April 12, 2005
Question for Readers on Comment Banning
More and more of my comment threads are degenerating into name calling.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Don't make me come down out of the ivory tower and put my foot up your asses!
Anyway, I rarely ban any one from making comments. But should I?
On the one hand, I like to be challenged. When you start banning people you weed out a potential pool of those who will be the most critical, and therefore those that are most willing to point out a flaw in your arguements.
On the other hand, sometimes these disagreements piss people off. Then name calling begins. And then it gets pretty nasty. I'm afraid many of our long-time readers have stopped commenting because they see this degeneration in dialogue.
So, what do you think? Should I just start banning people? Should we lay out some ground rules and then only ban those who break them? Any suggestions?
Posted by: Rusty at
03:53 PM
| Comments (74)
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Give us the rules. Then ban rule breakers fo a week or 2. 3 times and youre out forever.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 12, 2005 03:58 PM (HNgs/)
2
Some of the language I've read, even by pious Moslems, is hardly PG-13. However, I say that everyone likes a good fight and politics is often a dirty business. Women and children be warned!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 12, 2005 04:03 PM (oVu08)
3
I would like to see the name "Scott Baio" banned, however.
Sorry Filthy.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 12, 2005 04:07 PM (oVu08)
4
I don't mind the language, I'm guilty of it myself. But, Rusty, we tried the ban thingie before, remember, that COOqarUK, or whatever, he just kept showing up under a different name each time.
I don't know if you can do that, they would still sign on using another name, right?
Posted by: Laura at April 12, 2005 04:09 PM (L3PPO)
5
If the name calling gets obscene or threatening, after a couple of warnings, ban their a$$. It takes away from intelligent discussion and scares some of your more thoughtful readers away. Otherwise let em have at it.
Posted by: traderrob at April 12, 2005 04:15 PM (3al54)
6
Rusty,
personally I don't approve of namecalling. But you have to allow for the occasional frustrated outburts.
But if it's habitual, then give a warning or two, then ban.
Posted by: Carlos at April 12, 2005 04:23 PM (8e/V4)
7
I like reading the upset responses from people who disagree with you as long as they are serious and intelligent. But I agree others then flame these people with name calling and they stop posting. Or Somtimes the opposite side starts it. Nothing like a good argument and Rusty seems to be able to start one. If I have been bad then just email me and I'll try to behave. I hate see you have to ban people. If you can't say if without profanity it just shows a lack of intelligence. Any idiot can spew forth a bunch of swear words. I'm not the brightest candle on the cake but I try to be civilized.
Posted by: howie at April 12, 2005 04:23 PM (D3+20)
8
If you banned people using the worse sick language on this site we wouldn't have any liberals left to argue with.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2005 04:31 PM (CBNGy)
9
Threats and profanity are probably what got Jawa booted from Google News.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 12, 2005 04:33 PM (fufbw)
10
Nope is was the use of the H word instead of "unfavorable response" that got him. Stupid Google BOT can read but not comprehend. Anyone think it wasn't a BOT??
Posted by: Howie at April 12, 2005 04:45 PM (D3+20)
11
Hey, I don't start the name calling. But if some right winger gets upset with my posts and calls me a name I feel I have every right to turn the table. It would be nice if we could have honest discussions without name calling though. It might help if people realized that everyone on this site loves America, we just disagree on how we should honor her.
Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 04:46 PM (/+dAV)
12
Seriously Rusty. Some of the lanquage needs to be cleaned up. The filty language doesn't bother me as much as the anti-America traitors do. There is no reason to put up with Collin Baber. His constant anti-American retoric doesn't produce constructive thought. The reason he popped up here one day in all probability meant he/she/it was banned from another blog. Constantly critizing everything American is just to revolting to listen to. Is the intent of this blog to critize America or discuss issues that have bearing on our lives? Namely, Islam and all the hate that it causes.
