It is sticks and stones that break our bones, and it's not words that wield the weapons — it's people.
metaphor: a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.”…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Cindy
Roger,
Heard the latest Wikileaks news?
Some 40 politicians will be revealed as tax evaders by a Swiss banker, whistle-blower.
27 - roger nowosielski
I bet they'll scream bloody murder.
28 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear comrade, most exalted, esteemed, etc., etc. ad nauseam, Roger the not so artful dodger,
Again, thanks for the commie, pinkp-lefty-handed compliment, there was a complement in there somewhere...wasn't there?
You know, your team is kicking the living shit out of my preferred team as we speak, which I suppose might be of some solace and consolation to thee.
As for humility, the most important lesson of humility so fundamental, so central, seminal and salient to the development of Western Civilization as contained in our blueprint towards this end contained in the Classics and the Great Books, most of which I have studied all my life - well, it is quite obvious that I ain't got none...you double dork, doofis wannabe super brainiac just as yours truly, 'umble liddle 'ol moi, me, myself and I - izz.
Not 'umble? Please, do not belabor the fucking obvious you twit.
Have you ever heard of Falstaff or Miles Gloriosus or Doctor Pangloss or Gargantuan and Pantagruel; well they pale in comparison to me!
29 - Clavos
Some 40 politicians will be revealed as tax evaders by a Swiss banker, whistle-blower.
Cindy, one wonders if your reference is aware of the distiction between tax evaders and tax avoiders.
One is illegal; the other is not.
30 - Clavos
...Gargantuan and Pantagruel...
That would be Gargantua and Pantagruel, n'est-ce pas?
31 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear comrade, commie-lib/simp, etc., etc., Clavitoris;
RE: your # 31.
Yes, the actual French is "La vie de GARGANTUA et de Pantagruel"
However, I saw it somewhere as Gargantuan, as the character and not as an adjective, and instead of trusting and following my basic instincts, I foolishly corrected my self - wrongly and unnecessarily. So thank you most reluctantly and begrudgingly.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
32 - Mark
Thanks for #20, Irv. Interesting explanation.
re #22 -- general factotum and henchman for the mental sanitation syndicate years back before taking misanthropic vows...not a shrink
33 - Cindy
29 - Yup Clav, I y'am. But, I am only repeating news. The claim is that the exposure will reveal tax evasion, not tax avoidance. Can't wait to see what the representatives of the most virtuous country ever do behind the scenes.
34 - Irvin F Cohen
RE # 32
[Edited]
I'm truly glad you like my explanation. As a bit of literary criticism however I imagine it does not fill the academic literary criticism mold too well - well, how about not at all. At any rate glad you found it "interesting".
Now if you ain't a psychobabbler, voodoo witchdoctor head shrinker, then is it correct to say that you're just a lowly psychobabbler, voodoo witchdoctor?
It really doesn't matter to me, but it, knowing what yooh izz, would be just another insight into how and why you think the way you do. And no, it won't be on the midterm let alone the final. But I got a complaint - I find your taciturn and cryptic responses absolutely disconcerting and yes, annoying and irritating - at times - but worth pondering and examining, unlike the vast majority of these highly opinionated and ignorant yahoos at BC. And that I guess would also include myself - on the highly opinionated side of the ledger of course, but not so of course, on the highly ignorant side.
[Edited]
35 - Mark
There was a time when BC was more free wheeling -- you would have enjoyed the banter.
My sordid past? Some labels that applied: "behavior/system analyst", "teacher", "diagnostician", "program/training designer, evaluator, administrator", "services coordinator", that kind of stuff
Did work for both the Operant and Psychoanalytic cartels.
But then I decided to get respectable 20+ years ago and became a farrier.
36 - Christopher Rose
Mark, I don't think there has been much change in the degree of free wheeling in the comments space, at least since the need for having any kind of comment moderation at all became a requirement to prevent the site being overwhelmed by spammers and lunatics.
The comments guidelines are really quite loose compared to many other sites, where dissenting opinions are routinely deleted.
The real problem is that many commenters, both here and in the larger world, don't appear able to discern a difference between a debating point and a personality. They then attempt to attack the latter apparently believing they are attacking the former.
Our new virtual chum Irv is a case in point, repeatedly attacking me for editing his words and accusing me of censoring his views.
Despite the fact that I have told him repeatedly that his opinions on the subject of debate aren't being censored but that excessive direct personal rudeness isn't allowed, the crusty old fucker insists that he is being censored and that Blogcritics and I are acting fascistically.
