Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(2146)
-
▼
January
(197)
- I feel a disturbance in the force ...
- Put up or shu ... uh ... what's this?
- A tweak here, a tweak there ...
- Careful with that pedestal, Eugene.
- Oh, geez ... what is it THIS time?
- Apparently, good taste is in the eye of the beholder.
- Is that your final answer?
- Yeah, victimhood suits you. No, really.
- Uh oh ... here come the flying monkeys.
- Stephen Harper: Standing up for Canada.
- Whiny-Ass Titty Baby Watch: Day 3.
- Man, this has ENDLESS entertainment value.
- And remember ... they're all about the children.
- Separated at birth -- the Satchmo edition.
- Broken promises -- the Stephen Harper edition.
- Speaking of civility ...
- Life inside the bubble.
- The art of the deal.
- Yeah, I could use some help over here, thanks for ...
- Whiny-Ass Titty Baby Watch: Day 2.
- Civility? FUCK civility.
- Dr. Evil and Mini-Me -- George Bush/Stephen Harper...
- You keep using that phrase "culture of life" ...
- The continuing fantasy world of Dick Cheney ...
- It all makes sense now.
- Steyn-a-palooza.
- You keep using that word "sovereignty" ...
- The only argument they'll understand.
- Short-term memory loss, Kate McMillan-style.
- Hey, honey, I'm ho ... What the hell?
- Yeah, that just about covers it, Spanky.
- Short-term memory loss, right-wing style.
- Just because.
- Wingnuts on parade.
- Simple answers to simple questions.
- Dear poor Americans:
- No, Spanky ... the gun points the OTHER way.
- Um ... come again?
- I'd like to thank the Academy ...
- Tom Friedman: Part of this complete breakfast.
- Open thread.
- No, he's not with us.
- Jarrett Plonka smackdown: The Reader's Digest Con...
- Your so-called "liberal media."
- If you can't believe the howling wingnuts, well, w...
- Damn ... where can *I* get street creds like that?
- Your mission, should you decide to accept it ...
- The eJankulator strikes again.
- You keep using that word "discussion " ...
- The kind of publicity money can't buy.
- Meoooowwwwww!
- Whoa ... some folks are finally growing a pair.
- Which of these things is not like the others?
- Simple answers to simple questions -- Christianity...
- And over at the He-Man Woman Haters Club ...
- Stop. Right. There.
- Well, don't we feel professional now?
- Simple answers to simple questions.
- The Conservatives and child care: Giving Stephen ...
- Simple answers to simple questions.
- You keep using that word "study" ...
- History is just begging to repeat itself.
- Blogging Tories atrocities: Jan 23, 2007.
- Dear Kate: About those equalization payments ...
- Look! Bright, shiny thing!
- Your occasional Kate.
- The death of "conservatism": compare and contrast.
- ... but my friends call me "Nostradamus."
- Speaking of low-hanging fruit ...
- Support the troops.
- Dear Andrew: Um ... about that CPoC dinner party ...
- I'M logically and justifiably angry based on a car...
- But, James, you've never even MET Kathy Shaidle ...
- Simple answers to simple questions.
- No rush ... what's a few more dead soldiers?
- Sunday morning palate cleanser, Dar Williams style.
- You're SURE you have nothing better to do?
- She's got nothing against niggers ...
- Smackdown!
- We have a weiner!
- Sorry ... what was the talking point again?
- Blogging Tories Wankitude: Jan 20, 2007.
- Thank God for American progressive blogs.
- They're not stupid, they're ... well, OK, they're ...
- Stevie Boy taking a page from George's playbook.
- Stephen Harper to openness and accountability: Fu...
- Enter early! Enter often! WIN VALUABLE PRIZES!!
- Nice try, Catnip.
- Apparently, it's the Democrats who stand on guard ...
- Simple answers to simple questions.
- I turned my back for just a second ...
- The schools, boss! The schools!
- Why, you thieving bastard.
- You want it WHEN?
- Speaking of greenhouse gases, where HAVE you folks...
- I believe it's called "buyer's remorse."
- Your mission, should you decide to accept it ...
- Ah ... so that's what you mean by the word "stream...
- Yeah, that's gonna leave a mark.
- Adam Daifallah: The Reader's Digest Condensed Ver...
-
▼
January
(197)
12 comments:
Wow,
Were you not the one who just recently went on a "my blog, my rules, if you don't like the rules too fucking bad, start your own blog" rant? Yep, that was you.
It also included this gem:
And one of my rules is that I don't tolerate commenters who wander in and decide to make themselves comfortable and set up shop for the foreseeable future, simply to pick fights with whatever I choose to write about.
