BlogCritics will continue to thrive because it allows what Americans seem to need most in our current time, namely, a forum to be heard. It’s just that, for me, the right to be heard carries with it the obligation to listen. And I feel that reciprocation is no longer de rigueur. It is a my heartfelt loss.
It saddens me to see America in its current state. And it takes a great deal to bring about this particular emotion and this singular decision. I have lived a lot of years and seen, firsthand, how a country can be torn apart by a divisive war. But, this time, the division, I fear, is deeper, more contentious and more fractious. America, a great people, have been cut apart in a fault line approaching a critical depth and width. I am not sure we will ever be as strong as we once were. That overwhelming feeling of something truly great, possibly forever lost, is the reason for this very personal affection.…
Article comments
76 - gonzo marx
Eric B..i think that one went over like a...a...a...led zeppelin
aaAArRRRRrrrGGGggGGHhhhHhhHHHhhhh!!!!
stop..me..before..i..pun...again
Excelsior!
77 - Eric Berlin
Gonzo man... I think you're on to something!
78 - Eric Olsen
I thought it was Lynn "Bodhisattva" Anderson who did that tune
79 - gonzo marx
or "on something" at the very least...
anyone else for some peyote and 'shroom pizza?
and that ain't oregano sprinkled on top
Excelsior!
80 - Eric Berlin
It's so that time of the week, ain't it?
I'll stick with a glass of Pino after Wife gets home from the hospital, thanks!
Dead Zone, Season Two on DVD's on tap!
81 - Al Barger
Steve S, the Bush "last resort" argument makes no real impression on me. Now, you might make a reasonable argument that perhaps we never should have gone into Iraq. But you really can't legitimately say that it was a first resort, that we didn't make any other efforts. W spent a year and more (after a decade of continuing low level conflict) making it real clear what was coming. Saddam could have took a clue, as the Libyan dictator did, in which case he'd still be there rapin' and pillagin' his countrymen with glee.
By the way, as to references to my remarks on the departure of Mac Diva, they are in fact still on site RIGHT HERE. They landed as comment #83 on her post, rather than as a separate post.
82 - Steve S
But you really can't legitimately say that it was a first resort
agreed, and I clearly didn't say that.
W spent a year and more making it real clear what was coming.
saying it is coming, is not exhausting all other options before it comes.
83 - Al Barger
Jumpin Jebus Steve S, what more could he have done, other than NOTHING? He could have just done nothing, let Iraq and the whole region go to hell and we take our chances on where that leads, or we could look for the best place to go thin out some of the bad guys. You might argue that doing NOTHING would be superior, but other than NOTHING, W did about as much as could to give the guy outs.
84 - Shark
EricO: "Remember this: ultimately it's all entertainment."
NOW THAT'S THE SPIRIT!
85 - Steve S
Jumpin Jebus Steve S, what more could he have done, other than NOTHING?
I'm sorry, Al, is the question 'what could he have done, for Saddam to turn over those vast stockpiles of WMD, he was accused of threatening us with?'. Well, I suspect that ANY action taken, would have probably yielded the same result we got, so in that sense, the question is moot.
Now, if the question was 'what could he have done to avoid going to war', then there are numerous different answers to that. One thing that I, a citizen with no 'inside information' would conclude, is that he could have put more pressure on OPEC nations, Saudi Arabia, etc, to pressure Saddam to open up for WMD inspections. We are a large customer to all of them. That carries weight in the marketplace. More weight than Bush has evern thrown around over there, at least. It's odd that those who are in favor of bullying don't see the tactic of infuriated business customer.
86 - Bennett
Whew, just back from reading the entire "last post by MacDiva"...
BAB, your assertions that Al "gloated" are without merit. Quite to the contrary, he outlines some of the off-line efforts he made to communicate with her, to no avail.
Anyhoo, that's all past hitory, so let's move on.
87 - Eric Berlin
This post gave me the opportunity to review some of the Mac Diva drama myself, Bennett. It's strange that I came on the BC scene about a week about a week after all of that went down.
88 - Bennett
No kidding Eric? And I actually remember exactly where I was last Thanksgiving! Heh!
Just yankin'.
I imagine it was a "huh?" kind of time for you. She seemed to be quite a challenge. I'm sorta glad I didn't have the opportunity to get involved.
89 - Eric Berlin
I heard the name thrown around a lot, that's for sure!
90 - Bob A. Booey
Bennett, to revisit ancient history one last time, everyone responded to that "comment" as gloating when it was first put up as an Al Barger post after it happened. It's demeaning dismissal trying to pass as patronizing concern -- in what world is e-mailing people accusing them of mental illness aiding them rather than antagonizing them?
