Rory Litwin critical of LISNews

The most recent issue of Library Juice includes an essay by editor Roy Litwin. He reflects on Blake Carver's decision in February to encourage more conservative contributors to LISNews.

When Blake made his original announcement, I linked to it in Library Juice and called it "Batty." It seemed batty to me for Blake to describe his own site as a "liberal echo chamber" when to me it had for years seemed like one of the more politically conservative sources of information relating to librarianship available, in terms of the stories that were posted, but especially the comments that people were leaving. The belligerant, "AM Talk Radio" style of much if not most of the discussion on LISNews had led me to stop posting stories there roughly a year earlier and to stop reading the site almost completely. A year ago it already seemed, to me, that LISNews had, far from being a "liberal echo chamber," been taken over by a right wing librarian's militia group.

So, basically I am still disturbed by Blake's sentiments about his site and about politics in the library community. It comes as a surprise and a disappointment. If you are a reader of LISNews, I hope you will read it with a critical eye and an awareness of this development.

I would like to add that I have nearly stopped reading the comments in recent weeks. Mainly because my work load has increased and my free time has decreased, but also because it seems to be the same folks, beating each other up over the same issues. Sometimes I get the feeling that my moderate, left-leaning opinion isn't wanted here.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re:Thank You

This is an important site, and in terms of the postings, does probably represent the (not-very intellectual) mainstream of younger librarians, though the comments are leaning well to the right of the mainstream.

Yes, I caught your subtle flick of condescension here. I'm not taking the bait.

Re:Thank You

The person who said "how can you say I lack fortitute" is obviously the person whom you said lacks fortitude.Because I was responding in the first person to something you said about me, I thought it was obvious enough who was speaking.It is ridiculous that you make it necessary to say this.Rory Litwin

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

John, I stand by my statement.

The issue here is character, not politics. My original post mentions nothing of Rory's politics as the source of his having no guts. (Please, no more hackneyed RW conspiracy drivel)

The issue with my post is Rory's decision to blame Blake for encouraging conservative voices here at LISNews. I would have expected this to be something progressives would encourage. Your remarks have dispelled any thoughts of this lofty notion.

I invite you to revisit my original post. You may also take note of my mention of other liberal posters here at LISNews that I recognize as having the fortitude, better the guts to leave the door open here for right leaning librarians, rather than whine to Blake for upsetting the liberal apple cart. (FWIW I have also "called out" at least one conservative here who made reference to "whining" to Blake about another poster)

Final thought. John, I suggest you get used to the idea of Ditto heads librarians.

Re:Thank You

I'm a librarian Rory, not a mind reader. Perhaps signing all of your posts, rather than just a few, would be a good idea??

That said. Like I just told your friend John, I stand by my comment.

How the hell self-professed, open-minded library types can yap incessantly about diversity, but "whine" to a guy with no editorial control the minute anyone with a different opinion be invited to participate is not only hypocritical Rory, it's shameful.

Blake isn't to blame here. The genie decided to leave the bottle long before Blake's comments. I welcome left leaning posters here. In fact I love them. Why? Because unlike you, I see opportunity to engage whereas you see a threat.

You chose to scapegoat rather than enter the fray Rory hence my original post.

Re:Thank You

I am frankly stumpted at what in the world a "conservative librarian" could be when the end game of the right wing according to Grover Norquist is to "shrink government (read public libraries and public schools and public universities) till it is small enough to fit in a bathtub and then drown it." I guarantee that the resulting private, gated communities resulting from this plan will provide little or no employment for said librarians.

Yeah, that's it Carol. Why didn't you add that conservatives want to kill all the puppies and crap on everyone's birthday cake.

If you think that is how all conservatives think, then you probably don't know any and perhaps you could expand your intellectual horizons a little. You also sound a bit arrogant thinking that your way is the one true way.

Library Jouce post

I find a lot in Library Juice I don't find in my normal reading. This, for example, was very good to have.

From Papyrus to Print-out: African library conference

From Papyrus to Print-out: the Book in Africa Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

8th Bibliophilia Africana Conference, Centre of the Book, Cape Town

11th - 14th May 2005

I was wrong.

I was wrong. LISNEWS is clearly a fair and balanced website. I think I was just envious because LISNEWS is so cool and my site is not so cool. Good job Blake, keep up the good work.

--Rory Litwin

I think I might even get an account at LISNEWS. That way people cannot spoof my comments.