That being said. It's your blog. Your job is to run it any way you please. My job is to fight against the anti-Americans any way I can.
Good luck on your decision. As any good team player should. I will support you whatever you come up with.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2005 04:47 PM (CBNGy)
13
The English language is a rich one. Let people use it. Who cares about salty language? I say ban no one. After all, one can say truly evil things in a seemingly civil manner. Right, Collin?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 12, 2005 04:52 PM (oVu08)
14
Dr. Shackleford,
As my partner tells me. DO SOAP, NOT DOPE, AND KEEP IT CLEAN!.
Yes, the English language is very robust. Folks can be creative and get their thoughts across without sinking to the cesspool.
If they can't follow a few simple rules then restrict them and then ban if they can't be somewhat civil.
Posted by: Ron Wright at April 12, 2005 05:02 PM (wIdaE)
15
Greg needs to go back to his posts. This turkey pot is calling the kettle black. In almost every instance Greg or his like (same retoric)cohorts start the filthy lanquage first. Another liberal thing. An inability to see themselves.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2005 05:03 PM (CBNGy)
16
The thing is, I'm not too upset over the profanity. It's the name calling that is starting to piss me off.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 12, 2005 05:03 PM (JQjhA)
17
"As my partner tells me. DO SOAP..."
Is this a business partner, and if so, what kind of business is it?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 12, 2005 05:04 PM (oVu08)
18
what bullshit...maybe you should just ban anyone who disagrees with you too. its not a far stretch. I suggest you look at making some rules. I like those posted on beldarblog. I will copy his rule on this here for you:
"Comments to my posts are welcome, including comments that express different points of view. I insist that they be civil and reasonably nonprofane (roughly PG-13). I strongly discourage ad hominem (personal) attacks on other commenters, but recognize that a reasonable amount of snark is an essential part of the blogosphere.
I don't require that you use a valid email or real name on your comments, although I may institute TypeKey or some similar feature when TypePad makes it available. If you choose not to use a valid email, I'll have no way of contacting you about your comment other than by a reply in a subsequent comment on that same post. I reserve the absolute right to delete or edit comments at my discretion, which may sometimes seem arbitrary despite my efforts to act reasonably."
Posted by: Mr. K at April 12, 2005 05:11 PM (22x5h)
19
No No No Just ban Greg 
Posted by: mike at April 12, 2005 05:17 PM (TJ8HB)
20
ground rules. Something such as Little Miss Attila has, "attack ideas, not people."
Posted by: William Teach at April 12, 2005 05:27 PM (HxpPK)
21
Like greyrooster, I abhor anti-American slurs. IMO, those who post them are simply verbally--and publicly--m*******ting and need an audience in order to achieve their narcissistic release. Such sad and minimally endowed souls are to be pitied, not enabled, so I suggest that the most effective countermeasure (punishment?) would be to ignore their pathetic mewlings. As for the profanity, it's tempting sometimes, but IMO the person who sinks into the muck first loses the argument. That seems to be W's point-of-view and from what I've seen, it does seem to be working.
Posted by: ptritsch at April 12, 2005 05:30 PM (V/ciu)
22
Rusty
I apologize for my earlier profanity, but the references to Americans as Nazi's tend to bring out the worst in me. Hell, even the mention of those abhorant scum of the earth brings about RCOB moments. Ban me if you must.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 12, 2005 06:01 PM (lVjfM)
23
I understand. It's not so much the profanity as it is the ad hominum attacks.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 12, 2005 06:24 PM (JQjhA)
24
rooster,
you can take on the anti-Americans without resorting to ad hominems.
And don't ban greg.
Posted by: Carlos at April 12, 2005 06:39 PM (8e/V4)
25
U should ban that moron Filth Allah. His email is allahsucksballs@somehthing.com??:S
Posted by: Anwar at April 12, 2005 06:55 PM (lxByx)
26
I think you should ban Carlos the Jackass, international blogspot commentary terrorist, also known as "numb nuts" because that cretin called me a moron...but can barely rite or spel hisself.
