So there we were at a fairly small airport in Long Island, our preferred means of departing the area by air as opposed to the more busier, more hectic JKF or LaGuardia, as casa David prepared for our annual pilgrimage to Florida (followed by my continuation to the San Diego con.)
We encounter a huge line waiting for curbside check-in, but the line inside seems no shorter, so we wait. And wait. We inch forward. After about fifteen minutes of waiting, some guy steps in back of us. Apparently he doesn’t realize that he’s cutting in line, because there’s ten people behind us. It’s just that the woman behind us hadn’t yet moved forward because she had several suitcases to maneuver. Kathleen points out to him that he’s cutting in line and indicates where the actual end is. His response? He starts cursing at her, telling her to go f*** herself.
I immediately round on him and tell him to back the hëll off. He tells me I should mind my own business. I tell him if he starts cursing out my wife, he’s made it my business. Our faces are literally inches apart as, out loud, I’m hurling profanities at him as fast as he’s tossing them at me, and I’m thinking My God, where the hëll are all the cops you always see patrolling the place? Reading the new Harry Potter book? He informs me I have no idea who I’m f***ing with, and then heads to the back of the line. People are looking at me and, looking for a reality check, I say, “Was it me?” And they smile and shake their heads and say, “Noooo…it wasn’t you.”
I’m thinking, “How could this day get off to any worse of a start?”
We finally get to the front of the line and they won’t check in Kathleen. Caroline and I are free to go, but they insist that Kath has to go stand on the line INSIDE the airport and present further ID. I say, “We already waited once; it’s insane that we’d have to wait on ANOTHER line.” They just stare icily at Kath and say they can’t do a thing.
And I’m thinking, It can’t be what I think it is.
After losing another twenty minutes of time, and with our flight set to depart in twenty minutes, we finally learn that it’s exactly what I’d worried it was:
“Kathleen David” is apparently a similar name (not even the same: Similar) to someone who is a suspected terrorist. As a result, Kathleen is on a No-Fly list. A woman who doesn’t have so much as a parking ticket in her history is now being told she has to allow another HOUR of time at airport check ins so that she can stand on long lines and present additional identification to prove she’s not someone else with a similar name who might or might not have done something. The ONLY reason we managed to make our flight was because Caroline was in a stroller and they had a separate, and much shorter, line through security for people with wheelchairs or strollers.
They gave her a piece of paper with a number to call to have herself removed from this list. I am, frankly, less than hopeful that this will be resolved quickly and efficiently. Has anyone else been in this situation? How did it turn out?
PAD
• 
Jeffrey Frawley: “When you go out ‘in a blaze of glory’ by yourself, some people find it romantic.”
I don’t recall anyone characterizing JFK Jr.’s death as a “blaze of glory” nor anything “romantic.” People expressed grief and sadness because an untimely passing is a sad event.
Jeffrey Frawley: “When your arrogance kills two other people, you’re an incompetent moron.”
It is not arrogant to fly a plane under conditions you’ve been told by authorities you’re qualified to fly under.
Jeffrey Frawley: “Were the weather conditions that JFK Jr. faced foreseeable? Yes, they were.”
False. According to the Washington Post, “…the weather did not appear to be ‘iffy.’ Despite the haze, the National Weather Service’s aviation weather observation at the apparent time of the crash was listed as eight miles visibility and clear. Conditions also did not appear conducive to fog. The weather observation offered no special remarks suggesting dangerous weather.”
Jeffrey Frawley: “Was he qualified to fly in them? No, he was not.”
Also false. Phil Boyer, President
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, testified before Congress that “…there were thousands of successful VFR flights last Friday night [the night of Kennedy’s plane crash] including some into Martha’s Vineyard.” He also testified that “the Federal Aviation Administration substantially stiffened the requirements for night flight privileges two years ago in August of 1997 and we understand that Mr. Kennedy was certificated under these new regulations. These improvements in training and certification should equip VFR-rated pilots with the skills and judgment to make night flying safe.”
Your condemnation of JFK Jr. is in no way supported by the known facts surrounding his fatal plane crash.
Bill Mulligan: “Jeffrey–look, there seems to be little question that Kennedy made a reckless decision…”
Actually, for the reasons articulated in my prior post, there is in fact little question that JFK Jr. did not make a reckless decision.
Jeffrey,
Give up while you’re ahead. And by ahead, I in no way mean ahead in the debate on this subject. Stop while there are still some people here who haven’t re-listed you in their mental rolodex under “crass, worthless, nasty little troll.” Myers has had you on his $H!* list for quite some time now. That’s not likely to change any time soon, but others here haven’t held you on their $H!* lists in the same way. No one here is going to actively shun you for honest opinions expressed, but why seemingly work to alienate others by trying to sink to levels reserved for the Mike’s, X-Ray’s and Dee’s of this blog’s history?
You’ve made repeated statements that seem completely unrelated to what anyone here has said.
“There’s a difference between gloating and declining to worship a person.”
“… while it may be romantic to go out in a blaze of glory…”
No one here has stated anything like idol worship and no one but you keeps bringing up the whole romantic blaze of glory thing. You’ve also seemed to have ramped up the level of viciousness in your posted after joe stated that he know the man before his death. I can’t prove that joe knew the guy anymore then you can prove that he didn’t, but what’s the point in trying to be even more crass after joe’s post? What, you were hoping that, just in case joe really did know the man, you could inflict just that little extra bit of pain into his life?
You’ve also made several statements that do not hold up to the facts of the case. Still, in the purely opinion realm, you didn’t/don’t like the man. It’s 100% your right to not like the man and to say so. We get that. But why keep going the extra distance, why keep making the extra effort of seeming to try to be as crass as you can and more then a little, well, as quoted here, bizarre?
“Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister’s husband’s father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head?”
???????????? Oooooooooooookay.
The man is dead and you don’t like him. Ok, we got it. Can we finish with the kicking the dead, poking at the acquaintances of the dead and making really out there statements and move on now? I mean, what do you have to gain or hope to gain by being this unnecessarily disrespectful to the dead and those that may have known him in a forum that is more often then not populated by posters who don’t crave that level of crassness and incivility?
Who’s death did I exult in? How does your portraying me so severely not qualify as arbitrary?
With as little sleep as you must be getting, the arousal I inspire in you must be formidable.
Who’s death did I exult in?
With as little sleep as you must be getting, you still can’t stop thinking about me. All I’m left to imagine is that the arousal I inspire in you must be formidable.
