberate in their casting ballots for Congress. Regardless of who is running, I hope that every incumbent gets booted out. That message, my friends, will be cataclysmic for Washington.
37 - Dr Dreadful
I thought the October Surprise was the stock market going kershplumf, Silas.
If that wasn't it, then whatever it is had better hurry up. There's not much October left to be surprising in.
38 - Clavos
There's not much October left to be surprising in.
Almost half of it, Doc.
And no, the stock market deflating wasn't really a surprise; not after the housing market went POP and the subprimes (which is not the same thing as the Supremes-either of them) sank.
39 - bliffle
Clavos said:
"You just don't get the unAmericanness of "spreading the wealth around."
Really? "Spread the wealth" was my dads favorite saying. Whenever he paid for something. And he was imminently American
40 - Clavos
Really? "Spread the wealth" was my dads favorite saying. Whenever he paid for something. And he was imminently American
Non sequitur, bliff; but I'm not surprised, coming from you.
41 - Baronius
Silas, I wouldn't be stunned by a McCain win.
Obama has been running negative, deceptive ads for months, while McCain's been saving his (substantially less) money. Obama has done as much damage to McCain as he's ever going to do. Now it's McCain's turn. He's going wildly negative, and it'll be a couple of weeks before we'll see the accumulated damage caused by it. I don't know if it'll be enough, but you have to remember that Obama's negative rating is only going to get bigger.
42 - Franco
#34 " Clavos
forcibly removing wealth in the possession of people, wealth they earned, and giving it to other people who did not earn it.
Today in the US the law exist to protect persons and their property. Those are “just laws”. How can the same government who enforces those laws protecting life liberty and property then go and break them by doing what a citizen would go to jail it they did it. So if law exist to protect people from doing this to each other, how is it that the government can break the same law? That make is an unjust law.It is a crime to do it. It is breaking the very law that protects us all.
43 - moon
Nalle took the rag off the bush this time with his statement that he's a REPUBLICAN.
Before, he beat the pan and spewed the line that he was a LIBERTARIAN--without reflecting for one instant, even when it was called to his attention, that AUTHORITARIAN behavior, such as that which he has exhibited on this forum by suppressing any dissenting opinion and insulting any dissenting poster, is diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.
Now he wants to claim that Republican is an ideological label?!?!
Do tell.
44 - DaveNalle
Really? "Spread the wealth" was my dads favorite saying. Whenever he paid for something. And he was imminently American
I bet that if you asked your dad he would have said that he believed it was the responsibility of individuals to 'spread the wealth' not the responsibility of government to spread our wealth for us.
Under those terms I believe in spreading the wealth too. I'm a big fan of Marcus Aurelius who had at the heart of his philosophy the idea that wealth and success bring with them the obligation to help others. That's ultimately a very American set of values. Taking money from people involuntarily to redistribute to others is not such a positive value. It's theft by force of government.
Dave
45 - DaveNalle
Moon seems not to understand the difference between republicanism and the Republican Party. They aren't the same thing. And it's certainly possible to be both a (small r) republican and a (small l) libertarian, as I am.
As for suppressing dissent, as she well knows I've never tried to silence anyone for their opinions, and as for being critical of those I disagree with, I honor their right to disagree with me and expect them to extend the same courtesy.
Dave
46 - moon
She knows full well that you have used your editoriship to silence HER for her opinions.
And she is fully aware of the difference between republicanism (which does not exist, nor has ever esisted in the US--and which suffered violent defeat in Rome and in Spain) and the republican party.
It is not possible to be something that does not exist--a republican (small r).
And being a libertarian (small l) is competely incompatible with the flagrantly authoritarian behavior (small a) that you have always exhibited on this forum--especially in regard to this poster.
Abuse of power is not a principle of libertarian thought.
47 - Christopher Rose
Dave Nalle: "I've never tried to silence anyone for their opinions" Quoted for 100% total bs factor.
Moon, you are still persona non grata here I'm afraid.
Contradictions, don't you just love 'em?
48 - Dan(Miller)
Christopher,
Interesting comment. Aside from enforcing, quite properly, the proscription against personal attacks, what opinions has Dave "tried to silence?" I haven't seen it, but then you may. If so, perhaps a bit of editorial transparency would be helpful.
