Grrrrr. Apparently, a number of commenters back here sadly misinterpreted what I meant when I wrote, "They better be paying you for this, John." A whole bunch of folks got all wound up over whether Dawg was being a "scab" by writing for free. Truth be told, that perspective never even occurred to me. What I meant was that Dawg better be getting something out of this, given the drooling, screeching, ignorant trollish dumbassitude he was going to get by way of comments.
And I was right. There's one "IainGFoulds," who apparently has never learned what ellipses are for:
... Oh good, another nihilistic satirist, merely delighted with the sound of his own voice, adding nothing of constructive value to any discussion.
... Thank you, Kelly.
There's "MikeMurphy," who is similarly incapable of addressing what was written:
A real socialist heh. A self admitted zealot. So what else is new. Hopefully you will do better next time other than this self-indulging drivel.
There's the horrifically misnamed "justcommonsense":
Welcome, legend has it that everytime a socialist is actually willing to debate or even listen an angel gets it's wings. Ironic isn't it.
There's the ubiquitous and stunningly retarded "sassylassie":
What does banning the minaret have to do with Free Speech? The Minaret is a sign of Islamic Supremacism and the abuse and subjugation of women's equality. Thus do you think it's okay for the Islamic Supremacist to place a symbol that screams, to me, burning cross and white hoods on their place of worship? Funny Neo Nazis bad but their brothers' in arms the Islamists are good.
I'll never understand the loopy upside down logic of the radical leftwingers, never.
You get the idea -- the standard right-wing discourse that rarely rises above the level of, "Harharhar, stupid leftards and their terrorist-loving lefty leftardness, LOL ROTFL!!!"
It's not clear why anyone with a decent amount of self-respect would subject themselves to that sort of crap, since you have to know it's coming. The only thing that would make it worth it is if you're getting at least a little coin for it. But if you're not even getting that, what's the point?
Why put your best literary foot forward if what you get in return is the rhetorical equivalent of "Hunter", Maria S Nunes, "bocanut" and Patrick Ross? Seriously, why write for free, in exchange for insults from the lowest of the low of the Canadian Idiotsphere?
It would be different if the editorial trogs at the NP at least rode herd on that comments section and trashed anything hopelessly stupid or off-topic. But we all know they won't, which means that whatever value Dawg contributes to the public discourse will almost immediately be swamped under a deluge of dumbassitude. So, again, what's the point? It's like commenting intelligently at Kate McMillan's -- casting pearls before incredibly stupid swine, knowing what you're going to get back will be, well, incredibly stupid and swinish.
If Dawg wants to write for free, that's his call. But why he'd want to write for free and get slagged by really, really stupid people for it is, I have to admit, a bit of a mystery for me.
But it's his call.