Back in July, the David family had breakfast during Shore Leave convention with George Takei and Brad Altman, and naturally we discussed the upcoming wedding. They were talking about how they’d had to whittle the invite list from several thousand to two hundred. And I had to ask the question that I”m sure you would have asked: “Are you inviting Shatner?”
“Yes,” said Brad, nodding firmly, and George agreed, adding, “I think it’s time to let the past go.” They could not have been more definitive: the olive branch was being extended, bygones allowed to be bygones, hatchets being buried and every other cliche you’d care to roll out.
The result? The invite, which was sent to Shatner’s manager, was never forwarded to Shatner for whatever reason, and now a video Shatner released in which he excoriates George is getting all kinds of media play.
“George came out. Who cares?” asks Shatner in the video. The answer to that, of course, is the opponents of gay marriage who are circulating e-mails and fliers filled with baseless scare tactics in order to try and push through Proposition 8. A Proposition that would make sure joyous days such as the one Kath and I shared with George, Brad and a couple hundred guests–which could have included William Shatner–will never occur again for anyone who’s gay in California. Those bigots, those jerks, those killjoys…they’re the ones who care, Mr. Shatner.
So that answers your questions: The questions of why George Takei didn’t invite you (he did) and who cares that George is gay (those who want to push through Prop 8). So here’s my question to you:
What are you going to do about it?
PAD
• 
I thought it was the British Parliament. Also the “Liberal” thing. Here, capital letter “Liberal”, is the name of the major conservative party (the current “Opposition” party
No, Micha’s correct. I researched it once. “Left” and “right” stems from the notion that the more progressive members congregated on the left side of the national assembly, and the more conservative on the right.
PAD
Mike – “JHC, Ayn Rand was just plain wrong. Let John Galt go already.”
Who is John Galt?
Mike – “JHC, Ayn Rand was just plain wrong. Let John Galt go already.”
Who is John Galt?
“Also the “Liberal” thing. Here, capital letter “Liberal”, is the name of the major conservative party (the current “Opposition” party”
I’m not an expert on this, but I think in 17-18-19 early 20 century England the two main parties were the conservative (tories) and the liberal (whigs), which was more socially liberal but also for laissez-faire capitalism, while the conservatives were more for the King and tradition, and traditional economy. The US was very Whig when it was founded. But when socialism appeared on the one hand, and royalism became less of an issue, the alignment changed. In England the liberals are in the center between Labor and the conservatives. In Australia I guess the Liberals moved to the right. In the US some of the fiscal liberals became what you call fiscal conservatives or more extremely libertarians, while the left never became socialists like in Europe and the name Liberal remained with them.
What seems arrogant is holding onto a hostility to the resolve to make things better when more of what we know of reality has been added in the last 15 years than was added from the invention of fire to the end of Hobbes’s life.
The labor creating the vulnerabilities that permitted these problems was done with the almost-unified support of Americans who set the resolve to make things better as their standard of arrogance. 2008 is your wake-up call; you are living a lie. Do yourself and everyone else a favor and please don’t need a more obvious wake-up call.
What seems arrogant is holding onto a hostility to the resolve to make things better when more of what we know of reality has been added in the last 15 years than was added from the invention of fire to the end of Hobbes’s life.
The labor creating the vulnerabilities that permitted these problems was done with the almost-unified support of Americans who set the resolve to make things better as their standard of arrogance. 2008 is your wake-up call; you are living a lie. Do yourself and everyone else a favor and please don’t need a more obvious wake-up call.
I’ll leave Mike’s comments alone, because it is more trouble than it’s worth parsing them to see if there is even one atom worth considering.
While I don’t agree with Iowa Jim, it bothers me that his argument is dismissed so quickly. My own politics are relatively centrist, and my feelings about gay marriage and abortion somewhat unsettled. Many who are smug about both their liberalism and their moral rectitude insist that everything they want is common sense and freedom, and everything conservatives want is oppressive and evil. The truth is that both sides are very happy to deny other people’s rights to do whatever they feel like.
Liberal pro-gay marriage pro-choice people believe conservatives must recognize behavior they believe is degenerate on the one hand and murderous on the other. This is seen as respect for diversity, while opponents would consider it perverted and infanticidal. These liberals believe that conservatives should also be forced to pay tax dollars to support programs they despise. They are also very happy to define the Second Amendment as irrelevant and stupid – certainly not a guarantee of a right to bear arms.
