Really, make an effort to pay attention this time (from Sully):
The chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais, gives an annual sermon decrying extremism and terror. Money quote:
"Islam is the religion of moderation. There is no room for extremism in Islam," he said. He called on Muslims to "protect non-Muslims in the Kingdom and not to attack them in the country or anywhere. Islam is a religion of peace that abhors attack on innocents." Militants were using misguided interpretations of Islam to justify violence, he added. "Because Muslims have strayed from moderation, we are now suffering from this dangerous phenomenon of branding people infidels and inciting Muslims to rise against their leaders to cause instability," Al-Sudais said. "The reason for this is a delinquent and void interpretation of Islam based on ignorance … faith does not mean killing Muslims or non-Muslims who live among us, it does not mean shedding blood, terrorizing or sending body parts flying."
Is there some reason this didn’t get more play? It strikes me as important.
That’s a very good question. The slightest suspicion of extremism on US soil provokes alarming headlines and banners of pending doom. But the chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca decries extremism in no uncertain terms and the anti-Muslim crowd remains oddly silent. Note to anti-Muslim Americans: take credit for this speech if you like, just acknowledge it as widely and loudly as you decry alleged threats.
UPDATE: After a bit of badgering by conservative readers here, I’ve agreed to point out that the speaker here, Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais, has apparently hypocritically endorsed violence in previous speeches. See this National Review story, this MEMRI story, and this Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council story. (irrelevant statement about sources deleted here). But while you’re at it, ask yourselves why someone would suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice, even if its messenger is allegedly insincere. Really, if nothing else, this would leave those who thought violence was approved of now uncertain. Why isn’t that immediately seen as good? Could it be such resevervations to see this glass as half full stem from having far too much invested in spreading anti-Muslim sentiments? That’s the only conclusion I can see.
Now that is a good quote.
…but wanna bet it won’t get any play, except possibly to disparage it, on your usual anti-Muslim websites?
on your usual anti-Muslim websites?
I know it’s just the usual turn of phrase, Jes, but they’re not Sebastian’s…
I know it’s just the usual turn of phrase, Jes, but they’re not Sebastian’s…
Whoops. Ooops. No. No such implication was intended, and I apologize to Sebastian for the unintended implication.
Maybe if the Imam would open a U-2 concert he could get some ink!!
No worries, Jes. I’ve grown hypersensitive to the use of “you” online (it’s usually obvious IRL) because I’ve been in the midst of one too many flame wars that grew out of a missed referent. I presumed everyone else understood but I wanted to make sure.
[That’s actually the reason I sometimes use the pronoun “one” even though it sounds excessively twee to me: it’s much harder for people to accidentally take offense.]
FWIW, I’m with Jesurgislac on this one: while it may be nice, for a change, to see a quote from a prominent Muslim imam which, for once, actually makes some sort of statement in favor of “tolerance” and against war, terrorism and bloodshed on religious grounds, it’s unlikely that this will change anybody’s fundamental opinions about Islam: least of all the online blood-and-guts, nuke-Mecca fringe which pollutes the outer ranges of the blogosphere. Like most extremist exponents of politics and/or ideology, the nutball anti-Muslim ranters will proabably just, as Jes posits, disparage Sheikh Al-Sudais’ comments; contrast them with some kill-the-infidel hate-blather lifted off al-Jazeera or someplace, and go on, utterly unfazed in their online hatemongering.
Jay C,
Yes, perhaps. But at least now when faced with some anti-Muslim blogger who insists that the entire Muslim world is supporting the terrorists and challenges me to point to where a leader of the religion has in no uncertain terms condemned their methods (this has happened to me countless times), I can point to this one. It weakens their argument in the eyes of perhaps some on the fence.
Yes, in such arguments as these, it always is good to focus on the fact that you are more likely to influence a listener than your opponent.
Curiously, just for research purposes, I cruised around a few of the usual-suspect blogs for their take on the Sheikh’s sermon, and, far from “disparaging” it, seem to be simply (well, as of now) ignoring it: not so much as a line on it on LGF or JihadWatch or any of the ones I surfed. Strange.
I actually learned about that from Chrenkoff and Crossroads Arabia, which is a great source for all news related to the KSA.
Any reason why this didn’t get more play?
…but to stay on the topic:
And on April 19, according to Reuters, Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al-Sudais, one of the top Imams at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Islam’s holiest shrine, in a sermon carried live by several Arabic television and radio networks, prayed to G-d to “terminate” the Jews, whom he described as “the scum of humanity… the rats of the world… prophet killers… pigs and monkeys.”
Edward, will you update yout post?
Ah, Edward. So willing to swallow the propaganda at face value. You used to tout Qaradawi in the same manner. al-Sudais is, of course, a Saudi mouthpiece (hence this story being in Arab News, which itself has all the news value of an official press release), touting this particular line only because it benefits the royals at this moment to nullify the threat to their rule from al Qaeda. When left to his own devices, of course, he is busy urging good Muslims to kill Christians and Hindus, and denying the humanity of Jews. Naturally, many comply. Canada won’t even let the good Sheikh visit due to his detestable religious views.
Oh yes, he also endorses the Iraqi insurgency.
So why don’t “anti-Muslim Americans” take note of this fellow’s proclamation? Perhaps because it’s utterly insincere in light of the Imam’s bloody hands?
So, let me see if I get this right Stan.
Your response to a message that Islam prohibits violence is to try and discredit its messenger rather than promote that message?
Do you see your own role in the cylce of violence here?
Edward, given that you specifically emphasize the messenger in your post — “the chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca,” natch — your riposte to Stan is not an honest one. Shame. He’s not contributing to any “cycle of violence” by pointing out the truth on your source.
Edward,
Your response to a message that Islam prohibits violence is to try and discredit its messenger rather than promote that message?
You can do better then that, Edward. You were hyping the guy up a second ago: …but the chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca decries extremism…
Is there a reason why you chose this particular speaker and stressed his credentials?
Will you update your post?
Tacitus, beat me by a few seconds!
Further, despite that being presented as a “Reuters” story, I can find no evidence of it anywhere except that website you cite, which doesn’t seem to be a particularly unbiased source.
But back to my original comment…why is your first instinct to discredit a message that you should welcome?
Edward,
I can find no evidence…
If I find the evidence, will you update your post?
why is your first instinct
Because this is not the first day (or year) that I am following this particular subject.
….why is your first instinct to discredit a message that you should welcome?
Er, because you have a long history of citing these folks without criticism, context or, apparently, cursory Googling?
I’ll ask the same of you Tacitus. Here’s a man who may or may not have voice support for violence in the past, but who is in no uncertain terms condemming them now…why jump to discredit him?
Why not focus on what he’s saying now?
natch — your riposte to Stan is not an honest one.
Like hell it’s not. The anti-Muslim contingent will chew your ear off demanding to hear messages like this and yet when one comes along, the first response is to discredit and dismiss it. Who exactly is being dishonest here?
From National Review:
The themes of his sermons are characterized by confrontation toward non-Muslims. Al-Sudayyis calls Jews “scum of the earth” and “monkeys and pigs” who should be “annihilated.” Other enemies of Islam, he says, are “worshippers of the cross” and “idol-worshipping Hindus” who should be fought. Al-Sudayyis has been consistent in calling for jihad in Kashmir and Chechnya, for Jerusalem to be liberated, and for the “occupiers in Iraq” to also be fought. He often claims that Islam is superior to Western culture.
There’s also a ton of other (rather extensive) quotes. Will you update now, or should I keep digging?
And let’s be really clear about the messenger here. He is the chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. One assumes that his word carries weight. If one were to really, honestly, want a message of nonviolence to be broadcast by such a man, one would celebrate this speech.
The anti-Muslim contingent will chew your ear off demanding to hear messages like this and yet when one comes along, the first response is to discredit and dismiss it.
Will you support David Duke for the head of NAACP based on one quote?
Fine. I’ll update the post and point out that the messenger here has seemingly endorsed violence in the past.
Then each of you will explain, in return, why your knee-jerk reaction is to refuse to see this as a good thing. Deal?
Why not focus on what he’s saying now?
If you’re determined to be a sucker — and you are where things Muslim are concerned, it seems — you are of course free. Sensible people (and the Canadian foreign office to boot) tend to think that context and background are important. If someone has repeatedly stated to fellow Muslims that non-Muslims deserve slaughter and/or are inhuman, and then produces a contrary statement for non-Muslim consumption, one may rightly think two things: 1) we’ve heard this sort of double-messaging from these sources before, and 2) the latter statement may not be entirely sincere. Toss in the realities of the Sheikh’s occupation and current events in the Kingdom, and things become fairly clear. I’m happy he’s saying this; I also think he’s lying.
Like hell it’s not.
Indeed it’s not. You can’t tout your source, and then complain that the source is inviolate when it’s completely demolished.
The anti-Muslim contingent will chew your ear off demanding to hear messages like this….
Sincere messages, sure. And by the way: folks who demand to hear them aren’t ipso fact “anti-Muslim.” Just saying, chief.
Edward,
Given the context and history, it seems that it’s your knee that’s jerking here.
Will you support David Duke for the head of NAACP based on one quote?
Wow. Edward was not endorsing anyone for anything based on anything. He was providing a quote that indicates a welcome message (IMO), regardless of what else this man may have said. By all means, provide those other quotes, but if you are doing so in an attempt to dismiss the topic of the post, I don’t find it useful, as I’ve been noticing a degenerating quality of debate here of late.
Tacitus,
You can’t tout your source, and then complain that the source is inviolate when it’s completely demolished.
Fake, but accurate?
If one were to really, honestly, want a message of nonviolence to be broadcast by such a man, one would celebrate this speech.
Wrong, Edward. Decrying dishonesty and not wearing your own set of rose-colored glasses is not evidence of dishonesty or a lack of desire for a “message of nonviolence.”
I’ll update the post and point out that the messenger here has seemingly endorsed violence in the past.
Seemingly? You really consider the examples presented as being in any way ambiguous? I am repulsed.
Then each of you will explain, in return, why your knee-jerk reaction is to refuse to see this as a good thing.
It’s as if you haven’t read this thread at all, Edward. Short version: you have a history of uncritically swallowing these propaganda stunts without any examination of source or background. We have to check, because your agenda — the promotion of Islam — is a constant and skewing bias in your writing on the subject.
We have to check, because your agenda — the promotion of Islam — is a constant and skewing bias in your writing on the subject.
You are so wrong and out of line here as to be bordering on libel Tacitus. I’ll accept your retraction in lieu of banning you. Your call.
Edward,
Here’s a question. Since I am against terrorists and those who support them, and, as we all know, a *real* Muslim simply can not be a terrorist or a terrorist supporter, then how can I be “anti-Muslim”??
Clever Stan.
I updated the post…why don’t you offer your part of the deal?
Tac, I gotta say I’m surprised by the statement Edward quotes above. I generally have quite a bit of respect for you, but that seems unkind, untrue, and a personal slag that goes beyond the bounds of decency.
Here is my take on this. Even if the quote is only a propaganda game, it can be easily turned. It should be quoted again and again as publically as possible.
Edward,
Tacitus is right, you’re biased. Why, look at your own update! Biased sources? A biased source might have a certain spin on things, but unless all those sources are outright lying, there’s simply no context where those quotes would be acceptable.
The irony here is that Tacitus and I were asking you the exact question that you’ve posed in your update.
So, again, Edward, why would someone suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice??
I did take note of it. See my post from January 20 at
http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2005/01/haj_pilgrims_ur.html
Even if the quote is only a propaganda game, it can be easily turned. It should be quoted again and again as publically as possible.
Exactly. Which is why googling the speaker to find previous endorsements of violence totally misses the point.
Edward: beat me to it. Tacitus: if it’s not possible to make your points without resorting to personal attacks, they aren’t worth making. If it is, then make them that way.
Just out of curiosity, if the Pope suddenly announced that the Catholic church had changed its position on preisthood for women, would we be pulling up previous quotes from him as evidence that he were lying?
I’m all for discussing the possibility that it’s a political ploy, but the ferocity with which some parties are attacking the notion makes me think that there is a vested interest in maintaining an internal model here.
So, again, Edward, why would someone suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice??
The only answer to that I can see Stan is that they don’t want that message to influence nonMuslims.
And for the record, Tacitus didn’t write that I was biased. Of course I am. He wrote that my agenda is promoting Islam. That’s a lie on so many levels it’s impossible to know where to begin dismissing it.
My agenda is keeping the hatemongerers from stirring up otherwise tolerant Americans.
Edward,
So, again, Edward, why would someone suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice??
Bah. My question was directed at you given your reaction to my post: January 24, 2005 07:43 PM
Again, why would someone [you] suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice??
Ah well. I have to admit I was assuming Tacitus and Stan LS and others like them would prove my point on some other weblog than this one, but my point was proved.
Too bad.
I’m perhaps still lost Stan. Your time stamp is different from my display.
Your question seems to be why would I suggest that the Imam’s previous messages endorsing violence were not worth notice. In another context they would be, but as Sebastian and doubl-plus-ungood rightly point out, in the context in which I first presented this new message they are not.
