"I'm glad the silly fucker's dead"?? October 26, 2004 12:32 PM   Subscribe


After rereading the snarky original Michael Kelly editorial. I believe I'm glad the silly fucker's dead.


Sorry for the callout, but unless I missed the subtlety of some kind of joke, I think this crosses the line just a little bit.
posted by loquax to Etiquette/Policy at 12:32 PM (54 comments total)

I say Mr. Reverend Mykeru needs at least a bit of a timeout. Not much offends me, but this did.
posted by loquax at 12:34 PM on October 26, 2004


Do you really think that even a plurality of people on this site are going to find it outrageous that someone is glad a a pro-war journalist is dead? Where have you been? This is not CivilityFilter. Or even DecencyFilter.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:46 PM on October 26, 2004


Wasn't he the cool guy played by Hank Azaria in "Shattered Glass"?
posted by smackfu at 12:46 PM on October 26, 2004


Celebrating the death of a conservative does not violate the MeFi code of conduct.

Exhibit A
.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:55 PM on October 26, 2004


loquax, you apparently missed the memo. Expressing gratitude that a person is dead, or regret that a person hasn't been killed, is now "funny,"* and any negative reaction you have just shows that you don't have a sense of humor.

*provided, of course, that the person is someone most people here dislike. I wouldn't, for instance, say that you're glad Paul Wellstone is dead. I don't think the "joke" would be so easily understood.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:58 PM on October 26, 2004


Michael Kelly
posted by loquax at 12:58 PM on October 26, 2004


He may have been a good guy in person, but on paper he was an absolute asshole. It's tough watching journalistic establishment types try to deny that. He was an absolute Grade A asshole in his many snarky editorials. You think Crossfire and its ilk have hurt America? Check out the editorial writing style of Michael Kelly, and consider its influence.
posted by raysmj at 1:05 PM on October 26, 2004


Do you really think that even a plurality of people on this site are going to find it outrageous that someone is glad a a pro-war journalist is dead?

Well, this lefty-peacenik finds it, if not outrageous, certainly sad and inappropriate.
posted by jalexei at 1:05 PM on October 26, 2004


If someone says they're glad someone's dead, I understand people thinking of them as an asshole. But I don't really see how it befits a time-out just because it's an opinion you don't like, no matter how much the voices in your head tell you the Liberal Media's behind it. It wasn't racist, sexist, homophobic, trollish, threatening, or malicious to anyone (other than, you know, the dead guy). It's not outrageous, just tasteless. MetaFilter's got tons of that.

Much as I hate the idea of how this allows a nonsensical, childish self-victory to FreedomParamus and the rest of the Poor Us Bunch in their quest to convince their bathroom mirrors that MetaFilter is a leftist cabal out to destroy them, I think demanding a time-out is absurd.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:10 PM on October 26, 2004


Personally, the conservative-liberal thing didn't even occur to me when I posted. I would have said the same had it been someone reveling in the demise of Paul Krugman, or whomever. And I don't think it matters. For someone to rejoice at his death because of his opinions or editorial tone is pretty pathetic. This kind of garbage comment belongs on inferior websites with a small-minded and petty membership, not here. It makes me not want to particpate in discussions.
posted by loquax at 1:18 PM on October 26, 2004


A time-out may be a bit much, but celebrating somebody's death whether it's somebody you like or somebody you don't is definitely not something I'd like to encourage. Hell, I remember a thread where I was chided for wishing Osama Bin Laden dead, but some writer who wrote a right-wing editorial, it's somehow OK? Somehow that dosen't make a whole lotta sense.
posted by jonmc at 1:20 PM on October 26, 2004


I might add that up until this moment I had no idea who the hell this guy was, and when I saw the initial comment, I still thought it was a bit much.
posted by jonmc at 1:24 PM on October 26, 2004


For someone to rejoice at his death because of his opinions or editorial tone is pretty pathetic.

I agree, but it's happened before and will happen again. You're fighting a losing battle.
posted by justgary at 1:25 PM on October 26, 2004


I think it's rude when people wish others dead. I generally find that the appropriate place to say that is in the thread itself (cf. Rehnquist thread).