Re:I was wrong.

I was wondering when somebody was going to try that.- The real Rory, who has already stated his reason for not logging in, and who, while he is well aware that the "debate" here is hardly honest, would still be surprised if anyone attempted a fraudulent post in a serious sense. Things aren't quite as bad as that.

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

Whoa, boldface "fortitude" and "guts" talk! I'm impressed... 3 things here:1. You've repeated it several times with the "guts" talk: you're personally attacking Rory. That is, in the purest sense, gutless, and its avoiding his ideas. Its also typical right tactics.2. I didn't speak of right wing "conspiracy", only imitation of well-worn tactics. You've done it again with the name calling. (I'm now waiting for you to accuse me of starting the name-calling on the "gutless" thing after this has been thrown around for days.)3. Rory's intitial point stands: it is a rightward lurch to seek out/request/sponsor/want/encourage conservative commentary in response to the "liberal echo chamber". Naming it such, and placing the blame for "suppressing" "alternative" viewpoints is a sub rosa argument which blames the left for the tenor & tone of the postings and opinions. If diversity is what is wished for, why slap at the left, and why not simply see if there are other voices out there who might well be heard?There is no "liberal apple cart." As I said, if one takes our professional ethics seriously and carries them through, you're more or less pursuing a left idea - yes, even when making sure that the Bushes & Cheneys (and their detractors among the poor, the green, the peaceful) of the world have their full hearing on our shelves & computers.John BuschmanCo-editor Progressive LibrarianCoordinating Committee, P

posting under someone else's name

It was tried a couple days ago, and I deleted the post. I would think that posting under someone else's name would be the one thing to get someone banned from the site. It was the same person who did it this time. Despite the attempt at humor, I find such shenanigans unethical, unprofessional, stupidly juvenile and just plain inexplicable. BF, what is your point for such posts?

Re:humanistic opinions

Progressives tend to care about people and the future of the planet and conservatives about themselves.

Hogwash. And you have a job teaching at a university?

To sum this up....

LISNews, nobody cared until the message became conservative.

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

John – you’re rambling here. Out of control comes to mind as well.

Just a few points. (you may consider your medicine before reading)

First a request. Please, save your self-righteous indignation for someone who cares. As for the boldface talk, get use to it.
LISNews is the “real world� John, not the incestuous ideological love fest you folks have historically enjoyed over at Juice. Though I do welcome your participation here.

Lastly. Your reference to professional ethics and liberalism says more about your passion for diverse thought than your ability to withhold nonsensical generalizations.

Rochelle, guardian of anonymous information

The point was to have him sign up for an account. How do we know that any of the things that say Rory under it are really him. Both the post I made hade language that showed that it was not Rory but did show the point that without the language you would think it was from him. Since only you top level people have the power to see the IP of the post people should have an account.


I do hope you'll change your mind Rory. As Blake said previously, this is not strictly his forum, it is a place for all to add their thoughts and opinions, left, right and non-denominational to the stories and commentary posted here.

As I was out of the country when the original Library Juice editorial and LIS News responses were posted, I'd thought I'd chime in now...hoping that maybe...I could have the last word.

Re:Thank You

P-upchuck, His High Tomeliness, et. al.:Y'all just can't help yourselves can you? Rory gives & repeats a basic analysis and question, and you folks take the tone & tenor right into the gutter. Rory took exception to the "liberal echo chamber" comment, posted his analysis on LJ (& used similarly motivated language in it) and it was picked up by LISNews.You're all whining that "he started it", you've not (& I assume, can't) answer the basic question he raised (do I need to repeat it?), and you attack, attack attack. Meanwhile, you're getting into these really, really small distictions as to whether the person connected to the handle "pooh-pooh bear" was the poster, or "big daddy". Wow, its really grown up to hide behind anonymous names, meanwhile those of us on the other side are actually using our own - what a concept.If you want a real debate over the relative merits of a self-proclaimed left outlet (LJ) vs. a self-proclaimed neutral one that was somehow "biased" then knock off the Stalin, fellow-travelers, and puppet bullshit and address the ideas. His Tomeliness has already folded his tent in a pout over punning his "handle," so move on, or engage the ideas Rory is putting out.Hoping for many children not to be left behind,John Buschman (AGAIN, my real name...)

