Join 3,558 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Apparently, Junior wants to be the "edufication president"...
January 11, 2001 9:05 AM   Subscribe

Apparently, Junior wants to be the "edufication president"... He said he wanted his administration to be remembered for making America ``a more literate country and a hopefuller country.''. Sigh. How do you spell "potatoes," again?
posted by m.polo (59 comments total)

 
Hopefuller??? No comment on that one. But let me say this...Jeb and Dubya are swimming in the same end of the gene pool here. All of GW's education plans sound vaguely familiar to those of us in FL. Jeb's "plans" are falling short and the "voucher system" never passed. GW take the hint.
posted by Princess Buttercup at 9:14 AM on January 11, 2001


You goddam book-readin' interlecturals.
posted by Mocata at 9:18 AM on January 11, 2001


I'm pretty confident that Bush really is the best the Republicans have to offer.
posted by Doug at 9:22 AM on January 11, 2001


Hey, everybody, Doug is handing out free set-up lines!
posted by Skot at 9:50 AM on January 11, 2001


I but Dubya would be real shmagrivatered if he saw this
posted by tj at 10:03 AM on January 11, 2001


(snort) I think (giggle) we're in deep trouble (haw-haw...)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:07 AM on January 11, 2001


Once agian the baloney on GW is out.For the record.GW graduated from Yale and got an MBA from Harvard,both easy schools and a haven for nitwits.Al Gore went to Yale ,flunked-out of Divinity School ,came back and flunked out again after 3 months,flunked out of Law school and went to work for just over a year at a newspaper in Nashville whee he ran for Congress and got elected.Gw went to jet fighter school,flew million dollar jets that we only let dummies fly,sold oil leases in Texas and sold his company for a profit(another dumb move).He parlayed some connections to become GM of the last place Texas Ranger for a samll salary and stock options which he sold for $10 million(another dumb move) and was elected twice as the Governor of Texas ,so everyone in Texas must have been stupid to have done that to follow the logic.The fact is he makes malpropisms and it is a nervous thing.One on one he is a great guy. we saw that at the sitdown style debate.We all have a friend who means what he says but can't get it out right on the first try.You will find this guy in the years ahead to be a breath of fresh air.He is fiercely loyal to his friends but you may not lie to him or the public.That is why Ms.Linda Chavez is history.She thought she would not get found out and GW cut her adrift because she was not forthcoming.The fact that he is not this deep brooding ,all consuming leader makes people think he is shalow.To the contrary,he knows what he believes and is sure of it.I find that refreshing.Indigo Montoya
posted by Ed Viehman at 10:08 AM on January 11, 2001


Most of Bush's businesses failed even with all the help he received from his daddy. There is also some evidence that some shady dealing was going on in those failed businesses. So should he and all his good ole boy friends be hunted down like Clinton was over Whitewater?

P.S. Ed, Metafilter has a spell-checker. Feel free to use it.
posted by terrapin at 10:14 AM on January 11, 2001


Ed, tell that to the Israelis and Palestinians when Bush sits down with them. Being a good communicator isn't window-dressing when it comes to being President.
posted by jpoulos at 10:21 AM on January 11, 2001


I've never seen such obvious flame-bait. Read the rest of Ed's comments and you'll soon see that this is his only contribution to MeFi.
posted by waxpancake at 10:24 AM on January 11, 2001


tell that to the Israelis and Palestinians when Bush sits down with them. Being a good communicator isn't window-dressing when it comes to being President.

Last I heard, they were still trying to figure out what our current President meant when he used the word "is" and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

Mangling a word here or there is hardly as serious a problem as having the entire world know for a DNA-proven fact that your word is worthless.