Posted by: Mr. K at April 12, 2005 07:08 PM (22x5h)
27
I say ban everyone on both sides, no matter what, except for me. After all, I am your only blogchild.
You'll do that for me won't you daddy? ::sad puppy eyes::
Posted by: Eric at April 12, 2005 07:30 PM (lK7Sh)
28
I just banned my first poster. He pulled the "you (me and my commenters) idols must/should be Nazis" card.
I felt bad after I slapped him and banned his IP (similiar to your thoughts) but I have no use for the misuse of the Nazi smear, or Leftist Nazi calling in general. I had to draw the line, and when a comment guy starts to call the folks in my sandbox Nazi, I figure it is time to let him go back to DU and MoveOn.
I won't make a habit of it, neither should you - but banning is like porno, you know it (when to use it) when you see it.
Posted by: CDR Salamander at April 12, 2005 07:31 PM (MrU41)
29
I ban after firing two shots across the bow. Usually that separates the trolls from those who are just argumentative. Those that want to argue, give a reason or settle down. The trolls post something obscene or offensive.
Posted by: Tom at April 12, 2005 07:59 PM (9OL2r)
30
Mr. K,
you found a typo in my post? Doesn't change a thing, you're still a moron.
The fact that you've been focusing on a typo only proves it.
Posted by: Carlos at April 12, 2005 08:18 PM (8e/V4)
31
Carlos, I think Mr. K is joking (see the spelling in his comment)
Actually, I'm thinking of letting Filthy Allah guest blog. Sick humor is fine.
How about laying this is rule #1.
When you're being sarcastic, do this at the end of the comment "/sarcasm". I've noticed a few people firing shots at each other over nothing more than a joke gone bad.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 12, 2005 08:22 PM (JQjhA)
32
It's your blog, go ahead and ban people. The point is to have an interesting debate, not provide an outlet for immature people who don't know how to conduct themselves.
In my view, profanity and personal attacks get tossed from the getgo. Ditto anyone who uses the Nazi smear. It trivializes a modern-day horror, it's a blatant attempt to manipulate and it's shorthand for "I have neither ideas nor arguments."
Posted by: vivi at April 12, 2005 08:40 PM (nTEvo)
33
The question on whether to ban or not in my opinion, would be to ban the anti-American rantings...such as "praise Allah, death to Americans" kind of crap. Profanity doesn't bother me and I'm a woman, as long as we're cursing and not cursing AT each other.
But, as I said before, Rusty, how can you ban someone? They will only come back on with another name. Remember that idiot who kept calling me a motherf**king b**ch??? You banned him and he just kept at it under different monikers. Eventually, he left.
Posted by: Laura at April 12, 2005 08:57 PM (L3PPO)
34
I have only resorted to profanity and personal attacks as self-defense or when provoked. Most of the time I am trying to hold intelligent conversations.
Posted by: Jim at April 12, 2005 09:47 PM (jcSwY)
35
Laura,
Rusty can ban his IP address.
Posted by: Carlos at April 12, 2005 09:49 PM (8e/V4)
36
>>>"Carlos, I think Mr. K is joking (see the spelling in his comment)"
I know he was, Rusty. I was just making an observation.
Posted by: Carlos at April 12, 2005 10:08 PM (8e/V4)
37
Banning is useless. Ban the name, and they'll make a new one, ban the IP, they'll get an IP-faker. Perhaps you should make some kind of log in system, that would allow you to control who gets to write stuff here (would ruin the freedom of expression, but anyway)
Posted by: A Finn at April 13, 2005 01:58 AM (cWMi4)
38
Quite surprised no-one mentioned me specifically to be banned. Thought I might've pissed of some people. (Collin comes to mind for some reason...)