Here is the message that anti-Muslim Americans have been demanding. The anti-Muslim Americans win here. They got what they demanded.
Now they should acknowledge it. Not dismiss it because of the messenger.
Edward,
anti-Muslim Americans…
Such as?
Not dismiss it because of the messenger.
Again, you hyped the guy up because of his status and now, suddenly when it doesn’t fit your agenda, the messenger is no longer relevant?
Again, you hyped the guy up because of his status and now, suddenly when it doesn’t fit your agenda, the messenger is no longer relevant?
You can cling to that all you like Stan. Everyone else here appears to appreciate its irrelevance in this context. The point of emphasizing his position is to make clear his is not an irrelevant opinion. Folks worldwide will take notice. Not to suggest he has always been true to this message.
But while we’re discussing “agendas,” I revealed mine. Care to do the same?
You are so wrong and out of line here as to be bordering on libel Tacitus. I’ll accept your retraction in lieu of banning you. Your call.
Eh. Ban away. I’ve seen you surrender your otherwise keen faculties of reason on this subject enough times to know that your personal connections override all else. You are intent on promoting Islam — and yes, I think that is an accurate phrasing — inasmuch as you chronically misrepresent it and its spokesmen in order to portray it positively. If this isn’t “promotion,” precious little is. While I appreciate your point that al-Sudais’ statement ought to be taken as it is, that point is ultimately wrong. There were plenty willing to publicize the calls to peace of Hitler and Stalin as well: you’ve chosen un-admirable company in that respect.
And Hilzoy, this is the second time you’ve jumped in to chide without reading the attendant thread: the subject of Edward’s chronic bias was brought up specifically in the context of his request for reasons why many of us refused to take his post at face value. If you consider answering his question directly to constitute a “personal attack,” so be it. Meanwhile, of course, the embittered obsessives who compare me to David Duke(!) and smear Moe Lane as a bigot(!!) continue their baleful residence here. Meanwhile, a site editor who declares that disagreement with him is ipso facto evidence of intellectual insincerity continues his residence here. Noted, Hilzoy. Noted, Edward.
Hasn’t Edward identified himself in the past as an evangelical Christian? Promoting Islam would seem to be a weird agenda for someone so identified, but I’ve been wrong about weirder things in the past. I’m gonna take it as given, though, that it ain’t so.
Edward,
Not to suggest he has always been true to this message.
You didn’t include that bit in your post. Didn’t find the speaker’s credibility as relevant?
But while we’re discussing “agendas,” I revealed mine. Care to do the same?
Point things out as I see them.
“I’m perhaps still lost Stan. Your time stamp is different from my display.”
I’ve complained about this before – when you do preview, the timestamps are shown in Greenwich (or some other even less intuitive zone).
Eh. Ban away.
Done.
This acrimony sucks.
I would ask the powers-that-be to consider shunning before banning – and to consider getting a non-involved opposite-ideology power to do the banning if necessary in order to avoid questions of emotion and bias.
You didn’t include that bit in your post. Didn’t find the speaker’s credibility as relevant?
We can rounds on that until we’re dizzy, but in this context, no. I found his position relevant. I expect his message to influence those who remain impressionable because of that position.
This acrimony sucks.
I would ask the powers-that-be to consider shunning before banning – and to consider getting a non-involved opposite-ideology power to do the banning if necessary in order to avoid questions of emotion and bias.
A similar offer has been made behind the scenes. Thanks for the input rilkefan. But there has been plenty of “shunning” already in this instance.
No, shunning doesn’t work. Too many people get too much of a kick out of troll-baiting; trolls get validated, not shunned. Banning is best.
Edward,
Note that you found it relevant to comment on the credibility of the sources I’ve provided (without providing an example of them being biased), meanwhile I question the crediblity of the Sheikh by actually providing a quote from him and suddendly his credibility is not relevant.
Note that you found it relevant to comment on the credibility of the sources I’ve provided (without providing an example of them being biased),
Fair enough Stan. You’ll see I’ve updated the the update.
I was having a bit of a coniption (sp?) when I did that…and have since seen its irrelevance.
Edward,
A similar offer has been made behind the scenes. Thanks for the input rilkefan. But there has been plenty of “shunning” already in this instance.
If this is directed at me (someone has already publicly asked you for a ban to be placed on me), then I’m requesting to be banned instead of shun. Maybe then you guys can have a real “debate” – not some silliness where people disagree with you.
Stan,
is what he said here a good thing for a man of his position to say, or a bad thing ?
I’ve complained about this before – when you do preview, the timestamps are shown in Greenwich (or some other even less intuitive zone).
anyone familiar with typepad who knows how to fix that?
Sigh, this got way too personal for absolutely no reason.
This may very well be a propaganda ploy for US consumption. But if we use it properly, so what? Every time a Muslim religious leader defends terrorism, we need to ask him to deal with this quote. A couple of good things could happen with that:
A) The quote becomes important and authoritative.
B) Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais refutes the quote later and is exposed as a propagandistic hack.
C) He didn’t mean it, but ends up forced to defend it as a sort of pseudo-A.
This same quote:
can also be found in a New Yorker piece by David Remnick. Which is about as trustworthy a source as you will find.
I’m sorry, I recognize that there are Muslims who can be anti-Israel and even anti-semitic, yet sincerely reject violence against innocents. And I do not think the United States and Israel’s interests always overlap, and I especially do not think the United States and the Likud party’s interests always overlap.
But there is being anti-Likud, and then there is being anti-Israel, and then there is being anti-Semitic, and then there is praying for the genocide of the subhuman Jews. I don’t think you go from that to a sincere renunciation of extremism and violence against innocents in two years.
As Sebastian points out, it could be useful & hopeful even if it is insincere. It could be a sign that:
1) the political climate in Saudi Arabia has changed–they seem to have started taking terrorism more seriously when terrorists started killing them too.
or
2) that you still can be as disgustingly anti-Semitic as you want, but the Americans are rich and powerful and you have to make nice ocasionally.
or both. Of which 1 is still good news, 2 not so much.
But then, my agenda–the promotion of Judaism–is a constant and skewing bias in my writing on the subject.
Seriously: yes, of course it affects your perspective when the religion they are talking about includes the person you love most in the world. That can lead you into some errors, but it can lead you out of others. It is not a good reason to completely dismiss everything someone says, or accuse them of bad faith. It does not mean you have an agenda of promoting that religion–especially as Edward, unlike, say, me, is a practicing Christian who has no plans to convert to his partner’s religion.
cleek,
is what he said here a good thing for a man of his position to say, or a bad thing ?
When our President makes a statement, it gets dissected and compared with everything he has said (or done) in the past. On this very blog, too.
I can’t really comment on this case, but in general I think it’s important for this blog to cultivate strong conservative commenter voices given the current balance. If not I’m going to start picking fights with hilzoy and Anarch. $0.02.
Sigh, this got way too personal for absolutely no reason.
Amen to that. I continue to hold my opinion that Tacitus is eloquent and generally thoughtful. I’m disappointed by this banning, as I appreciate the voices of conservatism on this blog, and thought him representative. Sadly, I may have to reassess that thinking, as slipping into an emotional attack like that is intolerable, in my opinion.
Stan: “If this is directed at me (someone has already publicly asked you for a ban to be placed on me), then I’m requesting to be banned instead of shun.”
I don’t know who rilkefan meant, but I suspect it was directed at the comment immediately preceding yours, and thus not about you. I don’t want to shun you or ban you, at any rate. There are posting rules, and I don’t see that you’ve violated them.
Katherine,
I’m sorry, I recognize that there are Muslims who can be anti-Israel and even anti-semitic, yet sincerely reject violence against innocents.
But can rats of the world, prophet killers, pigs, and monkeys. be considered innocents. What’s the Sheikh’s definition of innocents?
Fights with the gentle rilkefan??! Yikes!
When our President makes a statement, it gets dissected and compared with everything he has said (or done) in the past. On this very blog, too.
Now I’m getting confused. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? And what about the original question?
Stan, no one’s shunning you that I can see – hope you’ll stick around.
“When our President makes a statement, it gets dissected and compared with everything he has said (or done) in the past.”
I hold the president to a higher standard than some religious figure in another country. And when Bush says something admirable he should be praised for it, or at least until he takes it back or fails to carry through. Edward wrote just such a pro-Bush post recently.
double,
My point is that the Sheikh’s past statements are very relevant and I am in no way out of line when I question his credibility by bringing them up.
But can rats of the world, prophet killers, pigs, and monkeys. be considered innocents. What’s the Sheikh’s definition of innocents?
And that is an excellent point. But whatever the answer, one would assume that the 3,000 killed on 9/11 would be included as innocents, so it’s still a welcome denouncement, no?
When our President makes a statement, it gets dissected and compared with everything he has said (or done) in the past. On this very blog, too.
no Stan, what I asked was: is what he said here a good thing for a man of his position to say, or a bad thing ?
“Fights with the gentle rilkefan??! Yikes!”
Aren’t fights over minor points reportedly the most vicious? Think how bad fights over nothing at all would be.
double,
one would assume that the 3,000 killed on 9/11 would be included as innocents
That’s your assumption and mine, but I’ld like to see his definition.
cleek,
is what he said here a good thing for a man of his position to say, or a bad thing ?
I am sceptical for reasons shown on this thread. Let’s wait and see what else comes out of his mouth.
For the record, I don’t think my opinion on this would be much different if I were not in love with a Muslim. I believe that tolerance is something you look for opportunities to practice. This speech was one of those opportunities.
I was perhaps a bit lazy in not researching the messenger, but as I lifted it wholesale from Sullivan, I figured I could rely on him to have revealed any obvious problems there…my bad.
But none of that changes the fact that this sort of message, sincere or not, is exactly what critics of Islam have been demanding. All criticism of the messenger should, in this context, begin with acknowledgement of that.
If this is directed at me (someone has already publicly asked you for a ban to be placed on me), then I’m requesting to be banned instead of shun. Maybe then you guys can have a real “debate” – not some silliness where people disagree with you.
This was in no way directed at you Stan. I’d sincerly miss you around here.
Not to make too much drama out of this, but when I noted that A similar offer has been made behind the scenes. I meant that I’ve asked the conservative writers here to feel free to override the banning if they see fit.
Edward,
But none of that changes the fact that this sort of message, sincere or not, is exactly what critics of Islam have been demanding.
That’s right, and if his statements will be consistent in the future I’ll buy him a beer 😉
“I believe that tolerance is something you look for opportunities to practice. This speech was one of those opportunities.”
Yeah, I know, I know. You’re always looking for opportunities to say nice things about Bush too…I should probably err more on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt. But when people are consistently not honest, or they go around calling my family members subhuman, I think they ought to lose the benefit of the doubt. It can be earned back, but it takes more than one conciliatory remark.
SH is right here (4:07 post): ObWi really ought to be above this sort of flaming nonsense – and his points re the Sheikh are what I was hoping someone would (finally) mention.
However, Edward, Tacitus did have a point in his original post (2:46, following Stan LS’s of 2:43) – posting a piece citing a quote from a prominent Muslim cleric, which a little research would quickly show to be quite at odds with prior statements of his is, sorry to say, sloppy blogging (and I am also surprised Andrew Sullivan didn’t catch this bit in his post, either) – but props to you for seeing to it in your Update (although it shouldn’t have needed “badgering from conservative readers”).
However, Tacitus being Tacitus, the valid point he made was quickly lost behind the screen of superior sneering
and ad hominem snark which has unfortunately seems to have afflicted most of his post-RedState blogging.
Too bad you’ve banned him though, because I would have liked to get his clarification on this particular item:
“You are intent on promoting Islam — and yes, I think that is an accurate phrasing — inasmuch as you chronically misrepresent it and its spokesmen in order to portray it positively.”
I wonder, thus, what Tacitus would accept as a “correct” attitude towards “[Islam] and its spokesmen”? – inasmuch as I interpret his comment to mean that anything that “portray[s] it positively” is “misrepresent[ation]”. Is this not almost a caricature of anti-Muslim prejudice in action? Or is it just prejudice against exclusionist violent jihadist Islam? And if so, why not just say so, instead of stooping to personal sniping?
Tacitus,
(The terrible truth, you see, is that the links are delicious. MWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!)
??????????
That’s right, and if his statements will be consistent in the future I’ll buy him a beer 😉
You’re just saying that cause you know he doesn’t drink! 😉
But when people are consistently not honest, or they go around calling my family members subhuman, I think they ought to lose the benefit of the doubt. It can be earned back, but it takes more than one conciliatory remark.
I agree. I wasn’t suggesting Sheikh Al-Sudais win a Nobel Peace Prize.
posting a piece citing a quote from a prominent Muslim cleric, which a little research would quickly show to be quite at odds with prior statements of his is, sorry to say, sloppy blogging
Agree.
(although it shouldn’t have needed “badgering from conservative readers”).
But it was only due to Stan’s badgering that I updated the post. He deserves the credit. ;ppp
Murat, I think “Tacitus LS” is a different person attempting to lighten the mood around here (it’s a joke).
e
forget it, murat, troll in action…..