And Rick, just so you know - the spell check doesn't work on all machines. I'm behind some kind of firewall here at work and can't pull it up.
posted by mikewas at 10:31 AM on January 11, 2001


I think all we're proving here is that the conservatives can't take a joke....
posted by tj at 10:35 AM on January 11, 2001


Al Gore is an idiot and Bill Clinton is a racist.
Take a joke.
posted by tiaka at 10:37 AM on January 11, 2001


Hey, I never said Clinton was a great man... a good president, yes... a decent human being... probably not. The two do not equate
posted by tj at 10:38 AM on January 11, 2001


tj - Ok, can you summarize his legacy as a president in the last 8 years? Please do not cite 'raising taxes' as an accomplishment.
posted by tiaka at 10:41 AM on January 11, 2001


whoops! ya got me.. meant to say decent president and good man in that last post... And you're right... Gore is an idiot, he lost an election that should have been a cakewalk based on the economy alone. I am not partisan in any way, I'm one of the few americans who like to think for themselves. Personally, I think Cheney will make a fine president.
posted by tj at 10:45 AM on January 11, 2001


There was a fasicnating article I saw sometime last year (this one makes the same point, although this wan't where I read of it), which asserted that the articulation / pronunciation problems which both Bush Sr. (remember Dana Carvey's pardody -- "nagonnadoit") and Bush Jr. evince are actually not signs of an impaired intellect but actually of a very mild, but real, genetically-transmitted neurological disorder ... a verbal manifestation of dyslexia or dyslexic-like condition.

It squares quite perfectly with the evidence: someone whom his friends believe to be smart and insightful, someone who able to do very well indeed socially and interpersonally at two institutions full of very smart people (Yale and Harvard) but only scrape through on his school papers.

As for Bush's mixed record as a manager (two failed oil companies, and a successful baseball team, as well as a succesful Texas gubernatorial administration), I think we all know that lots of very bright and hardworking people fail in their businesses, because of bad luck or poor judgment notwithstanding their intelligence and diligence. Although success is likely due at least in part to some virtues, failure is in itself no proof of any vices or shortcomings.

What distinguishes Bush's experience is that he got a lot more opportunities to succeed or fail than other people did, and he got them more for who his family was than for who he was.

And, that, fundamentally, is not something of which anyone can rightly complain, or hold against Bush. Who among us always refuses opportunities which come our way because of our friends or our family; who among us -- being honest -- has not gotten many, if not most, of their big shots at success, particularly those which help us out after we've failed at something, due to something more than just the towering strength of our intellect?

posted by MattD at 10:50 AM on January 11, 2001


Hey Matt, I'm not sure if you're a republican, but oddly, I don't know any, so I wanna ask you something. If you are, of course, or if anyone here is. Do you feel that George Bush is the best possible person to represent the Republican party? Because I've read a lot of excuses for him, and I'm just wondering if people really believe he's the best person for the job.
posted by Doug at 11:10 AM on January 11, 2001


I am glad that Ed is a devoted and fiercly loyal supporter of W. As for the Chavez thing, Bush was just plain silly. He immediately said he was fully in support of her. And then the next day she "quit" on him. In other words, a wiser move would have been to take a wait and see attitude before going on record and appearing silly.
Democrats do similar things.
posted by Postroad at 11:15 AM on January 11, 2001


I'm not a Republican (I'm not a registered member of either party, FWIW), but who ever said that the Republicans believe Junior is the best possible person to represent the Republican party? They thought he was their best chance to take the White House - which is a completely different thing from being the best representative of the party. He's far more "centrist" than any Republican I've heard lately, but I guess that's what makes him palatable enough to enough people that they could get a majority in the Electoral College...
posted by m.polo at 11:19 AM on January 11, 2001


You should probably get out more, or something. Republicans aren't the racist idiots from some southern state you are lead to believe. heh.

And, to answer your question, probably not, but, can you say that Al Gore was the best choice for the Democratic party? All the best people aren't chosen often, but that's life, and chances are, in the end, the chosen are all the best people, if that at all makes sense.

Ullman: Oh, this old place has had an illustrious past. In its hey-day, it was one of the stopping places for the jetset, even before anybody knew what a jetset was. Yet four presidents have stayed here. Lots of movie stars.
Wendy: Royalty?
Ullman: All the best people.