Conservative anti-gay marriage pro-life people believe homosexuals should not be allowed to get married, even though they want to and feel they should be allowed to. They also believe pregnant women should be prohibited from terminating their pregnancies, even though they want to and feel they should be allowed to. They believe liberals should be forced to pay tax to support programs they despise. On the other hand, they are scrupulous to respect the guarantee of the right to bear arms they read the Second Amendment as promising.
It doesn’t matter whether one is left or right, just about everyone believes this: I must be allowed to do what I want. Those other schmucks must be prevented from doing what I don’t want them to do. I’m right, and they’re stupid.
I’ll leave Mike’s comments alone, because it is more trouble than it’s worth parsing them to see if there is even one atom worth considering.
While I don’t agree with Iowa Jim, it bothers me that his argument is dismissed so quickly. My own politics are relatively centrist, and my feelings about gay marriage and abortion somewhat unsettled. Many who are smug about both their liberalism and their moral rectitude insist that everything they want is common sense and freedom, and everything conservatives want is oppressive and evil. The truth is that both sides are very happy to deny other people’s rights to do whatever they feel like.
Liberal pro-gay marriage pro-choice people believe conservatives must recognize behavior they believe is degenerate on the one hand and murderous on the other. This is seen as respect for diversity, while opponents would consider it perverted and infanticidal. These liberals believe that conservatives should also be forced to pay tax dollars to support programs they despise. They are also very happy to define the Second Amendment as irrelevant and stupid – certainly not a guarantee of a right to bear arms.
Conservative anti-gay marriage pro-life people believe homosexuals should not be allowed to get married, even though they want to and feel they should be allowed to. They also believe pregnant women should be prohibited from terminating their pregnancies, even though they want to and feel they should be allowed to. They believe liberals should be forced to pay tax to support programs they despise. On the other hand, they are scrupulous to respect the guarantee of the right to bear arms they read the Second Amendment as promising.
It doesn’t matter whether one is left or right, just about everyone believes this: I must be allowed to do what I want. Those other schmucks must be prevented from doing what I don’t want them to do. I’m right, and they’re stupid.
Jeffrey, you simply could have talked around my post, but thank you for instead continuing to make my grievances with chicken-šhìŧ cowards like you relevant by bragging about running from a fight with me you’ve started.
The positions are not equivalent on every issue, Jeffrey. I don’t think demanding that someone else’s rights should be curtailed is a right unto itself, when there is no concrete harm done.
Let me put it this way. If Conservatives have their way, I’m not allowed to marry, I lose a very concrete thing. But if I have my way, what do Conservatives lose exactly? Nothing. Only something very nebulous and immaterial like losing sleep because “God will be displeased if gays are marrying” or something equally tenuous like “society will decay”.
In other words, while I’m fighting for my individual rights, Conservatives are fighting for nebulous things like what God is thinking or fearing that when a gay buttlerfly marries in Tokyo, a social hurricane happens in New York.
I think the reverse is true of gun rights (and that is why I support the right to bear arms).
If Liberals have their way, people will lose their rights to carry guns. But if gun enthusiasts have their way, what do Liberals lose? There is an argument to be made that they lose security, because there will be more guns around. Maybe that is true, but even so, I just don’t believe in enacting laws to prevent certain behaviours, except when a concrete damage is being done. There should be laws against USING GUNS ON PEOPLE. Not against simply carrying guns.
Abortion is the thorniest issue, I believe. Because there are rights emperilled on both sides. The right of the mother to control her own body, the right of the unborn child to live. If one side wins, the opposite side loses something very concrete.
The positions are not equivalent on every issue, Jeffrey. I don’t think demanding that someone else’s rights should be curtailed is a right unto itself, when there is no concrete harm done.
Let me put it this way. If Conservatives have their way, I’m not allowed to marry, I lose a very concrete thing. But if I have my way, what do Conservatives lose exactly? Nothing. Only something very nebulous and immaterial like losing sleep because “God will be displeased if gays are marrying” or something equally tenuous like “society will decay”.