“Murat, I think “Tacitus LS” is a different person attempting to lighten the mood around here (it’s a joke).”
If so, I’m not amused – for one thing, the handle is a posting violation.
If so, I’m not amused – for one thing, the handle is a posting violation.
My first thought as well, but then I figured I’d give the person the benefit of the doubt. Having said, that these two comments do seem to be the very first from this person, so I suspect you and Jay C are right.
Taken care of.
To reiterate: No impersonating other posters!
If you want to make a joke, you had best make it very clear that it isn’t really the poster. Posting under Sabastian Holsclaw instead of my actual name (for instance) is not going to cut it.
We work really hard to try to keep this place nice. Comeon guys.
Yes, obviously I was a different poster trying an experimental “threadjack into absurdity” technique to defuse by confusion (if I’d stopped and read the rest of the rest of the thread I’d have noticed things had already gotten too flamey too fast). I apologize for any posting rules I broke in the name of comment vigilantism.
The links lead to Ice Cream of the Future, a not-uncommon State Fair attraction which can be described as many things, but rarely as “delicious.”
My opinions on the thread itself fall somewhere between Sebastian and Tacitus and bear little repeating.
-Lurkerman
Lurkerman,
your current IP address is different from the one the other comments were made from. Please confirm you wish to continue commenting. No offense intended, but I’d like to nip this tangent in the bud.
I’m on a different machine, but yeah, same poster – I just felt the need to apologize, since I posted stupidly and in haste. I don’t usually post so if you want to ban this IP to be sure I don’t really mind.
I don’t usually post so if you want to ban this IP to be sure I don’t really mind.
Not at all. Please stick around.
Sort of Good Chrenkoff
The Polish-Australian blogger Arthur Chrenkoff highlights two statements. Chrenkoff’s often good points would be more credible and therefore more influential if he avoided
Whew. Go away for a while, and it all goes downhill … I unfortunately was not aware of his prior statements, but I don’t think they are ambiguous. Point to Tacitus. That said, personal attacks are out of line.
Stan:
If this is directed at me (someone has already publicly asked you for a ban to be placed on me), then I’m requesting to be banned instead of shun.
I have not seen a request for banning you, and would be suprised to see one.
Edward:
As I stated before in a thread: After the murder on Theo van Gogh a Shia Mosque decided to ask the three major Shi’ite religious leaders for a fatwa. Ayatollah Mohammed Hoessein Fadlallah from Lebanon, ayatollah Sadik Al-Hoesseini Al-Shirazi from Iran and ayatollah Ali Al-Hoesseini Al-Sistani from Iraq all condemned violence by muslims in the Netherlands by fatwa. But there was hardly any publicity given – sensationalism scored better at the time.
Fadlallah told Muslims in the Netherlands to face the attacks with “civilized dialogue, away from acts of violence.”
“We call upon our sons and brethren to preserve public order in the good country that has hosted and provided them with the means of a decent living,” Fadlallah wrote. He was AFAIK also one of the first condemners of 9/11 and has made fatwa’s before forbidding people to play their own judge; they should use the courts. At the same time is this the guy strongly associated with Hezbollah and thus with suicide bombers (at least in the eighties).
al-Sistani you know. Al-Shirazi is as conservative as they come, but describes the use of violence i.e. like:
wow, the left has started showing some teeth around there, maybe it’s time to start posting again. congrats edward, you would have been quite justified doing this many months ago.
wow, the left has started showing some teeth around there, maybe it’s time to start posting again.
I don’t think this was a partisan issue. I think it was one of a lack of respect shown to each other, regardless of which side of the fence it was on. As I said, aside from the snark, I admire Tac as a thoughtful poster, despite having a difference in political view.
dutch, edward,
Ah! I guess it was posted by a troll under praktike’s name. It’s not longer there.
The discussion was pretty heated (as always) and I fell for it. Feeling stupid now 🙁
I see
“Ban him and Stan.
Posted by: praktike | December 30, 2004 01:19 PM”
Stan:
The discussion was pretty heated (as always) and I fell for it. Feeling stupid now 🙁
Don’t. If you had not said anything things might not have been cleared and you would still feel the (non-existing) resentment.
No, that was me.
IIRC, it revolved around one posted saying something nasty about Edward and a misunderstanding involving Stan and someone with a grandmother. I thought I apologized for overreacting, but if not, I do now.
Oh, no biggie then 🙂
Edward,
You banned Tacitus for that??
Geesh. Sorry, but that doesn’t reflect well on you or your position if you can’t defend it without such thin skin. You’ve done far worse toward him when arguing similar points at his blog, and he was still a gracious host. Though I’ve often come to your defense on the issue of attitudes toward the Muslim community I don’t see any defense of this.
I fear the “echochamberization” of Obsidian Wings is getting out of hand, and likely why I spend so little time here. Too bad.
For what it’s worth, Edward, I don’t see any reason for you to have to sit and be condescended to on your own blog, nor do I see any reason for you to have dictated to you by a third party what your “agenda” is and isn’t. Tacitus is free to condescend to you at Tacitus.org and RedState; and it’s up to him to decide how much leeway you and everyone else has at those two locations. It isn’t up to him to decide how much latitude he or anyone else has here. And, for whatever else it’s worth, I agree with him about some of the people to whom he alluded, too.
(Special note to Charles Bird: Isn’t Tacitus telling Edward what Edwards agenda is the kind of thing you hand out awards for? The kind of thing you claim conservatives don’t do?)
Let’s take another look at the posting rules:
This seems unclear to me. Was Moe referring to other commenters or to public figures?
Wheee, original understanding jurisprudence. 🙂
I think the phrase “…or any other traditional method of expressing disapproval with a politician’s policy positions or personality…” suggests that the above is a list of permissible ways to criticize polictians.
My two cents. I like Tacitus most of the time in most of the places I see him–which is to say a lot of places. Strangely his tone here seems different and I don’t know why. He is combative everywhere, but I don’t see him cross the line of what I think is fair very often. That said, on this thread, he had a perfectly valid point about the trustworthiness of a source which could have been addressed with a minimum of personal griping. Instead he went into personal attack mode for no reason which I could discern. Escalated snark was traded, and we got 40 comments of junk mixed in with 30 or so interesting comments. That is still a good ratio compared to WashingtonMonthly (or the silly Yglesias post which I linked to in my last post) but we should be able to do better.
“I fear the “echochamberization” of Obsidian Wings is getting out of hand, and likely why I spend so little time here. Too bad.”
You are wrong.
And although I have never agreed with Charlie Bird on anything, parts of this thread demonstrate why I believed him a good addition to this blog. Any further comment I suspect would be hypocrisy, or something.
Except gotta disagree with Holsclaw, there is never silliness at Yglesias. Never. And if I am being shunned, don’t tell me.
Well, I think that attacking people on the basis of their S.O.’s crosses the line, regardless of what Moe’s rules mean.
Macallan:
Nice neologism: “echochamberization”? Shouldn’t some of the cleverer types than I here be able to condense this useful concept down to something with less than seven syllables?
But call it what you will, it’s an odd concept to use for Obsidian Wings: virtually all the dialogs here of late have been pretty well attacked/defended from several sides: and, mostly, in a fairly decorous manner. If you think the site is listing too much to portside, how about contributing some ballast on the starboard by commenting yourself? At least unlike Bird Dog, you don’t suck and ruin sites (too much! 😉 ).
That said, I agree with you re Edward’s haste to ban Tacitus – while I can see how he (Edward) might have gotten steamed at Tac’s personalized bile (I know I certainly would!), this is just a blog, after all: Tacitus usually has a lot more to add to a comment-thread than this sort of crap (seconding Sebastian’s point of 7:04p!) – If it has any weight, I would suggest that he make any “ban” a short-term one at most.
Mac,
Geesh. Sorry, but that doesn’t reflect well on you or your position if you can’t defend it without such thin skin. You’ve done far worse toward him when arguing similar points at his blog, and he was still a gracious host.
I would agree with double-plus-good, Sebastian, as others that normally Tacitus is a total gentleman and writes as well as anyone on the blogosphere. I’ve also learned quite a bit from him.
But with regard to ObWi, he had a very polarizing effect here. If he had contributed regularly to topics that might be outside his normal interests (i.e., investing in the site), I would argue that everyone should be more generous in considering whether this polarizing effect was intentional. But as each time he contributed, especially on this particular area of discussion, the thread disintegrated into acrimony, I can’t conclude otherwise.
Most folks commenting here make an effort to reach across the aisle or at least respect the posting rules. IMO Tacitus didn’t. And surely, he’s a blogosphere celebrity of sorts and so his commenting here is good for the site. But comments like this:
There were plenty willing to publicize the calls to peace of Hitler and Stalin as well: you’ve chosen un-admirable company in that respect.
don’t lead anywhere productive for anyone. I also don’t see why I should have to tolerate them on my home turf.
Well, I miss Tacitus, and hope he starts writing at length again. Maybe I am visiting the wrong blogs. I take his analysis of Islamist jihadism( or whatever the correct term is this week) seriously enough to listen to him.
“The promotion of Islam”. If, in a hypothetical I do not necessarily ascribe to Tacitus, Islam itself is violently expansionist, then we have a problem in those situations where Islam intersects a violent culture, or subculture, or segment. For I believe that culture most often trumps religion, nearly to the degree that religion is irrelevant. The Christianity of Sweden is not the Christianity of Spain or Russia, and the Buddhism of Tibet is not the Buddhism of Sri Lanka or Japan. And Zen Buddhism had little to do with Nanking (note I do not say nothing to do with Nanking.)
Therefore it is somewhat pointless to attack a religion, it will be ignored. Nor do I think religious leaders speaking of peace have much effect, the Pope hasn’t stopped many wars recently, nor ended capital punishment or abortion. One must somehow attempt to change the culture. Defining or redefining the religion that the culture uses as a justification is useless. The irrational will resist, irrationally.
I suspect the religious among us will resist this analysis.
But call it what you will, it’s an odd concept to use for Obsidian Wings:
Since I’ve been reading the dang thing since its first day I feel comfortable making the observation.
I also don’t see why I should have to tolerate them on my home turf.
Perhaps remembering who helped plow the field and plant the grass would be reason enough.
rilkefan: Aren’t fights over minor points reportedly the most vicious? Think how bad fights over nothing at all would be.
You are an academic!
Perhaps remembering who helped plow the field and plant the grass would be reason enough.
Bit of an obnoxious “lord to his serfs” metaphor lurking in there, don’t you think?
Besides, it’s a big blogosphere. I don’t imagine Tacitus and I won’t cross paths again. In fact, I sincerely hope we do.
Here, though, we repeatedly had to ask Tacitus to respect the posting rules. He of all people should appreciate that we shouldn’t need to do so.
bob: “Nor do I think religious leaders speaking of peace have much effect, the Pope hasn’t stopped many wars recently, nor ended capital punishment or abortion.”
I was pretty impressed re the end of the old Polish regime…
Otherwise I probably agree.
I used to go to Tacitus frequently, as it was the only RW blog I could stand. (ObiWi, when Moe ran it, I considered ‘conservative’ rather than ‘RW’.) Tac did allow a rougher tone, and there were a few regulars who contributed little beyond sneers and put-downs, but mostly even the snark was good natured.
Then the tone changed. Snark predominated, and the sneers got really nasty at times. I thought it might be because Tac was off launching redstate and wasn’t around to police things – but the few times he did drop in, it was often just to post a put-down of someone else’s comment in one or two lines, and then he’d vanish again.
Tac’s site is on interregnum, last I looked, with just a few diaries being posted, and a lot of the regulars are coming here. I think they’re still used to the rougher tone Tac allowed, and don’t realize that’s severely frowned on here.
I know I’ve offended a few times (the worst one was unwittingly), and there are some discussions, esp. the torture ones, where it’s very hard for me to not get so angry that I lose my cool. But I treasure this site for the serious, and mostly civil, discussions. I really don’t want it to devolve into Did Too! Did Not! slanging matches I see so much of elsewhere.
Bit of an obnoxious “lord to his serfs” metaphor lurking in there, don’t you think?
I must agree. That’s one of the more obnoxious characterizations I’ve seen in quite awhile. Recognizing that Tacitus encouraged and helped create ObWi has nothing to do with serfdom. Unless generosity took on some sort of new meaning when I wasn’t looking. It happens, I know liberal used to mean something different, and that changed when I wasn’t paying close enough attention.
Here, though, we repeatedly had to ask Tacitus to respect the posting rules. He of all people should appreciate that we shouldn’t need to do so.
Since he didn’t seem to break any of the posting rules in this instance, it seems silly to use that as justification. I recognize that he said something you’d object to, and with justification; however, that isn’t the same as being uncivil. It’s not like it isn’t relevant to the topic.
For I believe that culture most often trumps religion, nearly to the degree that religion is irrelevant.
I pretty much agree, except that I think one should speak of “religious culture” instead of separating the two entirely. There’s nothing in Islam that necessarily leads to violent extremism, but there’s a culture of violent extremism within Islam that’s not currently available with most other religions today and which proves enticing for those of a certain mindset.