All the best people.
posted by tiaka at 11:19 AM on January 11, 2001


For what it's worth, most of the rest of the world thought we Americans were fools for getting hung up on Clinton's sex life. They are not, however, laughing when it comes to Bush. The next few years will be very important for the success of the Euro (not to mention peace in the Middle East, relations with China and North Korea), and confidence in Bush overseas is even lower than it is here.
posted by jpoulos at 11:32 AM on January 11, 2001


The article that MattD cited is one by Christopher Hitchens entitled Why Dubya Can't Read.

It is a scathing and hilarious essay by one of the world's sharpest writers, analyzing the apparent learning disability of one of the world's dumbest leaders. (Attention Dubya sympathizers: Read the article before you flame me.)
posted by Optamystic at 11:36 AM on January 11, 2001


"Don't pick on W!!! STOP IT! Stop disagreeing with him or rolling your eyes whenever he mangles the English language in public and stop questioning his choices even though he won a tainted election and you're just a poisoned partisan and Metafilter hates conservatives and you all suck WAH WAH WAH!!!!"

I don't think I've seen sore winners like this before. Someone should sit you Republicans down and explain that your chump lost the popular vote and scraped by in Florida under - and I'll be generous here - dubious circumstances. Someone should explain to you that you're lucky to be in the White House at all, and that you generally shouldn't push such luck.

And before you bash Gore, let me do it for you. Gore's an idiot. It's obvious, because he COULDN'T BEAT YOUR CHUMP OF A CANDIDATE. I could have run a dead aardvark stapled to a plank of wood for president, with the stuffed animatronic corpse of Rudolf Hess as his running mate, and beaten W. So yes, Gore's a complete idiot, for letting this masturbating inbred chimp win the election.

You see, fellow MeFi-ers who are rightly worried about the damage W. could do to the country, right now Republicans are extremely sensitive about their president. They have full knowledge that the man they elected to office is an incoherent, cocaine-fried genetically-weakened puppet who's never actually done anything on his own. They know that the circumstances of his "victory" are questionable at best. They realize that it will be next to impossible to push any real change through.

So they're sticking to the straight letter of the law. They're right in that W. won. You betcha. By fact, by the laws of this country, George W. Bush was elected President. He is The President.

But what a Phyrric victory to win.

Oh, and I don't hate "conservatives." I really don't. I just don't understand the mindset. At all. I mean, the word conservative implies caution, thought, carefulness. I don't see anything in the definition regarding a complete lack of compassion. But hey, this is all, as always, IMHO.

And no, I'm not a Democrat. :)
posted by solistrato at 11:56 AM on January 11, 2001


Bush's intellect does not need to be defended, nor is there any need to argue any abstract notion of who is "best" to represent the Republican party or lead the nation; after all, there's nothing in the Constitution or our political tradition which requires, or even particularly approves of, scholarship or erudition as a condition of public office.

To the contrary, what's often been decisive in elections has been a populist rejection of one or more perceived form of elitism and Ivory Towerism ... whether of the Ivy League / Berkeley leftwing elitism personified (or thrust upon) by Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson, etc., or the country-club / upper class elitism ignoring the economic problems of real people which Dole, Bush '92, and many of their predecessor Republicans could be accused of.

Clinton's genius was to be both entirely of the intellectual elite (and generally beloved by them) and yet entirely of the people and sympathetically perceived from a populist angle. It is hard to think of any President, or presidential candidate, ever, who managed to do that.