Jerry’s not saying that you, specifically, exulted in anyone’s death, Mike. What he IS saying, however, is that some your previous posts have been, at the most generous, needlessly combative and repetitive. Now, the repetitve isn’t a jab at the fact that your response was posted twice. But, for all your argumentativeness and the overapplication of paste which has often led me to wonder if your elementary school art department was woefully undersupplied, you’ve never to my knowledge exulted in anyone’s death. So, I hope that answers the “whose death” question.
…by portraying me as worse than someone who exulted in someone death.
By quoting what has been said before, I am accommodating the half-dozen or so complaints that inevitably crop up what I say is incomprehensible. That which I repeat no one complains is incomprehensible. Therefore I repeat my points any given response of mine depends on. It ain’t Rocket Surgery, Sean Scullion — and I’ll repeat this again if (when) you demonstrate you’ve forgotten it.
If you don’t like it, you can assist me by addressing those complaints what I say is incomprehensible — by confirming what I say is reasonable and clear to you when those complaints arise again. If not, or unless you want to deny people are complaining they can’t understand what I say, you have no call to complain about me simply serving my own self-interest. What is your beef against someone simply serving his own self-interest?
You almost get the feeling that Mike is getting worried that Jeffrey will take his place as Official Idiot of the Peter David Blog. Uneasy is the head upon which lies the crown…
Actually, for the reasons articulated in my prior post, there is in fact little question that JFK Jr. did not make a reckless decision.
Given what you posted, I take it back. I was relying mostly on the Wiki entry and on the personal opinion of a flying friend (but that’s obviously hearsay, valid or not). The wiki bit makes it sound like a clear error in judgment but you’ve made that conclusion far less clear.
I see no value in tearing JFK Jr down. He is not worshiped, he has no political following, he does not influence policy…what is gained?
You unambiguously witness Bill Mulligan literally cannot disqualify what I say. With Great Passive-Aggression Comes Great Irresponsibility.™
I don’t think Mike needs to worry about that. He has a tremendous gift at maintaining his standing there.
It’s interesting that many here blast me for thinking JFK Jr’s deficiencies as a pilot caused three preventable deaths, but no one finds any fault in the analogy of driving the wrong way down a one way street into a head-on crash. No matter what you may think, the accident investigators will have little trouble assigning fault there. It may be useful advice to someone here: Don’t drive into any road if you do not know which direction it goes. This isn’t optional, and your heirs will find that significant when they try to collect your insurance, or when they are faced with your liability. It is a fact that JFK Jr. was not instrument certified, not a matter of debate. It is also a fact that the abilities he was missing would have proved useful in avoiding his death. It is also a fact that virtually all of the commentary here has focused on how sad it was that he died, and a fact that he was only 33.333% of the casualties that day. He flew into the ocean, taking two people with him. Oh…let’s be more sensitive to him!! The argument that he was certified to fly under the conditions prevailing when he took off proves very little. By that thinking, almost all automobile accidents would be written off as “Hey, he had a driver’s license, so shut up about the speeding down the wrong side of the road with no lights. He had a driver’s license, didn’t you hear? Let’s have a little sympathy for that smudge on the road, and let’s stop talking about the passengers: He had a dámņëd driver’s license, and that’s all that matters!”
“The ticket agent told us we would have to wait until the next day to fly into Chicago, but we wouldn’t be charged anything.
My husband asked the perfectly reasonable question: “Why can’t we fly to Chicago tonight, take our chances with catching the connecting flight and if we miss it, you can put us on the flight to St Louis THAT WE WOULD BE TAKING ANYWAY IF WE STAY IN NEWARK?”
They wouldn’t do this and my husband got very upset. Bear in mind that (1) it was late (2) it was cold (3) we had just turned in our rental car so finding a place to stay would be difficult (4) the ticket agents spoke very little English — and, of course, there was no supervisor available.”
Actually, Lucy (without endeavoring to excuse all the crap you had to endure) I think I can field that one. FAA regs mandate that airlines must allow a minimum of (I believe it’s) twenty five minutes for a passenger to make a connection. That is to say, they can’t schedule a connecting flight closer than twenty-five minutes since that’s considered the bare minimum required for making a connection. (And as someone who once was given that bare minimum in changing planes at Chicago O’Hare–where I literally had to sprint from one end of one terminal to the opposite end of another terminal and made it just as they were preparing to close the doors because God forbid they would hold it for thirty seconds–I can tell you that minimum is BS).
Anyway, it’s possible that their computers were locked into that FAA restriction and–with the revised ETAs due to weather–literally wouldn’t permit them to issue tickets or boarding passes because the twenty five minute window didn’t exist. Or perhaps they were simply operating under that mandate, although why the hëll someone couldn’t simply TELL you that (limited English notwithstanding) is beyond me.
PAD
Thank you, Peter, for clearing that up for me. Staying overnight in Newark airport would have been unpleasant under any circumstances but KNOWING the reason why we couldn’t get on the flight we were scheduled to take would have allieviated some of the stress!
Jeffrey Frawley: “It’s interesting that many here blast me for thinking JFK Jr’s deficiencies as a pilot caused three preventable deaths…”
You may find it “interesting” that some of us are criticizing you, but it’s also appropriate. Your assertion that JFK Jr. was “reckless” is baseless.
Jeffrey Frawley: “…but no one finds any fault in the analogy of driving the wrong way down a one way street into a head-on crash.”
That’s false. I find fault with your analogy. I just didn’t address it because I had hoped you might be swayed by the facts.
Your analogy is inappropriate because it doesn’t take into account weather conditions. A better analogy would be that of a somewhat inexperienced driver who suddenly experiences unexpectedly difficult driving conditions and makes a mistake that a more experienced driver might not have made. The reasonable conclusion would be that this young driver hit the baddest of bad luck, not that he was “reckless.”
Jeffrey Frawley: “It is a fact that JFK Jr. was not instrument certified, not a matter of debate.”
It is also not a fact that supports your accusations of “recklessness,” which are founded on a single false premise: that JFK Jr. should have known he wasn’t qualified to fly under such conditions. I reiterate: the weather conditions on the night of his death were considered suitable for pilots with Visual Flight Rules training, which JFK Jr. had successfully completed.
Jeffrey Frawley: “It is also a fact that the abilities he was missing would have proved useful in avoiding his death.”
