A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a free country. I gave you your own space and asked you to quit your bitching here, but you can post wherever you like.

Uh, hey co-mod, the Marketing department wants to have a little chat with you.......

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that is the way I took it.

For the record, I often don't like him*, but he doesn't have to go away on my account.

*(I'm probably just jealous)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I believe Ty was expressing irritation at Hank's posting style, which Hank apparently believes is deep with meaning but which Ty sees as devoid of any content at all.

My response points to Hank's somewhat unorthodox threat to remove himself from our community if we did not rise up as one and condemn Ty for his act of apostasy.



No. Moderators have the right to bitch at other posters too. Hank's dogged complaints appear to get under Ty's skin at times, which (I suspect) is part of the reason why Hank does so.



You kidding? Look at that avatar. Kim Jong Il Hank won't get the benefit of the doubt. Auntie Bea Hank, maybe.

Paigow left and the FB has essentially fizzled out to insipid inanity, if Hank leaves the same fate is likely or unlikely here?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Perhaps he's suggesting that posts directed at him which consist essentially of: "You Suck" and/or "You Have Ruined the Board" and/or "I Hate You (as a Mod)" and/or "This Board Sucks" don't really add much to the discussion.
S_A_M

I know you know this, but for the record, i explained that what I meant had to do with how I felt others perceive Ty, not how I percieved him. i then apologized. I had not made 1 general complaint since.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Paigow left and the FB has essentially fizzled out to insipid inanity, if Hank leaves the same fate is likely or unlikely here?

If you're proposing targeting marketing to get Paigow back, you know I'm not standing in the way.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
For the record, I often don't like him*, but he doesn't have to go away on my account.

*(I'm probably just jealous)

Ty or Hank?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Paigow left and the FB has essentially fizzled out to insipid inanity, if Hank leaves the same fate is likely or unlikely here?

oh no. you're here still right?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're proposing targeting marketing to get Paigow back, you know I'm not standing in the way.

doesnt she blog now?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh no. you're here still right?

What if I am your sock?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I don't get what's happening here - did Ty tell Hank to go post somewhere else because nobody likes him or something? Isn't that kind of unmoderatorlike behavior? You might as well have spit on the guy.

Hank spit at Ty.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
doesnt she blog now?

Cite please?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It is wanting the President's new strategy - i.e. more boots on the ground to FAIL. How is that ambiguous?




Is this Iraq or Iran? Or does it matter?



I think a lot of folks don't give a rats ass either way - as long as Bush and the GOP looks bad in the end. Why the hell else would folks like Harry Reid, who only a few months ago demanded more troops, now flip-flop the minute Bush complies with his request.

At the end of the day, either the President, with this strategy or another one, delivers and gets Iraq under control or he doesn't. Either way, the resolutions, the finger pointing, and all this photoshopping and Sheehan bashing won't make a bit of difference nine months from now.

Of course, the President is busy doing his best to deflect blame in anticipation of failure, and the Rs in Congress are mostly trying to distance themselves from the train wreck. They should just stop the endless PR games and focus on accomplishing something in Iraq.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You hardly corrected it. You tried to ascribe some alternate meaning to the results - such as "they want us to win, but just not this way" - which is IMHO

I think Hank touched on this earlier.

The last few days have been amazing. Many - if not most - of you are always distancing yourselves from the moonbat left and decrying them as the outliers of the Dem party. "They are not our leaders" you say. "KOS and the DU are nutjobs," you say.

And yet, for some unknown reason, all of sudden a great deal of you seem compelled to rally around the clowns and defend the indefensible.

We live in strange times, indeed.

This is how we feel, watching you pretend that Sparling is a saint and a hero.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
When it comes to Jane Fonda, when protesting what she did, I don't think you can go over the top. What she did, in my mind, was treason. I can't believe she shows her face in public after what she did. I realize she apologized but she should forever hold her head in shame.

How is what she did any different from Tokyo Rose or Axis Salley? Can you imagine if during WWII a movie star had visited Tokyo, hung out with Tojo, called Americans war criminals, and took publicity shots?

2.


The problem is that you pretend that anyone who opposes the war, or opposes Bush's strategy, or even criticizes the management of the war, is the moral equivalent of Hanoi Jane.

If she speaks at a rally, that reflects badly on the organizers of the rally. It doesn't mean that everyone attending likes her, agrees with her, or is her.

I would expect Republicans to understand this -- I mean, you guys had Pat Buchanan at your convention. Does that mean you agree with everything he says, or how he conducts himself?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I mean, you guys had Pat Buchanan at your convention. Does that mean you agree with everything he says, or how he conducts himself?

Sidd, other than the free trade stuff, do you have any reason to think these guys disagree with Buchanan on anything important?