Such excessive hyperbole is typical these days, whether in the comments space or larger, more public spaces and helps nobody and nothing.
Just as people carelessly and routinely toss around words like "incredible" or "awesome" for the merely good or interesting, it also surely displays a lack of respect for the word or all those who have died at the hands of fascists or other extremists to toss such terms as fascist around so lightly.
I, for one, am resolved to develop a greater respect for words, their meaning and use, if only as a counterweight to such frivolity.
37 - Irvin F Cohen
RE # 33 [Edited]
Dear comrades Cinty and clavitoris,
"Less filling" (v) "more taste" - "less calories" (v) "more flavor/more body" - "more substance" (v) "less fluff" - is it "tax evasion" or is it "tax avoidance"?!
This debate of yours truly takes casuistry to new heights, to absolutely soaring, halcyon, empyrean, intergalactic, stellar pinnacles! It seems to me after one cuts out and removes all the superfluous and unnecessary chafe herein; this is solely a matter of intellectual and philosophic hypocrisy.
I assume the major thrust of all this super charged, hot air and warmed over Marxist spittle of yours (well at least that of cinty's) will be to single out conservative politicians as the root of all evil and as hypocritical tax cheats, avoiders and evaders. And of course with the typical moral relativist chorus and chant of yours (again mostly that of cinty's) downplaying the role of liberal lefties in this matter with - "well, they both (all) do it."
Well, as to be expected of me, I have an entirely different take on all of this. I see it as right and natural, and more importantly, as a matter of conviction and principle on the part of true conservatives - to protect one's wealth from typical liberal, commie-lib/simp, class-warfare, Marxist redistributionist, confiscatory taxation, predation, theft and piracy. In fact and indeed a true conservative has a moral imperative to do so.
So again, I find it both in character and as a matter of the highest principle, for conservatives to vigorously seek the protection of their wealth from commie-lib/simp, lefty-pinkos such as yourselves. While I find it to be the absolute height of hypocrisy for liberal, commie-lib/simp, pinko-lefty, class-warfare, redistributionist Marist politicians to try to hide their money.
So "power to the people" and "workers of the world unite". Or otherwise, put it to rest.
38 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear rosey-hippy pooh,
You prove my point in spades. So why don't you let others decide for themselves whether I have done so. Why do you erase my argumenta entirely which prove you and your ilk are behaving entirely like intellectual and philosophic, anti-intellectual freedom, anti-debate, totalitarian fascists?
Why do you so cowardly and pusillanimously hide in the shadows and obscurity of anonymity? And refuse to openly debate and counter my argumenta? Or to justify your utter arbitrary and capricious, petty, dictatorial, Martinet-like, exercise of pure, officious and unctuous, power? And especially of your utter lack of accountability and transparency and openness?
Are you going to delete this out entirely too?
Admittedly some of the language in question was, to put it mildly, somewhat on the raunchy side, as is my custom, wont and preference. But not al of it, in fact not hardly so. So then why must you erase, delete and cut it all out? Do you really have to do that?
What of your editorial duty to surgically remove the so-called, supposed offensive material with a scalpel, rather than to obliterate it out of existence entirely, don't others have the right to determine whether it is offensive or insulting or inappropriate for themselves? Which is a classic definition of censorship to the point of the outright repression of speech and debate.
So what's it going to be, are you going to debate me openly, or are you going to run and hide behind your absolute power and attitude of infallibility and irreproachability as well?
Or are you just going to delete this in its entirety like a totalitarian fascist scumbag/thug?
39 - Dr Dreadful
Irv, I think you and the comments editors are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Based on our previous conversations, your view is that any and all personal expression is completely acceptable, up to and including dropping the f-bomb at grandma's dinner table.
However, based on the clearly-posted comments policy, grandma and Blogcritics obviously dissent from your point of view and will continue to (a) eject you from the house (b) edit your comments where you are deemed to have crossed the line.
May I suggest that the best way to effect a change in policy, if you don't like it, is to contact the Blogcritics management. I believe you may previously have been furnished with details of the way to do this.
Also, I sincerely wonder whether Mr Rose is all that motivated to "debate you openly" since this alleged capricious censorship appears to be the only thing you are interested in debating about.
40 - Cindy
Dear Irv,
I am not sure what your comment had to do in regard to the point I was discussing with Clav. But my guess is that Clav would likely be more in your camp with regard to private property and that sort of thing.
41 - Christopher Rose
Irv: Any time you invent a reliable system for the "wisdom of crowds" approach you seem to favour, do let me know.
