Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Blogrolls and Olaf and "Dick"heads, oh my!


If you've just come back from that badly-needed long weekend, well, we've been having some fun around here and, rather than try to cover it all again, you're welcome to review the last couple days of deathless prose and draw your own conclusions.

First, and somewhat unrelated to the above, I've started to clean up the blogroll a bit. Simply, I'm pruning a few entries (mostly because they appear to have gone defunct or don't publish regularly) and adding a few new ones that have come to my attention (with more on the way, so this is still very much a work in progress). But that's not really the story here.

No, the story is that, if you look to the right, you'll notice the absence of a few longtime stalwarts on the roll. And the reason is simple (as I have explained before and am not going to go into yet again) -- if you have the Olaf, the "Prairie Wrangler" on your blogroll, you're not going to be on mine. And, no, that is not negotiable. Deal with it.

That wasn't an easy decision since it forced me to chop some of my absolute favourites, such as "The Stormy Days of March" and "The Galloping Beaver" and "A BCer in TO" and "Idealistic Pragmatist", among others. So, yeah, it hurt, but it's my decision, just as it's everyone else's how they want to react to that. (I also passed over adding a couple new blogs for exactly the same reason, but there's no value in naming names here, so I won't.)

In any event, anyone affected is free to decide what they want to do about it. If you were cut and want back on the blogroll, you know what you have to do. If you were cut and are fine with that, then that's cool with me and the best of luck to you.

What it comes down to is that there's little enough one can do to fight the screaming, childish idiocy coming out of the dumbfuck-o-sphere these days, but this was one of those things I had control over, and I chose to exercise that control. And I'm free to make that decision, just as you're free to make yours.

50 comments:

Dave said...

I think if you look closely at my blogroll, you'll see Olaf has been absent for some time now. (At least it should be unless Blogrolling didn't drop it when I issued the amendment.)

But, it's your choice, you're blogroll.

Nonny said...

"What it comes down to is that there's little enough one can do to fight the screaming, childish idiocy coming out of the dumbfuck-o-sphere these days."

You can always stop blogging, o unintentionally-ironic-one.

Do you ever read what you write, or are you too preoccupied by your own reflection in the mirror to have the time?

CC said...

Sorry, Dave ... I could have sworn he was on your roll. No problem, you're back.

Ti-Guy said...

I think the whole idea of proposing a "Great Canadian Debate" among people who are arguing from a basis of near-complete ignorance is stunningly vainglorious...

These children really need to get out and get some fresh air and exercise...by walking to the nearest library. Most of them are getting their information from pundits and can't tell the difference between commentary and exposé.

Ti-Guy said...

You can always stop blogging, o unintentionally-ironic-one.

And deprive you of an outlet for your sadism? Perish the thought, eh?

Nonny said...

True. You have a point.

Ti-Guy said...

What I'd like to have is the name of your social worker.

Nonny said...

Don't assume that I have one just because you and your family see one so often that he has taken up residence in your spare room.

CC said...

nonny:

You've become boring to the point where I'm going to start deleting your comments unless you pick it up a bit.

And NOTE: I don't delete commenters because I disagree with them. I delete them simply because they've become tediously uninteresting and thoroughly unentertaining.

southernquebec said...

If you didn't blog, you would be out on the street scaring little children. Better you should blog. No one gets hurt. :)

Olaf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Olaf said...

CC,

What it comes down to is that there's little enough one can do to fight the screaming, childish idiocy coming out of the dumbfuck-o-sphere these days, but this was one of those things I had control over, and I chose to exercise that control

I'd like to know exactly what you're accomplishing by exercising this control. Are you preventing Richard Evans from behaving as childish as he pleases? No. Are you doing anything constructive to fight the screaming, childish idiocy coming out of the dumbfuck-o-sphere? No.

You're attempting to marginalize one who, by your admission, "has a general and well-deserved reputation as a thoughtful and fair-minded conservative in the Canadian blogosphere", and is "Canada's lone remaining thoughtful conservative".

If you're trying to "fight the screaming, childish idiocy" of the right, I'd suggest you're going about it in a somewhat backwards fashion. But good for you for taking a stand. I hope this purge exceeds all your wildest expectations.

Ti-Guy said...

Actually, Nonny, I was assuming you don't have a social worker but slyly suggesting you need one...badly.

Sorry, you didn't catch that. I'm trying desperately to amuse myself with your trolling, but...well, I've been there before. You're a complete, low-class dunce, whose dullness is contagious.

Since CC is asking you to discipline yourself or face deletion, I won't continue to indulge you.

Ti-Guy said...

You're attempting to marginalize one who, by your admission, "has a general and well-deserved reputation as a thoughtful and fair-minded conservative in the Canadian blogosphere", and is "Canada's lone remaining thoughtful conservative".