Nevertheless, your accusations of recklessness are still baseless. According to an article posted on Salon.com by Phaedra Hise, a freelance writer and experienced pilot, JFK Jr. was quite familiar with the route from Teterboro, N.J., to Nantucket, MA. He’d flown that route 35 times, including 17 as pilot-in-command and 5 at night. It’s true that Kennedy lacked experience flying alone at night but it is equally true that the only way to gain experience flying solo at night is to, y’know, fly solo at night.
According to Hise, “Dunning Kennedy for his inability to survive aviation’s No. 1 killer is ridiculous. I don’t know a single pilot who could cast the first stone. We’ve all pulled up after a sweaty landing, shivering and mumbling, ‘Ðámņ, I’ll never do that again.’ We’ve all broken at least one FAA regulation. We’ve all made the wrong go/no-go decision and ended up bumping around too close to a storm cloud, wishing instead we had turned around and driven home from the airport.”
Jeffrey Frawley: “It is also a fact that virtually all of the commentary here has focused on how sad it was that he died, and a fact that he was only 33.333% of the casualties that day.”
That’s a false assertion — and a one that’s a bit odd, given that the very evidence demonstrating its falsity is right here in this very thread where you’re posting. bobb alfred and I have both written relatively lengthy posts citing verifiable facts that demonstrate your accusations of recklessness have no factual basis.
Jeffrey Frawley: “‘He had a dámņëd driver’s license, and that’s all that matters!'”
It does if the argument is whether or not the decision to drive was a “reckless” one based on the driver’s lack of qualifications.
It is true that the NTSB concluded that “pilot error” was to blame for JFK Jr.’s fatal crash. It is equally true that not all human error is “reckless,” even if that error was fatal.
I can empathize with those who grieve for JFK Jr., even if “pilot error” was the cause of his fatal crash. I know of no one who hasn’t made a dumb mistake that could’ve ended his or her life but for blind luck going his or her way. And one action does not comprise the totality of a person. JFK Jr. was a human being, possessing both flaws and virtues. I know of no reason to believe the former significantly outweighed the latter in his case.
The tendency to hate those who have more worldly success than oneself is part of the human condition, and I believe it to be at the root of your condemnations of JFK Jr. After all, those condemnations are certainly not rooted in the facts.
The ability to reason, however, is also a part of the human condition and means we do not have to give in to the aforementioned tendency. One can choose instead to act more rationally. This is why many of us are condemning you: you are choosing hatred over rational thought.
Bill Mulligan: “Has everyone been following the news of suspicious incidents of people bringing weird crap on board? Cheese wrapped in wires with batteries stuffed in them, that sort of thing.”
Bill, as we discussed on the phone Thursday evening, it’s about time that we as a nation begin investing in the electronification of cheese. Why, just the other night I was enjoying some fine smoked gouda and a bottle of Pinot Noir when it occurred to me, “Wouldn’t this cheese be so much better if was electronic?”
Computerized cheese, after all, could warn us before it goes bad. It could let us know what foods and wines go best with it. It could also keep the lonely company by playing the lovely song stylings of Zamfir, the pan flute virtuoso.
I fear, however, that you are correct that passengers bringing, or attempting to bring, cheese wrapped in wires with batteries stuffed in side are in fact not trying to take the next logical step in cheese technology. It is more likely that they are making dry runs to see what they can get past airport security.
Our latest intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda has largely fled Afghanistan and is now sheltered by tribes in outlying areas of Pakistan that are sympathetic to Jihadists. Because Pakistan is considered a necessary ally in the war on terror, our ability to get at Al Qaeda has now been diminished. Unsurprisingly, the terrorist organization is believed to be far stronger than in years past. And a senior intelligence official stated on “Meet the Press” that while he doesn’t know of any Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the U.S., he fears there may be some.
Ultimately, I understand the necessity of heightened security measures at our airports. I’m willing to put up with inconveniences if in exchange I will be safer. I very much doubt, however, that hassling people like Kathleen will in any way result in a safer nation.
“Our latest intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda has largely fled Afghanistan and is now sheltered by tribes in outlying areas of Pakistan that are sympathetic to Jihadists. Because Pakistan is considered a necessary ally in the war on terror, our ability to get at Al Qaeda has now been diminished. Unsurprisingly, the terrorist organization is believed to be far stronger than in years past. And a senior intelligence official stated on “Meet the Press” that while he doesn’t know of any Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the U.S., he fears there may be some.”
The really scary thing here is the possibility that Pakistan will fall into the hands of Al-Quida. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Jeffrey, since you’re going to jump me (as if you didn’t flee from me in the Transformers thread): how does your ridicule of JFK Jr not apply a thousandfold to George W Bush — whom, with no sense of irony, you defended from phantom ridicule?
Ah, perhaps Bill has in fact struck on that diabolical Zamfir’s plot! What, you people didn’t know he was a dairy farmer? Strike at the lonely of America, and we know who we are, and then suddenly we’re all blowing into tubes during late night matinee ads as our milk curdles or whatever milk does to be made into cheese.
(Y’know, last time I heard a plan like that there were a pair of mice involved. Zort!)
(Okay, Pinky and the Brain meet up with the Hitchiker’s Guide mice. Who makes the better cup of tea, and who makes the better computer?)
Trouble with Bill’s theory, and I agree with it to a specific point, is that hassling people like Kathleen instead of just the ones who look suspicious or slimy or some other s word is that pretty soon, all the terror people will figger out that “Hey, if I’m NICE, I don’t get hassled!”
Bill Myers: If you’re going to criticize the wrong way down an alley analogy, you should be aware that Bobb Alfred came up with that one. He used it to refer to something that was “just an accident.” I disagree with it, because it actually illustrates something that is not at all just an accident. As far as I can see, your criticism of the analogy is, perhaps with the exception of my own, the very first such criticism of it, a week later. There’s been quite a bit of outrage at my suggestion that pilot error and overconfidence of one’s abilities brought about JFK Jr.’s and two other deaths. So, isn’t it fascinating that a demonstrably faulty analogy brought no disagreement, while the suggestion that pilot error just might be the fault of the pilot (a somewhat less easily disproved suggestion) gave people the vapors? Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.