posted by MattD at 12:05 PM on January 11, 2001


For better or for worse Bush was the nominee and will now be the President.He won by winning the squishy middle with no help from minorities save Hispanics in the Southern States.32 of 50 States voted for him.That is by definition a majority electoral president of all the people of all the states not just the Northeast ,Ca,Or,Wa, Chicago and Detroit.He represented the majority view of most Americans who are for less government,less gun control,for school choice,puritanical to a degree,a litlle less jaded and fairly conservative in their lifestyles to the point of actually being judgemental.They are not naive hicks or just flyover land residents but have a core set of beliefs that put them more in line with Bush than Gore.Can we actually get a guy who is the best possible candidate for President from either party?Look at the sorry list of contenders we had this time around.It distilled down to Gore, and woeful ,whiny Bill Bradley versus Bush with McCain pulling sympathy votes from angst-ridden Vietnam adults who had a deep hole in their hearts from being against the War.With a booming economy and the world at peace,Gore couldn't pour it out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.Nothing against Lieberman but he all ready had the population centers so why not broaden your base in the Midwest or South.Bush politically, is a lightweight but no worse than Gore who as a Senator sold his vote on the Persian Gulf resolution for face time and allowed Russia to sell Subs and atomic weapon parts to Iran.He then tried to hide it from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but got found out.The one thing that the President is solely responsible for is foreign relations and with this being his first forray,I'd have to give him a F minus.
posted by Ed Viehman at 12:10 PM on January 11, 2001


Can I hear an "Amen" for Solistrato?

Also, let me throw this out there, in response to a much earlier comment. I don't believe that, by and large, conservatives are racist misogynistic hate-mongers. Any level-minded person can see that. I DO, however, believe that--by and large--racist, misogynistc hate-mongers tend to be Republicans...
posted by jpoulos at 12:13 PM on January 11, 2001


Ed V., I have only one request: please start putting spaces after your periods. It's almost impossible for me to read your posts.
posted by daveadams at 12:21 PM on January 11, 2001


Hey Ed,

In addition to the spellchecker function, you may want to check out the "Return" key. It allows for separation of paragraphs, like so:

For more information on this and other fascinating stylistic tricks that will impress your friends and strike fear into your enemies, I recommend Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style". Use of the principles learned in this book will allow you to make arguments that at least appear to be coherent and rational.

At least that's a start.
posted by Optamystic at 12:26 PM on January 11, 2001


Ed, clearly you're clueless.Bush lost the popular vote! Look up the definition of 'democracy'.Of course, arguing with someone like you is like arguing with a brick wall. . .
posted by Mr. skullhead at 12:27 PM on January 11, 2001


I agree.
posted by jennyb at 12:40 PM on January 11, 2001


The return key works?

I have been coding breaks. Thousands of wasted manhours!
posted by thirteen at 12:48 PM on January 11, 2001


ed wrote: He represented the majority view of most Americans who are for less government,less gun control,for school choice,puritanical to a degree,a litlle less jaded and fairly conservative in their lifestyles to the point of actually being judgemental.

And the "majority of most" is less than half, in this case.
posted by xiffix at 12:52 PM on January 11, 2001


Actually, America is not a democracy. It's a representative Republic. The founding fathers (even Jefferson) feared a true democracy as much as they feared the British.
posted by darren at 12:54 PM on January 11, 2001


That Republicans are racist is the lowest blow.The beauty of America is that you can succeed or fail but if you fail,you get another shot and another shot.Every thing we do or think as a Republicans is portrayed as racist or against children by people who oftentimes live in the suburbs or exclusive neighborhoods and have no real associations with minorities.We call them lipstick liberals.They write their checks to their various causes as they line up on the down ramps to head to the suburbs so they don't have to deal with the problems and the crime.You scratch one of these guys and you really find a bigot.Their attitude is elitist and they want to warehouse minorities anywhere but by them.Finally,I'll address the hatemongers issue.35 million ppeople listen to what the left calls hate speech on the Rush Limbaugh Show.Just over 100 million people voted is my understanding so that means 35% of likely voters listen to the liberals definition of "hate speech."The hate speech that we will see over the next few weeks over these nominations true hate speech is coming from.Where is it written that because you disagree with a person politically,you may lie and cheat to destroy them?Just wait.This will be another episode in the Democrats failure to "get it".They're actually funny when they get apoplectic.Ashcroft will hand them their lunch as they try to label him a racist and a right wing nut because he believes in God and is not for abortion.It is the height of hubris to attack a person on their core religious values and faith and particularly on racism when his record as AG,Governor and Senator is just the opposite.This is a decent man and the liberals want to make bloodsport out of him over the abortion issue.We see it for what it is-bigotry against people of faith.When you can't argue the facts you try to a attach a label.Their favorites are racist,homophobe,Nazi,kook,child hater,Christian extremist,extremist,and a few more.It's almost like watching kids argue on a playground as they get whipped-up.Watch Alan Dershowitz,Ms.Ireland or Geraldo some night.These terms flow off of their lips and into the airwaves.
posted by Ed Viehman at 12:57 PM on January 11, 2001