Dan(Miller)
49 - DaveNalle
Christopher. Do try to read more closely. Notice the word 'opinions'? Be honest now. Did I ever complain about Moon's or anyone else's opinions, or have my concerns primarily been about disruptive and insulting behavior?
Dave
50 - Christopher Rose
Dave, I'm sure such a practised mangler of the English language as you ought to be perfectly well aware that one person's disruptive behaviour is another person's freedom.
You have banged on long and hard about freedom of speech but, in my opinion, you completely betrayed that commitment by requesting that moonraven be banned.
Sure, you said it was because she was disruptive, but she is/was no worse than other people we have on here from both sides of the political spectrum.
That apart, she was particularly good at pointing out the many, er, weaknesses and contradictions in your political perspective and was regularly out-debating you. I disagree with her political perspective almost as much as I do with yours by the way.
You are also the one that very aggressively insulted her when she first showed up and thus made her so angry in the first place. I blame myself to a certain extent for that reaction as I was listening to your lip service arguments in favour of free speech and did not edit out your insulting remarks. I learned a lesson there but you lost your credibility.
51 - Heloise
Forget the Bradley effect and who gives a rat's ass about racism: Why? Because Obama is raising money like there's no tomorrow. He has over 3.1 million contributors, that's well beyond the 1 million mark that was the old record and now got an email you gotta hear:
Breaking: Obama raises 150 MILLION in September! Watch the video
Obama routs the fundraising records for candidates--Thank God, McCain and yes, that you Sarah Palin.
And if he looses we can leave this country and start our own somewhere else--just kidding.
52 - troll
lift the ban on moonraven's comments
eof
53 - Ruvy
lift the ban on moonraven's comments
Agreed....
54 - Dr Dreadful
@ #36-38:
So is this the October Surprise?
Just a theory...
55 - Ruvy
Breaking: Obama raises 150 MILLION in September! Watch the video
Like I've said elsewhere, you will get the best president Arab money can buy. You're going from one Arab ass-kisser to another in short order. Neither party nor race matter here. The loyalty is the same.
Enjoy the changes when they come, Heloise - tell us which color hijab you will want to wear....
56 - Heloise
Ruvy, where have you been? I've been a Muslim for decades. I write about Islamic esotericism which was the foundation for "Stoicism" the religion of Rome which informed Christianity.
You need to read some books instead of talking to Heloise...:)
Ruvy, I have about 5 hijabs in the attic and will wear them when the time comes. Not kidding.
I got them in India and a Midwestern white woman gave me two of them.
You don't have a CLUE about what goes on in America!
Heloise
57 - Ruvy
Heloise,
I write about Islamic esotericism which was the foundation for "Stoicism" the religion of Rome which informed Christianity.
Say what?
Stoicism, at least the stoicism I'm familiar with, was a Greek philosophy - which may have informed Christianity - but predated Islam (as revealed tp Mohammed) by about 1,000 years.
Now I realize that Moslems all claim that Adam was Moslem and that everybody is a Moslem until somebody corrupts his mind in one way or another. But the basic definition of a Moslem, as I understand it, is one who seeks peace through submission to Allah, and who believes that Mohammed was His (final) prophet. Such an individual is "perfected" (the Hebrew mushlám the cognate of muslím means "perfect"). This perfection is not what Moslems talk about when pushing their faith, but it is what they mean.
Of course, that leavea an itty bitty problem. Did Abraham, (according to Moslem claims, originally a Moslem) believe in Mohammed? I tossed that question at a Sufi cleric once. It was a poser for him.
Arab-bashing, Heloise? Moslem-bashing? Maybe I should be more specific here. The Arabs who are buying you Obama are not Moslems at all. They are Wahhabi. A Wahhabi is not a Moslem, he is a heretic pretending to be a Moslem because he believes that Allah has form. NO Moslem believes that Allah has form. Don't believe me, Heloise. Go to the source and check it out yourself.
The Wahhabi have been kicked out of your faith for the last two hundred years or more repeatedly - until some Yanks and Brits gave the filthy bastards enough gold to buy horses and rifles and throw the el-Hashemi clan out of Makka and Medina in Hijaz 80 years back. The Yank that gave the Wahhabi scum the money was George Bush' grampa, the late Senator Prescott Bush. And his son and grandson are Saudi head-waiters and servants. And Obama will be no better.