In other words, while I’m fighting for my individual rights, Conservatives are fighting for nebulous things like what God is thinking or fearing that when a gay buttlerfly marries in Tokyo, a social hurricane happens in New York.
I think the reverse is true of gun rights (and that is why I support the right to bear arms).
If Liberals have their way, people will lose their rights to carry guns. But if gun enthusiasts have their way, what do Liberals lose? There is an argument to be made that they lose security, because there will be more guns around. Maybe that is true, but even so, I just don’t believe in enacting laws to prevent certain behaviours, except when a concrete damage is being done. There should be laws against USING GUNS ON PEOPLE. Not against simply carrying guns.
Abortion is the thorniest issue, I believe. Because there are rights emperilled on both sides. The right of the mother to control her own body, the right of the unborn child to live. If one side wins, the opposite side loses something very concrete.
The positions are not equivalent on every issue, Jeffrey. I don’t think demanding that someone else’s rights should be curtailed is a right unto itself, when there is no concrete harm done. Let me put it this way. If Conservatives have their way, I’m not allowed to marry, I lose a very concrete thing. But if I have my way, what do Conservatives lose exactly? Nothing.
Which is why, as a conservative (yay libertarianism!), I tend to agree that gay marriage should ultimately be allowed. I think Jeffrey’s point though is that conservatives and liberals are each sometimes in favor of protecting individual rights, though their emphases are different, and they’re both inclined to curtail rights that they think are stupid or wrong. I’m not sure you two are actually disagreeing very much.
The reason I used “ultimately” in reference to gay marriage is that I think it’s prudent to ease into it. Civil unions grant all the tangible benefits of marriage. What they don’t have is the name, which connotes a level of social approbation that, frankly, gay marriage doesn’t possess. It will come, eventually, but but hasn’t yet. People who think gay marriage is a contradiction in terms won’t suddenly say, “Well I guess it’s all right then” if Proposition 8 fails. They’ll continue to look at gay marriages as illegitimate things, no matter what the certificate issued by the State of California is entitled. I think the trajectory of our society is toward developing that level of acceptance, but the process has to play itself out. The Supreme Courts of California/Connecticut/Massachusetts can’t reshape the culture by proclamation.
Well, actually they can. They can generate a nasty backlash by rewriting laws in a way that the electorate is unwilling to accept.
Fundamentally I disagree with you, though, about whether “demanding that someone else’s rights should be curtailed is a right unto itself.” It is. Citizens of a democracy have the inherent right to petition their fellow citizens to support their agendas, whether those agendas are “good” or not. The system has to be value-neutral or it’s worthless. Who’s to decide whether an agenda is “good” or whether a program vindicates or curtails rights, if not the electorate? Judges? They can only interpret or apply the laws passed by the political branches or referenda. Actual marketplaces can sometimes benefit from regulation, but the marketplace of ideas must be unfettered, no matter how reprehensible the idea being offered.
What Jeffrey seems to be saying is that both sides want the other side to be prevented from doing something. I think this is true in general, but isn’t exactly true for some specific issues.
Don’t you think there is something disturbing and undemocratic about wishing that other people acted just like you, when these other people aren’t causing any harm to anyone else by acting unlike you? I can’t stop seeing Iran or North Korea at the end of this road.
There was a vote here in Brazil about firearms, and I voted to keep the right to bear arms. Most of my Liberal friends voted differently and didn’t understand my vote, since I’m the last person on Earth that would wish to carry a gun.
The counterpart is that I believe in harsh punishment when someone actually does something damaging. I’m not against the death penalty (though life in prison forever also sounds good to me as punishment for sadistic murderers).
What Jeffrey seems to be saying is that both sides want the other side to be prevented from doing something. I think this is true in general, but isn’t exactly true for some specific issues.
Don’t you think there is something disturbing and undemocratic about wishing that other people acted just like you, when these other people aren’t causing any harm to anyone else by acting unlike you? I can’t stop seeing Iran or North Korea at the end of this road.
There was a vote here in Brazil about firearms, and I voted to keep the right to bear arms. Most of my Liberal friends voted differently and didn’t understand my vote, since I’m the last person on Earth that would wish to carry a gun.
The counterpart is that I believe in harsh punishment when someone actually does something damaging. I’m not against the death penalty (though life in prison forever also sounds good to me as punishment for sadistic murderers).