... so Dubya is the idiot, inbred, kegger-planning, language-mangling, geographically inept, value-challenged, hypocritical, fun-loving (formerly?) hard-drinkin', boot-wearing skirt-chasing, draft-dodgin', tongue-tangled president-elect of our beloved Republic. God Bless America!
posted by darren at 12:57 PM on January 11, 2001


Thanks Darren for making that clear.Mr.Skullhead missed that point in Civics class.The Founding Fathers actually thought democracy was a prescription for chaos and in the Constitution had at least 5 provisions for super majorities on some votes.That means ,once again,they feared democracy. I believe that it has actually happened 11 times in the history of the Republic that a president has not won the popular vote but won the electoral vote. The Framers knew what they were doing because anyone in the hinterland would have to take their marching orders from the population centers and not be represented at the table based on any other formula. To XIFFIX a majority is 32 of 50 states electorally,not 50% . And although I may be grounded in what I believe ,it's up to you to make the argument to the contrary and not pigeonhole me.
posted by Ed Viehman at 1:15 PM on January 11, 2001


Ed (can I call you Ed?), are you familiar with the logical concept of "implication"?

An example: From the statement, "all water is wet", it does NOT follow that "all that is wet is water".

How then does this pertain to the jpoulos's statement, "I DO, however, believe that--by and large--racist, misogynistc hate-mongers tend to be Republicans..."?

Does this mean, "Republicans are racist"? The correct answer is NO (the negative of "yes"). In fact, jpoulos took pains to assert, "I don't believe that, by and large, conservatives are racist misogynistic hate-mongers."

I ask you again, are you TRYING to troll, or is it just coming out that way?
posted by Avogadro at 1:15 PM on January 11, 2001


EEEEDDDD!!!!! White space!!!! Pleeeeeasseee???

You're the best troll we've had here in a while. Please toss us a freakin bone here okay.

White space.

Please......
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:19 PM on January 11, 2001


Bush is going to be fun. I have ten buckets that says he'll barf on a world leader in the first year.

Yeah, that's a cheap shot. GWB was MADE for cheap shots. I have no doubt that there was a discussion in the early stages of the campaign about this.

"Let's see.... We have a coke loving frat boy with a DUI who's big on family values. He's failed with two businesses. His speaking style makes people giggle. Hmmmm..... Can we still buy the election? Even with all that?"

I'm not kidding. At some point the campaign must have decided that cheap shots were just something they could live with.

However, I would hope they could come up with a better retort than "Oh ya? Well he won! And Gore is boring!"
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:30 PM on January 11, 2001


Ed: "Where is it written that because you disagree with a person politically,you may lie and cheat to destroy them?"

Ask Ken Starr, or Al D'Amato, or Bob Barr, or any number of Republican attack dogs who did their best to (essentially) overthrow the government--when shutting it down didn't work. That's a far cry from opposing a nominee whose home state would rather elect a dead man than see him in office again.
posted by jpoulos at 1:35 PM on January 11, 2001


Ed wrote:35 million ppeople listen to what the left calls hate speech on the Rush Limbaugh Show.Just over 100 million people voted is my understanding so that means 35% of likely voters listen to the liberals definition of "hate speech

I hate to keep picking on Ed here. (I know, I know, "Fish in a barrel and all that). But here goes:

Premiere radio networks, Limbaugh's syndicator, only places his listenership at just under 20 million. Not to nitpick, but you're giving the big guy credit for about 15 million sets of ears that he just hasn't been lent.