For someone who bleats on about hypocrisy more than anyone else on the planet (my favourite is when you take two contrary opinions from two different people and declare them hypocritical), you might want to be a bit more consistent yourself.
Oh, man, where to even begin here?
As most readers (and a large percentage of your more intelligent pets and house plants) will have understood, when I established the "My blog, my rules" maxim, it referred specifically and precisely to people commenting here. Is that clear enough for you, Olaf? Really, I want to make sure you understand that since, if you don't, the rest of this little beatdown will be lost on you.
What Kate has done is barred me from even reading her blog. See the difference there? Hmmm? Yes? And there's no way she can be retaliating for my acting uncivilly at her site since, to the best of my knowledge, I have never left a comment there. Ever.
So, Olaf, my young wingnut, can you now understand why your argument is utterly nonsensical? If you can't, get your rubber tree to explain it to you.
CC,
My bad - I get it, that is a bit different, no rubber tree necessary.
Although, in fairness, her blog, her rules, no? And no one can complain about those rules, because they're hers, and the only apply to her blog, right?
Or is it her blog, her rules, that are valid insofar as they conform to your rules? Please advise.
Also, I don't think a debate over blogging culture could possibly expose someone as a "wingnut". But, in your own defence, name calling is fun, and does makes the name caller feel good about themselves.
Olaf,
If you simply misunderstood what this was all about, then all right, we're good here. Well, not quite.
You still don't seem to appreciate the significance of Kate having (as far as I can tell, at least) banned me from even reading her blog. I can't even imagine a rationale for that that isn't based on petulant childishness and cowardice.
Yes, I've banned the occasional whackjob from my site, but only after he or she finally became intolerable. But I've never even considered trying to keep someone from reading it.
Sure, it's obviously Kate's choice to block me from reading, just as it's my choice to point out how whiny and infantile that is. And this is the same woman who, once upon a time, described me as "someone who skulk[s] about on the toxic fringes of the leftosphere."
Yeah, that's rich. On the one hand, I'm just some cowardly, toxic, anonymous skulker. On the other hand, I am so indescribably dangerous that I must be prevented from reading Kate's neo-con rantings.
Tell you what, Olaf. Why don't you ask Kate why she's so scared of me? And let me know what she says. We could both use a good chuckle, no?
It's simple CC, Kate probably believes that you and the 70 or so other bloggers they've now accused of it, are me.
She had my IP blocked in Florida too :) - DMB locked me from viewing their blog a day later, and so did ferret face, Craig Taylor "conservative life"
You have to admit you've won in the exchange, when Kate is so scared of you reading her stuff and pointing out her crap that she has to try (ineffectually) I might add of blocking you from even reading it.
I mean if Only ALL the BTs across Canada would block out HUGE chunks of the Canadian internet from reading their blogs.
You have to give credit to Spanky and the Gang... even though they've got a "no grls allowed" sign posted on the door of "neat-o" pillow forts in their parents living rooms, from which they are broadcasting their messages, they aren't afraid to let people read their posts.
I think it's great CC.
Do you know Kate actually paid money to one of these proxify servers so that people using it wouldn't be able to comment even if they could at least look?
She's PAID MONEY to not have to deal with you :)
MW
MWW has a point...it might just be costing Kate money.....delicious, I wonder if I can be banned too?
I see a whole new vector of attack opening up....
Mike asks:
"I wonder if I can be banned too"
Possibly, but to measure up to my lofty standards, you have to be banned without ever actually leaving a comment at Kate's site. Match that.
CC,
I admit, it is a bit odd to ban you from reading altogether, and I can't understand a rationale behind it. All I'm saying is that you complaining about how she administers her rules is no different then someone else complaining about how you administer your rules, even if they're less extreme.
Quick question: what's with the Brian theme? Do you like martini's or something? I don't get it. Nice banner though, in any case.
Olaf writes:
"All I'm saying is that you complaining about how she administers her rules is no different then someone else complaining about how you administer your rules, even if they're less extreme."
Give it a rest, Olaf. Kate's "rules" are not simply more extreme, they are utterly nonsensical. Yes, it's different. Deal with it.
Yes, it's different. Deal with it.
I'll try.
Banned from reading it. I am truly impressed.
Olaf, any finer points around the administration of one's own blog rules aside, you have to admit that's commendable.
It does not matter if you find her rules to be nonsensical, they are her rules. Pissing and moaning about them is pointless. The fact YOU don't like them is probably an added bonus for SDA.
Post a Comment