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

Tomeboy (love the nom de plume..),Oh boy! This really intellectual now! Medications as well as the subsequent rant on Stalinism and broad brush red-baiting. Studiously avoiding the actual issues at hand (remember Rory's original position & his reasons?) & attacking personally is classic right wing sleaziness. I don't really expect much else - just know that I too won't back off.Get used to what, stupidity? Nobody is defending Stalin - as I assume you folks aren't defending Hitler or Mussolini or Franco or Cheney (well, strike that last one). Rory's non-account is a nonsense issue too. Do you folks lay awake at night dreaming this stuff up?So, answer the question: why was it necessary to slap around postings as too left to get more diversity of viewpoints if that is what was felt was needed?John Buschm

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

So, answer the question: why was it necessary to slap around postings as too left to get more diversity of viewpoints if that is what was felt was needed?


The “slap� hyperbole notwithstanding, I think you have answered your own question John.

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

Tomeperson,I think you're caught in the same kind of tautology that you accuse PLG types of holding dear: the fact that anyone dares argue with you makes them, by definition, wrong and deserving of any & all you might feel like dishing out. That is, of course, a convenient way to avoid answering a simple question, which you've done consistently.Personal attacks substitute for argumentation and reasons for you and amongst the true believers you speak for. You can call "slap" hyperbole, but its pretty clear from this long string who the attackers are, and who's trying to argue for their position (which is different, you know).Doing my best to make good on W's promise to "leave no child behind", I'll keep corresponding as long as you wish. Sign me with my own, real name,John Buschm

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

John, you answered your own question which leads me to believe you have no other question.

You mention personal attacks. I see the puerility of your debate now includes my handle “tomeboy�. Fine. Call me tomeshithead, tomeasshole, tomesonofabitch….I really don’t care John.

But if you wish to play the role of the progressive blog martyr here for Rory, then I suggest you either lay off your own ad hominem BS or tell Rory to get out from under your skirt.

Better a coward than a hypocrite.

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

Person-of-Tomeness,The names continue! I'm impressed - and you managed to do so much personal slapping around beyond even me... Come on, Tomeness, humor me just this once and try, real hard, to actually enter a debate wherein you might be thinking:Why was it necessary in the first place for LISNews to slap the "left echo chamber" to get more diversity of views? In other words, why was it necessary to make one perspective unwelcome to foster another?Still leaving no child behind, I am:John Buschman (my actual, real nam

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

Because this WAS a liberal echo chamber.

Are you suggesting that conservatives and liberals were equally divided here prior to 2004? I can think of two conservative types when I started posting last fall, myself and bibliofuture (I'm not even sure biblio is a conservative, though we do agree on the smut issue in libraries). So, the ball is in your court John. Where was this right wing tsunami of opinion?

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

Tome-of-indeterminate-gender,So, it was a "liberal echo chamber" because it was a liberal echo chamber. Now I understand! People joined & posted shudderingly liberal stuff to shut y'all out, so turn about is fair play. Nice.Again, just actually answer the question (do you do this on the reference desk? "I told you, the population of Arkansas is what the population of Arkansas is, because that's the population that's in Arkansas. What part don't you understand?").That question again is: why was it necessary to make a class of opinions unwelcome to broaden the field for others (more conservative in this case)?Still leaving no conservative child behind in our attempts to educate, I amJohn Buschman

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

John I’ve answered your question . You’ve answered you question . Now you’re trolling for another answer. No thanks. Try this and your shtick with making moniker funnies on another conservative. There should be plenty to find around here.

And yes, please take a final shot. LISNews colleagues would expect no less than to see your “no child left behind� gimmickry one last time. Form over substance.

You win John.

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

Tome-of-righteousness,It's funny because it *is* funny (see, two can play the same game). You haven't answered the question, you're clearly not going to because you either: a, can't; b, know that you'd be betraying a central professional principle as a librarian if you did.As for the naming thing, y'all raked Rory over the coals but good & opened that door. Minor puns on a pretentious "handle" is pretty mild compared to what I've read. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.I refuse to quit & leave this child behind, signedJohn Buschman (again, my real name...)(Just couldn't resist the pot-shot on "form" could you? Brave words from somebody who's ducked a question 37 times.)

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

In retrospect, I think the right-wing tsunami of opinion in early 2004 was in the comments to the stories. I think it was the influence of these commentators that led Blake to call for more conservative postings. I'd say the stories themselves hardly constituted a left-wing echo chamber. I think they pretty much reflected the mainstream of librarianship - mostly rather centrist, with some liberalism, very little real progressivism, and some conservatism and radical conservatism. But it strikes me as odd, and still strikes me as odd, that Blake, who was accused by this wave of conservative comment on LISNews of being a crazy liberal, responded to them by giving them exactly what they wanted - validation of their interpretation of the preponderance of LISNews postings as making up a "liberal echo chamber" (I challenge anyone to find evidence for this view) and calling for more conservatism. If that doesn't constitute a definite political frame of reference and shifting it to the right, I don't know what does. My beef, as I've said, is not with LISNews having a frame of reference, but with LISNews continuing to call itself perfectly neutral ground as this is going on.Rory Litwin

Re:Thank You

You call it an "opportunity to engage" but you treat it as an opportunity to fight. I see a real difference between honest debate, which is motivated by an interest in what the other side has to say and in a cooperative pursuit of truth, and a political slugfest where the goal is not to find truth but to hurt your opponent. One is civil, rational discourse, the other is not. If I don't want to participate in a forum which is dominated by the latter type of discourse, it's not because I can't handle a diversity of opinion. It's only because I think diversity of opinion should be expressed, debated and thought about in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect rather than unruly contest where dishonest argumentation (taking things out of context, misrepresenting views, baseless personal attacks) tends to ruin the discussion.Rory Litwin

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

But it strikes me as odd, and still strikes me as odd, that Blake, who was accused by this wave of conservative comment on LISNews of being a crazy liberal, responded to them by giving them exactly what they wanted

Who accused Blake, Rory??? I want names. I certainly didn't accuse Blake of being a "crazy liberal", nor did I whine to Blake about the ideology of stories or petition his assistance for right wing help. I respect Blake, though rarely do we, or have we, agreed on issues. Check the record. He is, dare I say, a true progressive.

You could count on one hand the conservative voices here in LISNews prior to 2004. That leaves the possibility of up to four other suspects. Who were these conservative name callers that influenced the "Crazy Liberal"? Without names, these are baseless accusations.

Re:Rochelle, guardian of anonymous information

Having an account is no guarantee of identity. You could be sharing your login with someone, for all I know.To me the important thing is not to be anonymous. I have signed all of my postings (where it wasn't obvious that I was responding to something said to me directly). I don't know your name or the names of most of the people here who use nicknames alone.- Rory Litwin

Re:So much for....

Apologies to Anna - I see that she, not Rochelle, posted the story. I'm still not angry at her at all, of course. I was initially shocked, kind of hurt, and angered by the nature of many of the comments, but now they simply appear to me as "information" about the nature of the LISNews community as well as online forums in general.This story is six days old now. At this point I want to invite anyone who has read this deeply into the comments to step back from them and analyze the discussion.- Rory Litwin

Re:Thank You

Rory - You confound me. You consider the LISNews forum more akin to a brawl than a civil exchange of ideas, yet you are bothered by Blake's invitation to "conservative muckruckers" to participate. Why should you care?

You're visiting the monkey house here Rory. You should fan the flames, encourage this perpetual food fight to expose conservatism for what it is. Perhaps a button on your Juice site, something like "Click Here for Conservative Cognition" or "Right Wing Think Tank Straight Ahead". Surely this site poses no threat to you or progressive librarians.

Re:Underlying issues

Trying to find an example of the overall tenor of the site isn't really appropriate - we're in the midst of it. The site as a whole has a certain character, partly shaped by the balance of stories that are posted and the way that they are described, and partly shaped by the nature of the comments on the stories. In February, Blake called this overall character of the site a "left wing echo-chamber," which in itself was, but was not taken as, an admission that the site has a frame of reference - as off-base as it sounded to me and many others who visit the site when the comments had become dominated by aggressively conservative posters and the balance of stories seemed pretty middle of the road. So, Blake called for more conservative content, and I watched things for a couple of months and decided that he had indeed made an effort to shift the overall frame of reference of the site to the right, and that there was an appreciable effect. Now the character of the site has shifted to the right, partly through this move on Blake's part, and partly through the gradual buildup of conservative comment. Despite this, you and Blake and others still represent the site as "neutral" and ask for proof that it is not. If I may answer a question with a question, what is neutrality to you if this site has it, and if the absence of it on a site with a political culture has to be proved?Rory Litwin

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

You and the others don't leave your names - you are anonymous. Do please don't ask me for names.I am sure my memory isn't failing me, but I don't really have the time to dig up the messages that I am thinking of. They were in comments to stories that I am not sure how I would go about finding at this point. Sorry.Rory Litwin

Re:Rory, PLG, & the Right

I was referring to LISNews pseudonyms (which are not unique to LISNews conservatives)

Which of the following are you speaking of;
tomeboy, bibliophile, pchuck, Eli, conservator, commonsense, mdoneil, nbruce, wuggle, Greg?

The crux of your argument is based upon these suspects and their plea for Blake's assistance. Now, you confess that you can't recall who or what or when. Precious.

What seperates this type of baseless accusation from Mr Ashcroft's supposed abuses of PA215?

No names, no more discussion Rory.

Re:Underlying issues

This site is neutral in that Rory Litwin can post one of his "agressively leftist" articles and all his "aggressive" as well as non-aggressive leftist fellow-travelers can post comments and agree or disagree with his post. Just as I can post one of my "aggressively conservative" articles and have all my right-wing comrades post comments and agree or disagree with my post.

In addition, people who don't belong to any camp can post articles and comments concerning just anything that is library related.

I have to say that most of the articles that are posted are pretty neutral in the sense they are not left-wing or right-wing. On the other hand, the comments tend to be more political. Some go right and some go left and some are in the middle.

Then again, you might view things that are liberal (left-of-center) as right-wing. I don't know. If so, that is your problem.

Re:Thank You

It's only because I think diversity of opinion should be expressed, debated and thought about in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect rather than unruly contest where dishonest argumentation (taking things out of context, misrepresenting views, baseless personal attacks) tends to ruin the discussion.

This is the coming from the guy who started this whole thing by using terms like "right wing librarian's militia group." Is this based on peace and mutual respect? Yes or No?


The idea that LISNews was - or still is - a "liberal echo chamber" is patently untrue; there has been increasingly conservative content and a strong conservative presence in February when Blake made his announcement. That's part of my point.But what if LISNews were mostly a liberal hangout? Would that make it a liberal echo chamber? The idea of a liberal echo chamber implies that there are 1) no new ideas and that there is 2) no disagreement. An aspect of liberalism - in the classical and the modern sense - has always been the overturning of tradition in favor of new ideas, so to say that liberals can't think of new ideas is an insult that simply doesn't have any traction. And even conservatives to whom liberalism seems like a morass of nonsense are well aware that there are major differences within the left, between more libertarian types and more socialist types, as well as labor folks and environmentalists, economists, street activists, radicals and moderates.I'm just pointing out that painting LISNews as a "liberal echo chamber" is more than a claim that it was liberal, but also says it was an "echo chamber."Rory Litwin

Re:Good Idea

Point taken. But when I came here to defend my position, I dropped the aggressive language and proceeded to try to discuss things logically (especially after the first day). Over the past week, I have elaborated my points, altered my position slightly, made it more complex, and explained a rational argument about the nature of LISNews. Rather than engaging me in a discussion at this level, I have been met with hostiliy (mainly from a few people, admittedly) from anonymous "nicknames." There's been very little interest here in a real intellectual discussion, and no one has really addressed the major aspects of my argument. All the while I have been rational and peaceful. The record supports my original point.Rory Litwin

Re:Underlying issues

The underlying technology has a certain neutrality, but LISNews is more than that. It also has a culture and a frame of reference which contextualizes anything that I might post here, and sheds a certain light on it.The problem of determining what is the political "center" is one that effects everyone, not just people to the left of you.Also, it is a fallacy to mistake middle-of-the-road ideas for neutrality. What's middle-of-the-road has a definite political nature - that of not wanting to change things and being okay with how things are going and with the majority of what has been established already. It is often mistaken for neutrality, but it's not. What's middle-of-the-road works for certain ends and certain interests. What's neutral (in the limited areas where it can actually exist) does not.Rory Litwin

Re:Thank You

Just to be accurate, I think I have been the calm one in this thread. Quite a few times in this thread, liberals have been told to "calm down" and accused of being "out of control," when if you actually read the thread they are simply responding reasonably to hostility. I consider this an underhanded tactic.Rory Litwinp.s. Please note for the record my calmness and equanimity.