Mike: I doubt I have ever defended GWB, with irony or not, from phantom, substantial or otherwise ridicule. Most likely you are referring to my acceptance of the idea that PAD is reflexively anti-Bush. Whether or not that is true, I would never suggest that anti-Bushism is a bad or unwise thing. Let’s see if I can do a little better with analogy than Bill Myers thinks I do:
Suppose you came across a smelly pile of horse dung every morning when you walked – wherever it is you walk. Suppose that happened for nearly seven years, and then one morning you had the wind behind you when you walked, and then, right in front of you, downwind, you found an extra-tall pile of horse dung. Without the benefit of smelling it, I would forgive you if you presumed it smelled like šhìŧ. That’s a pretty good defense of reflexive anti-Bushism.
Jeffrey Frawley: “If you’re going to criticize the wrong way down an alley analogy, you should be aware that Bobb Alfred came up with that one.”
Yes, I now realize I incorrectly attributed the analogy to you when it was in fact bobb alfred’s.
That doesn’t alter the known facts surrounding the JFK Jr.’s fatal plane crash — facts that do not support your thesis.
Jeffrey Frawley: “There’s been quite a bit of outrage at my suggestion that pilot error and overconfidence of one’s abilities brought about JFK Jr.’s and two other deaths.”
You’re conflating two separate issues. The first issue is whether or not your accusations of recklessness are justified. They are not.
The second issue is whether it is proper to be glib about an untimely death, even if poor judgment caused it. The answer is a resounding “no.”
Jeffrey Frawley: “…the suggestion that pilot error just might be the fault of the pilot (a somewhat less easily disproved suggestion) gave people the vapors?”
Actually, your suggestion isn’t “somewhat less easily disproved.” I have disproved it, beyond a doubt.
Moreover, you can try to dismiss a commitment to accuracy, logic, and truth as a case of “the vapors,” but your dismissive attitude changes nothing.
Jeffrey Frawley: “Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.”
It is becoming abundantly apparent that you have made up your mind, and will ignore any facts that do not support your preconceived notions. That is most unfortunate. I nevertheless hold out the hope that in responding to you I have reached those who value accuracy, logic, and truth — just as others who clearly value those things have reached me in the past.
I just re-read my last post and realized that Jeffrey Frawley tripped me up. The idea that “pilot error” is the “fault of the pilot” is indeed difficult to refute — because an error on the part of the pilot is, by definition, the pilot’s fault.
Nevertheless, this isn’t the issue being debated. The issue is whether Jeffrey was correct in accusing JFK Jr. of being reckless. That assertion I have indeed disproven beyond a doubt. JFK Jr. without a doubt had more than “the bare minimum” qualifications to fly under the conditions prevailing on the night of his death.
If the facts are not enough to sway you, however, Jeffrey, nothing will be. For that reason, I believe I will make this my last word on this issue. There are only so many ways to explain that two and two is four. If someone stubbornly insists that two and two is five despite all evidence to the contrary, there is little value in continuing to explain to them that they are wrong.
Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.
Honestly, why the venom? If JFK Jr. was undeserving of all the fame and attention given him…so what? This and the “immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head” bit make it clear you don’t like the Kennedys. Fine. There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc. But when you phrase it in such crude and, frankly, mean-spirited ways, it only makes people sympathetic to them and hurts whatever point you intended. It’s one reason why Bush was able to win a second term despite the misgivings of many people who ultimately voted for him–too many of his opponents made themselves look bad.
I suppose such statements could have value if you value just shocking or upsetting people, especially political opponents–the attacks from both right and left on Hillary are sometimes obviously more to attack her supporters than to make an actual point–but neither JFK nor his son are in any position to influence politics so it seems more likely that anyone objecting to your points is doing so out of a belief that they violate common decency, not because of any fealty to “the little prince”.
Your acceptance has no basis in reality. An alternative explanation for Peter’s reaction was provided, Peter confirmed it — and you felt like denying it. You may claim you would never suggest that anti-Bushism is a bad or unwise thing, but your arbitrary denial of Peter’s own account had no virtue except to shelter Bush.
Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?
Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?
I’m not sure that statement means what you think it does. Or it’s just badly worded. It seems to be saying that you think I’m saying that George Bush never benefited from stupid attacks from his opponents. That’s sort of the exact opposite of what I said…so I guess this was an attempt at humor. Are you sure it’s reason you are distilling to a heretofore unknown purity?
At any rate, it’s hard to rationally deny that Bush has benefited from the craziness of his most nutty opponents (Bill Clinton also benefited from such people). One may well ask why it is that these aforementioned nuts are given so much attention, taking away valuable time from more rational critics.
In order for your strawman to be true, I would have to have said, “Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?”
Did you miss the days of school where they taught “of” and “by?”
Just not smart enough to understand your distilled genius, Mike. I’m still not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. It’s not the by or of. Doesn’t “Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?” mean “Who knew George Bush never benefited from ridicule?” Again, isn’t that the exact opposite of what I said? What are you trying to convey here?
Also not sure what the strawman argument is…unless it’s you replacing “opponents” with “democrats”. Even a dullard should know that not all of Bush’s opposition comes from Democrats.
Only if you missed the day of school they taught how to qualify a noun with a prepositional phrase.
The strawman is that portion of your post that only makes sense if I had said, “Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?” which is “It seems to be saying that you think I’m saying that George Bush never benefited from stupid attacks from his opponents.”
Of course, calling your statement a strawman gives you credit for knowing the difference between “of” and “by” before you’ve responded to my question. If you were to admit to not knowing the difference between “of” and “by,” that would disqualify your statement as a strawman, and qualify it as simply wrong.
Either way, nothing I’ve said depends on any blurring of the distinction between “democrats” and “Bush opponents.”
Mike, I won’t attempt to unravel your prose, because that would be impossible. I’ll do something much easier. You seem to believe I defended GWB against “phantom ridicule” (whatever that is), by accepting the proposition that PAD might be reflexively hostile to him. Now, whether or not that is true has nothing to do with GWB. Try this: Suppose we were discussing whether or not Mussolini was a buffoon, and I accepted the proposition that you were dangerously insane. Now suppose we had the same discussion but I did not accept that proposition. What has changed regarding Mussolini’s buffoonery? Whether PAD trusts, distrusts, loves or hates GWB is relevant to judging his own viewpoint, but it has nothing to do with GWB’s. After all, I’m sure there were many people who disliked Hitler without the need to hear his latest speech, but that is no defense of him.
You are Reiterating™ your citation of a vaguery I’ve already provided a response to. Speaking of reiteration, have you turned in your Spontaneous Society decoder ring?
It’s relevant to your selective application of principle, between ridiculing JFK Jr for losing two innocent lives from his arrogance, and defending George W Bush who is guilty of the same over a thousandfold.
You mean like Bearded Mike and Jeffrey™ from a mirror-mirror universe? Why not suppose your bearded counterpart defending JFK Jr instead of ridiculing him? What is the relevance of divergent discussions taking place in parallel universes?
Only if you missed the day of school they taught how to qualify a noun with a prepositional phrase.
The fact that you can’t explain what you were trying to convey with that sentence is answer enough. Insults from you on deficiencies in grammar hurt about as much as being called ugly by a frog or nutty by…well…
I wasn’t aware that your “question” was a serious question to which you expected an answer. So in response to “Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?” I can only say that I do not know anyone who knew that George Bush did not benefit from the attacks of some of his opponents. Like most politicians, he has benefited from those who go too far in their criticism (there’s a strong element of narcissism in many of the crazier elements of the right and left wing–it’s all about them, they really don’t care about the issues or how there words will be used–See An Coulter, Ward Churchill, etc). Of course, the fact that we live in the internet age has allowed the crazies to reach more people and turn them off, which is why Clinton and Bush have been the two presidents to benefit the most from this. I expect Hillary will get a similar boost.
In other, non-Mike related news, Ingmar Bergman lost his game of chess at the age of 89. A great artist.
You are reading
and
as having the same meaning. I’ve said so. Until you demonstrate you understand the difference between the application “of” and “by” in qualifying a noun, you simply cannot be accommodated.
I’ve asked a question with a casualness appropriate for your unprovoked first strike against me in this thread. You can say you’ve taken insult from what I’ve said, but saying I implied an insult implies on your part an intent on my part I feel perfectly free to tell you is wrong.
You insult me, I work less to accommodate your vanity. n ≠ Rocket Surgery
It’s natural for the Bush camp to engage in the ridicule they have been the recipients of, but the Kennedys don’t nurture the ridicule of Jeffrey.
And you’ve volunteered a comparison of him to the Clintons. As far as I know the Clintons fostered the implied slander of no one, and the Bush camp has nurtured the kind of slander the Clintons have been subject to.
The vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney appeared in of the anti-Kerry “swiftboat” ads, which even one of the swiftboaters broke ranks and said they were lying about Kerry and even voted for him. And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.
Ergo: “Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?” was a completely appropriate response to you complaining Bush has been cut by the very swords he lives by.
Posted by Mike at July 30, 2007 09:44 AM
The vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney Posted appeared in of the anti-Kerry “swiftboat” ads, which even one of the swiftboaters broke ranks and said they were lying about Kerry and even voted for him. And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.
WOW I sure hope PAD has an easier time flying home. I cannot even imagine what that conversation could digress into.
Jeffrey, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Yours on JFK is in direct opposition to the facts as we know them, and the conclusions of the professionals that investigated everything that we know about the incidint. You think it was arrogance and pilot error. Thoe professionals that deal with aviation incidents for a living found it to expressly NOT be pilot error, meaning that as far as we can tall, JFK JR did everything he was trained to do, in fact everything any pilot of similar training would have done.
You seem to rely on a “proof in the pudding” rationale…he crashed, ergo, he must have been at fault. Good to use when dealing in the culinary field, not so good when looking at aviation incidents.
You also say that any pilot, if there’s a chance that weather may devolop that they are not trained for, should not fly. Here’s my advice to you, based on your view.
Do. Not. Ever. Get. On. A. Plane. Again.
Seriously, everytime a pilot straps himself in, whether he’s in an ultralight with a lawnmower engine, or sitting at the controls of a 777, faces the potential of running into weather he’s not qualified to fly in. Flying is dangerous, not so much because of the risks involved, but because of the gravity (heh, gravity…get it?) of the consequences when something goes wrong. If you’re in your car, speeding down the highway, and your engive fails, you can at least coast and try to safely get over to the shoulder. When you’re at 20,000 feet and your aircraft engine stalls, you’d better hope your airframe has a glide rating, and you can find a flat, even, long surface to put down on. Regardless, the chances of you surviving a total power failure in your auto are far, far greater than they are if you’re in a aircraft.
But, whatever. Your opinion is not supported by the facts, and seems pretty irrational. But it’s clear that throwing facts at you won’t change your opinion.
bobb alfred: “The professionals that deal with aviation incidents for a living found it to expressly NOT be pilot error, meaning that as far as we can tall, JFK JR did everything he was trained to do, in fact everything any pilot of similar training would have done.”
A point of clarification: the NTSB did in fact conclude that the crash was due to pilot error. Making an error, however, is not tantamount to recklessness.
Jeffrey Frawley’s condemnation of JFK Jr. is founded on the premise that he lacked the requisite skill to fly under the conditions prevailing on the night of his death. As you and I have made abundantly clear (and I think we’ve made a decent tag-team on this), that is a false premise. There was nothing reckless about JFK Jr.’s decision to fly that night.
I fear you are correct, however, that no amount of facts will change Jeffrey’s opinion. He seems to form his opinions independent of facts.
Bill, you’re correct, in that it was pilot error caused by disorientation, which is not what Jeffrey keeps claiming. Jeffrey thinks that it was pilot error to go up at all, which it was not.
Ah! I finally get it! So to my point that Bush benefited from idiotic arguments from some opponents against him you ask who knew that George Bush never benefited from insulting Democrats. I’m thinking that your point was that it doesn’t matter if Bush was unfairly targeted since he did the same thing himself.
It’s such a non sequitur that it went right by me. Silly me. Since I never said such attacks were unfair–only not very smart and counter productive–your point seems, um, pointless.
In other words–even if Bush benefited every single day of his life from attacking, libeling, besmirching, sullying, calumniating…even if he was known far and wide as the Mike Leung of politics…it would not in any way challenge the idea that he himself was helped by the clumsy attacks of some of his opponents.
You can say you’ve taken insult from what I’ve said, but saying I implied an insult implies on your part an intent on my part I feel perfectly free to tell you is wrong.
I thought the whole “missed the day of school” bit was an insult but upon reflection it’s more of a childish taunt.
You insult me, I work less to accommodate your vanity.
Says the guy who tells us about his heretofore unseen reason and thinks that CNN would be interested in his story about how big meanies on a blog called him names and made him cry. Captain Projection strikes again!
And you’ve volunteered a comparison of him to the Clintons. As far as I know the Clintons fostered the implied slander of no one, and the Bush camp has nurtured the kind of slander the Clintons have been subject to.