“…babies are an unfortunate side effect of having sex…”
Oh-so-true.
Posted by Peter David at October 29, 2008 07:32 AM
“We drive on the right side of the road. The word “right” means “correct.” “
Not necessarily… 🙂
Cheers, from the UK.
Posted by Peter David at October 29, 2008 07:32 AM
“We drive on the right side of the road. The word “right” means “correct.” “
Not necessarily… 🙂
Cheers, from the UK.
Mike: I did not fight with you because I did not want to, and thought your ravings were not relevant to the thread. If a fight makes you happier, that’s fine: I think you are incoherent and virtually incapable of framing an argument. When, on rare occasions, it becomes clear what you are trying to say, you are more often than not completely wrong. Fine. I feel much better now.
Rene: I think I understand very well your feelings. You think that what is important to you is important, and that what is not, is not. I must admit that I am like almost everyone else: I feel that way – but only about what is important to me. Your reference to (some) conservatives’ reliance on God, or a god, to establish their moral standards as “nebulous” is a major barrier to any kind of understanding between camps. Theists (of which I am perhaps regrettably not much of one) believe that their God is not nebulous, but very real – an omnipotent and good deity who demands that his will be honored. While it probably seems like a stupidity to give one’s will to an invisible God, to those who believe it is an equally huge stupidity to refuse to do so. The common sense that seems important to you is exactly what a theist would assume you are missing.
The truth is that it truly is a huge impertinence to demand that others act exactly like oneself. Unfortunately, most people are confident that they are correct, and the other fellow a complete idiot.
I must acknowledge that there is a very big difference (and this is probably only so of my own frame of reference) between gay rights, or gay marriage, or such things on the one hand and the issue of abortion. To someone who doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage, its existence needn’t have any real effect on one’s own life: Homosexuals A and B conduct their private lives as they wish, and Heterosexual Z is not prevented from living his own as he pleases. It seems like bigotry for Z to interfere with A and B’s happiness. Abortion is not in any way comparable, because the sides are not talking about anything like the same thing. Pro-Choice C says “It’s my own business if I want to remove this meaningless, unfeeling, certainly not human lump of meat. What business is it of yours if I do?” Pro-Life Y would reply “You’re just stupid! The situation is nothing like that, because I’m convinced that the fetus is much more than that – It’s a very real human, and vacuuming it away is in no way different from shooting you, Ms. C, right in the head. I assume you don’t think I have the right to do that. Isn’t that right?” This is not incendiary rhetoric: If a fetus is human, then killing it is homicide – whatever the degree of the act: justifiable homicide, involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, or some degree of murder. Almost any pro-life proponent would have no problem letting people lop off fatty tumors or have whatever non-life ending surgery came into their minds, so the entire problem is this: When one aborts, what is it that is being aborted? If it is lifeless gunk, it can go. If it isn’t, you’ve got a serious problem. Just like arguments based on the existence or obvious nonexistence, of God, there really IS no argument, because the sides cannot agree on what it is about which they are arguing.
Mike: I did not fight with you because I did not want to, and thought your ravings were not relevant to the thread. If a fight makes you happier, that’s fine: I think you are incoherent and virtually incapable of framing an argument. When, on rare occasions, it becomes clear what you are trying to say, you are more often than not completely wrong. Fine. I feel much better now.
Rene: I think I understand very well your feelings. You think that what is important to you is important, and that what is not, is not. I must admit that I am like almost everyone else: I feel that way – but only about what is important to me. Your reference to (some) conservatives’ reliance on God, or a god, to establish their moral standards as “nebulous” is a major barrier to any kind of understanding between camps. Theists (of which I am perhaps regrettably not much of one) believe that their God is not nebulous, but very real – an omnipotent and good deity who demands that his will be honored. While it probably seems like a stupidity to give one’s will to an invisible God, to those who believe it is an equally huge stupidity to refuse to do so. The common sense that seems important to you is exactly what a theist would assume you are missing.
The truth is that it truly is a huge impertinence to demand that others act exactly like oneself. Unfortunately, most people are confident that they are correct, and the other fellow a complete idiot.