Also, I don't recall anyone in this, or any other thread, seriously suggesting that Limbaugh's opinions constitute "Hate Speech". That's absurd. I mean, sure, he's a pigheaded, uninformed, misogynistic, closed-minded, buffoon. But he's not Goebells or anything. He's a walking punchline at best. Just ask Al Franken.
posted by Optamystic at 1:40 PM on January 11, 2001


Avogadro,It was not clear.But if you start with the premise ,and I do mean premise, that most hate speech is from the GOP and that there is hate speech out there everywhere. The only logical conclusion ,based on his premise, is that there is GOP Hate speech by some Republicans everywhere.I don't agree because then he defines what hate speech is based on his feelings.That's my problem and I'm not looking for a reaction but he stated they tended to be Republicans. 35 years ago they tended to be Southern Democrats like Wallace,Bumpers,Helms,Al Gore,Sr.and a few more segregationists. We as a party got rid of Buchanan and that growth has been forever and a day been excised. The South is mainly GOP right now and I am struggling to name a governor who's a noted racist or purveyor of hate speech. I guess I would ask anyone to define hate speech and give me an example in the GOP recently.Ed
posted by Ed Viehman at 1:41 PM on January 11, 2001


y6y6y6: the reason we got this total moron is that the Republicans really didn't feel they could win, considering how popular and successful the Clinton administration had been. The GOP didn't want to waste their legitimate prospects. So guys like Colin Powell balked at the chance to run. If the election weren't a total fluke (and if Gore hadn't made such monumental errors during the campaign), Bush would go down in history as the GOP equivalent of Mike Dukakis.
posted by jpoulos at 1:41 PM on January 11, 2001


This reminds me of a conversation in a chat room I had once. Ofcourse this is a very snobby group that likes to make fun of people. Walks in an innocent guy asking about mst3k then somehow an hour later, we get him defending his fictional drug use, and he goes 'Ok, ok, I'm off drugs, that's what it's all about, redemption' and I said something in the sort of 'There is no redemption, if you've used drugs, YOU'RE out! It's a common misconception.' Then someone else kicked him out with a (Get a beard!) Ahh... fun times, fun times.
posted by tiaka at 1:48 PM on January 11, 2001


Y6Y6Y6, I'll do my best to make this format work but I'm working off of an iopener at my desk that is just for e-mail and the net. I've got the feeling that I send it and it gets compressed. I'll try paragraphs and see what happens on the next one. . When you say white space I'll assume that you are talking spaces between sentences and paragraphs aren't you?ED
posted by Ed Viehman at 1:54 PM on January 11, 2001


Al Franken is the poster child for liberal name-calling.Even his book-Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot is proof of it.When I see him on Politically Incorrect I just laugh.He had a bit part in Trading Places and secretly I wish he had been put in the female gorilla suit and shipped off to Africa with the male gorilla in the same cage instead of the idustrial spy u.PI is the biggest joke -4 Hollywood liberals screaming at a conservative.I actually saw this awful Sandra Bernhardt spit on a minister during one show.Franken is from Minneapolis and Hollywood can keep him.The show can't even make it in liberal Minneapolis.They put it on a 1AM.It's been a ball fans and fannies.Later Ed
posted by Ed Viehman at 2:19 PM on January 11, 2001


I am working on a troll filter for this site.I expect it to be done by this weekend.I'm tired of one person's opinion ruining all conversations with unsubstaniated dribble.Most people don't use loaded words in every post,or go off on insane tangents.If this person hung around this site before posting so much,they'd see that the point isn't to start arguments with everyone,but it is to share views in a civil manner.I dont think this person meets that criteria.It's not just because I so vehenemently disagree with this poster,it's just that they don't seem to follow guidelines,and it could ruin this community.I didn't start the site so one person could voice their personal opinion several times in every thread.
posted by mathowie at 2:26 PM on January 11, 2001


You GO Matt!