Again, irrelevant. The point was that both have benefited from the criticism of crazies. Whether or not the criticism was justified, the way it was offered backfired. As you are someone who routinely makes himself look bad when attacking other people I can see where this line of thought may be disconcerting.
And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.
So unimaginative. For starters, no, Mike, when I said that these opponents helped get Bush re-elected I was, you know, NOT referring to the 2000 election. Because that was not the re-election, that is, you see.
Secondly, I would say that many of the real out there types on the left are not Democrats, even if they tend to hold their nose and vote for them when they vote. The nutty 9/11 conspiracy buffs are as likely to blame Democrats as much as Bush; their wacky theories include politicians of all stripes. Even the most famous critics–the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores–hardly qualify as Democrats, even if the media may have portrayed them as such (Sheehan has now been partially banned from the DailyKos site for threatening to run against Nancy Pelosi.)
(And one has to give kos founder Markos credit for seeing what Mike can’t–recently he has threatened to ban people who are too stupid not to see that their craziness is just handing ammunition to the people they oppose. Markos is trying to accomplish more than just reap the questionable thrill of seeing his own words in print. Many bloggers who claim to be trying to make points or convince people are clearly just in it for the ego rush.)
a completely appropriate response to you complaining Bush has been cut by the very swords he lives by.
You’ll find no complaint from me at all. Reread it. Indeed, if I was the member of the Bush camp you want me to be, I would be asking for even more attacks! Really Mike, find the complaint. I know you can do it, even if you have to make something up. Don’t feel like you have to rush–I’m driving back to NY tonight and must take a long nap (you can see why I drove down here for the weekend at http://www.sanfordherald.com/index.php?pSetup=sanfordherald&curDate=20070729&pageToLoad=showFreeArticle.php&type=art&index=01
Our first front page story for this movie! Yes, it HAS been a slow news week, what of it?
Ack, and now Tom Snyder died. Anyone ever seen his interviews with Harlan Ellison? Great stuff.
How convenient is it for my simply highlighting lessons in the use of prepositions take place in elementary school qualifies as a childish taunt, yet inferring an intended insult from “Official Idiot” qualifies as projection? That’s Totally Normal Psychology.™
(That was underscoring your hypocrisy.)
You:
If by “unimaginative” you mean “doesn’t attribute to others what they haven’t said,” glad to be of service.
Unless you are saying you rejoice at witnessing people receive ridicule, I am appropriately inferring a complaint from your use of the words “crude” and “mean-spirited.”
Fresh from my nap, ready for more flailing about from the Mikester.
How convenient is it for my simply highlighting lessons in the use of prepositions take place in elementary school qualifies as a childish taunt, yet inferring an intended insult from “Official Idiot” qualifies as projection? That’s Totally Normal Psychology.™
Someone who thinks he is distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity and thinks that CNN is interested in his sad story of internet mocking has taken the word vanity to…well…by gosh he HAS distilled something to new levels!
And what’s this totally “normal” psychology stuff? Don’t you know that Jung showed that there is no such thing as normal? Normal is a non-existent standard, and it’s ridiculous to hold people to a standard that simply does not exist.
If by “unimaginative” you mean “doesn’t attribute to others what they haven’t said,” glad to be of service.
No, by unimaginative I meant that when you think of crazy Bush opponents who helped get him re-elected by their craziness you can only come up with Democrats and one guy who ran against him in 2000. That you can’t just see that you made a simple error is so telling. Heck, I’ve gotten election years wrong in this very forum and managed to admit it. It’s no big deal unless one is the kind of small sad person for whom any admission of error runs the risk of shattering the facade they’ve tried to build about themselves.
And I think you owe a new keyboard to everyone who sprayed coffee over their upon reading that you think of yourself as someone who “doesn’t attribute to others what they haven’t said,” Dude, you’re the King of Strawmen. It’s not much…but hey, you get to be King!
Unless you are saying you rejoice at witnessing people receive ridicule, I am appropriately inferring a complaint from your use of the words “crude” and “mean-spirited.”
No complaint at all, since the crude and mean spirited people are hoisted by their own petard. For example, when I tell you, in all honesty, “don’t ever change” it is in large part because your poorly constructed and delivered insults are so unconvincing that they inevitably make the object of your attacks look even better than they would on just the facts. Only you, Mike, could argue that the sky is blue and do such a lousy job of it that people would actually have to go check it out for themselves.
Now I realize that you are one of the kinds of people I mentioned earlier–you have no intention or desire of convincing anyone of anything. It’s all about making yourself feel better about yourself. That you’ve needlessly turned off virtually everyone that has interacted with you here–and this place is one of the most tolerant ones you’ll ever come across–is not even a concern, so long as your needy vanity gets fed. That’s Totally Norm…er, that’s Something.
Jerry was exulting in venting his disgust on me, I inferred from his posts a threat to publicly post my personal contact info, and he refused to rule it out. Retaliating to a threat to increase my vulnerability with a counter-threat to access the widest possible exposure of the threat is completely appropriate. When you’re attempting to elude a violent crime, the single most-effective word to shout is “fire” for that very reason.
You can demonstrate I overreacted by simply posting Mrs Mulligan’s cell phone number. If not, then we are in agreement posting personal info is bad, and your ridicule is hypocritical.
…which you have demonstrated you don’t believe. Your selective application of principle qualifies as hypocrisy. My employing That’s Totally Normal Psychology™ underscores that you only qualify for your definition of mentally healthy if hypocrisy is normal.
No, I cited the democrats and McMcain as victims of the sword wielded by the Bush campaign, you complained Bush was cut by in 2004. I have literally cited no crazies ridiculing Bush.
In order for your strawman to be true you have to again be reading
and
as having the same meaning. Your continued inability to distinguish “of” and “by” is awesome. Just… awesome.
You can make it a first and cite any point by me that depended on me manufacturing a strawman.
Hypocrisy: It’s The New Normal.™
Ok. I was giving you credit for trying to discourage Jeffrey, not trying to encourage his ridicule of JFK Jr’s death. Don’t let me stop you from admitting you exult in the ridicule of others’ misfortunes.
So for all the time you spend here, it doesn’t make you feel better about yourself? Well, then, why aren’t you doing something that makes you feel better about yourself instead of interacting with me?
How convenient is it for you that when you vent with no provocation disgust on someone, their defending themselves is needless?
How is interacting with a court virtually turned off by me supposed to feed my vanity?
Translations for those new to Mike:
I made an ášš out of myself by trying to make people think that I could make my sad story a CNN exclusive. Everybody laughed at me.
I will disqualify words or use them as I wish. They mean what I say they do. This makes me feel bottlecap.
If I don’t like your argument I will simply make it into a new one. If you accuse me of making a strawman I will demand you prove it. Which you won’t be able to do because your words mean what I say they mean.
Seriously though;
as having the same meaning. Your continued inability to distinguish “of” and “by” is awesome. Just… awesome.
Oh I get it. It’s just not relevant to the point I was making. But I guess I can infer from the fact that you are pursuing this point and literally cited no crazies ridiculing Bush that you agreed with my point and were just trying to get something going. Sorry, but since I’m more than willing to agree that Bush and company have trashed opponents (albeit in a way that has not helped those opponents, which indicates a certain level of common sense) there’s nothing to argue over. Other than your personal problems and those can’t hold one’s interest for long.
Your selective application of principle qualifies as hypocrisy.
Oh just having fun with you Mike, ya big goof. You can use normal any time you want. Nobody took that stuff you were saying seriously.
Don’t let me stop you from admitting you exult in the ridicule of others’ misfortunes.
No, I exult in rotten people being tripped up by their own rotten personalities. When someone displays their crummy attitudes and ignorance and, as a result, exposes themselves for what they are, it makes the world a better place.
I can see where this could make you uncomfortable.
So for all the time you spend here, it doesn’t make you feel better about yourself? Well, then, why aren’t you doing something that makes you feel better about yourself instead of interacting with me?
I enjoy being here because we have made a nice little community of diverse, smarter than average people who share their thoughts, opinions and experiences. Some have gone beyond that and become friends. You are the troll in the garden party. Your enjoyment seems to be limited to having people pay attention to you and you’ve found that the easiest way is to just be confrontational. We both get enjoyment but I think my reasons for getting enjoyment are superior to yours, in as much as they don’t require trolling.
To put it another way, if you actually made good on your claim that you were going to be posting less (having accomplished all you could here) you would be missed not at all…but you know you’d desperately miss the attention we give you. That’s why you can’t and won’t leave. No, that’s not me trying to trick you into saying “Oh yeah! I’ll show him! I’ll leave and never dazzle them with my brilliance again!” (Oh and Mike–that’s a pretend quote for comedic effect, just so you don’t get hysterical that I’m misquoting you and threaten to call MSNBC, Logo, MTV2 and, oddly enough, The Golf Channel). You ain’t going anywhere. Literally.
How convenient is it for you that when you vent with no provocation disgust on someone, their defending themselves is needless?
Um, ooookay. So why do you think it is that your interactions here with so many people have been so unsatisfactory? Are we just not smart enough? Can’t handle the purity of your distilled reason?
How is interacting with a court virtually turned off by me supposed to feed my vanity?
Well, everybody knows your name. There’s that. If you’re asking why you get enjoyment being the kind of person you are, that’s a great question many have asked. Only you can answer it, if you have the honesty and/or self awareness to do so. But again, you seem to be showing an astonishing lack of imagination if you think that deliberately making yourself disliked is incompatible with feeding vanity. Some of the most vain narcissistic people you’ll ever meet act in exactly that way.
Anyhoo, gotta run. The floor is yours.
Just to add yet another story, when I was leaving for San Diego on Thursday, I got stopped outside the X-ray entrance by a security screener who was… well Englishly challenged if there’s such a term, who couldn’t be made to understand that Joe was actually a diminutive of Joseph and kept insisting that they were two completely different names. In a fit of pique, she scrawled several letters on my boarding pass, which I immediately recognized as being flagged for secondary security screening. That meant I had to be searched and my bag checked for explosives by a (thankfully more rational) security screener named Christopher, who usually went by the name Chris, who basically rolled his eyes and whispered to me when nobody was looking, ‘We’re going to be getting rid of them soon!’
You’ve returned to your original ridicule, but you haven’t demonstrated how your backing-off my challenge invalidates the legitimacy of my concern. Thank you.
I have literally cited no crazies ridiculing Bush. Why do you persist in treating the two sentences as having the same meaning if your point didn’t depend on it?
You haven’t disqualified what I said. Instead, you’ve provided your justification for holding your taste for the ridicule of others’ misfortunes.
Then why did you ambush me without provocation instead of one of those smarter-than-average people you could be talking to instead?
I never said defending myself from an unprovoked attack was unsatisfactory, I never said my time here didn’t satisfy me, and nothing I’ve said depends on my having said any such thing.
You haven’t answered my question. You (surprise, surprise) lack the same imagination you criticize me for lacking.
Engaging Mike-to-English™ programming. Text translation enabled.
________________________________________________________
“Jerry was exulting in venting his disgust on me,”
Jerry was displaying the same disgust, revulsion and ultimately the indifference that everybody else displays towards me. Why don’t I have any friends? Why am I so lonely?
“I inferred from his posts a threat to publicly post my personal contact info,”
I forgot to take my meds that day. I forget them a lot actually. When I forget, the paranoia comes back. Have I mentioned that I’ve distilled™ paranoia to level heretofore unseen by man?
“and he refused to rule it out.”
My reading comprehension skills are unbelievable. Did I tell you all that I passed the 2nd Grade admissions test this year? And mom said that I would never get out of 1st Grade English. Or was that diapers?
“Retaliating to a threat to increase my vulnerability with a counter-threat to access the widest possible exposure of the threat is completely appropriate.”
My fantasy life is fun. I like to make believe that I’m some great and famous hero who is threatened by the forces of darkness. Ok, it’s pretty pathetic. But it’s still head and shoulders better then my primary fantasy of being able to pick up John Stewart’s sloppy seconds. Oh how I’ve longed for the chance to do that. 8)
“When you’re attempting to elude a violent crime, the single most-effective word to shout is “fire” for that very reason.
I do it all the time. But then, my definition of violent crime my be different then yours. What can I say? When you’ve had roving groups of six-year-olds mug you repeatedly for your lunch money as I have, you get overly nervous. That and I forgot my meds again this morning.
“You can demonstrate I overreacted by simply posting Mrs Mulligan’s cell phone number.”
I really hope Bill falls for this trick. I know I would! Oh, it would be so refreshing to talk to a flesh and blood woman that doesn’t involve 1-800 numbers or $150.00 an hour payments. Even if all she’ll do is laugh at me, it would be such a huge step up for me!!!!!!