Posted by: A Finn at April 13, 2005 03:59 AM (cWMi4)
39
Jim needs to go back and check his own posts. He is always the one who starts the name calling/filty lanquage first. Liberals. Refuse to see themselves.
Rusty: You are correct on the joke thing. Time and again when our liberal jealots fail to spend the mental energy to get the joke/sarcasm they immediately respond with the NAZI/KKK thing. I am not offended by the normal fuck you faggot posts. I am, as any normal person, offended by the stick things in the ass/mouth garbage that emits from the above people that claim to be just defending themselves. How that defends themselves is beyond me. But like any moonbat they refuse to admit they could possibly be wrong.
I would like to see the likes of Jim, Greg, Butch review their posts and show where anyone started using the vile, putrid language they use first. Most of us attribute their language to upbringing and ignore it. Some don't.
And yes! Mentioning this fact makes me a Racist.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 13, 2005 04:05 AM (CBNGy)
40
A Finn: You got it all wrong. You are one of us. You passed the test.
Collin Baber is another story. That freak couldn't pass gas correctly. That's why what comes from his mouth smells so much.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 13, 2005 04:23 AM (CBNGy)
41
Hey wait a minute here. You are considering banning personal attacks on traitors and terrorist supporters that make personal attacks against my country, my president, our military?
No way.
You mean they can't call be racist anymore? Unfair.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 13, 2005 04:30 AM (CBNGy)
42
Laura:
"profanity doesn't bother me and I'm a women".
It that politically correct. Ha, Ha.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 13, 2005 04:35 AM (CBNGy)
43
Hey Rusty, whatever happened to your liberal professor pal, with that blog, uh, what was it called...cowbytheudders, or something like that? Is he an example of a loyal reader who is too skeered to post because someone may call him some names?
And by the way, I wasn't joking. I really, really, really, reely, reley, meen it.
I gotta go, and I'm not coming back because Carlos the Jackass, aka Numb Nutz, aka Omar bin Bonin-heem says I'm a mormon, and now my feelings are hurt.
Posted by: Mr. K at April 13, 2005 06:08 AM (22x5h)
44
Dear Mr. Finn,
As long as no one advocates the use of force against the United States, no worries. If you wish to ridicule the Bushian War Cult's twisted hubris, the more the merrier!
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 13, 2005 06:09 AM (fufbw)
45
If you have to tell people it's sarcasm than you need to get more intelligent commenters. Or at least one's with thicker skin...I mean it's a BLOG, and no offense, but it's not like one of those uptight blogs where all the authors do is quote the news. You try to make it funny /sarcasm, so people try to be funny in the comments /truth, and sometimes funny includes bashing people. If it's done in a snarky way, I laugh. If it's done in a way that resembles kindergarten invectives, I skip past it. Let them fight each other out, commenter death match style, if they are being assanine to care so much.
Oh and Rusty sucks /joke
Posted by: Wittysexkitten at April 13, 2005 06:10 AM (/koaq)
46
prrrrr, got any pictures over there on that blog, sweetie??
Posted by: Mr. K at April 13, 2005 07:00 AM (07WwJ)
47
>>>"As long as no one advocates the use of force against the United States, no worries. If you wish to ridicule the Bushian War Cult's twisted hubris, the more the merrier!"
Collin,
the problem with your worldview is that if you really believe in the Bushian war cult, then it logically leads to force being used against the U.S.
And most Leftists do believe exactly that. So what are you waiting for? Grow some balls.
Posted by: Carlos at April 13, 2005 07:47 AM (8e/V4)
48
"I would like to see the likes of Jim, Greg, Butch review their posts and show where anyone started using the vile, putrid language they use first."-Rooster
Several people on this string have accused me of instigating volleys of profanity and aggressive blogging.