When one looks around and sees the bulk of terrorism being committed by Muslims of various nationalities and ethnicities, one’s tempted to blame the religion itself; but the more likely reason (to me) is simply that Islam is the only major religion that currently has this culture — it’s cornered the market.
mac: “I fear the “echochamberization” of Obsidian Wings is getting out of hand, and likely why I spend so little time here. Too bad.”
I disagree in degree (whatever that means) but anyway, if you were willing to devote more time here (or even bring some sympathetic voices along) it would help the situation.
Did Tacitus just post something and it got deleted?
Aw cripes, I was gonna stay out of this, but…Mac, I’m assuming you’ve watched Tacitus ban folks in the past. And while I and others protested at the time, I don’t remember any objections on your part. It’s a subjective decision. And it does, I think, boil down to what Edward has said. He shouldn’t have to tolerate it on his home turf.
based on my own prior experience, it’s pretty clear that personal attacks are out of bounds.
as it should be.
and putting aside my own biases (or at least trying to), Tacitus’ comments are pretty clearly a sharply personal attack.
and the reference to blogfatherdom is pretty pathetic. what, some animals are more equal than others?
Francis
Did Tacitus just post something and it got deleted?
Yep, I was in the middle of responding to it, did a preview, and it was gone…
Recognizing that Tacitus encouraged and helped create ObWi has nothing to do with serfdom. Unless generosity took on some sort of new meaning when I wasn’t looking.
That cuts both ways, Mac. I supported RedState, writing the first announcment of it on this very blog, where I’m supposed to support the left, and Tacitus banned me there. He’ll argue he had good reason, but as he admitted in the ban-busting post here that he inserted from another computer (hence deleted), he made it personal intentionally on this thread out of “irritation.”
For the record. A ban is a ban. I find breaking a ban by going to another computer one of the very least respectful acts one can commit on the blogosphere. One can make a case via email if one feels that strongly about it, but there’s a code that demands a ban be respected.
Once banned at RedState, despite having access to a fleet of computers, and often being outraged by what was written there, I refrained from circumventing the ban, respecting the wishes of the site’s host too much to do so.
Every blog should be granted that same respect.
I don’t remember any objections on your part.
You have a poor memory.
Harsh cultures in harsh lands create harsh religions.
The Old Testament, for example, is a bloody, vengeful text, and the rules it lays down for how people must live are often quite cruel. But it’s understandable from an anthropological point of view: the OT was written by a people recently freed from slavery, trying to build a sustainable society in a physical environment that allowed no softness or second chances.
Islam – the religion and the culture – had much the same eco-social roots. That being said, I don’t understand how the culture evolved into the one of the most progressive in the world (during the Andalusian era) only to become what it by and large is today. It strikes me as very odd indeed that the more violent and hateful leaders invoke Andalusia while denouncing the tolerance and pluralism that made the Andalusian era a Golden Age.
There are parallels with Christianity, and esp. with the bellicose fundamentalism which is the political ascendant version of Christianity in the US right now. The holy war rhetoric coming from US religious and political leaders is hardly different from what the mullahs are saying; and the enraged calls to turn Iraq into a parking lot no different from enraged calls to kill all infidels and unbelievers.
Kind of bizarre to respond to someone banned – he can’t really answer, and the interaction sort of disrespects the banner.
I wasn’t going to say something like, “Moe was able to handle himself and doesn’t need a defense ex post.”
For the record Edward, I support your and any other bloggers right to ban whomever they feel like and for whatever reason they choose. Just as I support anyone’s right to free speech, it doesn’t mean that when I see a friend say something stupid I won’t mention it to them. I state my view on this not for Tacitus’ sake, but yours. If I weren’t fond of you, I simply wouldn’t give a [posting rules] about it. (Let’s be serious, you think I care about bannings at Kos or Atrios?)
Thank you Mac.
Believe me, this was not an easy thing for me to do. I cut my bloggin teeth, so to speak on Tacitus’s site, and have immense respect for what he created there (none the least of which is the crowd he attracts). But I can’t imagine Tacitus tolerating anywhere near the degree of insinuation I let pass, however intellectualized, that he’s letting his love for his wife lead him to dishonest assertions. At a certain point, manners demand a softer approach.
And regarding the particular charge that I’m promoting Islam. Considering Tacitus has argued repeatedly that he sees Islam as inherently violent, it is indeed offensive, coming from him. I’ve stated in no uncertain terms on Tacitus that my agenda is keeping the rhetoric this side of explosive. Making sure that the “enemy” does not become “Muslims” in a generic sense. If that offends anyone, they can go to hell.
I didn’t want to get too involved, but as usual I can’t keep my mouth shut.
I both like and respect Tacitus. I read read him with more interest than almost anyone else on the blogosphere–and I read a lot of people. He is sharp tongued wherever I see him. But here, he seems to be even more than that. Here, he seems to take special pleasure in really baiting people. I don’t understand that because here we work really hard to keep things going without letting it devolve into a disaster area–and though we admit to some missteps, I think we do a good job at it. It seems that he has taken something very personally and had to throw it to pieces here. I would watch it happen and think, “He’ll revert back to form soon enough” and “He knows this place–this is just a slip.” But he kept pushing and pushing and at my count he has provoked at least 4 disaster-area threads and now made a really unfair attack on one of the people running this site.
I’ll miss the informed commentary that Tacitus often brought to threads, but I won’t miss the way this site was twisting and dying every time he showed up. And I’m not sure which of those two clauses makes me feel worse to say.
Mac, perhaps you missed it, but Tacitus was implying that because Edward’s boyfriend is a Muslim, Edward is promoting Islam. It’s not about echo chamber-ism, it’s about the rule prohibiting personal attacks.
Tac deserved to be banned… I browsed Tacitus.org plenty when it was up and running, like many here. Tac can be a bully and a jerk (note his insistence on using “chief” and whatnot). He knew exactly what he was saying and was purposefully trying to goad you.
Here, he seems to take special pleasure in really baiting people.
First of all, that’s my job and I don’t like being compared to amateurs. 😉
I’ll miss the informed commentary that Tacitus often brought to threads, but I won’t miss the way this site was twisting and dying every time he showed up.
You (and the entire community for that matter) might want to consider whether that is a reflection on Tacitus or the community…
Praktite,
I didn’t miss it. And as offensive as some might see it, Edward’s close relationship does bias his view and there isn’t anything really controversial in admitting it. In nearly all the Muslims Good/Bad arguments between Edward and Tacitus over the time I’ve tended to side with Edward because I refuse to condemn billons over the actions of hundreds (or perhaps thousands). However, that doesn’t mean that the actions of thousands or even a handful should be ignored or dismissed.
Edward brought forth a quote that is counter to the LGF view of Islam. Tacitus brought forth a reason to question the sincerity and veracity of the quote. I find both valuable. If Edward were an opinion writer at a major newspaper, he’d have to disclose his relationship, why is it a big deal that Tacitus stated the obvious? Why did Edward post this? Perhaps to promote the good side of Islam? Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with pointing it out.
If Edward were an opinion writer at a major newspaper, he’d have to disclose his relationship…
You’re kidding, right? Anything I need to know about David Brooks’ love life? Or does one only make the pejorative assumption regarding non-white partners?
No I’m not kidding Harley.
Here’s an example and it has the added of benefit of being likely to annoy you. 😉
You (and the entire community for that matter) might want to consider whether that is a reflection on Tacitus or the community.
Fair enough. When in Rome, however…
If Edward were an opinion writer at a major newspaper, he’d have to disclose his relationship, why is it a big deal that Tacitus stated the obvious?
Harley addressed the key issue here, but I’ll address it on face value.
I have done this repeatedly. Disclosed my relationship and explained that I am sensitive about anti-Muslim rhetoric. So often, I’m sure folks are tired of hearing about it.
I don’t mind someone pointing out my bias (again, I do so myself). I do mind their suggesting it leads me to be dishonest. It’s ad hominem in an uncivil, unfair way. Perhaps it’s how they really feel about my opinion, but it’s better to offer proof that I’m being intentionally dishonest than pinning it on my relationship.
I don’t mind someone pointing out my bias
Apparently you do, because I can’t find a quote to support this:
I do mind their suggesting it leads me to be dishonest.
I’m trying to understand why someone on the “right” (broadly defined) didn’t step up and suggest that Tac was pushing it before the final blowup. This dynamic has _Shooting the Elephant_ written all over it.
Here, Mac: how about this:
“You are intent on promoting Islam — and yes, I think that is an accurate phrasing — inasmuch as you chronically misrepresent it and its spokesmen in order to portray it positively. If this isn’t “promotion,” precious little is”,/i> Tacitus, post of 3:45pm
Out, pesky italics.
.
That’s arguing bias not dishonesty JayC, at least in my reading.
“chronically misrepresenting” argues dishonest to me Mac.
I think it’s important for this blog to cultivate strong conservative commenter voices given the current balance.
Rifle dude, you have your work cut out for you. Just saying.
And Edward while this is no reflection on you per se, I greatly appreciate your overall view of the world although I don’t agree with it, your posts have recently missed the objectivity you use to portray starting with the post on PR. The problem with Wings is that you need a keel, the constant drifting to the left impairs your collective voice.
And Edward when Tac banned you from Red States, I thought he was having a bad day. I think you’ve had a bad 30 days.
Finally, since I’ve been a vistor since the sites inception, the “collective you” ought to go back and read the first three or four months. Who knew what the VRWC would spawn.
Well “duh” Edward, I understand that’s how you took it. I just think thou doth protest too much.
My take on this, not that anyone asked: I’ve endured far more abusive responses from people who are still posting here, without them ever having been so much as mildly chastened. I recommend you reconsider, Edward.
Mac, disclosing that your spouse is employed by the subject of a column is a far cry from disclosing that your partner is religiously or ethnically affiliated with the major world religion you’re discussing. The set under discussion (that is, the set of all Muslims) is so large and the manner of selection of the members of this set (largely through birth) that to presume a conflict of interest is absurd.
For example, if I were writing a post about the Sudan, would I have to disclose the fact that my girlfriend is black, because her race prejudices me toward black victims of genocide?
I recommend you reconsider, Edward.
I don’t Edward, you asked Tac to desist, he didn’t, which is sufficient. Slarti is correct about the rest and the site will be poorer without Tac, maybe Mac will visit more often.
The problem with Wings is that you need a keel, the constant drifting to the left impairs your collective voice.
I totally agree Timmy, which is why I was very happy to invite Bird Dog (Charles now) to bring us back toward the overall center.
And Edward when Tac banned you from Red States, I thought he was having a bad day. I think you’ve had a bad 30 days.
But, but, but…I wrote one of my strongest pro-Bush posts during that period.
Truthfully, I have been as generous to Bush since the PR post as I’ve ever been. So much so that some liberals here have questioned why. Credit where it’s due please.
Finally, since I’ve been a vistor since the sites inception, the “collective you” ought to go back and read the first three or four months. Who knew what the VRWC would spawn.
We don’t have the benefit of Katherine or Moe now. We still have the guiding calm and wisdom of Von, and we treasure it, but the site is undergoing continuous evolution. So many times someone has returned after an extended time away and been surprised that it’s gone so far left or so far right (yes, I hear this too).
It’s like the weather in London. Don’t like it? Just wait five minutes…it will change.
I blame Bird Dog. He’s ruining the blog.
But, but, but…I wrote one of my strongest pro-Bush posts during that period.
Well this is true, but grasping at straws does not make a strong post. Again, I’m not trying to be critical here but even with Bird Dog (if I remember correctly I suggested to both Moe and Von, respectively to add two Tac regulars, Eddie and Bird Dog) the site is still migrating to the left. I’m not complaining about that but the analysis becomes weaker with the migration.
Eddie, maybe you need a wack the “Wonder Dog Day” in order to relieve the edge, followed by wack the “Catsy Day”. 🙂
Finally, since I’ve been a vistor since the sites inception, the “collective you” ought to go back and read the first three or four months. Who knew what the VRWC would spawn.
I’ve been reading ObWi pretty much every day since it’s been around, and I was a regular Tacitus reader (and poster, under a couple different handles) for a good year and a half starting in 2003, and from where I stand the decline in civility/tilt towards extremes happened to both sites, only it became far more apparent on Tacitus. This was not some inherent failing of the people who posted on these sites. This was a natural reaction to the political climate. The war, the election, Abu Ghraib – the left and the right, even the “reasonable” left and right, were bound to split viciously as long as they were paying attention to the real world.
I have to give ObWi credit for staying as civil as it has. The billing says it’s a blog of moderates, but it’s a chimera – a mix-n-match of lefties and righties, all fortunately smart and worth reading, but attracting all sorts, and it’s a miracle that every thread isn’t a monster food fight. I mean, you’re trying to have civil discussions about torture, for Christ’s sake. Nobody has civil thoughts about torture – nobody human, anyway.