“Your selective application of principle qualifies as hypocrisy.”
Oh no!!! You’ve pointed out yet another example of my stupidity or hypocrisy. Maybe if I claim that your pointing out my stupidity and hypocrisy is in fact hypocrisy on your part, then no one will actually notice my stupidity and hypocrisy. Hey, it should work. There’s got to be at least some people here who are as dumb as I am.
“My employing That’s Totally Normal Psychology™ underscores that you only qualify for your definition of mentally healthy if hypocrisy is normal.”
I like pie. Don’t you like pie? I think everybody should like pie. 8)
“Your continued inability to distinguish “of” and “by” is awesome. Just… awesome.”
I was watching ‘Wayne’s World’ on cable last night and found a new word! Awesome!!!!!! I’ll use awesome as much as possible from now on. It’s such a big word. Maybe it will distract people from noticing all the small words I string together have no meaning at all?
“So for all the time you spend here, it doesn’t make you feel better about yourself?”
Please, tell me how I can make myself feel better about myself. I’m so lowly and loathsome. Tell me how to feel better about myself!!!!!!!!!
“Well, then, why aren’t you doing something that makes you feel better about yourself instead of interacting with me?”
I can understand your not feeling any satisfaction talking with me. I have to be around myself all of the time and I can’t stand it. Even the other voices in my head refused to talk to me anymore years ago now. Do you know how it feels to have the voices in your head throwing a party and telling you you’re not welcome?!? Why don’t they love me anymore??????
“How convenient is it for you that when you vent with no provocation disgust on someone,”
I am SO cool. I’ve invented another randomly linked and pointless word grouping. Provocation Disgust™. I’m so happy!!!!! When I’m happy, I feel like pie. I like pie. Have I mentioned that. Hmmmmmm….. Pie…………
“their defending themselves is needless?”
It is needless in my case! I don’t need to defend myself! I’m INDEFENSIBLE!!!! So there, Mulligan! I’m indefensible!!!! What have you got to say about that!
“How is interacting with a court virtually turned off by me supposed to feed my vanity?”
I’m so worthless. Please like me.
“Normal is a non-existent standard, and it’s ridiculous to hold people to a standard that simply does not exist.”
Bill, do me a favor. Can you tell my whole family that? Maybe then I can get moved up from the kid’s table.
Now, something historic has happened. I’ve agreed with Mike. See, I like pie, too.
Joe, good story. Although I had the image of Chris the screener and his friends sacking the screeners who’d sacked the first group and finishing the credits at great cost and effort and utterly at the last minute in a new style.
Thank you.
No, thank you for ruining another thread.
Thank you for admitting you vented disgust on me. It’s funny how your disgust and revulsion also qualify as indifference. In all other senses of the words, that would be a contradiction.
Observe how Jerry’s account of another’s state of mind trumps that person’s state of mind:
Do you make arbitrarily trumping other people’s account of their own experiences one of the secrets of your career success?
Then it should be no challenge for you to cite where you ruled out publicly posting my contact info. Feel free to invite as many third graders as you need to help you.
I never said all victims are famous heroes.
You have sex only with virgins. Good for you if that’s what it takes.
Nothing I’ve said depends on me portraying myself as eluding a violent crime.
Apparently according to you, the appropriate behavior to the fight-or-flight response is to surrender. That is a recipe for nurturing a generation of victims. As someone who works in law enforcement, you should be embarrassed.
I wasn’t thinking that, but your concern for my arousal is… consistent with what I’ve been saying about your interest in me, isn’t it?
You heard it here, folks: a selective application of principle isn’t hypocritical. Remember to update your vocabulary books.
You’ve validated my account by referring to it without disqualifying it. Thank you.
It’s amazing how you manage to post here without using any of the English used in “Wayne’s World.” No hypocrisy here.
Why would anyone ask someone who doesn’t do things to make himself feel better about himself how to feel better about himself?
And your post demonstrates you can’t stop thinking about me… how?
Nurse Ratched, please don’t tell my mother.
Unlike you, I take into account what the people arguing with me say and, as such, my question to Bill was appropriate to his saying I’m indefensible. I don’t consider my question an admission I’m indefensible.
Are you saying people are only measured by the esteem of others?
Jerry invited me. Go thank him.
Everyone… step away from the troll. I repeat: step away from the troll.
🙂
Bill and Jerry, thank you for providing me with a really good laugh after a few difficult days.
I was going to say that Mike reminds me of Wiley E. Coyote or Daffy Duck. But I don’t think the comparison works completely. First, Mike is more relentless than the coyote or Daffy. Secondly, the coyote and Daffy learn from their mistakes. Thirdly, the coyote and Daffy are smarter. Fourtly, both are more realistic characters. And lastly, Mike is not as entertaining, while the Coyote and Daffy are as funny today as they were 60 years ago.
On a serious note, Bill, why does it seem that Bush’s underhanded attacks on others have proven more successful than the attacks from the extreme against him?
Secondly, I am not sure that the attacks against Bush from the crazy fringes have not eventually trickled down to the more moderate people and affected them. I can tell you that this is the assumption that motivates people from the fringes. People might not take us seriously now, they think, but over time, if we persist, people will turn around to our way of thinking even if they don’t give us credit for it. This assumption is not always completely false, altough it’s not as true as they think.
Thirdly, people in the fringe are often satisfied convincing each other and creating a small but very motivated community of like minded people. Look at evangelicals. They are certainly not a majority. Remember Robert Preston. The ideras he was parroting came from somewhere. I get some crazy right wing E-mails from my American uncle, and long extreme left wing E-mails from a communist acquaintance (both of which I stopped reading).
And now I’m going to teach you a Hebrew word: Kashkeshan. It means someone who speaks nonsense without stopping. It is not a curse word, I must emphasize. It’s similar in meaning to the word chatterbox, though not exactly, and it’s been coming to my mind repeatedly as I skimmed over Mike’s posts. He is a Kashkeshan, there’s no doubt about it.
Posted by: Bill Myers at July 31, 2007 01:42 PM
Everyone… step away from the troll. I repeat: step away from the troll.
🙂
Your still alive? Ðámņ it! The Anti-Myers Tactical Assault Force (or, The S-Team) has failed me again!!!!!
Next time, I hire cats.
Jerry, I already HAVE three cats. Three psychotic cats. Three feline engines of destruction. If I can survive them, I can survive anything.