Well, someone's got to do the marginalising, Olaf. Since the Conservatives/Blogging Tories (all part of the same partisan machine) celebrate and elevate deprativity, ignorance, and sheer bloody-mindedness to legitimate discourse, it's up to others to attempt it.

You shouldn't be complaining about the "new media's" ability to provide a mechanism for condemnation by association; you and your cohort perfected that dynamic.

No use whining about it now. It's a problem that was willfully ignored by sensible conservatives for too long.

Freedom of expression's complicated, eh?

CC said...

Yes, Olaf, I did give you those props. But I also explained, in some detail, what the consequences would be if you chose to continue to associate with that wretched excuse for a human being Richard Evans. So it's just a bit intellectually dishonest for you to bring up part of what I wrote without bringing up the rest of it.

Freedom of choice, dear boy. I gave you a choice, you made one. Now live with it.

Nonny said...

CC,

You said "I don't delete commenters because I disagree with them. I delete them simply because they've become tediously uninteresting and thoroughly unentertaining."

At least be honest about your reasons, if you're going to delete my comments, CC.

You say I am boring but Ti-Guy cannot help but reply to me ... always ..., PSA's "Pacheco" post elicited 33 comments, and your post entitled "So how's that "surge" going again?" elicited 111 (that's a record, I bet).

Are you people always so responsive to things that bore you? When I'm bored with someone, I shut up and leave.

There's no need to delete boring ol' me, CC. Just ignore me.

No. I rather think you have other reasons other than my tediousness ... and it's not lack of substance either. So, don't try that one. Your "So how's that "surge" going again?" post will disprove that accusation once you read through my initial comments before your favorite commenters, thwap, Ti-Guy, and M@ started spewing their adolescent name-calling and invective.

Face facts, your commenters (Ti-Guy especially) love to hate me, and that's why they find me ... interesting.

Nonny said...

No, Ti-Guy, I got your intent behind the "social worker" jab. I ignored it, though, and insulted you right back by implying that it is YOU who needs one.

Are you too dull to see that?

CC said...

nonny:

In the first place, the Pacheco post was by my co-blogger and I won't do anything in terms of limiting the participation on his articles. That's entirely up to him.

And in the second place, I only noticed the ridiculous number of comments on the other article after I came back after several hours, at which point I gave everyone hell and turned off comments entirely because it was totally out of hand.

So let me be clear on this -- everyone grow up and behave like adults. Are we good now?

Ti-Guy said...

Are you people always so responsive to things that bore you? When I'm bored with someone, I shut up and leave.

Heh. That's rich coming from nomennovum, the sadistic scourge of the pseudonymous cybersphere.

It's your repulsiveness I find fascinating, Nonny, but even I end up giving up eventually.

Imagine...trolling a post where someone's talking about the tragic death of their mother. You have to be sick and depraved to do that.

Nonny said...

Imagine saying you want "fuck" flavor ice in a post where someone's talking about the tragic death of their mother, Ti-Guy. You phony.

I don't care why you find me fascinating, Ti-Guy (it happens to be the same reason I find you fascinating, though); my point was you DO find me interesting -- and not "boring." See?

Ti-Guy said...

I repeat..Imagine...trolling a post where someone's talking about the tragic death of their mother. You have to be sick and depraved to do that.

Nonny said...

You have to be sick and depraved to think it's not sick and depraved to ask for "fuck" flavored ice cream ... ever.

notcycles said...

If you two are done jerkin' each other off...

this post is supposed to be about CC's jihad against centrist bloggers who associate with conservative bloggers that committ the same crimes as progressive bloggers. All while ignoring the crimes of those progressive bloggers...

Crabgrass said...

notcycles, do you see a distinction between 1) faithfully reproducing somebody's blog posts for display at some website other than the original and 2) trying to falsely and publicly attribute thoughts or beliefs to a person?

Ti-Guy said...

No-libs.com...conservative bloggers? Ha! It is to laugh. I think it's a subsidiary of Stormfront, from the looks of it. It was knocked off Blogging Tories, for heaven's sakes....how bad does it have to be to have that happen?

canucklehead said...

What crimes?
From my understanding, Richard, MWW simply posted SDA's material - either unaltered or satirized - on a blogspot.
YOU, however, are registering other bloggers' names as .com domains (not blogspot subdomains), and redirecting them directly to your own blog, without ANY material from the person you're leeching from.
If you were satirizing CC's posts in some way when I click to canadiancynic.net, that might be a different story, but instead, I just get sent to no-libs.com, which is your material on your blog.

MWW is doing a legitimate parody - YOU'RE just cybersquatting.
As well as preventing the domain names from being purchased by their "proper" owners.

notcycles said...

notcycles, do you see a distinction between 1) faithfully reproducing somebody's blog posts for display at some website other than the original and 2) trying to falsely and publicly attribute thoughts or beliefs to a person?

That's irrelevant. Is Meaghan using "smalldeadanimals" or not? Yes or no?

MWW is doing a legitimate parody - YOU'RE just cybersquatting.
As well as preventing the domain names from being purchased by their "proper" owners.


Last time I checked, I have the receipts proving that I paid for the names in question. That makes me the "proper" owner.

Further, were it a question of whether or not the names went to a parody site, this never should have been an issue because when it started, the names were directed to the "Liberal Memberships" parody site.

Try again twinkie...

Crabgrass said...

"notcycles, do you see a distinction between..."

Richard,if you think that the answer to my question is not relevant, you're obviously not interested in a particularly fearless analysis of the situation.

Good luck with your crusade, tiger.

Ti-Guy said...

That's irrelevant. Is Meaghan using "smalldeadanimals" or not? Yes or no?

This must be how Richard's mother ended up on all those mood elevators.

It's a patented Evans dodge...dismiss pretty much all context from a particular issue, distill from that a yes-or-no question and then demand an answer, over and over again. When no answer is provided, declare the absence of an answer to be either "yes" or "no," depending on what Richard finds advantageous. He's trying to play "lawyer" here, but he's failing to realise that witnesses do have the right to say "I don't know" or "I can't answer that with 'yes' or 'no'...This is where Olaf could provide some wise counsel for the poor thing. Alas and alack...

I think Richard gets this way when he's either coming off a bender, or just starting one.

canucklehead said...

Ah right, that parody site.
Memory error on my part.
My mistake, Richard.

Olaf said...

CC,

But I also explained, in some detail, what the consequences would be if you chose to continue to associate with that wretched excuse for a human being Richard Evans. So it's just a bit intellectually dishonest for you to bring up part of what I wrote without bringing up the rest of it.

No, it's not intellectually dishonest, because it's irrelevant to my point, which you duly ignored. The point wasn't that I didn't have fair warning, it was that attempting to marginalize one of the few right wing bloggers you consider reasonable is incompatible with the stated goal of "fighting the screaming, childish idiocy" of the right. In fact, it might be inimical to that purpose.

Best case scenario is a few people remove their links to me. Will it have a tangible effect on how many people read my writing? Probably not. Will Richard, the real subject of your contempt, change his behaviour as a result? No. Will the entire "dumbfuck-o-sphere" stand up and take notice of your noble stand? I doubt it.

I'd just like to know what you think you're accomplishing, out of curiosity.

notcycles said...

It's a pretty simple question with no need to go beyond "yes" or "no" as an answer. No qualifiers required. No "yeahbutts" needed...

Nonny said...

Olaf, you know what CC thinks he's accomplishing. It's tried and true. It works every time. It feels good. It allows the person to imagine he is taking a brave stand, to draw a line in the sand and say, "No further." It brings a sense of purity. And if no one cares to notice -- well -- post a couple of notices more, calling attention to you noble deed: The Moral Pose.

Why do you feel the need to ask?

Ti-Guy said...

It's a pretty simple question with no need to go beyond "yes" or "no" as an answer. No qualifiers required. No "yeahbutts" needed...

Language doesn't work that way. You can't strip it of its broader context and expect sensible people to take it as serious communication...it's really just a complicated form of lying.

Richard, we've covered this ground before. Maybe Olaf can explain it to you the next time you and he are out at some awful low-boozer in Calgary.

thwap said...

Olaf,

It's pretty clear. You give a veneer of respectability to the blatherings of Mr. Evans. By boycotting you for this, and doing what he can do get others to boycott you, CC is trying to get you to remove that veneer of respectability from Mr. Evans, leaving him to bask in the open glare of his ridiculousness.

Obviously, CC has very little leverage over you, and I don't think that he fools himself that his action is going to traumatize you into conceding.

It's just one thing in a big internet world.

It seems to have impressed "nonny" who can't stop commenting on it.

notcycles said...

Wow thai-guy, I'm sorry such a simple question has you so completely stumped...

Ti-Guy said...

I don't even remember what the question is, because that's not even the issue.

As I've said, I've dealt with your lying before, Richard Evans; you provide no content worth remembering.

Neither does Olaf, when you think of it.

notcycles said...

"As I've said, I've dealt with your lying before, Richard Evans; you provide no content worth remembering."

Care to back that statement up?

"I don't even remember what the question is, because that's not even the issue."

We'll post it again: Is Meaghan using "smalldeadanimals" as one of her blogspot domains? Yes or no?

Ti-Guy said...

Care to back that statement up?

Sure...*ahem*...I don't remember any content you've ever provided.

Anyway, I'm off to troll KKKonservative blogs and try this new "polemics" thing that's all the rage.

notcycles said...

...and, true to form, thai-guy once again runs in order to avoid answering a simple question...

stimplove said...

Or maybe ti-guy didn't want to spend his entire day in fruitless exchange with notcycles.

Crabgrass said...

Notcycles: "We'll post it again: Is Meaghan using "smalldeadanimals" as one of her blogspot domains? Yes or no?"

No.

Olaf said...

Thwap,

It's pretty clear. You give a veneer of respectability to the blatherings of Mr. Evans. By boycotting you for this, and doing what he can do get others to boycott you, CC is trying to get you to remove that veneer of respectability from Mr. Evans, leaving him to bask in the open glare of his ridiculousness.

That may be. I'm not sure what kind of veneer I'm able to provide, but I imagine it's minimal at best.

The funny thing about this crusade of CCs is that I haven't posted at LFR in probably half a year. I've never met Richard, or talked to him. I've shared more emails with Paladiea in the past 2 days than with Richard ever. My association that CC finds so offensive is weak at best.

As Richard knows, there is no good reason for me to stay on as a "contributor", because I don't "contribute" anymore. Also, as Richard knows, we are far from compatible politically. I hadn't even been to LFR in the 6 months prior to CC starting this meaningless crusade. I just hadn't even crossed my mind to have myself removed.

If CC was merely hoping to strip Richard of any veneer of respectability I might somehow convey, he could have sent me an email about it. Its possible that I would have thought it over, figured that it didn't really make sense to continue on as a contributor as our political viewpoints differ substantially. Then, I might have sent Richard an email, asked to be removed, a request I'm sure he would have gladly accepted.

Instead, he thought he'd start a very public crusade attempting to have me ostracized from progressive circles.

I'm still curious as to CCs underlying motivation, what precisely he's trying to accomplish, and if it's anything beyond a perverse power trip. But he hasn't yet responded, so I'll continue to wait patiently.

thwap said...

Well, I guess I'll leave it to you two.

I understood the logic as it was presented here. But I don't stray too far from my traditional rounds, so I haven't seen "LFR" ever.

Olaf said...

CC,

I'm geniuinely curious to know your motivation for all this, and what you're attempting to accomplish. If you don't want to respond to this question publicly, which seems clear, feel free to shoot me an email.

olafraskolnikov@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Olaf, please stop being so pathetic. You know CC's reasons. He is posturing. Why do you have such difficulty seeing that? You sound desperate, like some love-lorn school girl or a sad reject from the popular kid's club. You DON'T want to be associated with Richard but you DO want to be associated with the likes of CC? Really, have you no sense at all? Grow up and grow a pair.

You're embarrassing yourself and you're an embarrassment to conservatives. Can't you see the folks in the club here are laughing at you?

Please stop.

Crabgrass said...

Gee, anonymous, it's hard to tell who you are. Grow a pair?

Would it be fair for me to assume that you're a conservative, since you see any attempt at talking over one's differences with another as an embarrassment? Is the preferred approach some blog equivalent of carpet bombing? That would be constructive, wouldn't it?

Anonymous said...

Whatever you want to believe, Crabgrass. If you think what you people are doing here is "talking," then sure. CC is "talking over" his differences with conservatives, he is not posing and preening, and Olaf is not pissing in the wind.

Olaf said...

Anon,

Your insults mean nothing to me. I can't be an "embarrassment to conservatives" because I don't speak for conservatives, I can only be an embarrassment to myself.

I don't subscribe to the culture/ideology war ("you're with us or against us") that both you and CC engage in. I don't think all liberals/socialists are "moonbats" any more than I think all conservatives are "wingnuts". I'm moderately conservative by principle but not willing to exalt my beliefs to a degree where I think all others are necessarily invalid or worthless or need to be fought against at all costs.

I never said I don't want to be associated Richard, or that I do want to be associated with CC. I just said that I'm not longer a "contributor" to LFR in any meaningful capacity, nor am I the conservative warrior you and others seem to want me to be, and that my absence at LFR would not be missed.

Anonymous said...

You're problem, Olaf, is that you protest too much. You are conservative. I have read your writings. You write and reason well. I enjoy hearing what you have to say. Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make (and that you missed) is not that you are a traitor to conservatives for trying to engage CC in debate. It's that you come across as pathetic because to are trying to woo someone who is clearly not woo-able. Further, he is no woo-worthy. Moreover, you will woo the day you tried to engage him in debate, for, in doing so, you betray your intellectual ideals and you risk at least appearing to betray allies such as Richard.