Please review yesterday's string at:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/075421.php
You will note that it wasn't until the second profane attack on me that I responded in kind. These attacks were initiated by DefenseGuy and then Confederate Yankee and in the past initiates have included Greyrooster, Filthy Allah, Obsnooks, inter alia. The motivation is that they disagreed with my posts and couldn't argue in a civil manner.
Having grown up in academia I''m sure you agree with the valuable concept of peer review Rusty. I wouldn't change anything, I'd just as soon handle things myself. But it's your call.
Posted by: greg at April 13, 2005 08:26 AM (/+dAV)
49
Yes, because nothing says loving like a good sig heil.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 13, 2005 08:39 AM (jPCiN)
50
sig heil/traitor/commie...it's all the same
I can handle it, can you?
Posted by: greg at April 13, 2005 08:46 AM (/+dAV)
51
If you dish it out, be prepared to receive it back.
Rooster dishes it out, but he doesn't complain when it comes back at him. That seems entirely consistent to me.
And in all fairness to greg, he's aggressive and passionate, but he's never abused me.
Posted by: Carlos at April 13, 2005 09:18 AM (8e/V4)
52
1) "If you dish it out, be prepared to receive it back."-Carlos
I am, see the above post.
2)"Rooster dishes it out, but he doesn't complain when it comes back at him. That seems entirely consistent to me. "-Carlos
Sounds like he's complaining to me.
"Greg needs to go back to his posts. This turkey pot is calling the kettle black. In almost every instance Greg or his like (same retoric)cohorts start the filthy lanquage first."-Rooster
How ironic. Talking about calling people black Rooster called Sgt. Finnegan's CHILDREN "porch monkeys" and that degenerated into a challange for a duel!. My best guess as to why MyPetJawa got tossed from Google News is Rooster's racism.
3"And in all fairness to greg, he's aggressive and passionate, but he's never abused me."-Carlos
Nor would I abuse anyone else who argues as eloquently as Carlos. In fact, you could be illiterate for all I care and I'd still treat you with respect if you return the favor.
Posted by: greg at April 13, 2005 09:35 AM (/+dAV)
53
I thought the 'who started it' was the subject. I was unaware that the discussion was going to shift to whatever topic you felt was best suited to your purposes greg. Honest discourse at its best.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 13, 2005 09:46 AM (jPCiN)
54
Defense Guy,
Your post doesn't even make any sense. You started it, see: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/075421.php
I was talking to Carlos and then you, apparently seeking a mannage au twat, started humping my leg. It was a minor nuusance as I just had to shake my leg and slap you down off of me.
Posted by: greg at April 13, 2005 10:12 AM (/+dAV)
55
"On the one hand, I like to be challenged. When you start banning people you weed out a potential pool of those who will be the most critical, and therefore those that are most willing to point out a flaw in your arguements." - Rusty
This is very revealing. From this statement it sounds like you are predisposed to banning those who are the "most critical" of you and not those who use foul language or ad hominems. Again, peer review is what makes academicians intellectually honest. Your confusing statement also demonstrates a tacit recognition of this.
Posted by: greg at April 13, 2005 10:22 AM (/+dAV)
56
An odd little world you inhabit there greg. I can stand up for my own words, and yet you feel the need to hide from yours. Don't worry about it though. I am learning to avoid your comments from here on in.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 13, 2005 10:38 AM (jPCiN)
57
I believe so because what's happening is people are getting off topic and fighting amongst themselves and the language is getting pretty disgusting making it harder for people like me to post.
See, I read what you post and if I have a comment, I comment ONLY on what you posted and I never read the other comments because they drive me totally insane. Hammorbi had to do it to and if you go to his site, Rusty, you'll see in the upper right corner "comment rules." I think people should just comment once and move on.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at April 13, 2005 10:46 AM (PEKrh)
58
"An odd little world you inhabit there greg. I can stand up for my own words, and yet you feel the need to hide from yours. Don't worry about it though. I am learning to avoid your comments from here on in." - Defense Guy
That's a good smart boy!