Go mess with the Christians or the atheists on this site, Heloise. I'm a Jew-boy who knows his shit.
58 - Ruvy
Heloise,
The point about the hijab, by the way, is that right now you can choose to wear one in public - or not. With wünderkinder like Obama in power, that may not be true in your country anymore - especially for Moslems.
So, to revise the question, which of the five hijabs you have in your closet will you be wearing, "come the revolution"?
59 - moon
Frankly, it's about time that the comments editor of this site finally admitted that Dave Nalle insulted me from the beginning--and not because I was disruptive or any such thing, but because I nailed his posturing and slander to the wall.
That was more than 2 years ago, and since then there was a pretense maintained here by the powers-that-be that I was a troll and that Dave Nalle's behavior was pure as the driven snow--including banning me several times from this site rather than doing the ethical thing and removing Nalle from his honorary editorship from which he regularly abused his power by blocking posts and insulting posters.
I am not the only poster insulted by Nalle. Insulting behavior is habitual on his part. Why as recent as yesterday he called another poster who disagreed with him insane.
I consider remarks of that ilk, as well as racist sneers about a poster's ethnicity, comments that indicate gender hatred and persistently infantile comments in regard to Marx and Lenin when to the best of my reading knowledge no one on this site has ever espoused Marist Leninism in regard to ANYTHING, to be beyond unprofessional and if that makes me persona non grata here then I am in excellent company.
60 - DaveNalle
Perhaps the problem is that your ability to stick to the truth, Moon. You make stuff up to serve your interests. That makes it hard for people to take you seriously. You fabricate ridiculous claims about other people which are easily disproven, constantly resort to personal attacks and baseless accusations of racism directed not only at me, which I've been willing to put up with, but also at newer and less hardened participants.
When you take your discussion to the level of personal attacks and insults it derails otherwise meaningful and potentially pleasant and informative exchanges. If you could behave yourself in this area I'd have no problem with your ocntinues participation, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of being civil and participating in discussions on the terms described in the comments policy.
I don't have the power to ban you and have never blocked one of your posts or comments. But yes, you are the one person whose behavior I believe has been disruptive enough to suggest that something be done about it. And even then you weren't banned, just nicely asked to take a break.
Dave
61 - DaveNalle
Ruvy, unless I misremember very badly, Stoicism is a Roman philosophy, not Greek.
Dave
62 - Ruvy
Frankly, it's about time that the comments editor of this site finally admitted that Dave Nalle insulted me from the beginning--and not because I was disruptive or any such thing, but because I nailed his posturing and slander to the wall.....
Finally, we see the true lady behind the persona "moonraven". And, while I disagree fundamentally with many things she says and believes, she has (almost) always acted as a lady to me. And I've (almost) always attempted to be a gentleman to her. And now, we are reading "her" point of view - blunt, straight and honest - as opposed to the eye-pecking raids of a raven or hawk that was the persona she adopted for the site as "moonraven".
My suggestion is this:
1. That our friend Marthe Raymond (moon) continue writing in this vein. Whether I disagree with her or not, civillity is always easier to deal with than incivillity.
2. That our friend Dave Nalle at least apologize to Ms. Raymond. It's owed her. And that our friend Dave Nalle think about how he deals with other posters here and consider his words. Spiritual growth does not require subscribing to a set of religious beliefs.
It will not satisfy anybody. But we will gain (and hopefully keep) another intelligent commenter.
Marthe, while you may not be aware of this, there is one commenter who does generally espouse Marxist-Leninism on this site: Les Slater. And while I'm no Marxist of any variety, I'm a syndicalist socialist - and always have been.
63 - Ruvy
Dave,
Ruvy, unless I misremember very badly, Stoicism is a Roman philosophy, not Greek.
Much Greek philosophy was taken over whole cloth by the Romans, who were not all that original. Much Roman culture was indeed Greek, and indeed this is still true in Italy today. It is entirely possible that many Stoic philosophers were Romans. I pulled my definition from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Go to the link in comment #57 and argue from there if I'm wrong.
But the point is this: Islamic esotericism which was the foundation for "Stoicism" does not make any sense at all. The Romans and Greeks both came along long before Mohammed or Islam did.
Now, the Sufis also predate Mohammed by some centuries, and it may be Sufi esotericism that Heloise is referring to in her comment #56.
64 - moon
It is the opinion of this poster that Nalle's post (number 60 of this thread) is a massive projection.
Nalle, in fact, is the most flagrant example on this site of someone who just makes stuff up--and who when called on his inventions is so disdainful of the other posters on this forum that he has routinely posted links to supposed sources for his claims--which disagree completely with his claims!
I am not the only person on this site who has called Nalle on his proclivity to make things up.
I have never fabricated ridiculous claims against anyone except in clear-cut cases of humor!
I resorted to personal attacks to DEFEND myself ONLY after having been accused of alcoholism and sleeping with a Mexican gardener as supposed negations of my credibility as a poster. (Not exactly refuting my arguments, guys.)
And the Mexican gardener attack was clearly racist. And there has been othing baseless about any of my claims of racism here--including those racist comments against my person for being Native American.
Dave is playing to the heartstrings when he tells us how he is man enough to put up with personal attacks and insults, but that other posters are too tender and feeble and fragile to do so and that therefore he demanded that I be banned so that those tender folks would not be hurt.
That takes a lot of nerve, Nalle, or absolutely no capacity for introspection. You choose.
I was banned, Nalle--not asked to take a break--so save your "butter wouldn't melt in your mouth" disclaimers for someone simple enough to believe them.
65 - moon
Ruvy,
Thanks for your support, but I will not hold my breath waiting for an apology from Nalle for his denigrating and disrespectful behavior towards me.
If he apologized to me it would mean that he would have to change his entire MO on this site--from being a self-proclaimed expert who has the way the truth and the light and that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him should be puniched with hellfire.
It's essentially a fundamentalist stance, Ruvy--and with your experience and mine of fundamentalists of several different stripes--their entire selfconcept is created from their belief system--which really has nothing to do with religion or politics but from the FUNDAMENTAL need to FEEL that they are right and that if they are not right--even in something completely inconsequential--they are NOTHING.
Fundamentalism is produced and maintained by very damaged people, whose life experience has taught them that they live in a basically hostile world that will destroy them in an instant if they recognize that other people have rights.
Consensus is intolerable to them--they must prevail.
And they will do anything to prevail--including taking the lives of folks whom they view as threatening in some way.
I see many folks in your "neck of the woods"--on BOTH sides of the conflict--as fundamentalists. I can understand how they got to that point, but I cannot identify or agree with them as the posture is, quite literally, a dead end.
I also see Dave Nalle that way. Perhaps he is in the wrong part of the world to work out his life path.
66 - El Bicho
Moon, you do have valid points about your treatment, but you lose credibilty chastising Dave with your poor grasp of the facts. As an editor I saw other posters and writers in addition to Dave complain about your behavior, which let's be honest didn't always follow Robert's Rules of Order, and one was someone that I have yet to see agree with Dave on any issue. You in fact were asked to take a self-imposed break when you were unable to reel in your antics. You were banned after that.
67 - Heloise
Okay "jew boy" yes, Mohammed was around 1200 AD and I knew that when I said what I said. But it does not change anything. What I should have said was that mysticism/esotericism predates it.
Regardless was just trying to get your Jew Radar up and I did. Ooops.
Heloise
68 - Pablo
The fact that Nalle is the political editor of this rag, only does disservice to it. He insults others on here on a regular basis. The fact is that if he had to limit himself to rational civilized debate, he would come out on the losing side 90% of the time.
Instead what he does is attack, impune, and ridicule, which is why I dislike him so much, and why I continue to refer to him and his boyfriend as bubbas.
However I do like the fact that he shows his true colors on a regular basis, that being ignorance.
69 - Heloise
Exactly. Sufism. I did not write it because I knew YOU knew. We use the writings of the Adi Granth (Sikhs) and Sufi writers.
Then there are the Egyptians (from whom the Greeks stole everything) whose belief in one God and its three persons is the template from which Judaism and Christianity (St. Paul)spring.
No one gives the Egyptians credit, and certainly not the Jews.
"As for Stoicism: Political Dictionary: Stoicism
With an initial capital, the word refers to the philosophy of Zeno (c.300 bc) and his followers. Stoics believed that the world was determined by necessity; that there is no point in humans' fighting necessity; and that humans should therefore confront it calmly. This last gives the link with the ordinary meaning of the word."
from answers.com
Marcus Aurelius and Cicero were both Romans who put Stocism on the religious map. Greeks (one writer traces everything from the Greeks). Easily Greeks may have started Stocism but it was the religion of ROME.
PS: as for moon's comment bashing BC we are not paid pundits, or on TV, nor from MSM, and many sites use large quotes from other sites infused with a little comment. We are a magazine not a newspaper-lite.
I read blogs all over the map and if the writing over there is better it's because these people write for a living...hello. BC is impacting the lingo around the globe and the microcosm of American MSM.
I hear European news anchors saying "touting and trump" Huh? They shun "American English" for RP and English as spoken in England. If you think there is no difference then ask the TOEFL folks.
Heloise
70 - Ruvy
Heloise,
whose belief in one God and its three persons is the template from which Judaism and Christianity (St. Paul)spring. No one gives the Egyptians credit, and certainly not the Jews.
A century or so before Moshe showed up to get the pharaoh to let our people go, one Egyptian pharaoh believed in a sun god (Amen) as the sole god.
But Avraham was the son of a Sumerian high priest (TeraH - teraHu on a tablet found decades ago) who fled from Ur to Paran after the king he served died. Abraham continued from Paran to Canaan on G-d's command - before he ever arrived in Egypt. He showed up in Egypt to buy food before this pharaoh who believed in Amen ruled - by a few centuries.
There is much to give credit to the Egyptians over. Their drawings, when carefully examined, give a very clear explanation as to what the Egyptian kings were talking about when they made detailed plans to seek eternal life. All sorts of interesting stuff turns up. And when carefully examined, it is relatively clear that there was a very advanced civilization operating in Egypt (and the rest of the Middle East) alongside the primitive human one that is described in the Torah and in works like Gilgamesh. In addition, it is evident that the calendar describing Israelite holidays in the Torah - the calendar of Jubilees - was a solar calendar based on the Egyptian model rather than the present luni-solar calendar of the rabbis.
But the Israelites did not get their template for belief from the Egyptians. Sorry, Heloise. That came from Avraham, the fellow who crossed over from Nibiru - the Ivrí.
71 - Cindy D
Not that this is a democracy or anything, but my two cents:
lift the ban on moonraven's comments
Hey Dr.D, here's an article for you. Has a few more details, in case you are interested.
72 - moon
Heloise:
This poster is one of those "TOEFL folks"--that is to say a specialist in language acquisition who designs courses to prepare for the TOEFL as well as TOEFL exams.
And I am afraid that I do not see your point.
However, as for the lack of writing skills on BC--BTW I do not consider my post a bashing of BC, but a simple statement that the topics seldom interest me, as I do not live in Gringolandia--that you equate with the fact that BC writers are not paid, this point was debated here a long time ago when this poster refused to consider writing for BC because this poster is a longtime professional writer who, unlike Linda Evangelista, who said she didn't get out of bed for less than 10 grand, believes that when writers are paid that the ones not worth paying are weeded out much more effectively.
There are plenty of folks who ARE paid and who aren't worth a plug nickel--Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald would be first on my list of those--not that his writing skills per se are substandard, but his articles are blinders-on propaganda [Personal attack deleted]--and which are even worse in the sense that he writes non-articles that always say something MAY, MIGHT or COULD happen and wrings his hands--and the readers' patience--about that.
The MH continues to pay him--and that's one of the bigger mysteries in journalism.
73 - Clavos
You in fact were asked to take a self-imposed break when you were unable to reel in your antics. You were banned after that.
The direct, proximate reason for which Marthe was banned was an extremely insulting comment about my wife, who has yet to post so much as one comment on the site, much less one insulting to Marthe.
Marthe has yet to apologize for her comment.
74 - moon
clavos,
Fact: If you go back to September 2006 and read Chavez One-Man Axis of Crazy, or whatever it was called, you will note that you began the conflict by insulting ME.
Fact: I did not insult your wife--I insulted your machismo.
Assumption: You can dish it out--apparently--but you can't take it.
75 - Clavos
Fact: Virtually everyone on the site took your comment as derogatory to my wife, as well as to me.