I must acknowledge that there is a very big difference (and this is probably only so of my own frame of reference) between gay rights, or gay marriage, or such things on the one hand and the issue of abortion. To someone who doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage, its existence needn’t have any real effect on one’s own life: Homosexuals A and B conduct their private lives as they wish, and Heterosexual Z is not prevented from living his own as he pleases. It seems like bigotry for Z to interfere with A and B’s happiness. Abortion is not in any way comparable, because the sides are not talking about anything like the same thing. Pro-Choice C says “It’s my own business if I want to remove this meaningless, unfeeling, certainly not human lump of meat. What business is it of yours if I do?” Pro-Life Y would reply “You’re just stupid! The situation is nothing like that, because I’m convinced that the fetus is much more than that – It’s a very real human, and vacuuming it away is in no way different from shooting you, Ms. C, right in the head. I assume you don’t think I have the right to do that. Isn’t that right?” This is not incendiary rhetoric: If a fetus is human, then killing it is homicide – whatever the degree of the act: justifiable homicide, involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, or some degree of murder. Almost any pro-life proponent would have no problem letting people lop off fatty tumors or have whatever non-life ending surgery came into their minds, so the entire problem is this: When one aborts, what is it that is being aborted? If it is lifeless gunk, it can go. If it isn’t, you’ve got a serious problem. Just like arguments based on the existence or obvious nonexistence, of God, there really IS no argument, because the sides cannot agree on what it is about which they are arguing.
Yes, when you withdraw from a fight, by definition, you subsequently cease to fight. Very good, Jeffrey.
If you find me incoherent, how do you know I’m even trying to frame an argument?
Yes, when you withdraw from a fight, by definition, you subsequently cease to fight. Very good, Jeffrey.
If you find me incoherent, how do you know I’m even trying to frame an argument?
Jeffrey – You are correct in that I can’t truly empathize with the theist viewpoint. But I’d like to say that I don’t have necessarily a problem with religion.
My only (sharp) objection is when faith in a certain religion makes it a necessity that the believer forcefully interferes in the lives of persons that are not believers.
To be honest, religion isn’t even the only force that has been used as an inspiration to mold societies. There is communism too, that I always distrusted as much as I do organized religion.
I think that what I hate is not fate in God, it’s fate in a Great Societal Blueprint. I’m more Libertarian than Liberal. I wish people would just concentrate on individual rights and forget about these grandiose plans to reorganize the world according to God or Marx.
Jeffrey – You are correct in that I can’t truly empathize with the theist viewpoint. But I’d like to say that I don’t have necessarily a problem with religion.
My only (sharp) objection is when faith in a certain religion makes it a necessity that the believer forcefully interferes in the lives of persons that are not believers.
To be honest, religion isn’t even the only force that has been used as an inspiration to mold societies. There is communism too, that I always distrusted as much as I do organized religion.
I think that what I hate is not fate in God, it’s fate in a Great Societal Blueprint. I’m more Libertarian than Liberal. I wish people would just concentrate on individual rights and forget about these grandiose plans to reorganize the world according to God or Marx.
Rene: I understand that you resent theists forcing their will on you. On any subject about which I am sure I am right I also resent anyone, for any reason, telling me I am wrong. Although we both feel that way, the truth is that society does, always did, and always will force its will on individuals. Each person’s opinions will be formed by experience, philosophical thought, unfair prejudices, religious training, or whatever there is to make up opinions. The theists can never be expected to ignore their religious convictions. Although you are now distrustful of religion, it is very unlikely you are untouched by opinions established through religious tradition. For example, if you think that murder is bad (It seems that you do, but who am I to assume?) why is that? Did you, as an infant, examine the sociological implications of unchecked homicide and determine that a prohibition on killing people under most circumstances was wise, or did you just grow up with the memory of being told “Thou shalt not kill” (Of course I won’t try to render it in Portuguese. Hidebound American that I am, I am no linguist.)? Untouched by such prohibitions – which appear in many religions and cultures, certainly not limited to the Abrahamic religions – many of us would feel “It’s fine to kill HIM: I don’t like him, and it wouldn’t bother me at all if he were dead.” It is the nature of societies, many of which are religiously-oriented, to stop people from doing what they want. I don’t like that at all, but any alternative is much worse. In the abortion issue, the entire problem is that: 1. Society believes it has the right to prohibit homicide; 2. Pro-Choice advocates believe abortion is not homicide; and 3. Pro-Life advocates believe that it is. Most people think the government has the right to stop them from killing a person, but there is a schism over just what is and what is not a person.