Everyone found it pretty repulsive, and that's why the original post was taken down, against the objections of Senator Al and myself. I thought it and the comments responding to it should stay up as an example of how much the discourse had degenerated. Al went against the wishes of the editors of the site by re-posting it as a comment on the topic he just linked to, because he insisted on being immature even after everyone agreed his "blog obit" for Mac Diva was in extremely poor taste.
If you were around then, you would have had the whole context for it.
That is all.
91 - Al Barger
Mac Diva still loves me.
She's my biggest fan, really. Has been since my humble review of Friends.
The Diva experience was something like my more rugged Boy Scout experiences, such as the Order of the Arrow "ordeal." They're both learning experiences, good training, good stories, and points of pride in different ways- but also MUCH more fun as memories than as real time experiences.
92 - Dave Nalle
Wow Al, didn't realize you were a Neo-Confederate. What is that, exactly?
Dave
93 - Steve S
I just saw a comment by Nathaniel Winn that I missed earlier. Comment 67 says:
But starting with comment #1, we immediately begin to say, "I agree with you--those other guys are bad!"
no, go back and reread comment 1. I did not say the 'other side' is bad. I said there is no middle ground with someone who bases decisions on faith.
94 - Dave Nalle
Yes, but you'll note that the only responses in this thread from straight-out irrational whackos come from Shark and Alienboy, and one made a typical contentless response and the other responded to a comment rather than to the substance of the post itself. Oh wait, Cerulean responded - but as usual, her response was to some imagined topic of her own rather than anything Dietdoc actually said. I do wonder if it's significant that only the irrational left respnded to this post, while the irrational right avoided it alltogether.
Dave
95 - Victor Plenty
"There is no middle ground" = "They are bad." When was the last time you heard anybody say "There's no middle ground with them" as a compliment?
Nathaniel's take in comment 67 was spot-on.
96 - Dave Nalle
Well, there's really no functional difference between one group of people motivated by faith and another. Whether your faith is in government or radical humanism, it's still all irrational if it's based on something other than reason. If you read the postings by Cindy Sheehan advocates and remove the content, the emotional rhetoric is at base indistinguishable from what you'd find in one of the threads featuring anti-abortionists.
Dave
97 - Shark
DaveN: "...note that the only responses in this thread from straight-out irrational whackos come from Shark and Alienboy..."
Proud to be a part of that number!
DaveN: (ironically -- barely rational): "...it's significant that only the irrational left respnded to this post, while the irrational right avoided it [sic] alltogether."
- - - - - - - - - - - (| <-cream pie headin' for Dave
98 - Steve S
"There is no middle ground" = "They are bad."
My comment was that one side has wrapped their politics up in religion and therefore cannot compromise.
Your assumption that they can compromise their faith, is to me, more insulting to them than anything I have said.
99 - Victor Plenty
More insulting than seeing them as an enemy who threatens to destroy everything you value about civilization? Hardly.
And I never said anything about anybody compromising their faith, Steve. You assume I've accepted every premise and conclusion of your convoluted arguments.
That's all beside the point anyway. The point right here, right now, is that you didn't have to use someone's going away message as merely yet another battlefield on which to confront your enemies. Blogcritics has plenty of other threads where you can rail against the evil fundies 'til kingdom come.
100 - Shark
I would imagine DietDoc is wishin' he'd have ridden off into the sunset on a silent, invisible horsey.
Maybe we should ALL respect the spirit of this post and...
SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP...
~
101 - Dave Nalle
Bit late for that, Shark.
Dave
102 - Steve S
Victor, you are nuts. I was not 'railing' against the enemy. I was stating fact against ANY group that uses faith as a political motivator, whether in this country or on the other side of the world. It's a proven fact, it's not a personal attack.
103 - Victor Plenty
Whatever you call it, whoever it's against, you could have taken it somewhere else, Steve. There was absolutely no reason you had to do it here, unless you were trying to make sure Dietdoc stays gone. I don't believe you intended that, but it is probably one result of the attacks and counter-attacks in this comment thread.
That's why Nathaniel's comment was spot-on.
104 - Steve S
no, Victor, I am not so aggressive inside. You must misread most everything I type.
I said what I said, the way that I said it, for this reason:
Political discourse in this country is more polarized than ever before. Not just here at BlogCritics, but everywhere in this country. The attacks from the Left AND the Right are violatile and counter productive.
I don't want dietdoc to go. To not try and be too insulting to him, I really haven't ever read his posts per se, to have formulated an opinion on him. I don't want anybody to go, have never advocated banning anybody or running anybody off either.
The point I wanted to convey to dietdoc, is that what he is witnessing is not exclusive to BlogCritics and (from my viewpoint) is NOT going away. That was precisely the premise I was putting forward. How can one compromise when one side is of faith?
Put aside, Victor, any concept of that being an attack and look at it from an analytical point of view. Look at nations of faith. Look at groups of faith in this country and abroad and see what they are working for. Is it compromise that you see put forward?
Argh. If I can't convey this without it seeming to be an attack to some people then so be it, but it is NOT originating from within, as an attack, rather one point of the debate which I think needs to be brought forward and discussed or there never will be compromise!
105 - Victor Plenty
I never said you were aggressive inside, Steve. In fact I plainly said that I did NOT believe you intended to help drive anyone away from here. Misreading goes both ways.
On many of your points I might even agree with you. The points you raise certainly need to be brought forward and discussed, and I'm glad to see you bring them forward in many other places.
It just wasn't necessary to do that here, as a response to Dietdoc's parting message.
106 - Steve S
It just wasn't necessary to do that here, as a response to Dietdoc's parting message.
hmmm, well the premise of his post is about the polarization of the Left and the Right, and name-calling. While the post might limit the problem somewhat to BlogCritics, it's actually a pretty big problem, and in my mind I was even offering him a causal reason for the polarization, so was sticking on topic.
107 - Victor Plenty
On topic, perhaps, but not responsive to the personal nature of a farewell message.
He didn't ask anyone to give him causal reasons for the polarization. He certainly did not ask for any help with identifying which side is more guilty.
He said he was leaving because so few people are willing to listen anymore. So far, we've mostly proven him right on that score.
108 - Al Barger
Dietdoc wrote a column about the state of civil discourse at Blogcritics. In fact, it seems that pretty nearly all of these comments are actually related to the original topic. This thread has stayed pretty close to on topic.
Now Victor, lotta love, but your exquisite sensitivities [comments 40 & 99] make me want to turn Gopher God loose on you. For starters, we routinely publish with open comments, and promote that feature. Anyone doesn't want a discussion, or to have their views challenged doesn't need to be publishing at Blogcritics.
Further, I object to the low level emotional blackmail of all this cheap talk of sensitivity. Comment 40 about Ron's "pain" for example, what pain? I might cut someone a bit of slack for talking crazy if they've just had a son killed or something, but what's the deep pain here?
This talk of sensitivity just strikes me as a cheap ie illegitimate emotional argument for cutting off debate. Then when someone calls bullshit on the argument, they're just big old insensitive meanies. The topic then isn't whether your statement had substance, but some passive-aggressive whining about not being nice.
I for one ain't having any of that. Nor is Blogcritics. You can publish your own little page, with no comments or email links, and just say what you will. Or you can come to Blogcritics and get in the ring.
Ron has a reasonable point about lack of civility. I've been on the wrong end of people not just being rude and hateful, but absolutely malicious and dishonest here at Blogcritics and even on this thread.
But this is a no-whining zone- which suits me. Explain your position, and point out absolute errors of fact thrown at you, and Move On.
There are those here who are just hateful and snarky with little intention of contributing to useful public debate. Who those are, I'll leave to your individual judgements. Just don't be cheating by trying to lump in people who express opinions you disagree with alongside the trolls.
Yeah, there are plenty of threads on which Steve S could rail against the evil fundies, but why not this one? He's ALL WRONG of course, but this comment 1 was clearly relevant to the topic of civility in the discourse. Rave on, Steve S.
109 - Steve S
He said he was leaving because so few people are willing to listen anymore.
duh, and I was giving him the reason why.
110 - Steve S
this comment 1 was clearly relevant to the topic of civility in the discourse. Rave on, Steve S.
thank you, but it's not raving.
111 - Victor Plenty
Which he never asked for.
112 - Al Barger
Now see, Victor, your comment #103 is just what I'm objecting to, with "There was absolutely no reason you had to do it here, unless you were trying to make sure Dietdoc stays gone. I don't believe you intended that, but it is probably one result of the attacks and counter-attacks in this comment thread."
Hey, if mild and impersonal comments such as Steve S made in #1 are enough to run someone off, then good riddance. I hasten to note that I'm not putting that off on Ron, as it is YOUR comments that I'm objecting to.
Again, it's good to play nice, but if you don't want your opinions challenged, then don't publish them at Blogcritics. I for one refuse to be hostage to some passive-aggressive bullshit that you can't disagree with someone because they'll get their itty bitty feelings hurt.
Easy there, Steve. I said "rave on" not rant. I had Buddy Holly in mind, who was a pretty sociable kind of guy.
113 - Victor Plenty
As to your objections, Al, they have been noted and logged.
114 - Steve S
I know I'm an odd one, but when someone says goodbye, even someone I only know a little, I'm not the type to just wave back and say 'bye' and leave it at that Victor. I was offering discussion/reasoning (yes, that was unasked for), because that is my style. I also still say hello to the cashier at the checkstand too. That's unasked for as well.
I'm not ranting, or raving, or attacking any group or individual. Perhaps dietdoc, things in your discussions seem more flammatory than they really are? Because it seems to me that communication has completely broken down in this country.
115 - SFC Ski
Good luck to you Doc, I enjoyed reading your posts and comments.
116 - Al Barger
Steve, I formally withdrawal the thoughtlessly applied word "rave" from my comment 108. I meant no criticism by it at all. I specifically did NOT mean to imply anything like that you were speaking from an inappropriate or agitated emotional state.
That's what I get for listening to that dirty rock and roll all day. Gets me all crazy like that.
117 - BB
Boy does this ever sound familiar. Been there and done that doc.
I know only too well from painful experience that you open pandora's box trying to make a public (and graceful) exit from BC. I did the same thing and got pounded for it. Funny thing is most of those dorks are no longer around here. I suppose there is poetic justice in this world after all.
I totally agree with your assessment and understand completely. I recommend Eric's advice and take a break. Later, think about coming back again but pick your spots more carefully.
Unfortunately there are some people who view commenting here at BC as an opportunity to vent with impunity, especially under the cover of anonymity. Seems to bring out the worst in some. Rather like road rage.
You can always tell who the bullies are when you're down and out. It all comes down to maturity and perhaps a little anger management classes might help those who are in need.
Regarding the more vocal hecklers I would say that some probably mean well, but at times can be a little rough around the edges in their delivery (although ya gotta admit they can be quite witty).
Speaking of Shark and Al (just kidding fellas) it's good to be baaaaaack! So who's your daddy? Love you guys XXXXX00000!
And regarding the infamous Mas Diva -- may she rest in peace. (I'm sure she appreciated the link Al).
I would also agree with the assessment that it is a lot lighter around here since the good old wild-west days when there were no sherriffs to do the editing (notice the tongue in my cheek).
Doc, I've never read you before but I agree with the above assessment that you have writing talent. So carry on brother, heal your wounds, ignore the nay sayers and return stronger and better than ever.
And everybody else - LIGHTEN UP OKAY!
Best,
...BB
118 - uao
BB (Comment 117) said:
I know only too well from painful experience that you open pandora's box trying to make a public (and graceful) exit from BC.
I know nothing of the dynamics of BC personalities here; or who's on what side, or who hates who, or who's an idiot, who's rude, etc. I've seen dietdoc's name around, but know nothing about the issues involved.
I will say this:
I was only a regular poster at one online forum, back in '98-'99 (and the same place in '04). The same kind of thing happened there that happens here; threads degenerate, went off topic, turned into fights, created bad blood and intrigue. There was a lot of good stuff happening too, between the flames and things, but were often overshadowed by the explosions.
People believed in the forum's ideal, however, which was a good one, and it was a unique, and long lived place, and some people made some lasting friendships and contacts there.
People would quit all the time. Some would post public "I Quit!!" notices in which they swore off the forum for the rest of their lives like it were a carton of cigarettes or a bottle of whiskey.
I always thought they were being kinda silly. If a forum has you so worked up that it becomes an emotional crisis, then you really need to take a walk outdoors and watch the birds, or something.
It also was silly because at least half of them would creep back in a few weeks later and participate until the next flame war prompted them to post anothier "I Quit" rant. ("This time, I really mean it!")
I too wondered what the desired effect was; were they looking for reassurance? Hugs? Were they seeking attention? Revenge?
I think a "graceful" exit is just to stop posting, quietly and sensibly. That way, you can always come back again without looking silly, and not contribute to more hurt feelings, etc.
I stopped being a "regular" online forum type because I decided that online communication didn't get me off like analog world communication does. And, I thought the old forum had been overrun by dicks and mediocraties.
So I just de-bookmarked it, to save me from temptation, and got into blogging as a productive use of online time.
I still pop into the old place once in a while to say hi to the remnants of the old forums original cast, some of whom are still there.
Again, I don't know dietdoc, and wish him no ill will. And since I don't know the issues, maybe they need a public airing, to relieve pent-up bad feelings among whomever.
But this is the way any unmoderated forum is, and even open-mindedly moderated ones like BC, have this go on. Tightly moderated ones don't have it, but they also chill any real discussion, too. You just get used to it, and try not to go overboard yourself, and try to get along, and accept people are what they are, times are what they are, and online forums are what they are.
Just my thoughts on similar situations...
119 - Al Barger
All right then, let's all join hands and sing a chorus of "Kum-by-frickin-Ya."