Re:Thank You

Point taken. My original editorial used slightly provacative language (but, I think, not to the level used against me here).When I came onto this board to defend my position, however, I altered my approach and focused on clarifying my ideas and laying them out more fully. The LISNews community didn't respond in kind by matching my attempt at a more rational discussion (despite my early acknowldgement that it would have been helpful of me to tone down my rhetoric in the original article). So, rather than an intellectual debate where I would have been confronted with a substantive criticism of my ideas about neutrality and frames of reference, I mostly have had to contend with bullying from a few very aggressive representatives of the conservative side, posting using anonymous nicknames, including self-professed attacks on my character by "tomeboy" (whoever he is). Now, I'm not particularly worried that this talk could harm my real reputation, but I'd like to point out that it's conceiveable, and that despite this danger I am using my real name while my "debate partners" are not.Rory Litwin

Re:Thank You

What I am bothered by, "tomeboy," whoever you are, is, as I have said to you repeatedly, not the righward-shifting political character of the culture and frame of reference of LISNews, but the continued claim by Blake and other users of the site, especially conservatives, that the site is a neutral open forum - despite the obviousness of this rightward shift and Blake's open role in fostering it in February (at a point when it was well in progress), and despite the sheer oddness of Blake's claim at that point that the site was a "left wing echo chamber."My aim in pointing this out was not to object to LISNews having become a predominantly conservative site or even Blake's role in that change, but just to make people aware of it and to dispel the myth that the technology behind LISNews makes it neutral.Rory

Re:Rory And PLG Today

"InfoWhale" is, for those who don't know, Steve Fesenmaier of West Virginia. I understand his personal reasons for complaining that I and my SRRT/PLG friends waste our time "keeping dissenters down," but I can't allow the claim to stand and create the illusion that his experience is remotely typical. In general, we've encouraged broad participation in SRRT and PLG. I myself have worked to attract new members and new ideas to both groups with success.SRRT has grown substantially in the last couple of years, contrary to Steve's view of SRRT's reputation among librarians. We have had more than the usual support from members during the critical times of the last couple of years.Steve is making baseless accusations.Rory Litwin


The problem with this idea is that requiring a login doesn't require people to take ownership of their comments. Only requiring people to use their real names does that.Look at this discussion. Who is identifiable by their postings and who is not? The people logging in are using nicknames. I can't tell who they are, so they aren't personally accountable to anyone. Only their meaningless nicknames (which can be thrown away in exchange for a new one) are accountable.On the other hand, most of the messages in this thread that are labelled "anonymous poster" are signed with real names, which actually make us accountable.As you would expect then, because the people who post without logging in are mostly using their real names, the tone of their comments is more civil. This is the reverse of what you are suggesting. The people who are logging in are being LESS civil, because they are actually anonymous.I know this flies in the face of cyber-truisms, but it's the truth. Using a nickname is a form of anonymity if you don't sign your real name.Rory Litwin

Re:Thank You

p-upchuck that is really clever. I can hardly control my rage and anger at your sharp wit. Oh, please please stop. Lord, make it go away.

How do you do it? You start out with a sharp stinging play on the name. This leaves one almost immobilized with fear. Then you come in with your overwhelming logic. Then you follow up with another witty and politically timely remark about those nasty conservatives. If my eyes aren't burning up after that you then finish off with your real name. You really are making your parents proud.

By the way, did that make you feel big to say "pooh-pooh" and bullshit? I bet you were just dying to say some "big-boy" words.

Re:Thank You

In an online forum like this, people tend to be at their worst and least thoughtful. It shows.

I'm floored to see this. Why not just tell everyone you're too ______ to even want your name associated with this place -- and that's why you won't get an account here?

Re:Thank You

I didn't get recruited by Blake either. I lurked, liked it, started posting.

P-Duck takes charge...

Can I just call you "P"? First, you deserve an answer: I was frankly a little disappointed in the "upchuck" thing - shoulda been more clever, but I was busy.However, I got what I wanted: the rhetoric has calmed, folks are - with a few exceptions - actually engaging Rory's ideas; the anonymity question (and the associated issue of intestinal fortitude y'all thought was such a winner for you previously) is at the fore; and you folks back off when you get a taste of your own medicine.So, yes, I'm happy as a Republican wallowing in crude...No child left behind in this debate, I'm still:John Buschman (a real person, not a chicken nom-de-plume)


No on ever gets the last word! ;)

Syndicate content