Posted by: greg at April 13, 2005 10:52 AM (/+dAV)
59
Greyrooster - I am not going to get into a childish "you started it" arguement with you. You are the LAST person to be complaining about this. You have instigated every single internet altercation between us and even when you are posting in another conversation you find time to mention "that faggot Jim". Your words hold no water here. You make a habit of attacking commentors who you don't agree with. The sad thing is that when I gave you a sample of your own medicine you ran away and then cried about how I have a "potty mouth". And now you are trying to get me banned. Hilarious.
Posted by: Jim at April 13, 2005 11:09 AM (jcSwY)
60
Mr. K-Yes I keep an entire stash of pics of me in a gold lame bikini and my hair up in Princess Lea buns just WAITING for Jawaperverts to ask me to send to them. I'm so glad you queried! Just please tuck $25 in my PayPal tip jar. And I also have a bridge to sell you.
See-that was my attempt to avoid calling him a drooling pathetic porn addict with a hand for a best friend and man tits. Because THAT would be ad hominen.
Side note-does anybody else see the irony in the squabbling occuring on a post about reducing the squabbling? Just a thought...
Posted by: Wittysexkitten at April 13, 2005 12:17 PM (vhWf1)
61
Well done, whisker-biscuit! Carlos, study the reply above, and take notes.
Posted by: Mr. K at April 13, 2005 12:30 PM (22x5h)
62
Mr. K,
you should try taking your own advice.
/numb nutz
Posted by: Carlos at April 13, 2005 02:09 PM (8e/V4)
63
If we keep this up, we'll ALL be banned, arguing over whether or not someone or something should be banned....
LMAO!!
Posted by: Laura at April 13, 2005 03:08 PM (L3PPO)
64
Jim I see you return to your same lying bullshit. Run away from a traitorous faggot like you. In your dreams.
Greg. You wish to talk about yesterday only. What a bullshit artist.
You and faggot jim have always in every instance commenced with the putrid, foul crap. I just spent several hours going back to confirm my claims and I am correct.
You and faggot jim have been the biggest distraction to intelligent thinking on this blog.
I exclude the commie Colon Babler as that idiot isn't human.
Once again you liberal moonbats omit self examination.
Lowlife America hating prick.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 14, 2005 12:04 AM (CBNGy)
65
Jim: roach747@yahoo.com
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 14, 2005 12:08 AM (FV4oJ)
66
I know a Rooster in Texas. He's 5'3", that's why they call him a rooster. Is that your problem too Greyrooster?
Are you a bitter little sawed-off stump of a man?
Posted by: greg at April 14, 2005 08:14 AM (/+dAV)
67
Hey I have learned to just skip over the commentors that I do not want to hear from. I do not respond to their posts nor do I comment on the conversation they may be haveing with another blogger. I am self editing the site so as not to be drowned by the drivel that is espoused at times. Banning is only a form of censorship. I like the different ideas, and some of the banter here. Why squelch that?? It should be encouraged. Someone swearing, and or name calling reduces my respect level for them and when my tolerance level is reached I just do not read any posts by them any more. I ALWAYS read what witty sex kitten has to say..... pant.. pant.. pant... drool drool... Her posts are always entertaining. I was a morning show On Air Personality and appreciate her humor!!
Chris
Posted by: Chris at April 14, 2005 09:54 AM (uXIKa)
68
No Greg, you candy assed little traitor. I'm 6'3" and 265.
Many years ago I was given the title rooster because of a disposition that causes me to slap the shit out of traitorous little bastards.
I was given the name greyrooster by some friends when an occassion occured that required my son to slap the shit out of two pricks before I could get to them. The guys said "looks like there's a new rooster on the block. The old man's getting grey. Hence, greyrooster stuck and little rooster was born. Which doesn't make sense as he is 3" taller than me.
I travel to Texas a lot. Maybe, someday I will have the honor of showing you up close and personal.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 15, 2005 05:27 AM (7480p)
69
Greyrooster,
It would be my pleasure I'm sure. And who knows, I'm might drop in on you in Picayune just to say hi.
Posted by: greg at April 15, 2005 08:16 AM (/+dAV)
70
I'm late to this party, but on my blog I don't have written rules -- I get so few trolls anymore I don't need rules, just more commenters.
Anyway, what I watch for, learned from reading more widely-read blogs, is:
1) Gratuitous and clearly unprovoked name-calling -- if a brand-new commenter starts off his remarks by disparaging someone he disagrees with, in the very first sentence -- and in a thread where there's been no heat at all (or worse, no comments at all) -- it's a bad sign.
2) A habit of posting comments that are totally off-topic, or mind-bogglingly non-sequitur (for other than clearly humorous purposes). And,
3) A tendency to keep hashing over the same arguments after everyone else in the @#$!ing blogosphere has chimed in to rebut everything the commenter in question has said -- and said, and said, and said, utterly impervious to the remote but very real possibility that when nobody agrees with him, he just might need to reconsider his position. You know, just in case the whole world isn't crazy except for him.
Posted by: McGehee at April 15, 2005 01:57 PM (S504z)
71
Greg: #1 I don't live in Picayune. #2 you couldn't get in the neighborhood. #3. Would be my pleasure.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 16, 2005 08:19 AM (sB5vg)
72
I agree with the folks who said that it's possible to disagree without using filthy language, so here we go- your problem is that you're pro- Bush and you can't see what a big- fat lier he is and if you guys continue like this and keep believing every lie he throws at you then you'll end up re-electing him, and one by one - he'll target all us third worlders and we'll just keep getting more and more anti- American because- you're not the only ones who love your nation - we don't like foreign powers marching into our countries based on a few lies that their totally American people believe and leveling our cities to rubbles- so we have to live in tents because you guys think we need freeing- so while you continue your lives in your fancy air-conditioned houses with all your facilities- we are forced to live in sub-human conditions- no education cos you've blasted the living day lights out of our homes, schools, colleges, offices and places of worship.
So yes- vote for your Bush- make our lives hell- and then go to church and pray to Jesus to pardon your sins-. Well, do you think he will?
And I almost forgot- first arm our nations- I'm talking of all our African- Asian Islamic nations- arm the dissendents- follow the policy of divide and rule- and then label the ppl you've armed as terrorists and attack us- believe the lies your President spreads about what?- having nuclear weapons/ supporting Osama- by the way who trained the Taliban- you did. Who armed Pakistan- you did. I can go on - see and I haven't used one filthy word- ain't I sooooo nice.
And I know most of you Americans haven't read my whole comment- cos it hurt your eyes maybe? Cos I was a tad bit Anti- American- was I?
In conclusion- UP YOURS- I won't say more- go ahead- ruin more of our lives- we won't upset you by being ANti- American on your precious bloggie- but I do hope you Jesus leaves you out of Heaven- BTW- I'm not Moussie/ Catholic/ Hindu/Parsi/Jewish but I hate you all the same- guess why? Cos you're an American who still believes your Govt's lies- heck - WAKE UP TO THE TRUTH- Save the world- Don't vote for the NEOCONs- don't believe them either. And again-- in good language - UP YOURS.
Posted by: Tssk at April 17, 2005 12:38 PM (Hj4oN)
73
God bless you Tssk. Now theres someone that knows what he is talking about.
Posted by: Anwar at April 17, 2005 02:12 PM (YY5vs)
74
tssk
I am curious to know. How are you living in a tent city with an internet connection. Seems to me that you would be more concerned with walls around you instead of spewing anti american sentiments.....?
Posted by: rob at April 23, 2005 08:58 PM (2AnvL)
55kb generated in CPU 0.0184, elapsed 0.1094 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.0981 seconds, 318 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.0981 seconds, 318 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