Mike: I have admitted that there are rare occasions when you can express yourself intelligibly, if not intelligently. It is these islands of clarity I am referring to in disagreeing with you. As an example, here you go:
Not-Mike: “Red is dark blue.”
Me: “That’s completely wrong.”
In this case, I know what Not-Mike is saying, and disagree. This sort of thing happens, but not very often.
Not-Mike: “K9o4 9e w y5w6 t4pp03. Don’t you agree?”
Me: “That’s not English, coherent, or worth discussing.”
In this case, I don’t know or care what Not-Mike is saying, and agreement or disagreement are not options. This is the general run of things.
Rene: I understand that you resent theists forcing their will on you. On any subject about which I am sure I am right I also resent anyone, for any reason, telling me I am wrong. Although we both feel that way, the truth is that society does, always did, and always will force its will on individuals. Each person’s opinions will be formed by experience, philosophical thought, unfair prejudices, religious training, or whatever there is to make up opinions. The theists can never be expected to ignore their religious convictions. Although you are now distrustful of religion, it is very unlikely you are untouched by opinions established through religious tradition. For example, if you think that murder is bad (It seems that you do, but who am I to assume?) why is that? Did you, as an infant, examine the sociological implications of unchecked homicide and determine that a prohibition on killing people under most circumstances was wise, or did you just grow up with the memory of being told “Thou shalt not kill” (Of course I won’t try to render it in Portuguese. Hidebound American that I am, I am no linguist.)? Untouched by such prohibitions – which appear in many religions and cultures, certainly not limited to the Abrahamic religions – many of us would feel “It’s fine to kill HIM: I don’t like him, and it wouldn’t bother me at all if he were dead.” It is the nature of societies, many of which are religiously-oriented, to stop people from doing what they want. I don’t like that at all, but any alternative is much worse. In the abortion issue, the entire problem is that: 1. Society believes it has the right to prohibit homicide; 2. Pro-Choice advocates believe abortion is not homicide; and 3. Pro-Life advocates believe that it is. Most people think the government has the right to stop them from killing a person, but there is a schism over just what is and what is not a person.
Mike: I have admitted that there are rare occasions when you can express yourself intelligibly, if not intelligently. It is these islands of clarity I am referring to in disagreeing with you. As an example, here you go:
Not-Mike: “Red is dark blue.”
Me: “That’s completely wrong.”
In this case, I know what Not-Mike is saying, and disagree. This sort of thing happens, but not very often.
Not-Mike: “K9o4 9e w y5w6 t4pp03. Don’t you agree?”
Me: “That’s not English, coherent, or worth discussing.”
In this case, I don’t know or care what Not-Mike is saying, and agreement or disagreement are not options. This is the general run of things.
If you could cite any “Red is dark blue” or “K9o4 9e w y5w6 t4pp03” moments from me, you wouldn’t rely on strawmen, as you insist on doing. But you can’t, because they don’t exist.
Again, thank you for continuing to make my grievances with chicken-šhìŧ cowards like you relevant. If bragging about not caring makes it easier for you to run from a fight with me you’ve started I benefit from it just the same.
If you could cite any “Red is dark blue” or “K9o4 9e w y5w6 t4pp03” moments from me, you wouldn’t rely on strawmen, as you insist on doing. But you can’t, because they don’t exist.
Again, thank you for continuing to make my grievances with chicken-šhìŧ cowards like you relevant. If bragging about not caring makes it easier for you to run from a fight with me you’ve started I benefit from it just the same.
Mike, if you are going to continue attacking others and calling them chicken-šhìŧ cowards, perhaps it is time for you to leave the site.
Mike,
When you are reduced to irrelevance and recognized as a colossal waste of life and time, it’s not losing or ceding when people ignore you, it’s a sign of higher intellence and a beam of hope for the human race.
Or, to put it terms Mike can understand:
“Snooopy blanket clingwrap sass that hoopy Ford Prefect Micheloeb should not be consumed by pregnant women television nozzle fumes.”
Mike,
When you are reduced to irrelevance and recognized as a colossal waste of life and time, it’s not losing or ceding when people ignore you, it’s a sign of higher intellence and a beam of hope for the human race.
Or, to put it terms Mike can understand:
“Snooopy blanket clingwrap sass that hoopy Ford Prefect Micheloeb should not be consumed by pregnant women television nozzle fumes.”
You’re paying for this keyboard, Bladestar. Do you know what kind of damage spewed coffee can do?
You’re paying for this keyboard, Bladestar. Do you know what kind of damage spewed coffee can do?
Thank you for informing me you’re ignoring me. Otherwise, how would anyone know.
Thank you for informing me you’re ignoring me. Otherwise, how would anyone know.
There’s a difference between ignoring your “arguments” and laughing at the court jester…
Sorry Bill,
But I cannot be held responsible for beverage-spewing damage. It’s in my contract somewhere…unlike Shatner, I’ll check it myself rather than entrusting it to my manager 😉
Sorry Bill,
But I cannot be held responsible for beverage-spewing damage. It’s in my contract somewhere…unlike Shatner, I’ll check it myself rather than entrusting it to my manager 😉
Ignore was your word. Thank you for backpedaling from the fight with me you started, chicken-šhìŧ coward.
If “Bladestar” makes my responses to his cyber-bullying relevant to this thread, what’s it to you if I call his chicken-šhìŧ cowardice what it is?
Ignore was your word. Thank you for backpedaling from the fight with me you started, chicken-šhìŧ coward.
If “Bladestar” makes my responses to his cyber-bullying relevant to this thread, what’s it to you if I call his chicken-šhìŧ cowardice what it is?
LOL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Mike is afraid of me and calling me a bully…
Here Mike, here’s your Special Olympics Gold Medal (the real winner says he feels sorry for you and he wants you to have it), and an ice cream cone, and a soft helmet, your old helmet doesn’t seem to be working well…
Mike, we still talk to you becuase that keeps you on your computer typing out incoherent responses and away from the grownups who are actually useful to society and trying to accomplish something with their lives.
So look on the bright side, you’re helping us learn to deal with idiots by being yourself.
Ðámņ, did I just find a use for Mike?
Mike, we still talk to you becuase that keeps you on your computer typing out incoherent responses and away from the grownups who are actually useful to society and trying to accomplish something with their lives.
So look on the bright side, you’re helping us learn to deal with idiots by being yourself.
Ðámņ, did I just find a use for Mike?
You heard it here, folks: To be targeted by a bully is to be shameful.
It’s no wonder “Bladestar” needs to find a recipient of his bullying. He sees it as his only option to disqualify himself from shameful thoughts of himself.
Strange, for someone who claims to be a victim of bully, you are strangely loud and vocal about it. Back in my day the victoms of bullys usually just shut out and tried to hide rather than draw more attention to themselves. Perhaps you aren’t being bullied, merely being justly thrashed for being an áššhølë…
Strange, for someone who claims to be a victim of bully, you are strangely loud and vocal about it. Back in my day the victoms of bullys usually just shut out and tried to hide rather than draw more attention to themselves. Perhaps you aren’t being bullied, merely being justly thrashed for being an áššhølë…
Bladestar,
Just ignore him. Don’t reply to him at all. It’ll save the blog some bandwidth, save you some time and it’ll drive him farther up a wall than anything you could ever think of to say to him.
Dude, I called you on your cyber-bullying. I didn’t say you weren’t a loser.
When you view cyber-bullying as being a no-lose situation, why wouldn’t taking every opportunity to indulge in your blood-lust be natural for you?
Dude, I called you on your cyber-bullying. I didn’t say you weren’t a loser.
When you view cyber-bullying as being a no-lose situation, why wouldn’t taking every opportunity to indulge in your blood-lust be natural for you?
Yeah, Jerry, it’s a wonder you felt the need to start a fight with me you wound up running from, establishing yourself (yet again) as a chicken-šhìŧ coward. Please do me the disservice of never referring to me again.
Speaking of shat slinging, I just saw a commercial about Obama and Reverend Wright a few minutes ago.
I’m only surprised that it took them this long. Although, this one was a RNC commercial, not McCain.
Still.