And I'm sorry for contributing to the baiting of him; I admit that was wrong.... :-(
posted by Avogadro at 2:35 PM on January 11, 2001


Actually Matt (just my opinion) I think Ed's posts have been on topic for this thread. The drift was only to address issues brought up by others.

I agree that it's mostly flamebait. But he does seems to be moving closer to forming an actual coherent argument.

"I actually saw this awful Sandra Bernhardt spit on a minister during one show.Franken is from Minneapolis and Hollywood can keep him.The show can't even make it in liberal blah blah blah blah .........."

No, wait ........ you're right......
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:39 PM on January 11, 2001


I think there is one thing in this thread that we can all agree on:

Sandra Berhardt IS awful.
posted by Optamystic at 3:57 PM on January 11, 2001


Let me see if I've got this right. Republican=troll. Democrat=civil. Does that about cover it?
posted by netbros at 5:15 PM on January 11, 2001


netbros, I simply don't know how we could have engaged Ed in a serious discussion, and I don't see anyone piling on MattD for his comments and point of view. I would like to re-engage the discussion, but much of it has been lost in the clutter and dreck. And yes, there has been a general lack of civility in this thread (liberals included). Apologies.
posted by Avogadro at 5:40 PM on January 11, 2001


what avagadro said
Seems that these threads come up very often, and they can be discussed in a civilized manner, note taken; and probably the one or two other center/right leaning people here should also do that.

But, here's the thing, it's rather hard to ignore things like 'Dubya can't read' or 'Ashcroft is a racist' or 'GW has 4 glowing asses', this stuff goes by somewhat unnoticed, and, again, it's not like there's one or two of these comments a month, there are several posts a day. I'm exaggerating here, but, only to show a point.

I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, just ask for a little courtesy, sort of like "We won't call your guy and ass hole if you don't call our's". You know?

I love metafilter, it's the way I spent long, hard, meaningless days. It brings joy every time something fun is posted, or there's talk of film, because I can then talk about Kubrick; or the music post today, I found someone else who recommended something I very much like. That's what it's all about, and that's why it's different from troll-infested newsgroups and message boards. Go on, visit alt.flame and see if that's something you want mefi to turn into.
posted by tiaka at 5:59 PM on January 11, 2001


tiaka,

I don't have a guy, so it's alright for me to call W an asshole, right?
posted by Neb at 6:05 PM on January 11, 2001


I understand the knee-jerk reaction to trolls (real or perceived) in a forum like this, but I must say I did feel like people piled onto Ed rather quickly and mercilessly. Not particularly friendly or representative of an open "community." Maybe he was trying to be unpleasant and/or provocative...but maybe he was just trying to express his opinions and came across a bit stronger than is preferred here. It would be nice to give people a chance to adjust their tone before condemning them (I agree that he should have scoped out the arena a bit more before jumping in--but how many of us always exercise such restraint and patience, particularly when moved by the passion of our beliefs?).

DISCLAIMER: I couldn't disagree with his positions more, but I value the right to dissent (when civilly couched, and I'll concede that he has some room for improvement here) over my desire for consensus.
posted by rushmc at 9:24 PM on January 11, 2001


56 comments on this item, beat my 79 comments on the cobain post.
posted by thirdball at 10:42 PM on January 11, 2001


i mean beat BY sorry
posted by thirdball at 10:43 PM on January 11, 2001


It's hard for me to muster anything more than a little spit when it comes to political conversations after these last couple of months.

I'll be over here in the corner, shivering for the next four years, if anyone wants me.
posted by crunchland at 5:51 AM on January 12, 2001


« Older "Ten years ago, Kurt Cobain saved us from the horr...  |  Well, if Dogz and Catz ain't g... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments