I'd like to see the response to this.

Let me warn you up front, you're going to want to stop reading this post shortly, but don't do that -- keep reading. Trust me on this one.

Over here at America's Dumbest Wanker™, we have the previously-discussed asininely hypocritical article regarding public versus private searches that I discussed back here. But that's not the issue here.

The issue is the third and, at the moment, last comment that was posted in response to Weasel Boy's stupidity at that URL -- a comment I want to reproduce in its entirety because it's worth reading:

Perhaps you'd care to mention that the NY subway is a public arena. The NYCLU is a private entity. Which is, of course, the crux of the NYCLU argument - that security searches in a PUBLIC institution, such as the subway system, violates privacy rights. PRIVATE entities, such as companies or organizations - including the NYCLU - are free to install whatever security devices they please. There is no inconsistency there, despite your best attempts at demonstrating hypocrisy, just an inability on your part to differentiate between privacy rights in public and private forums.

Of course, the real irony is that such levels of security at institutions like the ACLU are only necessary because of the wingnuts like you who think nothing of fomenting hatred for, and indirectly encourage violence towards, such institutions. I work in a building with a Planned Parenthood office that has been forced to install both security devices and patient escort services solely because of constant harrassment, bomb threats, etc. from right-wingers and wingnut groups. So just wondering: How does it feel to be a contributor to the (right-wing) terrorist's agenda??

Not only does the author "BeingThere" absolutely nail the issue of private versus public arenas, but he/she also points out the obvious -- in many cases, it's the left-wing/liberal venues that most need the extra security, given the ugly tendency for some right-wing extremists to harass and bomb, and sometimes to just plain shoot people through their kitchen windows with a high-powered rifle.

The above is not a sensationalistic comment, it is not vulgar, profane or obscene -- it simply lays out the facts. I'm devilishly curious whether Jinx will respond to it in kind and address its actual substance, or whether he's going to be his typical smug, sanctimonious, asshole self and just dismiss it out of hand with some infantile, playground-level insult (which, sadly, is not exclusive to Jinx but is depressingly common throughout the wankersphere).

Let's be patient and see what happens, shall we? I think this is a useful test to see if some wankers really can participate in intellectual discourse, or whether it is simply beyond them.


UPDATE: Well, that was utterly predictable, wasn't it?