In my opinion, I'm not being a fascist and you have nothing but your hysteria to base such a silly notion upon; you know who I am so it is just nonsense to suggest that I am hiding in anonymity or cowardly; I've already told you repeatedly what the situation is but you persist in ignoring that and repeating yourself ad nauseum - try comprehension for a change; if you did shut up for a while and pay attention, potentially you'd learn that I am accountable, transparent and open; if you were paying attention, you'd already know that this isn't about raunchy language at all.
As you aren't paying attention and clearly love the sound of your own misguided voice more than the actual information you are given, I don't see any point at all in entering into a debate with you.
It follows, therefore, that I am neither going to debate with you nor hide behind anything.
The situation remains as it has always been; you are free to express your opinions, to use any language you like so long as it isn't simply gratuitously offensive, and we still aren't going to use the comments space to discuss this at length, so this will be the last of it for now.
Email me if you do actually want a dialogue, which I expect you don't...
42 - Mark
...wisdom of the crowds approach...
If the 'community' is expected to moderate journalistic integrity here, why not civility? Why protect people from the consequences of their comments by deleting them?
...but then, I enjoy frivolity
43 - Christopher Rose
Mark: Is the "community" expected to do that? If so, nobody has told me. Nor do I see how it could moderate civility; how would that work?
We aren't protecting "people from the consequences of their comments by deleting them", did you think that was the thinking?
I love frivolity and, left to my own devices, am more prone to fucking about pointlessly amusing myself than I am to work, but it is important to maintain a "Star Wars" bar type open house for all who pass through here, not just the most bullying or gobby participants.
44 - Irvin F Cohen
RE # 42.
Bravo, Mark, well done.
And I thank you for your intellectual and philosophic courage.
45 - Boeke
#6 random is right. Only an utter idiot would think Twain a racist. I suppose it helps to be an idiot if one never reads the books. Perhaps it's equally felicitous if one reads the expurgated version.
#8 Glenn is right. The rightists in all their disarray, not knowing whether to denounce violence or brag about it to further their intimidation campaign, will not be able to drag this fig leaf temporarily over their brutishness.
46 - Irvin F. Cohen
RE # 46
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
your point vis-à-vis Twain is well taken. He's actually one of my favorite authors too. But "felicitous"? As in easy to do, or as the dictionary definition states "well chosen or suited to the circumstances." Do you mean the reading of the expurgated version is more suited to someone's being an idiot with only half a brain or so; than to what? Well in this particular case I'm gonna cut you some slack here, cause you might be onto something.
But then you lose me with your ideological venom and hysteria in concert with Glenn the empty-headed Contrarian. And "brutishness?" What is this, SAT vocab enrichment and ostentatious display week? But then I guess I really shouldn't be one to speak - right?
At any rate if I have offended thee in anyway, tough shit. [Edited]
47 - Irvin F. Cohen
RE # 35
I had to do a double take on farrier? Got busy with this other shit. Farrier? Are you for real? You mean you shoe horsies all day long?
I love horsies, always wanted to become a cowboy and ride horsies all day long. But it looks like I'll never realize that dream, or rather that pipedream, unrealistic, frivolous wish. No big deal, but you ought not consider that beneath the stature of these phony, pseudo intellectuals at BC. Actually I do not know which trades are beneath whose dignity.
At any rate that furthers my insights, but I really don't know by how much. Or could it be that I'm reading too much into these inquiries of mine?
48 - Irene Athena
Mark & Irv: Not inclined to return to threads of origin. Wanted to respond in non-argumentative way.
Irv: Re:Joke. Understood it. LOL. Tried unsuccessfully to respond in kind. Math jokes are hard.
Mark:re:Russian Lit. Nicholas Herman also disillusioned during The Thirty Years' War.
Fake Christmas tree not yet in storage. Must go.
49 - The Real American
The fact is, that both political sides [Democrats and Republicans] have been intentionally inciting you towards one another - for their own political purposes. While you are so focused upon being enraged and hating one another, you are neither: Thinking Things Through, nor Observing The True State Of Our Nation around you.
While the Democrats and Republicans have alternatingly taken turns at the helm, have you noticed that they condemn each-others policies [while running for office] - but, merely add more atrocious ones to them, rather than ever actually changing them.... Strange, huh?
By the time you idiots Finally Wake Up, to what is [now] blatantly going on, The United States will no longer exist as an: Independent, Sovereign, and Constitutional Nation! This political tactic is as old as humanity and is known as: "Divide and Conquer," "Control Through Chaos," or "The Hegellian Dialectic."
Perhaps, you should look it up?
50 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear comrade Athena-ette
No, math jokes are not all that difficult. Ferinstance:
Two militant, radical functions of ??(xyz)/2n-squared (ab-d cubed), walk into a bar, and the one says to the other"you're just a million degrees short of a double conical, triple helix with zero angular momentum around your as of yet uncalculated internuclear axis."
And the other says, "well at least my radical, irrational roots ain't inimitably superfluous."
Really, very, very funny. Ha. ha. ha. tee-he-he, har-har-har. I just can't help myself from slapping my sides, rolling over on the floor, side splitting laughter. My God that joke is just one ceaseless, har-har, guffaw, session of uncontrollable laughing, etc., funny, funny, funny!
Who says mathematics is not funny, of course it is. Why, irrational radicals and transcendental and algebraic irrationals and fractal logarithms too, are just a fucking scream!
I sincerely hope this sincerely helps you comrade Athena. As in IHTH-SO. SO? That's shorthand for "sort of."
51 - Mark
Irene, I was thinking that you might appreciate this Cohen cover.
52 - roger nowosielski
Perhaps there's something to be said for the "wisdom of the crowds" approach (#42).
Why not simply let Mr. Cohen say what he will? What harm is there in that? Each of us, as individuals, still have to prerogative either to respond or to ignore him. Sounds like a better solution.
53 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear comrade, etc., etc., ad nauseam, (or EEAN) Roger the not so artful dodger;
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Look here, there is just about absolutely nothing in this world that we agree upon. In fact the opposite is quite true. So I am first, surprized and gratified that you would take such a principled stand on intellectual and philosophic freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of rigorous discourse and reasoned debate, unfettered from the shackles of tyrannical censorship so brazenly utilized and woven by these Comments Editorial, intellectual and philosophic, fascistic thugs.
So even though I still mostly loath and despise you and your ideas, I must say to you: Bravo Roger, Bravo!
You know, I have written several rebuttals and defenses of myself and of the principles, again of intellectual freedom, and of debate, unfettered and unshackled by this reign of arbitrary and capricious fascistic censorship - several paragraphs and sentences long, enough to write several "overstuffed turkey" articles as is my wont and custom. And in these deleted and made to disappear comments of mine, I brought up the fact that you too had been deleted and expunged in concert with our own debates. One of them was so outrageous that I blew my cool with the powers that be. It was just a salutatory comment wishing Cindy a Happy New Year in response to her New Year greeting to you. This they deleted. But why?
Well, my conjecture is that they had already deleted three of my rather lengthy rebuttals and only two of yours, so for the sake of balance and fairness they reasoned to themselves that they had to delete a third one of yours, no matter how innocuous and unimportant it was. How fucking petty, how fucking pathetic, how fucking ridiculous, how fucking banal their fucking evil truly is!!!
But the further point of all this, is that they not only censored me out of existence, but they also did it to you too. And the question arises, how many others have they done this to? And what of its chilling effect on debate? And what of their accountability and transparency and openness? To whom are they answerable beyond themselves and their petty little cliques and coteries of likeminded toads and sycophantic lemmings?
So even though you and I are essentially diehard opponents at best, and mortal enemies at worst - still, let us form this unholy alliance and persist in fighting this good fight. So again, Bravo Roger, Bravo!
54 - roger nowosielski
Look, Irv, we both know that you're full of yourself, but then again, you're not the only one. At least you have the courage to admit it and run on this platform. Communication is not your forte; again, you're no exception. In person-to-person relations, I'm certain you'd ameliorate the tone of your discourse in the interest of avoiding fistfights, but this is internet and the usual rules don't apply. So yes, as a matter of principle, I'm convinced you ought to be able to speak your mind, obnoxious as you may choose to be, without fear of being censored. It's not exactly as though the audience needed protection from your excesses.
55 - Alan Kurtz
At the risk of boring everyone, I'd like to follow up Irvin's comment #53. Over the past several months, Mr. Cohen and I, as individual Blogcritics commenters, have been repeatedly admonished by BC's senior comments editor that threads such as this are not an acceptable forum in which to discuss the editing of Blogcritics comments. Rather, we must lodge any objections through back channels via email to said editor. Last week, I tried this approach for the first time. Some of you may be interested in the results.
First, the background. Last October, employing a pseudonym, a BC editor posted a comment on the thread to Irvin F. Cohen's Here's A Belated But Happy Fourth of July, America. The editor addressed his remarks to me. Among other things, he wrote: "… considering your unprofessional [conduct] as an editor at Jazz.com led to your dismal [i.e., dismissal], you may not the best person to judge others."
Ninety minutes later, I posted a reply advising the editor, "You could not be more mistaken." For verification, I also provided the name and email address of the publisher who recruited me as a writer for jazz.com and promoted me to reviews editor. The BC editor, however, did not bother to contact said publisher to ascertain the truth, and issued no retraction.
It recently came to my attention that I was rejected for another online editorial position because background research turned up this scurrilous allegation about my being dismissed for misconduct. I emailed BC's senior comments editor requesting that the defamatory statement--a clear violation of BC's Official Comment Policy prohibiting "unsupported accusations"--be deleted; I again provided the name and email address of jazz.com's publisher for verification.
This commenced four days of increasingly frustrating email exchanges between me and BC's senior comments editor, who refused to conditionally delete the offending passage online while he investigated what he called "the particulars of the case." I pointed out that the passage could always be restored if it turned out to be true, but the senior comments editor maintained in effect that I was guilty until proven innocent.
Finally, 79 hours after my first request, the lie that BC had published against me was removed. That was 1½ days ago. No one at BC has apologized for the calumny perpetuated against me. BC's publisher, co-executive editors, and other editors were copied on all emails. The only response came from an editor not involved in the original dispute, who nevertheless took the occasion to insult me. He later apologized for what he admitted was a "cheap shot," but of course the damage was done.
The bottom line to all this is that the method of redress urged upon us by BC's senior comments editor is infuriatingly torturous. It's like having root canal without anesthetic. But it does expose the kind of people we're dealing with, in case there was any doubt.
56 - Mark
A timely response to (borderline) libelous comments would be a constructive use of a comments editor's efforts -- along with controlling spam attacks and html housekeeping (for which I am grateful.)
...battling hyperbole, not so much
57 - roger nowosielski
Let's face it, guys, we're dealing with bureaucratic inertia. I'm certain that none of the personages occupying official BC positions are monsters. It's the organization that makes them seem so.
The ironic thing is, none of them are getting paid. They just suffer from the usual human malady called esprit de corps, which in actuality means "gaining in self-importance through climbing the ladder."
58 - roger nowosielski
"Furthermore, Richard was a rather vile and loathsome creature (you know something like Kurtz when he was here). An ugly, physically deformed hunchback with a truly raunchy and ultimately quite evil attitude vastly greater and larger than his hump."
It had to be in order to minimize his hump.
59 - roger nowosielski
Do I detect here a subtle or not so subtle explanation of Kurtz's and Cohen's behavior in terms of physical deformity?
One thinks of Quasimodo here, but then again, Quasimodo hadn't the intellect.
60 - Alan Kurtz
I'm glad you find it all so amusing, Roger. I expected nothing more from you.
61 - Irvin F Cohen
Thanks guys, but I must ask, where are the comments editors now but no where to be found?
Why do they not deign to answer us? Why do they hide?
RE # 52.
Yes Rodger we all know that I am full of myself, in fact I go about my day each and every single day kissing myself on my wrists, forearms and shoulders repeating my paean to myself, "oh Irv, your the smartest, most brilliant genius, just most-est-er-est superior intellect on the planet ... Dr. Dreadful might think he is the second or third smartest person on the entire planet, but we all know that you, I mean me, c'est moi, liddle 'ol moi, me, myself and I truly is the smartest, best-est, most handsome, most, most, most wonderfullest genius in this whole wide motherfucking planet of ours."
I also detect that your # 52 was a compliment of a backhanded nature, to be precise of a rather double left-handed nature. I know you got to keep up appearances, that you got to keep up your commie-lib/simp, commie-pinko, commie-Marxist, anarchist, nihilistic worthless "creds" alive and well. I know you have to insult and put me down in the worst way, I understand. So go ahead take your best shots - but as long as you stand on principle, I can more than live with whatever you throw my way, and still respect you (even if you spew out worthless commie dribble and warmed over Marxist spittle).
RE # 55.
Hi Kurtz, glad to hear from you again. And again, thank you for your support. Listen that Richard comment of mine, that was a metaphor for Richard III, I really didn't mean you, really! That was a mixed metaphor in fact, yeah, that's the ticket. I would never malign you behind your back...of course not...never, never, never! Trust me.
And oh by the way, your defense of yourself, was well taken - actually superb. And as we were wont and fond of saying in the Corps, the "Old Fucking Corps" to be precise, "Get some and kick some motherfucking commie ass!"
62 - roger nowosielski
Who am I to argue with Shakespearean wisdom, Alan? Besides, it's Cohen who made the allusion, not I, so properly speaking, your beef is with him. As to the other matter, I'm in your corner.
63 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Cohen, you're showing signs of humanity. I am well aware it's an insult to you, but take it from my commie lips, it's expression of approbation.
64 - Irvin F Cohen
Re # 62.
So Cohen is right, but nevertheless, let's shit on him and piss on his parade. Is that right Roger?
Well, I don't give a flying fuck. If you feel compelled to shit all over me and piss on my parade...feel free to do so. Again, see if I fucking care.
Of course...I don't know what of course. So both of youse, blather away.
Cause in this matter it's all about Intellectual freedom...you know!
65 - roger nowosielski
You made the allusion to a hunchback, Irv, not it. I only played the variation. If you or Alan choose to feel insulted and play martyrs on behalf of intellectual freedom, be my guest. I've always been for it, never against. The lesser minds be damned.
66 - Alan Kurtz
You can squirm, Roger (#65), but you cannot deny. Comment #59 was posted by you, not by Mr. Cohen.
Do I detect here a subtle or not so subtle explanation of Kurtz's and Cohen's behavior in terms of physical deformity?
One thinks of Quasimodo here, but then again, Quasimodo hadn't the intellect.
67 - roger nowosielski
I'm not squirming type, Alan, I think you ought to know. Of course I posted what I posted, but what does it prove? Personally, I don't give a damn if you're as ugly as sin, it's your intellect and inner beauty I admire.
68 - Irvin F Cohen
Guys, guys, we're supposed to be soulmates and confreres in the pursuit of intellectual freedom and rigorous discourse and reasoned debate. Please cease and desist from this petty shit of yours.
Or as Moe was often wont to say to his own intellectual brethren, soulmates and confreres, "spread out yahs...yah wanna me poke your eyes out...?"
69 - Irvin F Cohen
RE # 67.
Roger, did you ever entertain the thought that comrade Kurtz' inner beauty and intellect might be as ugly as his outer being?
Allan, don't take that personally, that's only a hypothetical. Yeah that's the ticket.
See this is only a trick to see if we can both trip him up. Got that
Roger, you goddman commie-lib/symp.
70 - roger nowosielski
Intellect is never ugly, Irv, not even in the beast.
71 - zingzing
alan: "It recently came to my attention that I was rejected for another online editorial position because background research turned up this scurrilous allegation about my being dismissed for misconduct."
which might suggest to you why aliases are useful. the internet's a nasty place. if you don't want something on your name, don't use your name. and of course, it's better to think of that from the start. (almost) nothing i've written on the internet, other than some music criticism that began as print, goes up under my real name. it's the best way, i fear.
72 - Irvin F Cohen
RE # 70.
"...not even in the beast."
Well Roger, if I am inwardly a rather ugly, mean, badass, kickass, MMM (that's Mean Misanthropic Motherfucker)" beast;" then by that sort of logic of yours, that makes me a rather beautiful, intellectual MMM beast; actually the biggest, baddest, kickass MMM beast on the block! And therefore in possession of an intellect which inwardly is not ugly at all - I dunno, seems like a contradiction in terms to me. But what do I Know, I'm just an ugly MMM beast - externally of course.
73 - Irvin F Cohen
RE # 71
If that is fundamentally true, then the internet is fundamentally flawed and that rather brutal observation of yours is rather disheartening and disquieting.
Call me a pie-eyed, Panglossian optimist, but does that really have to be how it is?
74 - Christopher Rose
I've had many jobs over the years and been turned down for many more but never because of an comment on a blog.
Perhaps Alan was turned down for this job for other reasons that had nothing at all to do with this remark?
I fundamentally disagree with zingzing about the use of aliases personally. I am not remotely concerned about anything on the internet either said by me or about me. I don't see anything to be afraid of.
Whilst it is true that the internet IS fundamentally flawed, it is a lot less flawed and far more accessible than many other technologies.
75 - Andy Marsh
CR - I guess it all depends on what you write...when you write some of the vile shit that some people write, you have to use an alias.
As to the comments editors around here....this has been an ongoing issue since their positions were created...back then, there may have been a need for them.
Personaly, I feel kinda cheated. I know some of those "deleted by comments editor" comments are instant classics and only a select few get to see them...
Maybe if you put them all together once a month and published them I wouldn't feel cheated...