Originally Posted by Exile 67'

How about gay marriage? I'm sure that's viewed as being even more offensive by them as well.

-"Naked" women, gays, drugs, booze, and Jews. The Jihadis hate and despise us for all of that. That's why they think we can't co-exist. As far as that goes, I guess they're right.

Originally Posted by Odin

Fuck, I'm in agreement with Wallace AND Glick? Hell just froze over...

Get out your ice skates....you can add me and JPT as well....

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-"Naked" women, gays, drugs, booze, and Jews. The Jihadis hate and despise us for all of that. That's why they think we can't co-exist. As far as that goes, I guess they're right.

And they wont be done hating us until the crescent flies over the White House, women are put in their place and covered up, gays are all stoned to death, we are busily praying 5 times a day towards Mecca and Israel is a smoldering ash heap...until then expect more attacks on our interests...

Originally Posted by Weave

And they wont be done hating us until the crescent flies over the White House, women are put in their place and covered up, gays are all stoned to death, we are busily praying 5 times a day towards Mecca and Israel is a smoldering ash heap...until then expect more attacks on our interests...

Yeah, I know you guys don't want the crescent flying over the White House and Israel reduced to rubble, and we don't either; but don't you guys also like women and gays put in their place, and people praying a lot (not toward Mecca, but to the same god)? You conservatives might be happier under Muslim rule than we liberals would, donya think?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, I know you guys don't want the crescent flying over the White House and Israel reduced to rubble, and we don't either; but don't you guys also like women and gays put in their place, and people praying a lot (not toward Mecca, but to the same god)? You conservatives might be happier under Muslim rule than we liberals would, donya think?

-Your imaginary nightmare scenario didn't apply even when the born again Christian type of conservative ran every part of America before the Bill of Rights. That won't last a second under Sahria. Conservatives would fight to prevent that. Liberals would be busy bending over in hopes that the Jihadis wouldn't hurt them.

You know, it's interesting that some of the posters here can't understand objecting to this film except in terms of what it might provoke Muslims to do to us. It's as if there can be no other reason to object to it -- not aesthetic reasons, not reasons of taste, not reasons of morality, nothing except fear of retaliation.

This is a parallel blind spot along with the other one, an inability to understand that "this film should not have been produced" is not equivalent to "we should ban this film." It's as if they expect, if you disapprove of something, you're going to want to use heavy-handed government force and censorship to suppress it. There's apparently no understanding at all of the concept that one can believe in freedom without at the same time approving of everything someone does with it.

What can we tentatively conclude from this? I would say two things.

1) Those posters who have the above holes in their understanding themselves cannot evaluate either art or actions except in an authoritarian, fear of punishment context. Since that is the only way they are able to think about evaluating art or actions, they assume that that's what others are doing, too, and look for some plausible source of punishment that might suffice to explain the fear.

2) Those posters who have the above holds in their understanding themselves have very little appreciation of freedom. One sees this in other contexts, too: freedom of religion is good if it's MY religion; freedom of speech is good if it's not IMMORAL speech; freedom of action is good if the action isn't one God (or a substitute) would shake his finger at. Since freedom -- which in effect means the right to do what you want whether someone else approves of it or not -- is a foreign concept to them, expressions of disapproval automatically amount to a call for suppression by force of the state.

It's quite revealing, actually.

Originally Posted by Weave

And they wont be done hating us until the crescent flies over the White House, women are put in their place and covered up, gays are all stoned to death, we are busily praying 5 times a day towards Mecca and Israel is a smoldering ash heap...until then expect more attacks on our interests...

I think most of them would stop hating us if we just stopped bombing them, invading them, and supporting tyrants over them. All that other stuff they might like to see happen, but it isn't going to get their panties in much of a twist if that's ALL they have to object to.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I think most of them would stop hating us if we just stopped bombing them, invading them, and supporting tyrants over them. All that other stuff they might like to see happen, but it isn't going to get their panties in much of a twist if that's ALL they have to object to.

-Bull. Maybe you should try listening to them. They hate what we are because we tolerate things that they can't stand. That was true long before 9/11 or Desert Storm.

We can't take back the internet or satelitte TV. They know we're here.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

..This is a parallel blind spot along with the other one, an inability to understand that "this film should not have been produced" is not equivalent to "we should ban this film." ...

Actaully, there are "progressives" who would like to ban it:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ks_115451.html

...It’s interesting to see such committed liberals in lockstep agreement with the Islamist government in Egypt, which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the Muslim Brotherhood–controlled Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.... where does this logic end? One of the things we’ve learned all too well is that the “Muslim street” — and often Muslim elites — have a near-limitless capacity to take offense at slights to their religion, honor, history, or feelings.

Does Barnicle want Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses, charged with being an accessory to murder, too? That book has in one way or another led to several deaths. Surely he should have known that he was stirring up trouble. Perhaps the U.S. Justice Department and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security could work together on a joint prosecution?

...so "this film should not have been produced" is equivalent to "we should ban this film."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You know, it's interesting that some of the posters here can't understand objecting to this film except in terms of what it might provoke Muslims to do to us. It's as if there can be no other reason to object to it -- not aesthetic reasons, not reasons of taste, not reasons of morality, nothing except fear of retaliation...

-Maybe that's because most of the progressives objecting to it (including the White House) have done so in those terms:

Originally Posted by playwrite

Then make a clear concise statement that while you believe in the freedom of speech you condemn the use of that precious gift to spread bigotry in a way that kills those affording you that gift...

...and...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It is extremely unwise to attack Islam...

...and...

Originally Posted by Aramea

Hillary Clinton is speaking on this now. She appears to be supporting freedom of expression regarding the video. I do hope that this doesn't embolden the makers of the video and others to continue provoking Muslims in this manner.

...not a whole lot of concern about shoddy production values, there.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...It's quite revealing, actually.

-Oh, it is. Just not in the way you'd like to pretend.

Originally Posted by Odin

Fuck, I'm in agreement with Wallace AND Glick? Hell just froze over...

Me too, Odin; you're not the only leftist with this opinion.

Arguments like playwrite et al's are an embarrassment to non-postmodernist leftists like you and me.

...

I've seen many progressives and leftists, online and IRL, argue that making this film was "like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater."

I disagree. Now maybe I'm just going all Boomerish and slippery-slopey...but here's why:

Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is saying something that you know or should know *normally* causes people to injure one another.

Saying this guy metaphorically "shouted 'fire!' in a crowded theater" is saying he did something that he should have expected would cause violence. Something that *normally* causes violence.

A culture that supports free speech -- and freedom of conscience -- cannot be a culture that believes it is *normal* to react to "blasphemy" with violence.

...

Related:

Brian argues that it's normal for Americans to believe that some speech is "despicable." Maybe it is. However, I for one would have a hard time labeling *any* speech as *so* bad that it really deserves the term "despicable."

When someone uses the ethnic slur that applies to my dad's side of my family, the slur that applies to people with my surname...I get extremely angry and am indeed tempted toward violence. But I control myself; and I do not consider the use of that slur to fit the label "despicable." "Despicable" is a word for something worse.

When someone online became so angry with something I said that they told me I "deserve to be raped to death with a rusty rake," that led my partner and me to fear that this person might track us down and throw Molotov cocktails through our window. I do consider those words to be pretty damn bad. (If they'd known my history of sexual abuse, those words would've been even worse.) Even for that, though, I still feel the term "despicable" is still a little strong.

I actually find the idea that some speech is "despicable" a little creepy. I think it encourages a mindset that is dangerously close to forgetting the need for and the purpose of freedom of speech.

I've already seen incidents in which people have compromised some of their supposed values, or even broken their own stated rules, because, "This particular offense is different, is worse, is *truly* despicable; surely our [value | rule] of [free speech | tenure | an unmoderated discussion group | etc.] wasn't meant to apply to *this*." Encouraging the attitude that, yes, some speech really is "despicable"...can only encourage that mindset.

US society seems to be moving in that direction. It's been mentioned before on these boards that Millennials, or perhaps simply modern society, seem(s) especially inclined toward the whole, "Although I was caught cheating, I am a good student" thing; I've often seen Young People Today(tm) say things even more obviously contradictory, such as, "Although I speculated about someone's motives behind their back, and others believed it and it altered their attitude toward the person, I didn't gossip."

People who are good at, "Although it fits all the criteria for X, it's not actually X, this time it's different," are especially likely to say, "Although it fits all the criteria for a free speech issue, it's not actually a free speech issue, this time it's different"...

If they want to. If they want to because they're especially outraged by this particular speech. If they've been encouraged to be especially outraged by some statements, because they've been encouraged to believe that yes, some speech really is "despicable."

No. No speech, no just words or just a film or just a picture, is *so* bad that it really merits the label "despicable." None.

...

BTW. In retrospect I now realize that the liberal Millennial who told me I
"deserve to be raped to death with a rusty rake," did so partly because my previous defense of freedom of speech had inspired him/her to conclude I must be a conservative.

If we go ahead and cede something as basic as defense of free speech to the conservatives, then stick a fork in us, we're done.

At least Secretary of State Clinton came out strongly in support of freedom of speech.

Not staying home for this election. I wonder about the next one, though.

...

Brian keeps trying and trying to redefine this discussion as being "about the film, not the attack on the embassy." But well...it actually started out as being about the attack on the embassy (and Mitt Romney's response to it); I checked.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You know, it's interesting that some of the posters here can't understand objecting to this film except in terms of what it might provoke Muslims to do to us. It's as if there can be no other reason to object to it -- not aesthetic reasons, not reasons of taste, not reasons of morality, nothing except fear of retaliation.

This is a parallel blind spot along with the other one, an inability to understand that "this film should not have been produced" is not equivalent to "we should ban this film." It's as if they expect, if you disapprove of something, you're going to want to use heavy-handed government force and censorship to suppress it. There's apparently no understanding at all of the concept that one can believe in freedom without at the same time approving of everything someone does with it.

What can we tentatively conclude from this? I would say two things.

1) Those posters who have the above holes in their understanding themselves cannot evaluate either art or actions except in an authoritarian, fear of punishment context. Since that is the only way they are able to think about evaluating art or actions, they assume that that's what others are doing, too, and look for some plausible source of punishment that might suffice to explain the fear.

2) Those posters who have the above holds in their understanding themselves have very little appreciation of freedom. One sees this in other contexts, too: freedom of religion is good if it's MY religion; freedom of speech is good if it's not IMMORAL speech; freedom of action is good if the action isn't one God (or a substitute) would shake his finger at. Since freedom -- which in effect means the right to do what you want whether someone else approves of it or not -- is a foreign concept to them, expressions of disapproval automatically amount to a call for suppression by force of the state.

It's quite revealing, actually.

I see Brian failed to predict my argument. Which is based not on projection of myself but on observation of others.

Originally Posted by Odin

Unlike many of my fellow leftists I haven't succumbed to the mental disease of Postmodernism.

Neither did I. Occam's razor seems to do a good job of dismembering Postmodernism. It may be that the Right has adopted much of the faults of Postmodernism, namely the rejection of old standards of truth and methods for discerning it from falsehood.

Originally Posted by JDFP

as a Catholic when someone fundamentally disagrees with a dogmatic teaching of the faith it does give me pause to consider that if someone doesn't actually follow the teachings of the faith if they can really call themselves a member of that faith. It's a bit like saying you're a Catholic but that whole Jesus as God stuff just seems a bit silly but otherwise you're cool with everything else - or that you're a vegetarian but you make an exception for bacon (oh, but only bacon though!). Can you really classify yourself as something if you have a fundamental dogmatic disagreement with it?

Interesting analogy.

You know, I actually am a vegetarian except I eat grass-fed beef.

Seriously.

I was a vegetarian for years, but it turned out to be bad for my health. To recover, I needed to start eating meat twice a week. Of course I picked a healthy meat: Grass-fed beef. Most of the time, for most people whose house I'm going to eat at and for restaurants, I still call myself a vegetarian, because that is much easier for them to understand and causes less hassle.

*Is* it a "fundamental dogmatic disagreement" with vegetarianism?

Well, what kind of vegetarianism? Some are vegetarians for their health; no disagreement there as I'm doing this for my health. Some are vegetarians for environmental reasons; no disagreement there either, I'm doing as much as I can and still remain functional.

Some are vegetarians for reasons of animal welfare. I actually don't even disagree with them...it's just that um, I want to live. Still, this is the area where some vegetarians don't want to hear or believe this. (Hell, I didn't! I'm not interested in arguing with those vegetarians; they should read Lierre Keith.)

Even here, however...the beef I eat is raised by my neighbor. I can see that these cattle have much better lives than your typical feedlot cattle. Yeah, we still kill and eat them. Am I completely happy with the situation? No. Do I still basically agree with vegetarianism and most vegetarians? Yes.

Now...re Catholicism. I have the impression you're a convert, is that right? It's not surprising that a convert would think that the important thing about a religion is its teachings -- otherwise why convert? My personality is such that I tend to agree with you.

Still though...my father's family is what is usually described as, "white ethnic Catholic." And that is a description of a culture, not a religion. Since my mother's family disapproved of the marriage more than my father's family did, I grew up mostly around my father's family. I was raised without any religion, but I still grew up in the culture.

I was never a very enculturating type, but still...I don't think it's a coincidence that when it came time to find a life partner, I ended up with a woman who was raised Catholic. She is what some would call "mestiza" (others would consider that term an insult), rather than "white," but she is still part of an "ethnic Catholic" culture.

My partner and I both tend to agree with you that if you're going to be part of a religion, then follow its teachings. That's why we don't consider ourselves Catholic.

But most people who are part of an ethnic and religious culture do keep identifying as the religion. Is a "cafeteria Catholic" Catholic? Well, why are they Catholic?

AFAIK *most* members of *most* religions are part of that religion rather than another one because they were raised in it, their family is there, and it's part of their culture. Even if they don't agree with every doctrinal point, as long as they don't have what they consider to be an extreme disagreement, they stay in the religion in which they were raised.

If someone has examined their conscience and decided to remain a member of a religion, if *they* have decided that their disagreement is not extreme enough to leave...are you going to tell them they can't, because *you* have decided their disagreement is too great?

I don't think some random other self-identified member of that religion has any right to.

When it comes to the church authorities, OTOH...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Should someone be told they don't have a relationship with God or Jesus, because they think some of the teachings of church authorities are not absolutely accurate, and need to be adjusted?

Protestant!

I mean seriously, talk about citing the basis for Protestantism there.

♫Now Bob, the deceiver, he took us all in
He married a Papist named Bridget McGinn
Turned Papish himself and forsook the old cause
That gave us our freedom, religion and laws♫

...sorry.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

M
Brian argues that it's normal for Americans to believe that some speech is "despicable." Maybe it is. However, I for one would have a hard time labeling *any* speech as *so* bad that it really deserves the term "despicable."

When someone uses the ethnic slur that applies to my dad's side of my family, the slur that applies to people with my surname...I get extremely angry and am indeed tempted toward violence. But I control myself

Saying that a certain type of speech is "despicable" is an expression of opinion. It means that the speech, and by logical extension the speaker, are worth of being "despised." It has nothing to do with violence, and in no way, shape or form implies that violence is to be contemplated against the speaker. So the fact that you control yourself and don't give in to the temptation to violence in that circumstance does NOT mean that you don't consider the ethnic slur "despicable."

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Neither did I. Occam's razor seems to do a good job of dismembering Postmodernism. It may be that the Right has adopted much of the faults of Postmodernism, namely the rejection of old standards of truth and methods for discerning it from falsehood.

Yes, it has.

Unfortunately, so have elements of the Left.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Saying that a certain type of speech is "despicable" is an expression of opinion. It means that the speech, and by logical extension the speaker, are worth of being "despised." It has nothing to do with violence, and in no way, shape or form implies that violence is to be contemplated against the speaker. So the fact that you control yourself and don't give in to the temptation to violence in that circumstance does NOT mean that you don't consider the ethnic slur "despicable."

The fact that I'm tempted toward violence isn't part of my definition of "despicable," it's just an expression of the strength of my emotions. You know, like your expression of a desire to strangle me during a previous discussion was an expression of the strength of yours.

I honestly do believe that saying I "despise" anyone who uses that ethnic slur on me would be going too far to be an accurate description of my opinion. That's even though that slur does provoke very strong emotion.

Tell you who I do despise: people who do physically attack others because of nothing more than words.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

The fact that I'm tempted toward violence isn't part of my definition of "despicable," it's just an expression of the strength of my emotions.

You're inverting the logical flow here.

Your post to which I responded was saying, not that the fact you were tempted towards violence DID mean you considered the speech "despicable," but that the fact you RESTRAINED yourself and did not ACT on that temptation means you DIDN'T consider the action "despicable."

In symbolic logic: Your original post was using "If not-A, then not-B." What you are saying now, however, is "If A then B doesn't follow." Not the same statement.

What I said was in response to your original post. I said that the fact you didn't commit violence doesn't mean the speech wasn't despicable, it just means you didn't commit violence. It is possible, in other words, to despise speech (and the speaker) without beating the crap out of them.

I stand by that.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Your post to which I responded was saying, not that the fact you were tempted towards violence DID mean you considered the speech "despicable," but that the fact you RESTRAINED yourself and did not ACT on that temptation means you DIDN'T consider the action "despicable."

I apologize; I wrote it confusingly. What I wrote was that I *both* restrained myself *and* don't consider the speech "despicable." I can see why you'd draw the conclusion you did; still, that's not what I said.

I was not at all tempted to (try to) physically attack the person who said I deserved to be raped to death; that person inspired more fear (and, well, flashbacks) than anger. That person I do come close to despising...but, hmm, not quite. Because in the end, it was just words.

It is possible, in other words, to despise speech (and the speaker) without beating the crap out of them.

I agree.

I think many in US society do not, however. Which was the point of my post.

You draw the line at action; I draw the line at despising. For all I know, we may not actually disagree on anything but the definition of the term "despise."

My concern about the direction of society remains.

I also remain creeped out by the arguments, mostly from Boomers and Millennials, that "there are some things you just shouldn't say." I was creeped out when Odin said it a year ago; I'm creeped out when others say it today.

Here are some thoughts I completely agree with:

http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/15/a-...muslims-video/

I'm seeing some sentiment out there that there's something wrong with decrying Nakoula, his behavior, and his speech — as if it is inherently giving in to the barbaric mobs. Not so. I argued last week that the message of the U.S. Embassy in Cario was awful because its context and content accepted the censors' narrative (that speech can "hurt religious belief" and that the film is an "abuse" of speech, which usually is another way to say "not free speech"). But supporting free speech does not mean supporting the decency of the people uttering it. The Nazis who marched at Skokie were . . . well, Nazis. The Phelps clan is vile. Many bigots protected by free speech are profoundly awful people. And Joe Francis still exists. Though it's not required that we point out these people's scumbaggery when defending their speech, there's certainly nothing wrong with it. Nakoula seems to be an awful person. He's a bigot. He's a convicted fraudster. You can believe that the barbaric mob had no justification for murder and violence and still think that it's contemptible that Nakoula used an alias to blame the film on Israelis, possibly with the intent to inspire further strife between Muslims and Jews. Plus, according to statements by the actors and crew, Nakoula shot a generic old-times-in-the-desert movie and then, with the cast's name and faces attached to it, re-dubbed it into an anti-Muhammad screed without their knowledge — while protecting his own name with an alias. That's a freakishly contemptible thing to do even if you firmly maintain, as I do, that there's no excuse for violence every time someone disrespects your religious figures. Nakoula is no sort of hero; only rank partisanship can make him one.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You know, it's interesting that some of the posters here can't understand objecting to this film except in terms of what it might provoke Muslims to do to us. It's as if there can be no other reason to object to it -- not aesthetic reasons, not reasons of taste, not reasons of morality, nothing except fear of retaliation.

It reflects badly upon Judeo-Christian values -- most notably the ancient, still relevant commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness". Showing Mohammed as a lecherous, cruel, vindictive, unprincipled thug motivated only by animal instincts as if fact is reckless disregard for the historical record. If there is no contemporary alternative to the Koran on the personality of Mohammed, then such is what we have to go by. If Mohammed can be so libeled, then so can any figure of history. We must have a distinction between Abraham Lincoln and Saddam Hussein.

This is a parallel blind spot along with the other one, an inability to understand that "this film should not have been produced" is not equivalent to "we should ban this film." It's as if they expect, if you disapprove of something, you're going to want to use heavy-handed government force and censorship to suppress it. There's apparently no understanding at all of the concept that one can believe in freedom without at the same time approving of everything someone does with it.

It is easy to produce any derogatory treatment of a historical figure with a low budget that allows for CGI effects. I saw the trailer, noticed the poor quality of filming (the desert looked as if it had been produced in Dalton, Georgia -- carpet-manufacturing capital of America), the bad costumes, and the bad makeup... and the poor synchronization of voice and action.... and it was good for more snickers than anger.

What can we tentatively conclude from this? I would say two things.

1) Those posters who have the above holes in their understanding themselves cannot evaluate either art or actions except in an authoritarian, fear of punishment context. Since that is the only way they are able to think about evaluating art or actions, they assume that that's what others are doing, too, and look for some plausible source of punishment that might suffice to explain the fear.

"Incompetent and offensive" could as easily apply to badly-produced erotica.

2) Those posters who have the above holds in their understanding themselves have very little appreciation of freedom. One sees this in other contexts, too: freedom of religion is good if it's MY religion; freedom of speech is good if it's not IMMORAL speech; freedom of action is good if the action isn't one God (or a substitute) would shake his finger at. Since freedom -- which in effect means the right to do what you want whether someone else approves of it or not -- is a foreign concept to them, expressions of disapproval automatically amount to a call for suppression by force of the state.

It's quite revealing, actually.

Propaganda can be entertaining or at least of esthetic merit. I might not like the Bolshevik Revolution and its consequences, but Battleship Potemkin is quite good. Triumph of the Will is cinematic mastery -- not that it is likely to turn me into a Nazi. (I can look at it and see the effectiveness of Nazi pageantry in convincing people of the power of a political cause. So it doesn't show the torture chambers, the brutality of the camps even in 1936, and the degrading effects of racist legislation upon helpless people? That's why we have to keep reminding people of the bombed-out and burned-out buildings, the body count in aggressive warfare, and of course the record of mass murder so that people can't associate the word Nazi with anything that contradicts "horror").

So it isn't propaganda if we do it? Wrong. The British Mrs. Miniver and the American Casablanca exemplify how to do propaganda well.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yes. In fact a few days ago before this happened I just mentioned to Kinser'79 about how calling someone a Racist Neo-Colonialist Pig has been used since the Awakening to attack Enlightenment values.

I think this may be the root of my, um, creeped-out-ness.

But it may be a generational thing, too. Didn't David Kaiser say once that he has the impression Xers and Millennials value "anything goes" in terms of speech, while Boomers don't?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Saying that a movie is "crappy and dumb" (my terms) is a personal opinion based on esthetics, and a lot different from saying that it's "wrong" or "shouldn't have been made," which is a moral judgment.

Yes, but at the same time, making that moral judgment is also a lot different from saying that the government ought to ban it. And only the latter constitutes a call to abridge freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, but at the same time, making that moral judgment is also a lot different from saying that the government ought to ban it. And only the latter constitutes a call to abridge freedom of speech.

Yes, but even the former encourages the sort of people who are already demonstrably likely to argue, "But this time it's different! This time it's *really* offensive!"

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Yes, but even the former encourages the sort of people who are already demonstrably likely to argue, "But this time it's different! This time it's *really* offensive!"

An argument absolutely parallel to saying, "Allowing this film under the First Amendment encourages those Islamic extremists to attack us." Or, on the other hand, "Criticizing this film is knuckling under to the terrorists."

He has a right to make that film.

I have a right to my opinion of that film, and of him for making it.

End of story.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-PW has a few things to explain, like how everyone who saw it coming knew what the results of the CRA, Fannie and Freddie would be:



...did everyone see it? No. It was guys like this:



...were the ones who said it wasn't a problem.

Now, even they admit they were wrong:




...but Playwrong won't admit it.

Yet.

With this obsession with Barney, maybe you and he should get a room for the night?

Who cares what Barney said; if you rely on pols to do your thinking for you I can understand why you're still in the trailer park.

As I've said before, I made the Glick Schitck to provide a more efficient response to the many times you bring up your zombie lies. Here once again is the complete debunk of this one, " Glickism #1 - Fannie, Freddie and the CRA did it!" here -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...889#post377889

And again, I don't think that includes the question that if Fann, Fred and CRA did it, how is that the real estate meltdown was global? Let's see what that puny brain of yours can conjure up on that one. Now that will be entertaining.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) I've been looking for a convenient condo, but they aren't common in Clarksville.

2) I can hardly wait for Playdude to explain what's wrong with living in a trailer park.

There's nothing wrong with living in a trailer park if that is all that your means can afford.

What is wrong is for someone to believe that they can give credible financial advice or believe they have any clue about the big bad financial world (e.g. the financial meltdown) if they have not had the wherewithal to even extract themselves from the financial straits that keep them in a trailer park.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-My Ft. Donelson research is providing raw material for my Master's Thesis, meaning that at least my professors will read it i.e., 3 times as many people who will read BR's stuff.

Oh! And Wally Poodle PinkSplice said he wanted to read it, but that was my narrative version. That was also before Pinky went beserk.

His loss!

Having a prof or Wally say they might like to read your work is a far cry from actual publishing something. I think Brian has you beat hands down. In fact, your really not in the same league as he - I've noted in my career most of my critics are in the same boat as you.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Having a prof or Wally say they might like to read your work is a far cry from actual publishing something. I think Brian has you beat hands down. In fact, your really not in the same league as he - I've noted in my career most of my critics are in the same boat as you.

Actually, being published is no longer a challenge. Anyone can be published; all you have to do is upload a book, properly formatted, to Amazon and boom! you're published. That's a huge consequence of the digital revolution.

I think I have him beat hands down, too, but that's not why. (Besides, most of what I've published is fiction.)