However, ParisParamus, you said you were going away, and yet here you are carrying on about how all the liberals are meanyheads. "Forgotten, but not gone" is the phrase that springs to mind. You promised a sabbatical until after the US elections--then you came back to AskMeFi and just kept sneaking more and more political content into your posts until now you're shitting all over MeTa.

Either keep your word, or just go back to spouting your tendentious nonsense on the Blue. This "underground" war is just too tiresome for words.

And didn't you say that the Yankees were going to win the World Series?
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:28 PM on October 26, 2004


If William Buckley passed away tomorrow, his death might actually inspire me to start blogging again to make a comment about it. He's a decent man who prefers elevated discourse - sometimes so elevated that I doubt he could decipher one of his own columns, but that always amusing to consider. I wonder what he thinks about the sorry state of commentary at the online branch of his journal. If David Brooks were to die tomorrow, I'd consider his death a loss, despite his part in filling the airwaves with annoying punditry. He's for civil and educated discourse. Michael Kelly's death didn't fill me with glee, at all, but I wasn't sorry to see his nasty columns disappear from America's op-ed pages and magazines after his death. I didn't mourn him in any case, because I didn't know him or have any emotional connection to him. His was another death in a world of sorrow, and he died in a war he'd supported to the hilt. So it goes.
posted by raysmj at 1:33 PM on October 26, 2004


Oh, and jonmc, it was rude for you to wish Osama bin Laden dead, also. Just so you know.

Actually, I know a lot of people who knew Michael Kelly well and thought he was a wonderful man. Though I don't miss his work as a journalist, I am sure that there are a lot of people who miss him deeply on a personal level and I sympathize with their loss.

This topic reminds me of what I think is one of the greatest poems ever written, "To Edward Fitzgerald" by Robert Browning:

I chanced upon a new book yesterday;
I opened it, and, where my finger lay
'Twixt page and uncut page, these words I read -
Some six or seven at most - and learned thereby
That you, Fitzgerald, whom by ear and eye
She never knew, "thanked God my wife was dead."
Aye, dead! and were yourself alive, good Fitz,
How to return you thanks would task my wits.
Kicking you seems the common lot of curs -
While more appropriate greeting lends you grace,
Surely to spit there glorifies your face -
Spitting from lips once sanctified by hers.



(In a posthumous collection of Fitzgerald's letters, a letter to a friend in which he remarked that "Mrs. Browning is dead--and, thank God! we shall have no more poetry like her 'Aurora Leigh' [a particularly cloying and sentimental poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning]" was included.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:33 PM on October 26, 2004


And I sympathize with your wish that Osama bin Laden would die, jonmc; I've wished it myself. I've also wished that Kim Jong Il would die, and yet I know that's rude, too. Sometimes politeness isn't as important as the future of the world.

But wishing individual journalists with whom one disagrees dead isn't the same thing as wishing cruel tyrants or terrorists dead, after all.

When we were kids, and we would say something like "I hate my teacher! I wish she were dead!" my mother would say, "It's a terrible thing to wish ill to anyone--maybe you should wish instead that she would win the lottery and move away, so you could have a better teacher."
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:39 PM on October 26, 2004


This kind of garbage comment belongs on inferior websites with a small-minded and petty membership, not here. It makes me not want to particpate in discussions.

Welcome to MetaFilter ... and BuhBye!

My ex-father-in-law is one of the most rascist assinine horrid people ever born into the company of other humans. When he dies, I'm going to show up at his funeral with a six-pack and wearing a party hat. Yes, I will be glad he's dead, because he's a loathsome desease in the social organism.

Oh my, is that over the line? Too bad; and get a grip, please. There are people in the world that others find thoroughly dispicable, loathsome and hateful/hated. Banning someone for expressing the obvious would be a stupid and cowardly thing to do. Agree or disagree with the sentiment all you want, but I guarentee that the dead don't care, and it means nothing on the blue of MeFi. Mykeru didn't kill Kelly, he just didn't much like him, is glad that Kelly's taint is removed from the world, and isn't afraid to say so.