I hope this blog can find its more peaceable temperment again, but I’ll still cut it slack if it can’t.
the site will be poorer without Tac
Well, he was a very infrequent visitor. Perhaps that was purposeful on his part, so that this place didn’t simply become Tacitus II.
So many times someone has returned after an extended time away and been surprised that it’s gone so far left or so far right (yes, I hear this too).
I know you have, Edward, but I think it’s due to the tendency you mentioned a while back of people to consider themselves moderate, no matter what their actual views. It’s pretty clear, both from a simple tally of commenters and from the defensive posture that righty commenters regularly adopt here, that although the panel of posters is pretty well balanced, the center of gravity of the commenting community is decidedly to the left (although the needle has definitely moved closer to the center since the last bloodletting). It would be nice if a conservative could post a comment here without getting dogpiled — the poor fellas must feel like Butch and Sundance at their last stand.
maybe Mac will visit more often.
Please don’t scare the regulars. Besides I try to suck and ruin only one blog at time.
For example, if I were writing a post about the Sudan, would I have to disclose the fact that my girlfriend is black, because her race prejudices me toward black victims of genocide?
No, but if you were writing that conservatives don’t eat kittens and steal food from old people while you were sleeping with Ann Coulter…
…ah never mind. You’d have bigger problems than disclosure issues.
poor fellas must feel like Butch and Sundance at their last stand
Naw, Wings is not even close to the DKos asylum.
Naw, Wings is not even close to the DKos asylum.
Well duh. My point of comparison was the Platonic ideal of a moderate blog. In relation to actually-existing sites, this one does pretty well, most of the time.
does pretty well, most of the time
Ok, if you say so, but I don’t believe the conservatives are defensive per se.
Mac, I think you’ve gotten 3 or 4 invitations from regulars in this thread alone – you waiting for us to organize a petition?
Timmy the Wonder Dog, it’s still “rilkefan”, and I think that of late I’ve been doing my lowly part to promote amity here.
I’ve been doing my lowly part to promote amity here
Yes you have but your work isn’t done, now is it?
gosh, i just love it when the right bashes Dkos constantly here on ObWi, it makes it so much easier for me to say RedState and Tacitus are the manure factories of the blogosphere.
For a blog that caters to the spectrum, funny how you hear the left wing blogs slammed repeatedly on ObWi but not the uber-conservative ones. How about you Neo’s stop Kos bashing and I’ll not post the above again? If not, prepare to hear it every time you do this because i for one am sick and tired of it.
wilfred-
Tacitus.org was not even close to as rabid as Redstate. The latter shouts down anyone who doesn’t toe the line while the former let several liberals post topics. I don’t know how it is now but when I read dKos (before the election) it was pretty out there. There is some intersting Dem strategery discussion but that’s about it. I’m just saying we shouldn’t compare apples to oranges.
Mac, I think you’ve gotten 3 or 4 invitations from regulars in this thread alone – you waiting for us to organize a petition?
Perhaps engraved invite with flowers?
Seriously, I appreciate the sentiment rilkefan, but any place that would ban the guy who helped get it going isn’t really a place for me. Thanks though.
What kind of flowers do you prefer? And where should we send them?
OK, that made me laugh.
I always thought of Macallan as more of a chocolate kind a guy.
I really should shut up, but if that were my natural inclination I wouldn’t be me.
“Seriously, I appreciate the sentiment rilkefan, but any place that would ban the guy who helped get it going isn’t really a place for me. Thanks though.”
I’m going to speak from the heart a bit here. I like Tacitus a lot. On his own sites he has had brilliant posts. On many sites his comments are insightful. Along with AndrewSullivan and Steven DenBeste he was my introduction to thoughtful blogging.
I’m also a big believer in loyalty. He helped this site out a lot when Moe was starting it, and has continued ever since. So when he started showing up here I was thrilled. But Tacitus wasn’t the same here as he was in many other places. He wasn’t the guy who had wowed me with his intellect. More often he was making me wince as he trashed people I knew. I know it is annoying to get ganged up on by the more hard-core lefties sometimes, and heaven knows I have blown up once or twice, so I thought the first blow-up was just a bad day. Then it happened again and again–not just being sharp, but really picking fights. We banned one person who had been a problem anyway and whom Tacitus had goaded into a big fight, and I figured it was just that other person. But by then, a little part of me was worrying that Tacitus, for some reason or another, didn’t respect what we were doing here. He had been around the site long enough to know, but it for some reason he didn’t want to go along. I didn’t say anything–and I should have. I felt loyal to him and figured I needed to cut him some slack. That was almost certainly the wrong choice. Perhaps if I had said something earlier it wouldn’t have come to this.
Because today wasn’t acceptable. There was no need to attack Edward like that. Edward isn’t Atrios or Willis. Tacitus knows that full well. He also knew exactly what buttons to push to set him off. Friends who know about another friend’s buttons don’t push them like that.
I like ObsidianWings. I like Tacitus. I like Edward. I let my loyalty stay my tongue and I should not have done that. Edward, I’m sorry for that. And Tacitus, I respect you but I think you are hurting this site. Maybe sometime later you can see that.
And now I’m just sad.
heet, i am considered an old-timer on DKos and i have to say ‘out there’ is what i would describe the X-Files website, not the largest and most influential Democrat blog (there are over 35,000 participants). sure there is a wide spectrum of thought in such a large group but there is an incredible amount of information circulated nonetheless. i will always stick up for what markos and the rest of us have created and won’t see it slandered here. i have no desire to arbitrarily trash right-wing blogs but if mud is being slung at something i respect i will play hardball.
Tacitus seemed to only breeze in here once in a blue moon long enough to fling poo and make comments guaranteed to pick a fight. People as eloquent and intelligent as he is choose their written words carefully and for effect, and he could not fail to realize how insulting and condescending the things he says routinely are. I don’t consider this a loss; if I want to read his screeds, I’ll go to Redstate.
As far as balance goes, I don’t really see that the blog is listing to the left. That may well be because I’m far to the left myself, but really–there are three conservative posters, if you count von, and more conservatives are filtering into the comments all the time, bolstering Stan, Timmy, et al. By my count there’s about as many unapologetic righties as there are lefties, and they all post regularly.
Tacitus.org used to be the only place I knew where right and left could meet and really discuss things. But the last year before the elections it deteriorated IMO.
Obsidian Wings filled the gap and I admire the way it manages to keep on the chosen course of civil discussion between all sides of the angle. Moe did an outstanding job in the beginning period and I still miss him. But there still is a lot of work done by the posters, and they should get credits for that.
I absolutely agree with Sebastian that Tacitus seemed to write rather agressively here, disrespectfull, and that his comments on ObWi these last few months seemed to cause threads to disrupt.
In this case he said something that Edward felt to be really insulting. When asked to take it back he didn’t bother, but instead said ‘ban away’ and added a comparison of Edward with promoters of Hitler and Stalin.
I am glad he got banned for that because I think respect for others is important and I felt Tactitus allready had had more slack than anybody else because of his ‘blogfather’ position. Which, frankly, is overrated honor IMO (the slack), because though Tacitus did a lot to get this blog started smoothly and get enough commenters to make it worthwile reading it, after a while the credit goes to the persons maintaining the blog. They *keep* the visitors and attract others.
I do feel sorry for Sebastian, torn between his admiration and his objective judgement and appreciate his honesty.
If any of my comments on this thread (though especially the one on January 24, 2005 03:35 PM) are responsible for Tacitus losing his rag at Edward, I’m very sorry. I didn’t intend any of them to inspire this much rage, though the 03:35 PM one was unjustifiably smug (well, in hindsight, anyway).
I respect Sebastian for his comments here more than I can say.
On rudeness:
Erik Sprague, aka the Lizardman
Not that difficulty was ever an impediment. It’s always easier to criticize where you know you’re not going to have to defend yourself, though.
I respect Sebastian for his comments here more than I can say.
I want to echo that point. A couple of times, I’ve taken the mickey out of Seb and once, someone contacted me offlist to say I was wrong, and he was right about that. I didn’t apologize to Seb then, but after his honesty here, I really feel bad that I didn’t.
I know I’ve been a bit noisy about correcting others, but I have confined it (or at least tried to) to people who I generally agree with. I want to suggest not that there is some moral obligation to do this, but that it makes a lot of sense in terms of enlightened self-interest. If there is someone that you agree with on a regular basis and don’t speak up when they do something that pushes the envelope, I really don’t think you are doing them (or your side) any favors.
. . . you chronically misrepresent [Islam] and its spokesmen in order to portray it positively.
The most charitable way I can think of to interpret this comment, in the context that Tacitus offered it, is, “Your boyfriend is a Muslim, so you lie about the religion so people won’t think your boyfriend is a terrorist.” If that isn’t accusing Edward of serial dishonesty — and let’s ignore the Hitler and Stalin comment just because it was purposefully ugly — then nothing is, short of saying, “You’re a serial liar.” Whatever Trevino’s relationship to this blog is, that doesn’t give him a free pass to talk that kind of smack to one of the blog editors and writers with no repercussions.
Now, personally, I have no interest in or stake in Islam qua Islam, any more than I do Christianity or any other religion. But nothing I’ve seen of Edward indicates that he’s purposefully or unintentionally dishonest, and he deserves better than that on his own blog.
(And yes, I have stuck up for the ObWi righties, particularly when they’ve been attacked by Jadegold.)
I think the solution to all of our problems here is for the eloquent Sebastian, the eminently reasonable Von, and the thoughtful Slartibartfast to post more often.
… and for Charles Bird to ruin the site more often as well.
I do find it interesting, however, that with four right-wing members of the ObWing collective (and a fifth, apparently, invited) but only two left-wing members, some right-wing commenters still perceive ObWing as skewed to the left….
I do find it interesting, however, that with four right-wing members of the ObWing collective (and a fifth, apparently, invited) but only two left-wing members, some right-wing commenters still perceive ObWing as skewed to the left….
Well, consider who’s been doing the bulk of the posting lately. Bird’s been playing catch-up a bit, but Slartibartfast and von have largely been MIA. (Not that there aren’t good reasons for that…)
And von is hardly right-wing. Also, much of the character of this site is determined not by the posters but the commenters, and that population is weighted toward the left.
I plead inadequacy. I tried to warn you, but NOOOOOO….
but Slartibartfast and von have largely been MIA.
Eh? Miss a couple days and ….
Edward, don’t you think “Note to anti-Muslim Americans: take credit for this speech if you like, just acknowledge it as widely and loudly as you decry alleged threats” starts the ball off in an incendiary mode?
I mean, you are either talking to the choir, and by definition excluding apostates, or you are least disparaging those who express doubts as to the honesty of the Imam’s expressed denunciation of violence. Or both. It is not as if we have not experienced 20 years of Arafat doing the same dance. Since even your amended addendum is still condescending, I take Tac’s side on this. When the Grand Mosque expressly renounces its previous calls for violence, or has achieved even a consistant record of working against violent jihad, then I’ll celebrate the speaker.
I think it’s interesting that the lefty sites constantly get ridiculed on this site. I can understand that for Kos, but Atrios is no more extreme than tacitus has become. For some reason Atrios is something to deride for his extremism and tacitus is something to respect. I don’t really understand that, tacitus has become nothing but an echo chamber over the last year, just as Atrios is an echo chamber.
You spend a couple of days away from the Internet and look what happens. Maybe I should be saying this behind the curtain rather than here–given my rookie status–but it’s never stopped me before, so I’m going to splay out some thoughts in no particular order. First, Edward’s title to this post is itself a taunt, and he was rightfully slammed for uncritically taking al-Sudais’ word, especially given this Wahhabi’s long history of preaching jihad (the militant kind) and hate, not to mention that his sect is in no small part responsible for TWAT. The imam is now against terrorism because the tables have turned against both him and his tyrant Saudi benefactors. Terrorism was fine as long it happened elsewhere, but now that al Qaeda is conducting terrorist attacks on his soil, terrorism is all of a sudden a bad thing.
In my view, the imam’s words are a sign that we are winning, that our taking the fight to the terrorists is forcing many to change their views. His speech will be a marker, and he will be held to his statements. I may put this in a separate post, but I don’t think he changed his underlying beliefs, he’s just changing tactics. Terrorism has proven to be counter-productive to jihad, the spread of sharia and the expansion of his harsh 7th century version of intolerant Islam. Since 9/11, the attention of the western world has been placed on Saudi Arabia and Wahhabist doctrine, and they haven’t been the better for it.
Second, I haven’t visited here enough to see Tacitus’ previous comments at OW, so I can’t judge. But I have witnessed thousands of interchanges between Edward and Tacitus over at Tacitus.org, and Edward gave out as much as he took, and oftentimes the tenor and content was much worse than what Tacitus was banned for here. Personally, I get called dishonest or worse in just about every other post (or at least it feels that way), so I must say that I’m not a little bit baffled by this incident.
Usually when this situation happens, I check through the posting rules list. Was Tacitus reasonably civil? I think he did go too far, but then, who are the anti-Muslims that Edward is talking about, and what constitutes an anti-Muslim? Am I anti-Muslim for taking the imam’s sermon with a granary of salt? I don’t think so. Am I anti-Muslim for being vehemently opposed to Wahhabism, Qtubism and the Muslim Brotherhood? I think not, but Edward may have a different opinion. Am I anti-Muslim for bringing up the slaughter of the Armanious family? In my opinion, no. But in Edward’s opinion, I’m not so sure. So maybe Edward is talking to me in his post, or maybe not. If he is, then count me as offended by what he wrote.
On other posting rules questions, did Tacitus “disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake“? To me, he didn’t disrupt or destroy (assuming for the sake of argument that he did) for its own sake, but to challenge Edward’s unresearched conclusions. Did Tacitus “consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake“? The “consistently” part I can’t judge, but I don’t believe Tacitus “abused” Edward for its own sake, but to harshly dispute the central theme of his post. I readily admit that I may have a more lax interpretation of posting rules breaches, but then at Tacitus I never had the banning keys, so it was either call my detractors on posting rules violations, directly respond to the many unfounded accusations or write an e-mail to Tacitus. Discussions did coarsen over the months of his absence, and guest editors not having true enforcement powers may have contributed to it.
While Tacitus did indeed push the posting rules envelope, I also think Edward overreacted by giving him no quarter. Rather than pull the trigger, I would rather Edward had confronted Tacitus, challenging him to prove his assertions and urging him to write with more civility.
Finally, Tacitus is not your typical commenter here. Without his blog, OW would not have happened, and disagree with his views or his terseness or what have you, I believe he should have been accorded better treatment than “apologize or get banned”. This is one of those unique situations. Instead of a blogfather getting banned by a single editor, I think the decision should lie with the collective of editors. Put me down as a “no” to banning, but with a warning for him to write by the rules he created (yes, I’m aware that he’s been warned in the past). Tacitus may get banned anyway by the OW group, but I believe it should be a group decision.
When the Grand Mosque expressly renounces its previous calls for violence, or has achieved even a consistant record of working against violent jihad, then I’ll celebrate the speaker.
I’m sorry if this wasn’t clearer Steve, but I don’t care about the speaker as a person. Truly, I only care that a person in his position made this speech. Celebrate the speech. Or, as Sebastian has wisely pointed out, use the speech against the speaker.
What should be happening with this is that his words should be plastered all over the Muslim world on billboards and t-shirts and every other surface so he and the terrorists can’t escape them. No scratch that…his words should be plastered all over the entire world so he and the terrorists can’t escape them.
This will result in his either being widely exposed as a fraud or his having to live up to them. Either way, this is a very good thing, and the Western press should be shouting it from the rooftops. So should the anti-Muslim forces here.
One thing to keep in mind, Charles, is that this was not the first incident involving Tacitus that’s occurred at OW recently. He’s had this pattern over the last several months of attacking posters personally the way he did here, every time he’s posted, not least Edward and Hilzoy. The nasty, personal tone that he displayed in this thread was entirely consistent with the way he’s been acting for a long period now. You and Steve Malynn both found a way to criticize Edward’s post (and made some good points into the bargain) without slamming Edward as a person, AFAICT. Tac didn’t.
I was going to refrain from commenting on this thread — in part because Sebastian has already made any point I would have, and in part because I generally don’t take sides in fights among friends. But my silence may create a misimpression. Thus:
This website is based on civil discussion. All who engage in such civil discussion are welcome. I don’t know why Tac — who, IMHO, is among the more honorable, thoughtful, and brilliant guys out there, in the blogosphere or anywhere — would make a comment that seems specifically designed to maximally aggrieve Ed. And, then, when asked to clarify or retreat from it, extend the insult to near parody. (Ed as an apologist for Stalin and Hitler? Is this amateur night?).
So, lest my prior silence be taken incorrectly:
Each individual, permanent ObWi commentator (Ed, Hilzoy, Sebastian, me*) has his or her own individual standards for acceptable civility. They will obviously vary. A decision to ban, however, carries the force of us all. There is no daylight between us on it.
However (and extending the comment more broadly), I also think it’s also fair to say that no decision to ban is permenant, if the facts change. (Of course, if it’s not fair to say that, my co-bloggers will freely jump all over me.)
von
*This is not to say that it’s open season on Charles Bird or Slartibartfast, who also have the power to ban. Only that the four perms are the appellate court.
Bird, I made the point to Mac, I’ll make to you as well. When, IMO, commenters were unfairly banned at Tacitus, by Tacitus, I protested the act. And made the same argument that you did regarding the nature of the comments (the fact that others had commented in like fashion, etc.). First, I don’t recall you protesting at the time. Perhaps because the banned posters were coming from the Left. Second, I understood and stated that in the end it was Tac’s right and responsiblity. He had acted in the best interests of the blog as he defined them. It seems to me that Edward is doing the same.
Oh. And you suck and are ruining this site. 🙂
Might I suggest that banning decisions (at least the site-wide kind, if not the one-thread kind) not be made by each individual permanent commentator but only by the consensus of all of them? That would address one of Tacitus’s complaints and maybe eliminate charges of political and/or personal bias in the decision.
“permenant”
Erm, or even “permanent.”
kenB: we often do discuss this sort of thing. However, I think it would probably not be a good idea to require consensus in advance, if only because, appearances to the contrary, we aren’t always at our computers, and thus it might take a lot of time. As regards Tacitus in particular, we had had such a discussion in the past, so it was not as though this decision came sailing in out of the blue without a history.
Charles,
First, Edward’s title to this post is itself a taunt,
Only to those who identify as anti-Muslim, and for such folks, well, a bit of taunting is the least they deserve.
In my view, the imam’s words are a sign that we are winning, that our taking the fight to the terrorists is forcing many to change their views.
Which is exactly what I meant by “take credit for this speech if you like, just acknowledge it.”
But I have witnessed thousands of interchanges between Edward and Tacitus over at Tacitus.org, and Edward gave out as much as he took, and oftentimes the tenor and content was much worse than what Tacitus was banned for here.
Each and every time I was warned about tone or the posting rules on Tacitus I adjusted my rhetoric accordingly. That’s the difference.
I think he did go too far, but then, who are the anti-Muslims that Edward is talking about, and what constitutes an anti-Muslim?
Mostly folks like those spewing hatred at sites like LGF, but also anyone else who identifies as such. Anyone here offended by it should reflect on why, in my opinion.
The entire point of the post was that here, finally, in no uncertain terms is a condemnation of violence from a prominent Islamic leader. Whether sincere or not doesn’t change that. Those “slamming” me for the title or its taunt could have begun by acknowleding that, as a gesture of solidarity. I would have then been much more open to the fact that I hadn’t properly researched the speaker. Their first response being to “slam” me for it however only served to suggest they were offended by the title…in which case, I revert to “Anyone here offended by it should reflect on why….”
I do think we should consider some of the suggestions by the constant readers with regards to better banning policies…you’ll be getting an email.
Whoo.
Can I just chip in and say that this is the only blog on the net that I’ve been able to find that has intelligent, civil discourse about stuff that I think is important? And that I regard this kind of discussion as the healthy and necessary? And that this kind of ban is heart-wrenching for all involved, so my sympathies to everyone, and it was the right thing to do (Charles, Edward did give him quarter — and Tac told him where to go).
And could I also say despite the fact that I’m a left-wing socialist, and not a liberal, that I agree that ObWi has drifted to the left too much since Moe’s departure. So we need more posts and comments from the conservatives in the crowd.
And an admission that when I heard that Charles was joining the crew that I reacted with horror and fear that he would suck and spoil the blog, but that I’ve been pleasantly surprised thus far, so kudos to him and to the ObWi crew for having the courage to invite him.
And that I too loved read Tac’s site when it was going, but prefer the tone here in the comments section. If that involves warnings and bannings, well, ObWi will continue to draw intelligent and POLITE commenters from both sides of the political fence, because there are many of us who need an occasional break from the usual head-butts in the moshpit.
And made the same argument that you did regarding the nature of the comments (the fact that others had commented in like fashion, etc.). First, I don’t recall you protesting at the time.
Your recollection is wrong. I have expressly disagreed with some of Tac’s banning decisions. FTR, I have only recommended that one commenter be banned at Tacitus (no, it wasn’t you!).
First, Edward’s title to this post is itself a taunt,
Only to those who identify as anti-Muslim,
Edward, not to belabor this, but I think Tacitus and others might well have felt that you had them in mind, even though they probably wouldn’t consider themselves “anti-Muslim”. If Tacitus wrote a post about “those who promote Islam”, you might feel it was directed at you even though you’re obviously not one.
kenB: Also, much of the character of this site is determined not by the posters but the commenters, and that population is weighted toward the left.
Well? The commenters are a floating population. Anyone who is willing to take part in civil discourse can comment here. Anyone on the right who feels that the commenters are weighted towards the left has a solution in their own hands: hang out here and comment more. Complaining about it won’t do a thing.
If Tacitus wrote a post about “those who promote Islam”, you might feel it was directed at you even though you’re obviously not one.
Depends on context I imagine, but overall, I’d say I wouldn’t take it as meaning me. I practice Christianity. I promote tolerance.
Actually, I’ve declined to take part in deciding to ban the only person who I’ve been inclined to ban. Different circumstance than Edward’s, to be sure, but banning is generally not done lightly. Of course, the decision-making process here annoys people in different ways depending on their inclinations, but so does the tone of the political discussion. So we’ve got consistency going for us, at least.
And Edward’s not alone in being sensitive to being hit quite so close to home. I put up with one poster’s snide condescension on my own site for quite a while, until said person accused me of knowingly bribing Chinese officials to get my kids. Unsupported, unsupportable, deliberately provocative attack on my person and on my integrity. That was what it took for me.
So maybe putting some admonishment to steer the conversation clear of family in the posting rules is in order.
Slarti, i’m afraid of no one, not you nor redstate and certainly not that bully tacitus. I just don’t find pissing in the wind entertaining or informative, probably the same reason you don’t hang at Dkos.
As for all who are bootlicking tacitus, either put up or shut up. Either defend his libelous accusations against Edward and willful violation of the posting rules or get with the program and applaud his banning. Sebastian struck a good tone here.
Sebastian,
Since your post was so honest and reasonable, I’d like an opportunity to respond. However, given how little time I’ve spent here over the last 6 months I realize this is from little to none of my business and that my opinion might not hold any sway. Also, what I’m going to say is chock full of 20/20hindsightitude.
There are two fundamental issues here. One the general and the second the specific. On the general, your concern (and perhaps others) that Tacitus’ posting habits weren’t what you’d hope seems to me to be a legitimate issue. However, what strikes me as having been the mature and proper course would have been for the collective editors to engage Josh offline and express that concern. He’s an eminently reasonable and generous individual who likely would have been troubled that his contribution wasn’t a net plus. Or perhaps, he won’t have given a fig. Either way, Tacitus, unlike any other commentator, does deserve, at minimum, that kind of consideration.
On the specific, letting the general act as the excuse or rationalization for the banning isn’t something I can respect. As an example, several years ago a manager who worked for me fired an employee. When I inquired why, it was over some minor transgression. So when I went to intervene, this manager gave me a long list of reasons why this woman should be fired, but when I looked at her file not a single one of those issues had been raised prior nor had she been given any opportunity to improve. In my view, this was a clear indication of the manager’s failure not the employees. If you or anyone had a long simmering view, but failed to engage him in the proper venue, well it seems silly to now use that as support for Edward’s petulance.
It’s your guy’s blog and I recognize your right to run it any way you see fit, but as long as this banning stands I can’t support Obsidian Wings (which on the bright side will make many of your regulars very happy!)
wilfred…
appreciate your support here, but I don’t think that’s helping overall…
Slarti, i’m afraid of no one, not you nor redstate and certainly not that bully tacitus.
Not sure why you feel the need to say you’re not afraid of Slarti…did I miss something?
Tacitus has a long history with many of the folks here, and I respect (and understand) their loyalty. I don’t want this to go the direction of additional criticism.
Mac: I appreciate your comments. If we had failed to communicate with him before this, that would be completely different. But we had tried, in various ways, with little effect as far as I could see. It’s a shame.
well it seems silly to now use that as support for Edward’s petulance.
Ouch!
Really sorry to see you call it that Mac. Most of what you called for instead did indeed occur.
A new, improved banning policy will be posted shortly. Hopefully it will address the thoughtful concerns raised by this incident and make the site stronger and more fair overall.
As for all who are bootlicking tacitus, either put up or shut up.
I find that particular statement unhelpful. Appreciating his contributions, when done in a positive manner, is certainly not “bootlicking.”
I must have been looming again, Edward. Sometimes I do that without meaning to.
Looming ominously, no less.
[side note]
Slarti scares the hell out of me. Anyone with that much patience is just patently dangerous.
Slarti, maybe you’re better at looming ominously, but I am a baleful resident, it seems. 😉
I admit that I did not personally go to Tacitus and beg him to tone it down either privately or publically. And that was probably a mistake which didn’t allow my objections to be registered if they would have had done any good–which considering that I don’t know the man seems unlikely. That said, Tacitus was warned on a number of threads and on this one. And he responded on this thread with that really unfair Hitler and Stalin analogy.
I can’t adequately convey how unhappy I am with the whole situation. But I’m unhappy not because I disagree with Edward’s decision–I’m unhappy because I agree with it and deeply wish that I didn’t. I’m unhappy because I don’t like being caught between two people I respect. I’m unhappy because the whole point of this site is to engage in a dialouge which is hurt by banning someone very bright but which dialouge can’t continue if we allow things to degenerate into vicious attacks.
Argh.
It is very possible that I haven’t take my responsibility to police commentors seriously enough. That coupled with my fairly thick skin probably means that I haven’t been effective in that role here. But please people, we can be very sharp and very intelligent without being mean. Can’t we?
Argh.
If Tacitus wrote a post about “those who promote Islam”, you might feel it was directed at you even though you’re obviously not one.
Depends on context I imagine, but overall, I’d say I wouldn’t take it as meaning me.
OK, fair enough. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tac took the “anti-Muslim” thing personally, though (at least based on the tone of his first comment in the thread).
Anyone on the right who feels that the commenters are weighted towards the left has a solution in their own hands: hang out here and comment more.
I didn’t mean that as a criticism, just an observation — because of the commenting community, it’s still fair to call this a left-leaning site, even though the slate of official contributors is more balanced.
A new, improved banning policy will be posted shortly.
Oooh, exciting! Wonder what it’ll be — will we vote one commenter off the island each week?
Oooh, exciting! Wonder what it’ll be — will we vote one commenter off the island each week?
Good Lord No!
Just what we need, “Reality Blogging.”
Of course, we could take the dating approach, and the winner gets a date with our resident Bachelor (Sebastian) or Bachelorette (Hilzoy)…
{running, before they throw things….}
Don’t go there, Edward. There are other reality shows that might fit even better, but they might wind up with yours truly getting a serious makeover.
And who’s got time for that, with a couple of kids?
If Tacitus wrote a post about “those who promote Islam”, you might feel it was directed at you even though you’re obviously not one.
You know, Tac *did* write a post much like that (only not about Islam), and got pretty much the reaction you suggest. As far as I can tell, that experience did not do much to color his behavior here.
For me, having a couple of kids was a serious makeover in and of itself.
but they might wind up with yours truly getting a serious makeover.
Ahh…come on. It won’t hurt. You like form-fitting gold lamee, no?
Edward says:
“Do you see your own role in the cylce of violence here?”
It seems to me this violates the posting rules related to being civil. Accusing someone of of playing a role cycle of violence is just beyond rude?
I suggest that if you are going to ban Tacitus you should also ban Edward.
Accussing those who voted for Bush as contributing to the killing of civilians seems to be far beyond rude.
But that is okay to do here.
I guess that lesson that we can learn here is that as long as someone of the left is talking being overly uncivil, then that’s okay. If someone in the right is, then they get banned.
I guess that make’s sense… atleast for here.
“Just what we need, “Reality Blogging.”
Of course, we could take the dating approach, and the winner gets a date with our resident Bachelor (Sebastian) or Bachelorette (Hilzoy)…”
We could also look for new commentators this way. We just need the blogosphere’s equivalent of Donald Trump to preside…
Just to clarify Sebastian…
That said, Tacitus was warned on a number of threads and on this one.
There is a world of difference between various warnings and nudges during heated discussions on assorted threads, and the collective editors engaging the freak’n “Blog Father” in a constructive discussion offline. Let me see if I can explain, for instance I have been warned and actually banned* at Tacitus when given an ultimatum and I stood in defiance. However, if Josh at some other time had sent me an e-mail stating that he thinks I’m hurting his site or that my contributions are a net negative, well I’d be gone in a heartbeat or I’d alter my participation – without question. Do you see the difference?
*trigger not pulled though because, for whatever reason, he later decided the better of it; much to the consternation of many commentators and accusations of hypocrisy and favoritism. I even wrote him offline and told him to go ahead ban me for the resultant “street cred” it would generate. Instead, he decided to suck it up and just do what he determined was right even though it maybe made him look bad. Perhaps a lesson in that.
Mac — is there a reason you’re assuming such offline discussions did not happen?
smlook,
I’ll address your comment, even though I think you’re grasping at straws.
My question was not implying an active role in the cycle of violence, but merely a passive supporting role. By refusing to look for opportunities to practice tolerance and promote peaceful messages, anyone would own such a role, in my opinion. I’ve been clear about my belief that tolerance needs to be a constant effort.
If one’s first reaction to such a message is to discredit the messenger, not even stopping to contemplate how the message could be used (with or without the speaker meaning it to be) to further the goals of tolerance, peace, and widespread moderation, then one is supporting an environment in which such progress becomes increasingly difficult.
Accussing those who voted for Bush as contributing to the killing of civilians seems to be far beyond rude.
I’ve reread that several time and still think you pulled that out of thin air.
I guess that lesson that we can learn here is that as long as someone of the left is talking being overly uncivil, then that’s okay. If someone in the right is, then they get banned.
That’s not how it works here. But you should recognize the difference between an author and a commenter. Different rules for them do apply. As an author, I pay for any uncivility by having folks wish to no longer visit here. My fellow bloggers could ask me to leave, but I don’t agree that my question to Stan should lead to that.
And for God’s sake Mac…send me an email would ya?
Think “tangerine Speedo”. Or, on second thought, it’d be best not to.
Think “tangerine Speedo”.
My mind’s eyes!!! MY EYES!
Mac — is there a reason you’re assuming such offline discussions did not happen?
No assumption, I was just responding to his comment and trying to clarify the difference. However, if these did occur, or were ongoing, why didn’t (don’t) they continue without the public use of the nuclear option?
However, if these did occur, or were ongoing, why didn’t (don’t) they continue without the public use of the nuclear option?
How many second chances should someone get? Personally, I don’t care if you’re the freaking blogfather or not, you play the game like everyone else.
This comes up every so often on one of the newsgroups I (used to) read. Famous authors, whose works were and are often under discussion in that very newsgroup, occasionally show up and act like complete prats. They got no more slack than anyone else would in their situation. All in all, it works out quite well.
edward, was responding to slarti’s comment of 07:47am
Josh, please don’t interrupt my bootlicking with your populist prosaicism. It’s a matter/anti-matter thing.
Oh, brother. defend yourself verbally, is what I meant by that. If you think I’m even remotely inclined to threaten anyone in any way, in person or otherwise, you don’t know the least thing about me.
Plus, I’d have thought that since we were talking about Tacitus, the idea of me threatening you with him wouldn’t have made much sense. But YMMV.
Macallan —
Let’s not make assumptions about what has/is/will/may go on in private. At Edward’s suggestion, we are revisiting the rules applicable to banning. That process will occur first in private and, likely, later in public.
I yield to no one in my admiration of Tacitus. My feelings are very similar to Sebastian’s — and perhaps even more conflicted. For a variety of reasons, which I will not discuss in this forum, I feel a great deal of responsibility for yesterday’s events. In other words, if you think that we don’t appreciate the significance of these events, you’re sorely mistaken. Virtually all of us consider Tacitus as a friend.
None of this means, however, that I do not fully stand behind Ed.
For those who say that we ban only folks who are left/right/socialist/commies/libertarians/LaRouchians/etc. —
We want to be fair, we strive to be fair, and we are working on ways to be even more fair in the future.
Von has noted that he doesn’t like talking about Tacitus site here, but I have to note
trigger not pulled though because, for whatever reason, he later decided the better of it; much to the consternation of many commentators and accusations of hypocrisy and favoritism
and an number of commentators (on both sides) asking you to reconsider and defending you (I lurked. So sue me) I note that Armando and Trickster were quite vocal in asking that you not be banned.
link
I would suggest that the lesson in that is that memory is a tricky thing. Even Tacitus misremembered how it all went down
Now, hang on…. (#29)
tacitus (User Info) Posted on: Sun Aug 15th, 2004 at 06:11:13 PM EST
In the interest of historical accuracy, there are a few things that should be noted here:
# You[Harley] and Mac both have posted stuff I’ve had to publicly repudiate.
# Mac announced he was leaving the site when he misunderstood my gripe about you to be about him. And, I must say, considering what he thought was occurring — my publicly urging him to quit the site — he was quite gentlemanly about it.
Note that I am assuming the best here-that Tac misremembered the incident. I’d also ask you to make a list of who was banned at Tacitus and then drop them into our right left categories. Of course, you could take the attitude that Tac took
You will doubtless see this as subjective — or more likely, not see it at all — but that’s irrelevant to me. The whining over posting rules is coming mostly from those who do not respect its spirit — and it is coming entirely from the left. I don’t respect that in cases like this.
The question _here_ (note that I didn’t bring up this behavior, you did) is not whether Tac had a point or not, the question is whether he did not make a personal attack. I think that one of the threads that Seb is referring to is here. I would cut him more slack in that thread because he felt his words were being attacked, but the overall bile from him is truly astonishing. However, in the case we have here, Edward called him out and then banned him. Was Edward reacting too quickly? Tac apparently went to another IP address to post _another_ comment. If that isn’t standing in defiance, I don’t know what is. This going to email goes both ways, and when Tac found himself banned, he could have sent an apology off list (as you could do right now) and I don’t think (I’m not privy to the behind the curtain details) he didn’t. But if someone attacked my wife verbally, I would like it to be very clear that they were very very sorry before I budged one micron. If that is hard to understand, then I can’t explain it.
lj: “he could have sent an apology off list (as you could do right now)”
That probably came out slightly wrong.
Sorry, too many parentheses
he could have sent an apology off list (as you could do right now) and I don’t think (I’m not privy to the behind the curtain details) he didn’t
he did
Also, I’m not suggesting that Mac send an apology, just noting that email was an option.
just noting that email was an option.
Well, he might have been surreptitiously illustrating his point by not doing so. I hear he’s sort of evil that way, but you didn’t hear that from me.
slarti, never thought for a moment you were threatening me physically. how bizarre. i took your comment to mean you thought i was afraid of those blogs and that’s why i wouldn’t post there, because i was too scared to ‘defend myself’ which couldn’t be further from the truth.
How else might I threaten you, wilfred? Am I going to…I don’t know, ruin your reputation? Honestly, I have no idea where you’re coming from, here. But it doesn’t matter, I was not in point of fact offering any sort of threat whatever to you, other than the imagined kind.
Or, maybe there’s another reason you’re not afraid of me…not that I care.
My comment was to simply point out how much easier it is to trash people where they can’t respond. I’m growing a little weary of this sort of thing, because it doesn’t do a thing toward addressing what it is they’re saying. Although it may serve provide that fleeting moment of superiority.
“Although it may serve provide that fleeting moment of superiority.”
We could just get rid of this bone of contention if we’d all just realize that Giblets is superior to us all.
At least, as part of a gravy recipe.
“You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than the grave about you, whatever you are!”
All must bow before Giblets NOOOOOW!
“These are the chains I forged in life…”
Chains of GIBLETS!!!
Edward,
“ussing those who voted for Bush as contributing to the killing of civilians seems to be far beyond rude”
That is exactly what both Lily and I think Dianne did a couple of days ago. But, no peep out of the posting rules god.
Let’s try this on for size and see how it feels?
Can’t you see how your constant opposition to the Bush administration is providing support to the terrorists?
Do really mean to empathize so much with the terrorist?
Can’t you see how your opposition to the War in Iraq is aiding the insurgency? We know that they are hoping for the U.S. will become polically divided and lose the political will to fight.
Don’t we know that they are using the MSM and naive Americans in effort to achieve a PR victory in Iraq?
Why do you support them in their effort?
I guess you nor Hilzoy would find it offensive if I accused you of helping the terrorists and the insurgency, now would you?
I’m certain I would get a big fat threat from the Posting Rule god if I did.
smlook – I guess you nor Hilzoy would find it offensive if I accused you of helping the terrorists and the insurgency, now would you?
I’m certain I would get a big fat threat from the Posting Rule god if I did.
I personally am not sure which discussion it is that you’re referring to, but if your tone in that one was as unpleasant as this one, I’m not surprised that it got hot. Sarcasm, snark, and a rude attitude usually beget more of the same.
smlook: since you don’t provide the actual comment you’re referring to, and since I’m not up for rereading the past few days’ threads, it’s hard to assess what you say. But if you think someone has violated the rules, you should feel free to email about us. I have called people on both sides on rules violations, but I can easily imagine having missed something.
Certainly a few commenters over the past few months have suggested that voting for Bush in 04 is tantamount to endorsing all of his policies, some of which are alleged to be torture and needless war. I heartily disagree with the sentiment of those comments and find them not in the spirit of moderation, but whether they’re posting rules violations is another question.
kenB: Certainly a few commenters over the past few months have suggested that voting for Bush in 04 is tantamount to endorsing all of his policies, some of which are alleged to be torture and needless war.
I plead guilty to this, at least in the month following the Nov 2 election. I can’t honestly be bothered to go back and dig up all the threads in which I said something like this, but I do recall deciding (sometime in December) that I really shouldn’t do this anymore – that, as you say, it didn’t fit the spirit of this blog. I’m not sure if I’m sorry yet that I was mad enough to say it… you might have to wait another four years…. 😉
There have been a couple of very good discussions in the past month, on courtesy and moderation in political blogs like this one, that have made me think about some of my snarkier posting habits with the intent of improving.
One of the things that I think makes Obsidian Wings is the regular recurrance of open-thread posts, or posts on non-political topics, where political opponents can share a cup of tea in a sociable fashion, or the online equivalent. I think that newcomers to the site, or occasional visitors who only bother with the high-profile political threads, tend to be edgier because they only ever read their political opponents ranting on a tangent strongly opposed to their own beliefs – they never discover that actually the evil so-and-so also writes moderately good haiku, and likes Terry Pratchett, and thinks sugared tea is an abomination, and has a vile sense of humor… and so on. Impossible to put in the posting rules, perhaps, but still: I think that’s one reason why ObWing hangs together.
I don’t understand the juxtaposition of “sugared” and “tea”. Isn’t it like the fabled existance of Star Trek V? Things that DO NOT EXIST?
I’ll second Hilzoy’s advice. We can’t monitor the site 24/7, so if you see a posting violation, please do email us. We take these things seriously.
Can’t you see how your constant opposition to the Bush administration is providing support to the terrorists?
It’s not quite parallel. I get to vote for the President and I get to vote for who comes after him. Nothing I say about Bush is likely to lead to him or his supporters getting hurt. The same cannot be said for Muslims living in America. The worse the anti-Muslim rhetoric here gets, the more likely it is idiots will strike out at the Muslims they see.
I was talking with a Turkish artist I know about the new series of “24”. She hadn’t seen it, but someone told her a very middle-class normal looking Turkish family turns out to be a sleeper cell of terrorists. The artist I know was furious about this. She said that this kind of mindlessness pushes her to rally around her own people, regardless of how unwilling she’d be to do so if the rhetoric in the US wasn’t so “us vs. them”. This is why I magnify the good news…to keep things from descending into “us vs. them” any more than they have to. This is why I challenge people who try to squash the good news to recognize the role they’re playing in increasing the “us vs. them” division.
By celebrating the good news that comes out of the Muslim world, or at least finding ways to use it to advance reform, we can increase solidarity with the moderate Muslims. It’s a battle for hearts and minds. We should magnify the messages we want to be heard, despite their speaker’s sincerity level.
All right buckos, just what’s so horrible about sugared tea? I find that adding 4 or 5 packets per cup is just the thing to make it go down nice and smooth.
Sugared tea: ew. It sticks to my teeth, and the taste of the tea is all muffled and disguised.
About my advice: actually, if you email the site (top left, under the kitten), we’ll all get it, and you will avoid confusion about whether you meant to write to one or all of us.
“voting for Bush in 04 is tantamount to endorsing all of his policies”
Well, since Bush himself has said words to this effect…
Sweet Tea is what god drinks…if he exists!
By the way you haven’t had sweet tea until you have it in the deep south. You brew the tea with the sugar already added. If you brew it, then add the sugar later is just isn’t the same.
I personally drink it unsweet instead of adding the sugar at the table if the tea is brewed that way.
Think I’ll have a cup of unsugared green tea right now, as a matter of fact. Cheers.
And I just recalled that it’s Robbie Burns night, so I’ll have to head home shortly and put on my kilt to celebrate and throw back a dram of Highland Park as well in his memory. Sadly, the local supplier of haggis up the road closed its doors a while back, so no “master o’ the puddin’ race” for me tonight.
smlook
I used to get peeved when a “usual suspect” said something like “Shrub received his 51% endorsement of torture from the American Public” and no one called them on it thinking that those who stayed silent were nodding their heads out there in cyberspace. Now I realize that most, at least IMVHO here at OW, are rolling their eyes. I think that most agree that a statement like that makes about as much sense as you or I proclaiming that opposition to Ms. Rice’s appointment as Sec State is an endorsement of racism.
You can get into screaming matches every time it happens or you can just let it go unless you are targeted directly. Eventually, I’ve found, again IMVHO here at OW, that the “usual suspect” will say something with which you can laugh about, agree with or that you really do want to seriously debate, any of which will be a better use of your time…especially the first.
Now, as a matter of curiousity, where does Green Tea ice cream land on the scale, abomination or so different that it gets a pass from sweet tea hatred?
C’mon, people. White tea is the new green tea. Not sure if there’s ice cream yet.
” used to get peeved when a “usual suspect” said something like “Shrub received his 51% endorsement of torture from the American Public””
An interesting theory of representative democracy in which the voters have zero, absolutely no reponsibility for the actions or policy of the leaders they freely elect. Or maybe only the good stuff and none of the bad.
One which I am afraid I don’t adher to, while having disagreed with Clinton on capital punishment and welfare reform, I did feel a little responsible for those policies, because, well, I voted for the guy.
bob: “while having disagreed with Clinton on capital punishment and welfare reform, I did feel a little responsible for those policies, because, well, I voted for the guy.”
You would have gotten those with the other guy, so I can’t see how you bear any responsibility. You might want a different example, say something about trade policy.
bob,
Do you feel responsible for murdering Vincent Foster? That would be a better analogy. Are you responsible for the allegations of partisans?
So, the Bush Administration, then, isn’t prosecuting a war in which there are serious allegations of torture of prisoners and in which, in fact, one soldier has already been convicted? Huh. My newspaper is broken, then. Who knew all that stuff was actually just partisan allegations? I can’t even tell you how relieved I feel to know it isn’t true.
Bob
I don’t understand why you would take my comment, one that is meant to point out to another (newer I assume, sorry if I’m wrong there smlook) commenter that IMHO just because the majority of the posters and commenters don’t shout down “endorses torture” statements does not mean that they agree with those statements, and write that it is An interesting theory of representative democracy in which the voters have zero, absolutely no reponsibility for the actions or policy of the leaders they freely elect. Or maybe only the good stuff and none of the bad.
I read your comment to say that denying that those who voted for The President endorse torture means that you think that I believe those voters bear no responsibility for the actions of the person they elect. I don’t know if I can award a Carnak (or even spell the name correctly) but I think nominations are open from the floor. If so, I nominate you.
You would have gotten those with the other guy, so I can’t see how you bear any responsibility.
No other candidates on the ballot? Abstention not an option?
Not your newspaper Phil.
Well, I agreed withe trade policy (NAFTA) and don’t know that Bush I wouldn’t have promoted it, tho Bush I would likely had more difficulty passing it. If Hilary murdered Foster, then I suppose I would be somewhat morally responsible, as I was a little responsible for the blowjobs, tho I wish I had enjoyed them more.
In any case, I have been sincerely grappling with the meaning of representation and responsibility in our Republic for decades. I realize we all have to make hard choices in the voting booth, those who do not choose have their own cross to bear. Those who generally support this President but oppose particular policies might make their opposition known by whatever means they feel will be most useful, like a symbolic vote against Gonzalez or supporting the German war crimes investigation of Rumsfeld. Simply saying “I don’t like torture” is probably not going to suffice. Everybody, including the torturers, is saying it.
there are three conservative posters, if you count von
Catsy, JFTR, Von isn’t a conservative as for the two others, well!
I actually don’t comment here very often and usually only comment when Eddie is posting and off of the reservation. I might comment more but someone, unnamed, more often than not accuses me of “thread jumping”.
My highlight at Wings so far is when someone called me a fascist which was highly amusing, since the individual doesn’t know what he, or is it a she, was talking about.
Finally the self reflection which is currently going on is good for the soul.
I might comment more but someone, unnamed, more often than not accuses me of “thread jumping”.
thread jumping?
and jftr, I appreciate your support of Edward in all of this.
My 2-cents worth (in depreciated currency, but, hey, I’m self-aware):
Hell of a thread.
Timmy is not a fascist, even if he accused me of being a Stalinist (which he wouldn’t). But there would be yelling.
As one who has been the subject of banning discussions (and maybe shunning) here and elsewhere, let me say that this too will pass. Tacitus will be back. He’ll live to spar with Edward again.
I don’t agree with Edward on everything, mostly method. He’s an honorable guy who says what he has to say within fairly civil bounds. But I like the way he expresses himself; he’s noble, passionate, and consistent.
I agree with Tacitus on much less. But he’s honorable, noble, passionate, and consistent. And he’ll let you know that, chief .. a little mannerism that sends some folks up the wall, including me. And, he expresses himself beautifully.
Both are better people than I am. Both have superb values. I could let both, or either, raise my kid with pretty good confidence in the outcome.
Which has to be one of the silliest things ever said on the internet, considering this is all just, you know, e-mail and we’ve all never met, for crying out loud. But there it is.
O.K., they can babysit the kid. And so may the rest of you ….. even Timmy. Smlook may need to undergo a background check. ;)*
Moe Lane is guardian.
Wait until my wife finds out about this.
I like to fight and throw virtual furniture, but I hate it when other folks don’t get along.
* Hey, Carville let Matalin breastfeed his kids. No, I don’t have a cite.
And he’ll let you know that, chief .. a little mannerism that sends some folks up the wall, including me.
And it illustrates perfectly why I find posting rules that forbid profanity rather pointless. You can police language, but people will *always* find a way to make even the most innocuous phrase insulting or offensive.
Timmy:: Catsy, JFTR, Von isn’t a conservative as for the two others, well!
Hence why I said “if you count von”. Some people do. I personally peg him loosely as a moderate conservative; he has his own self-depiction which currently escapes my memory.
Macallan: Do you feel responsible for murdering Vincent Foster? That would be a better analogy.
Do you consider nonsensical and thoroughly debunked nonsense like this before you write it, Mac, or does it pass from Ann Coulter’s spleen to your web browser unburdened by the inconvenience of thought or shame? Honestly.
I think mac was making a little self-deprecating VRWC joke to the sometimes conspiritorially-minded bob mcm.…
bob mcmanus: Well, since Bush himself has said words to this effect…
…but he was careful not to say it before November 2nd. Only afterwards did he declare that getting 49% of the electorate to vote against him meant that everything he’d done and everything he planned to do was endorsed by the American people.
Those who generally support this President but oppose particular policies might make their opposition known by whatever means they feel will be most useful, like a symbolic vote against Gonzalez or supporting the German war crimes investigation of Rumsfeld. Simply saying “I don’t like torture” is probably not going to suffice. Everybody, including the torturers, is saying it.
Quite.
(Green tea ice-cream? I had a green tea pastry once, in the East Village in NYC. Was too sweet.)
testing
I guess not, Mac. Maybe yours?
Just so we’re clear, though, you’re stating that the Administration — and by extension its supporters — bears absolutely no responsibility for prisoner mistreatment at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere? None? Not even by omission, through a culture of permissiveness and ambiguity about limits at the facilities? It’s all just “partisan ranting” to try to implicate the Administration at all, to the degree that it’s simply comparable to the “Vince Foster Was Murdered” looniness?
Man, I hope you cut that much slack to everyone in your life.
Catsy: Do you consider nonsensical and thoroughly debunked nonsense like this before you write it, Mac,
Yes. I’m very considerate.
or does it pass from Ann Coulter’s spleen to your web browser
No it goes from her spleen to the trunk of Pat Robertson’s Cadillac where it is taken to a waiting RNC Lear Jet. It’s picked up on this end by a Carlyle Group limousine and delivered to my vast under mountain secret lair constructed by Halliburton. Former Enron employees type it into my web browser.
unburdened
…unburdened? Are you mad? The burden is very great. Very great indeed.
by the inconvenience of thought or shame?
Yes, apparently thought or shame is quite inconvenient, as you’ve just demonstrated.
Honestly.
A little testy this morning Edward?
You got former Enron workers! Drat, I wanted some former Enron workers. Do they know any?
A little testy this morning Edward?
{groan}
Every morning.
You got former Enron workers! Drat, I wanted some former Enron workers. Do they know any?
If not, I understand there are some Anderson workers available through monster.com.
might make their opposition known by whatever means they feel will be most useful,
I do, whether it makes your list of acceptable means or not is another story.
You got former Enron workers! Drat, I wanted some former Enron workers. Do they know any?
I suppose I could send you mine. I find that if people work in the under mountain lair too long they get a bit pallid and cranky, so I like to rotate them out when I can. There’s a new crop of PeopleSoft folks arriving next week, so…
Hi, peace to all of you from a Muslim who will fight to defend and bring peace to this earth. I hope I DEFINED myself here clearly 🙂 About Imam Mecca’s sermon, well, there is nothing NEW about this as Islam means no harm to anyone who is “innocent”. However, those who continue to kill “innocents” in the world, there is a clear in-build defence system in Islam that obligates Jihad against such anti-social elements who try to disrupt the peace amongst human beings. Hope you got a POINT OF VIEW of a not-so-important Muslim. Peace and love to you and your loved ones!!!
Muslims say what they know Westerners what to hear (Islam is a religion of peace) then they tell the Muslim world to go out and kill Westerners. If you do not believe me read Walid Shoebat’s book “Why We What To Kill You.”