How many of you horrified people of upstanding moral fibre have felt safer since we've bombed the shit right out of other countries, hmmm? Aren't you expressing the idea that you're glad others are dead, because it makes you feel better? That some children may have taken some shrapnel is okay, really, because you feel better, right? Aren't you glad that they're dead since you feel better? Face it, the PC expression of moral superiority here is so much wimpy fluff. You'll be glad when Bin Laden is toasted, because he stands as an offense and danger to what you believe. If you don't have the balls to support the colateral damage leading to your joy, then don't be stupid enough to call out someone else for expressing joy at the ironic death of another that he finds dispicable.

And kindly allow me to ask: have any of you "bravely" outraged souls bothered to let Mykeru know that he's being discussed here? 'Didn't think so.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:44 PM on October 26, 2004


i'm glad quonsar is dead. the fucker.
posted by quonsar at 1:46 PM on October 26, 2004


Being glad that someone is dead is a very different thing from wishing someone were dead. Let's be clear on that.

Me, I don't have a problem with either one. Or rather, I think people are entitled to do both, though it may sometimes be distasteful to do either. What happens in the head should never be prosecutable.
posted by rushmc at 1:51 PM on October 26, 2004


Thanks for one of the most asinine and irrelevant comments I have ever read Wulfgar!. You missed the point badly.

This isn't about having balls, or being PC, or whatever you rambled on about. Think whatever you want. Write whatever you want. Be prepared to accept that your childish, petty thoughts about dead journalists who committed no crime against you are not exactly what this website is all about, or at least what it should be about.

1. The comment is offensive and immature.
2. It makes all of us look bad by association.
3. For a brief second I thought I was reading LGF.

You want to spew your particular brand of hatred, be it against gays, blacks, Jews or conservative magazine editors? Knock yourself out, but please, get your own blog.
posted by loquax at 2:04 PM on October 26, 2004


loquax never asked for him to be banned -- he suggested a "timeout." I personally don't think even that's warranted (I think being an insensitive lout is its own punishment), but just trying to keep things accurate.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:10 PM on October 26, 2004


I didn't think much of the few columns of Mike Kelly's that I read, but I really like his Martyrs' Day: Chronicle of a Small War, about the first Gulf War. And here are some comments about Mike Kelly from people who knew him.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:23 PM on October 26, 2004


"Be prepared to accept that your childish, petty thoughts [...] are not exactly what this website is all about, or at least what it should be about."

Nice try.

Please be prepared to accept that beating dead horses will be met with derision. I certainly accept your wish that childish, petty thoughts not be what this website is about, but such things have been more or less integral here for the last four years. Your shock and outrage smacks of naivete.

But nice try. Seriously. If we had more people willing to tilt at such windmills MetaFilter would a kinder, gentler place. Of course we'd have to ban 30% of the active users to get there, but at least you'd be happier.

Good luck sir! Your heroic, if naive, efforts will not go unnoticed over here.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:35 PM on October 26, 2004


Ohhh, poor loquax got them hurt feels now. Guess what? You can claim this was about rude comments, or immaturity, and you'd be just as hypocritical as I argued that you might be.

1. The comment is offensive and immature.

Offensive to you, though you never really explain why, do you? Nope, you didn't. You just got your panties in a twist and went from there. Immature? I'd like to see the argument made, because God knows you sure as hell didn't do it. I, on the other hand, posit quite clearly that the comment was rather normal. If you disagree, back up your claim, because you're no authority here.

2. It makes all of us look bad by association.

???????? Since when was MetaFilter about looking good to others, and who are the others we are supposed to look good too? Where's the standard that you think we all need to live up to, pal? Who wrote this dictum of conduct? The owner of the site? Nope. Are we obligated by your say so? Nope. Did you pull that emotional plea for conformity to your ideal right out of your ass? Yup.

3. For a brief second I thought I was reading LGF.

'Sucks to be you, then. And attempting to brand me as hating any group of humans, when you were whining about the comment made by another is not only pathetic, but misguided as per your own ideals of "politeness". If you'd like to discuss my critique of your callout, I'd be happy to. But we won't get very far with you attributing to me things that I never wrote' yes?

And I apologize. I guess a temporary denial of service to the site is different from a "ban", and I'm sure it will be explained how in the very near future.

(Quick Matt, while the guy isn't looking at what we're saying about him, let's deny him access. It's not "torture", it's "administrative punishment" and "softening the target" ...)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:43 PM on October 26, 2004


*previews, erases comment, bows to Wulfgar!*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:47 PM on October 26, 2004


And I apologize. I guess a temporary denial of service to the site is different from a "ban", and I'm sure it will be explained how in the very near future.

After wading through the sarcasm, I see you actually made a valid point. I thought "ban" implied permanence, but I can see how it could be interpreted both ways. My apologies.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:55 PM on October 26, 2004


Wow, this place is getting oversensitive and excessively nasty, all at the same time.

*hopes against hope all this will pass with the election*
posted by languagehat at 3:03 PM on October 26, 2004


So Wulfgar!, if I may paraphrase, does "hooray for the lowest common denominator" and "let's hear it for pointless, vile invective" sum it up? You've very emphatically registered your unhappiness and stuck up for your friend, fine.

PS: I wasn't addressing anything you wrote, or trying to imply you hated anyone. It was a general "you", not specific.
posted by loquax at 3:04 PM on October 26, 2004


So Wulfgar!, if I may paraphrase, does "hooray for the lowest common denominator" and "let's hear it for pointless, vile invective" sum it up?

loquax, this is precisely where we disagree. You assume that Mykeru's comment was the lowest common denominator, but you haven't argued for that assumption. In my view, it was not pointless or vile; it was an expression of disgust at a person who had damaged others, and Mykeru was happy at the relief afforded by his passing. I remain unconvinced that this lessens either the site or us as other people.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:20 PM on October 26, 2004


so what's our policy then? we can't disagree anymore with a dead writer's ideas?

dying a premature, tragic death does not put one's writing above (fair) criticism. again, RIP Michael Kelly, and I can only imagine his family's sorrow. but his pieces are still online, available to readers, and one does have the right to read them and call them shrill, near-sighted, in bad faith

personally, I can understand the average mouthbreathing jingo hick nurturing an obsessive Clinton-hate (again, Clinton didn't steal an election or attack a country on Ahmed Chalabi's orders on fraudulent evidence, nor he busted the budget yetc). but ideas like those were (and are) very much beneath a smart man (and very likely, a decent person) like Kelly

one can't praise Kelly's writing only because he's dead
posted by matteo at 3:33 PM on October 26, 2004


Wolfgar!, I would argue that there are appropriate expressions of disgust, and inappropriate actions of disgust. Given that I would assume that we are all intelligent, rational people, I would hope that if this person really wanted to register their disgust with Kelly, they could reason it out a tad more than expressing happiness at his death, and calling him a "silly fucker". For example, posting links to works of his that offended. Or demolishing Kelly's opinions in a well-crafted and witty argument. Or whatever.

In addition, the thread was not about Kelly. It added nothing to mention him, or weigh in with opinions about him, especially opinions as undeveloped and crude as the one Reverend Mykeru offered. In fact, I would argue that it detracts from the thread, and the site itself. If all comments were to be like that comment, this site would be worthless and unreadable. LGF comments are just like that, one liners filled with bile about whatever subject it is they're discussing (at least, from what I know about it).

So, the comment offends me because it's tasteless, crude, simplistic, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and drags down the level of discourse both by increasing the level of noise and introducing ad hominem attacks (in this case, on the dead).

Even when disagreeing with many posters here, I respect their ability to debate, post intelligently and the conviction of their opinion. I just don't think this type of comment should be acceptable here and I wanted to point it out.


dying a premature, tragic death does not put one's writing above (fair) criticism.

Of course not, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
posted by loquax at 3:40 PM on October 26, 2004


People get timeouts when they fuck up the site, not when they say insensitive things about the outside world.

If you're not fucking with Matt, other members, or defacing the site directly, you're very probably not going to get a timeout.

If you want to publicly denounce someone for being an ass, great, but stop pretending that it will result in Matt's agreement and a subsequent suspension. It won't happen.
posted by scarabic at 3:56 PM on October 26, 2004


In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:04 PM on October 26, 2004


.
posted by mischief at 4:33 PM on October 26, 2004


loquax: Posting the "he was a father" article was a smidgen over the top thing. It's not like we're all family here. And all you have to do to be a father is to have sperm and an egg that accepts your sperm. And the fact of one's fatherhood or motherhood says nothing about the quality of one's writing, or professional life, etc. Idi Amin was a father, already - and his son apparently likes him, takes advice from the man. I don't think Michael Kelly was on par with Idi Amin, but ... OK, never mind that. I was going over the top there too. But you get the idea. (Hey, there is no Godwin-type rule for Idi Amin.)
posted by raysmj at 4:56 PM on October 26, 2004


Oh. I only posted that to provide a bio for some of the first commenters who didn't seem to know who he was. I didn't even read the thing except to see that it was from Slate and that it was a reasonable obit.
posted by loquax at 5:00 PM on October 26, 2004


"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."F.N.
posted by JohnR at 5:03 PM on October 26, 2004


Yes, printed immediately after his death. It's now a while after his death. And it's OK now to remember with more prominence that this was a not only a guy who made so many stupid predicitions re Iraq (they will greet the U.S. military as liberators, and there will be few deaths, and it'll all be over quickly, in all probability) and shouted down as Stalinists those who said otherwise, and who edited the storied Atlantic Monthly when it chose to portray, on its front cover, Al Gore as a vampire, etc.
posted by raysmj at 5:10 PM on October 26, 2004


> who edited the storied Atlantic Monthly when it chose to portray, on its front
> cover, Al Gore as a vampire, etc.

Gee, I overlooked that one, cool. Wonder if we can bring this Kelly person back to life? Maybe they'd trade for Wolfgar! and two other playahs to be named later.
posted by jfuller at 5:55 PM on October 26, 2004


What Sidhedevil's mom said.
posted by semmi at 6:55 PM on October 26, 2004


I would hope that if this person really wanted to register their disgust with Kelly, they could reason it out a tad more than expressing happiness at his death

You presume too much. If the poster had wanted to discuss their objections to Kelly at length, I'm sure they would have chosen to do so. Instead, they expressed a feeling about his not being around anymore. Why is this not valid?

You are doing just what Bush did in the debates when he'd respond to the moderators with "what you're really asking is," and then go off on some different, safer tangent. Rather than tell people what they should have said, it's better to just hear what they are actually saying and do with that what you will.
posted by rushmc at 7:52 PM on October 26, 2004


Being glad that someone who wrote about how great it would be to kill thousands of other people? Yeah, how dare he have such an awful thought.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:54 PM on October 26, 2004


raysmj - "Hey, there is no Godwin-type rule for Idi Amin."

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Idi Amin approaches one after a really, really incredibly large number of posts."

rushmc - "Rather than tell people what they should have said, it's better to just hear what they are actually saying and do with that what you will."

Wise words.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 10:38 PM on October 26, 2004


Man, I was glad that he died the day he died. I hated that sonofabitch. I said so that day on a mailing list I was involved with, to a large amount of resulting outrage. Yeah, by all accounts he was personally a nice guy. But I think his influence on American public opinion at the very least indicates to me that the world is better with him dead than alive. So I can't be sorry he's dead, and, in fact, I'm glad that he is, all other things being equal.

There's lots of other people I wish were dead and will be unabashadly happy to discover that they're dead when they do, in fact, eventually die. G. W. Bush heads the list. (Well, actually, no, he doesn't. At the top of my list would be Tom Delay and Cheney before Bush.)

In the case of the people mentioned in the previous paragraph, these are people I strongly believe are—whether it has metaphysical meaning or not, it has practical meaning—agents of "evil" on a large scale in today's world. I have no idea why I'm expected to assume, contrary to evidence, that these are well-intentioned people who are agents of "good" to whom I should be considerate and civil. Screw them.

I was a long-time subscriber of TNR when Kelly took the helm. His time there was limited, but he represents to me everything I came to dislike about a magazine I once loved. Screw him.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:03 PM on October 26, 2004


Context: Reverend Mykeru made his comment after reading a Michael Kelly column devoted entirely to Bill Clinton. This didn't have anything to do with Iraq; it was all about domestic politics.

I wonder if there's anyone here who would stand by while Reverend Mykeru spoke those words directly to Kelly's widow and children. This is a public space, though, and when he says these things that's what he is doing.

I'm sure some people here will say that they would stand for that; and I believe some of those people actually would -- shame on them, too.

The comment was immature and vile. Tomorrow's forecast: much, much more of the same from all sides.
posted by coelecanth at 11:15 PM on October 26, 2004


No, I think there's a difference between the expectation that Kelly's family would be presented with this view and the expectation that they would not.

There was something similar that got called out here in MeTa long ago, and I felt that the comment was inappropriate because (I can't remember the details) there actually was a reasonable expectation that someone who would likely be personally offended (someone with a direct interest, like Kelly's family has a direct interest) would actually read the comment on MeFi. I do think that makes a difference. I wouldn't say what I think about this to Kelly's family, because even if it's what I think, their personal feelings obviously outweigh my own. But loquax's doesn't. It's a completely different situation.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:27 PM on October 26, 2004


The comment certainly wasn't the brightest thing to come down the pike, but the idea of being handed a "time out" for it is just silly.

The U.S. State Department officially stated that it wouldn't like to see "a speedy recovery" for Fidel Castro, proudly showing off its schoolyard-style of diplomacy and politics. As an expat American who finds myself being represented to the world (and my local neighborhood, which doesn't happen to think that Fidel is the devil incarnate) in this way, I found this acutely embarrassing... at least the commenter here was just stating his own opinion, and not representing all the Filter. If we gave time-outs to every poster who makes an impulsive, possibly childish or thoughtless comment here, the comings and goings of the membership would be like Grand Central Station.
posted by taz at 1:57 AM on October 27, 2004


Reverend Mykeru is as anti-war as they come and seems to stand equally by powerless victims of any crime. Mykeru, if I have him pegged right, may just consider any shill who has stood in and defended this heinous crime, to be just as worthy of the fate that his published, willful, (and bought?) ignorance has helped bring upon the innocents of Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is: DEATH.

That, I believe, is what mykeru was saying.

Basically it's this if you'll allow me to paraphrase:

Open your fucking eyes you "pro-war" jackasses! We all die in the end. War is no way to run the world.

How do I know this?

Reverend Mykeru is my lover.

Aside from that however, he really is a tip-top thinker, albeit always unconventional and is one of the most entertaining and thought provoking writers I know of.
posted by crasspastor at 4:49 AM on October 27, 2004


Metafilter: Reverend Mykeru is my lover.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:23 AM on October 27, 2004


Actually, that we all die, in the end, is precisely a reason to go to war (or at least one of them).
posted by ParisParamus at 8:10 AM on October 27, 2004


I have no idea why I'm expected to assume, contrary to evidence, that these are well-intentioned people who are agents of "good" to whom I should be considerate and civil.

Indeed. When a misguided sense of politeness trumps truth, everyone suffers.

Free speech trumps even a widow and children's understandable sensitivity, sorry. Under normal circumstances it would be cruel to express such opinions to surviving family members, and I can't imagine that most of us would do it. But should the need to speak the truth ever conflict with their desire not to hear it (the fear that they might read Metafilter, for example), then again free speech must win out. Truly, I doubt it would have much impact on them, as they could relatively easily dismiss the opinion of a stranger as being without merit.

The U.S. State Department officially stated that it wouldn't like to see "a speedy recovery" for Fidel Castro

I hadn't seen that, taz. That's appalling. Because there IS a difference between an expression of personal opinion and official government diplomacy.
posted by rushmc at 8:35 AM on October 27, 2004


But wishing individual journalists with whom one disagrees dead isn't the same thing as wishing cruel tyrants or terrorists dead, after all.

har. that made me laugh. who defines "cruel tyrants" and "terrorists"? is Khadafi in the first group? was he 10 years ago? does Baby Doc fit the bill, even though he's not in power? har. i guess we'll have to ask Sidhedevil first b4 deciding that it's ok to be happy someone's dead.

even ignoring the fact that Rev. Mykeru said he was *glad* Kelly was dead, not *wished* he were dead ...

i agree with taz and rushmc on the Boucher flap. there's a big difference between Joe Schmoe saying something offensive and a representative of the US government. would he have said the same thing about Hu Jintao? i really don't think so. and what's the difference?
posted by mrgrimm at 4:51 PM on October 27, 2004


This is not CivilityFilter. Or even DecencyFilter.

posted by ParisParamus


*chuckle*
posted by Vidiot at 12:31 AM on October 28, 2004


« Older What does the dot mean?   |   Let's argue in threads instead of in MetaTalk Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments