Way to lay some smackdown Angry!!

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at July 22, 2006 08:27 AM

---

let's encourage these morons to continue with such pathetic attacks on common sense.

The more they show their true colors, the more ordinary Canadians will see them for the haters & self-loathing moonbats that they are.

Do not waste time with a critique of their stupidity . . . its like playing whack-a-mole . . . the mouthpiece for a head just pops up elsewhere and rants on.

Encourage them, feed their flames of self destruction, let them believe their message is getting through.

Posted by: Fred at July 22, 2006 09:03 AM

---

I too have been noticing some of the subhuman comments from "progressives" on the internet regarding Laureen's tears. These sort of comments are from people seemingly missing something human in their makeup and it's not to much of a stretch to tie it to the hundred million mostly ordinary people coldly murdered by leftist governments during the 20th century.

I'm a tough guy but, at the age of 22, by fluke, I visited a remote cemetery of British WWII dead in a remote part of Asia. As I stood in the middle of rows of crosses marking the graves of boys, none of them older than me at the time of their deaths, I was deeply moved. If one of them had been a blood relative whom I'd never met I might've been moved to tears.

This is further proof of Rabble being a collective that attracts barbarians, ignorant and evil degenerates.

Posted by: calgarian at July 22, 2006 09:13 AM

---

Rabble.ca - bought and paid for by taxpayers through one of hundreds of Liberal wasteful programs.

Posted by: ferrethouse at July 22, 2006 09:17 AM

---

I would also like to comment that the photo of Laureen was captured and distributed by independent media, not by any Harper 'official photographer'. Any comments that it was 'staged' are leftwing lies.

Posted by: calgarian at July 22, 2006 09:17 AM

---

I've always been of the opinion that all points of view deserve a fair and honest hearing. That's why I carry so many blogrolls -- including the Liberals, the Dippers, the Libertarians, the Conservatives, and the Progressives. To me it seems a shame that the babble folks are perhaps as not aw well served as they could be by a moderator who should focus on keeping their discussions on point, instead of jumping in and raising the volume.

I know that more than a few people who read this blog would say Canada would be better off if we never heard from a Dipper ever again, but I don't think that's true. For any political ideology to stay honest, it needs to be challenged and debated.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 22, 2006 09:37 AM

---

Well I'm glad the progressive folks at babble cleared that up for me. Now, whenever I see Natives defending the graves of their ancient ancestors, I will expect similar accusations of insincerity from them.

Posted by: TimR at July 22, 2006 10:07 AM

---

I know that more than a few people who read this blog would say Canada would be better off if we never heard from a Dipper ever again, but I don't think that's true. For any political ideology to stay honest, it needs to be challenged and debated.

Or at least a standard to be compared to. As Rabble is a .ca, there's a better than even chance that post violates one or more of CIRA's policies, and would justify collapsing the domain. If I had anything to do with the NDP, I'D be looking to close that site down.

Posted by: Skip at July 22, 2006 10:08 AM

---

These cheap and insensitive comments are from people who have never watched the History channel.
The documentaries on Canada during WW1 make me sad and proud.I was not born in Canada [I am Canadian] but to stand at a place where thousands had given their lives and for one to actually be a relative, how could you not be affected?

Posted by: ian at July 22, 2006 11:24 AM

---

I agree Ian. In fact the only people I can think of who wouldn't be affected are lawyers, photographers and the denizens of rabble.

Posted by: rebarbarian at July 22, 2006 11:46 AM

---

I am finding it quite difficult to get my head around a 'compassionate liberal' posture and a vitriolic attack on someone for showing their emotions. It is inconsistent.

Apparently, to receive any empathy from the left, you must be able to cast yourself as a victim.

Now, think of how well this plays out in the dynamics of a family where parents are left-winged. To get empathy from parents, children must learn how to play the victim card.

Left to its own devices, leftward victim role-playing leaves us with a nation of victims, and a slender, all-knowing elite that has as its livelihood the making of reparations, all the while siphoning off a delta upon which to feed itself.

This is sheer lunacy, and does little to help those that truly are victims. Victims, for instance, of violent crime. Perpetrated by children raised in an atmosphere where empathy from parents is achieved by playing victim.

Compare this to a dynamic where you are raised to be accountable for your actions, and to be self-sufficient.

We have to support these babble barnacles because?

Posted by: Shaken at July 22, 2006 11:48 AM

---

Let the Dippers, Liberals, commies et al reveal themselves for all to see and hear. Yes we need good debate and we need to provide a buffer zone between them and reality. It's disgusting what's going on with the MSM, trying to do a hatchet job on Harper and the Conservatives at every turn, no matter how petty or inane. Their vindictiveness knows no bounds as they continue to act like a cabal of juvenile twits. There will have to be a backlash in the broadcast and print media before we get this sorted, it's up to us. The CBC is on another planet and may be hard to reach without sending out a space probe, they're way above we mere mortals.

Posted by: Liz J at July 22, 2006 12:11 PM

---

I've only visited babble a couple of times, and had to log off due to the puerile comments exhibited in most of the posts. I was under the impression it was run by teen-agers, for teen-agers, as they are so fond of exhibiting their "maturity" by use of constant profanity, but that doesn't offend me as much as bore me.

Posted by: Alienated at July 22, 2006 12:23 PM

---

The moderators at Babble are employees?

How is the blog supported financially?

Posted by: Chairm at July 22, 2006 03:21 PM

---

Moderators?Ha! The root word would be moderate!LOL

Posted by: Fergy at July 22, 2006 04:59 PM

---

Kevin_Laddle's post "Harper and his crybaby wife are both total publicity stunt whores" was the lowest form of degradation toward any political leader of any persuasion. Even some of the lefties were offended at his use of four letter words.

That post should have been taken right out, but considering it was Michelle the moderator who started the thread, I'm not surprised it's still there.

I troll babble fairly frequently and this has to be the worst I've seen from these playpen socialists.

Posted by: OnTory-O at July 22, 2006 05:06 PM

---

Been to any graveyards in Europe? Memorials about the persecution of peoples in Germany? Thousands of people go in a day, and if my visits are a representative sample, a good 3/4 of people leave with a few tears in their eyes. And I'm guessing most of the people under the age of 40 don't know anyone who was involved in the conflict. Maybe those over at babble are just made of much tougher stuff then the rest of us, but it's obvious that their hatred for Harper (and even his wife!) far transcends their emotional empathy for normal people who are moved by the sight of graveyards of family members they never had a chance to meet who were killed in the prime of their lives. Can't even believe they made this into an issue. That's low.

Posted by: Meany at July 22, 2006 05:51 PM

---

Even if she doesn't respect Harper and his wife, she should respect the office of the Prime Minister.

The moderator is mocking all Canadians with this post.

Posted by: Joanne TB at July 22, 2006 08:56 PM

---

A while back, the topic of what appears as out of control hatred being the motivating factor for some of the lefties, well just check it out and there you find it, sheer hatred. Not even really focused, just hateful and without what appears as even the ability to love.

The word evil usually freaks folks out but some of the stuff that I've seen and heard fits that bill.

Pat

Posted by: pat at July 22, 2006 08:58 PM

---

Babble advocates are a waste of skin. Sadly they are probably supported by our tax dollars--name anything Liberal that isn't!
As the Liberals despise anything of military value they are just showing their true ignorance. we all know that those that fought and died, and indeed are still fighting and dying are nothing more than serfs to a Lib/Dipper mentality. Otherwise they would not have disarmed our military to less than that of boy scouts. At the same time Liberals and their fellow trough feeders gourged themselves on the money ripped from all things military.
Of course Laureen cried--she is from a very close family, and has probably been told stories about her brave family fighting and dying for Canada. Conversely the only thing Liberals have to brag about is their complete contempt for anyone that sees value in human life--they only worship the almighty dollar, preferrably in brown envelopes left in restaurants. And true to form, with their Liberal upbringing, they know nothing about anything of value regarding the Military history of Canada. Self absorbed criminals--that is all they are.

Posted by: George at July 22, 2006 10:12 PM

---

Hi Jake, I disagreed with Michelle's original post, and most of the subsequent comments that were made in her defense over at Babble, and have said so over there.

And I also agree about the difficulties in moderating as well as commenting on one's own posts in a blog. But it is something that is done as a general rule, isn't it?

>> "Common sense dictates that a moderator should not be posting except to explain and enforce the rules."

You don't seem to have employees serving as moderators here. But aren't your comment sections moderated, at all? What's different here?

I guess it is confusing. Should a designated moderator not post original articles? Or not comment on threads he moderates?

I'm not sure if it is correct to infer that your objection is to the Babble policy's lack of realism or the lack of adherence to it displayed by the two moderators.

I am interested because this is something that bloggers struggle with -- especially those of us regularly engaged in highly contentious issues.

Cheers.

Posted by: Chairm at July 23, 2006 12:53 AM

---

Chairm is confused on the difference between a BLOG and a BBS/PUBLIC FORUM. I'd explain it but I'm sure I'd be too agressive...

Posted by: Richard Evans at July 23, 2006 01:10 AM

---

You don't seem to have employees serving as moderators here. But aren't your comment sections moderated, at all? What's different here?

Richard is right that a blog and the associated comment sections are different some ways from a message board. A blog speaks with one voice -- mine -- and I allow/encourage comments and criticism. But the topics being discussed are the ones I've created with my original posts. A message board is much broader. Every member can start a thread. That broadness requires much closer scrutiny since the sheer amount and variety of conversations is much higher than in a blog.

Having said that, the rules for my blog are much laxer than rabble's babble. Basically, I want a general level of respect, and that's about it. Unlike some blogs, I don't usually inject myself in the conversations, and I don't usually respond directly to criticisms (consructive or otherwise).

I do read them all -- be certain of that, though. And I do take criticisms seriously.

So with a blog, the focus you get from the single owner/author means that discussions themselves take on the nature and tone of the original post, and so maintaining "moderation" is a less onerous task.

I also like to think that the people who hang out at this blog are a cut above the average.

Should a moderator post articles on a board? Absolutely. Some boards have a very blog-like quality because of the level of participation of the moderator. But a message board is not owned by the moderator. It is not the moderator's soapbox. It is the soapbox for all the members (not true of a true blog). As such, members expect that the moderator is going to facilitate their participation, and for that moderators need to appear even-handed. That means that the participation of moderators on the board has to be measured, and moderate. Moderators should probably pose questions in a more even-handed way ("Were her tears at the cemetary legitimate or was it a staged photo-op, including the tears?").

But that's my opinion.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 23, 2006 06:51 AM

---

Excuse me if I don't get upset Steve, but this form of uncivil, puerile venom is to be expected from the nihilist sandbox...nasty brats with the same infantile self absorbed world view.If you don't want sand thrown in your eyes don't play in their sandbox.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at July 23, 2006 10:30 AM

---

...while it's good to point out the misgivings of the airhead left, why devote such a long discourse on your home page about it Steve?

Maybe have a paragraph or two and then link to another page to read the rest. Basically so one doesn't have to go through screen scroll hell to get to other topics.

Nevertheless, back to the topic,it is puzzling how the left actually think like they do. Spoiled baby syndrome?

I'm glad they post over there, that way hopefully this one stays sane.

Then again, I'm sure Steve you have your share of filtering comments in here.

Keep up the good work eh.

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax7 at July 23, 2006 10:36 AM

---

I've been a moderator for close to ten years, now, and it's never occurred to me that a moderator shouldn't be posting.

It's their board. Their rules may be stupid, but that's the way they like it.

Posted by: SUZANNE at July 23, 2006 12:56 PM

---

[First thing: Steve, I apologize for getting your name wrong in my previous comment.]

Thanks for the explanation.

Your own blog policy makes sense. The blog I contribute to, Opine Editorials, is a group effort. So its focus doesn't come from a single blogger. The focus comes with the subject area that we blog about from our different pespectives. And, yes, we basically have the same policy as you have described here. We have a smaller readership, but so far so good with our comment sections.

As I said over in the Babble thread, the group may be voicing opinions in strong words, on the matter of this photo, but the opinions as expressed are very weak on substance.

So I do see how your questions about the role of the moderator in this case are valid. The post and the discussion, and then the moderation (such as it is) were similarily weak on substance. The commentators followed the example of the poster/moderator. Kinda pointless with such little content amidst those wasted pixels. Yet, it seems, that is the basis of the poster/moderator's defence in this case. All one can do is shrug.

Thanks again for taking my question in the spirit in which it was intended.

Cheers,
Chairm

Posted by: Chairm at July 23, 2006 02:23 PM

---

One thing that I have seen on some boards is moderators having two separate handles: one handle for when they are moderating a thread and another handle for when they are posting their own personal opinion.

Although it might be a weak solution, it might be one way babble (and others) may wish to address the issue.

Posted by: David Giles at July 23, 2006 04:24 PM

---

Here`s 685 Canadians (at the link) that Mrs. Harper's relative would have seen or served with. They too never returned from WW1 so the rabble gang can betray their ignorance. There`s about 59000 other Canadian families still out there that remember.

No point in arguing with people who's mind is glued shut. But ignoring ignoramous's just spurs them on to greater travesty's. So keep reminding them where the boot leather meets the road.

I'm sure what they abhor is as simple as Leading from the Front of an issue like makes whiny wannabees look like the moral cowards they are.

Posted by: Floyd Low at July 23, 2006 05:28 PM

---

Why would anyone be attracted to anything called Babble? Anyone moderating babble would have little to do, crap is crap, how can that be moderated?

Posted by: Liz J at July 23, 2006 05:50 PM

---

Steve

as a relatively newcomer to Blogging I have stuck pretty close to yours and Kates, and enjoyed the banter back and forth from our pet Liberals and the regulars.

However, when I went to this Blog, and mostly laughed at the Post, I decided to continue down to the Rabble Comments. My God, are these people real?? Are there people in Canada that think this way? Ive never seen such small minded drivel in my Seventy-five years

Posted by: ronrob at July 23, 2006 08:38 PM

---

"Even if she doesn't respect Harper and his wife, she should respect the office of the Prime Minister."

Why is everyone on the right so loyal to authority?

It's frankly pathetic.

The left takes on those with power while the right just worship at their feet. So sad.

Posted by: Justin... at July 23, 2006 10:40 PM

---

As mostly a reader and very infrequent commentator I would like those on the right to lead by example. Some comments this thread are are thoughtful and insightful while some are downright nasty and seem to come from the same type of close headed (lack of) thinking they are complaining about. You don't have to respect them or what they say, but you don't need to bottom feed at their level either.

Justin,

Your comments about the "right" worshipping at the feet of authority is off base. While the Liberals were in power, we on the right were definitely NOT worshipping at the feet of authority.

There are many on the left/liberal/progressive side that unthinkingly spew bile merely because their guy/side is not in power. The babble thread Mr. Janke highlighted would seem to be an example.

And quit frankly, the right is far more willing to attack our own side when we percieve them for straying off course.

Posted by: DKJONES at July 24, 2006 12:48 AM

---

I regularly go to a lot of different blogs with a lot of different viewpoints, rabble just being one of them. Nothing out of the ordinary over there as far as opinions or anything, until you get to the comments section. I was struck, not by any of the content, but by how many people get banned/kicked off by Michelle for saying anything opposite of the general theme. She doesn't want debate, just a bunch of yes-people. I have since discontinued reading that as it became apparent any different viewpoints were not welcome.

Posted by: Daryl at July 24, 2006 08:08 AM

---

DKJONES,

Pretty sure I used an example in my comment that you chose to ignore. Oh and not to burst you bubble with 'facts' or anything but the Paul Martin government was far from left.

Anyway no one on the left would ever say, "respect the office of the PMO - no matter what"

Anyway here's a great interview about the right-wing impluse to follow - not lead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMpuqRCRuM8

Posted by: Justin... at July 24, 2006 09:20 AM

---

Angry - you have unrealistically high expectations for a forum that is nothing more than a vitriolic radical leftist love-in. Rabble and reasoned debate are by their nature mutually exclusive terms. ;)

Posted by: Steve A. at July 24, 2006 11:00 AM

---

Justin...

I watched the link and I must admit the Nixon administration is a little before my time, so I did a little research.

Did you now that Barry Goldwater wanted to use nukes in Vietnam & was against civil rights legislation? And John Dean is worried about the authoritarian tendencies of the far Right? Despite what the Left believes, George W, Bush is not right of Barry Goldwater.

This interview is like manna for the Leftist masses because it confirms exactly what the Left thinks of the Right. Namely that we are unthinking automatons, scared into believing just about anything.

Dean cites research to back up his claims. I would like to see some of this research and determine if its peer reviewed (a low bar these days) and not a product of confirmation bias.

A final comment. Tell me, what political ideology is more responsible for demolishing personal freedoms and unleashing death and destruction upon millions? The politics of the Right or Left?

There is a common thread of political ideology between Mao, Stalin and Hitler and its called Socialism.

Posted by: JasperPants at July 24, 2006 12:04 PM

---

"There is a common thread of political ideology between Mao, Stalin and Hitler and its called..."

Unquestioning servitude. And no one does it better than the right - esp. when it comes to following Bush into a useless war.

Here's one for you - so Bush says whatever good can come out of Stem Cell research doesn't excuse the lost 'lives' yet he refers to those killed since the American invasion of Iraq as 'necessary' to bringing about democracy. I'm confused.

Oh here's another - welfare, health care, etc. is derided by the right as 'social engineering' yet marching into a country and supposedly institution 'democracy' isn't social engineering?

Again, I'm confused but that's probably cause I'm on the left and I don't let the authorities think for me.

Posted by: Justin... at July 24, 2006 12:10 PM

---

There certainly does seem to be a lot of photo-ops going on these days, with Harper's Lebanon "rescue" being at the top of the list (it strikes me as terribly ironic that Harper supports Israel's actions in Lebanon, but is so personally keen to evacuate Canadians - if Israel's actions are "measured", then why can't Canadians stay in Lebanon? Surely Israel wouldn't harm them.)

But there is nothing unusual about someone being moved to tears at someone's grave, whether they knew them or not (the unusual part, of course, is the presence of the media). A year or two ago I visited the war memorial in Hamilton for soldiers who fought in WWI, and I was overwhelmed by the rows of gravestones and their inscriptions. I sobbed.

I can understand Laureen Teskey's emotion, and I wouldn't criticize her for it, whether cameras were present or not. It's worth noting, however, that what is being said by the "left" about the photo-op (whether her emotions were genuine or not, it's still a photo-op: gravesite visits are hardly news) can't be any worse that what has been said by the "right" about Cindy Sheehan and her grief over the loss of her son in Iraq.

Posted by: Ade at July 24, 2006 12:11 PM

---

"Clap trap"...there used to be a saying back in the 70's about those who ramble on with nothing of substance or value or about promiscuous woman's...

Either way fits the leftist airhead Liberal mentality.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cla1.htm
- A Clap Trap, a name given to the rant and rhimes that dramatick poets, to please the actors, let them get off with: as much as to say, a trap to catch a clap, by way of applause from the spectators at a play.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 24, 2006 12:48 PM

---

As shameful as that posting was, it is no different than some of the posts I've read at Proud to Be Canadian and Blogging Tories.ca

Free speech also allows for idiocy. I choose to ignore it, and look for objective discussions--left or right point of view.

Posted by: Chris Schnurr at July 24, 2006 01:19 PM

---

Justin...

Your first two paragraphs are a non-sequitur. I agree, unquestioning servitude allowed millions to be killed, but the enabler was the murderous ideology of the Left. Why is it so hard for Leftists to understand this?

For the record, Bush has not banned Stem cell research, only the federal funding of it. As someone who leans Libertarian, I am not bothered by Bush's position in the least. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can't get too worked up about it.

As for the justification of the Iraq war, I believe the lives lost are worth it. I believe this because we are engaged in war against radical Islam whose goals are to either convert us or kill us. The whole region needed to be shaken up and we won't know for a number of years if the gamble in Iraq was worth it.

This president believes in the power of big government, so it is no surprise he is engaged in nation-building in Iraq. But there are many on the Right who believe we should have toppled Saddam and just got the hell out.

So you see - there is not always "unquestioning servitude" on the Right. Although we might not have "comfy fur" on our side, there sure are plenty of different opinions.

I think you need to rethink your assumptions about GWB. By any objective measure, he is not the far Right dictator he is made out to be. The only reason why I generally support him is because of his solid anti-terror stance. Outside of this issue, to me, he is just another politician that believes expanding the power of the State at the expense of the Individual.

Posted by: at July 24, 2006 02:25 PM

---

Dear Justin

Sorry, didn't see any facts....bubble intact.

It is hard to know exactly where Paul Martin stood on the left-right scale or any issue because he rarely took any stand. However he was certainly to the left of Harper. Somewhere right of Smilin Jack your used car salesman and all round swell guy, but definately on the left hand side of the scale. Harper is more middle ground than right by his current policies.

W.R.T YouTube. Well that was 10 minutes of my life I will never get back. Your source proves nothing. It was two guys with the same opinions stroking each others egos. Now they did reference this massive social science study. Get me a link to that and perhaps you might have something.

From my admittedly biased point of view the left in Canada does not "take on authority" in any substantive way. Of course I prefer that leftist policies to those beacons on the left of human rights. You know...Polpot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Che Guevera, etc....

Posted by: at July 24, 2006 06:47 PM

---

" the murderous ideology of the Left"

Government money going towards Health Care, Education, Welfare, Arts & Culture vs. Guns/Weapons, Illegal Invasions of foreign lands, corporate executives.

What a murderous ideology.

Posted by: Justin... at July 24, 2006 10:54 PM

---

"Government money"? My, my, you are a rather naive little babe in the woods, Justin. Maybe you should study up on how much "government money" is already going to "Health Care, Education, Welfare, Arts & Culture" and develop some sound thoughts on how much more money is required for precisely what? It would be nice to see our schools producing more doctors but that requires a rigorous scientific education, nothing to do with money. How and what are you doing in school Justin?

It's also historically obvious that leftwing governments spend plenty on arms and meddle in other sovereign states as much as any other form of government.

"Illegal invasions of foreign lands" is a profoundly stupid remark, just because you say something's illegal doesn't make it so. No Canadian or American, or Israeli, politician is under any threat whatsoever, by any competent authority, of any legal action for "illegal" invasions, does that tell you anything? Murderous ideologies, such as the left's, often fabricate serious criminal accusations where no crime exists.

Posted by: anon at July 25, 2006 08:32 AM

---

Justin...

I see I have failed to properly explain what I mean when about the "murderous ideology of the Left"...

- cultural and moral relativism results in a stunning lack of moral when dealing with evil. An example of this is the Left's inability to reconcile the threat posed by Islamic terrorism and the appropriate response.

- radical environmentalism is anti-human at its core. How many children die a year because of DDT bans? Millions. The mask slips once in a while when a Lefty academic calls Humans a cancer that needs to be eradicated from the earth.

- Individual versus Collective rights. How many murderous dictators get their intellectual horsepower from Adam Smith? Marx and Engels?

As I mentioned before, I lean Libertarian. If government had a tendency to expand its sucesses and limit its failures I wouldn't think this way.

Can you really say that the government monopoly in health care and education is the best we can do? I see an important role for government in these areas, but the Left desperately clings to outdated economic models and shrieks like a banshee when market-oriented reform is proposed.

The irony is that in these areas, it's the Left who are the true Conservatives. I get a chuckle out of that.

Posted by: JasperPants at July 25, 2006 08:45 AM

---

The prejudice and disdain offered in this particular moderator's post does seem to be edgy if not completely out of touch with the rules.

Being the authority figures within a message board setting, one would hope moderators would hold themselves to a higher standard than this example.

Oh well. Knowlege is power, power corrupts...be evil, read a book.

Posted by: Dan F. at July 25, 2006 03:57 PM

---

From this past week's experience in attempting to discuss substance over at Babble, I think the bigger problem lies with the regualar commenters whose example is both welcomed and encouraged there.

Tonight was par for the course.

Posted by: Chairm at July 26, 2006 03:07 AM

---

Her post was an opinion, sure, but hateful? Not as hateful as the first post in reply to it, but I notice you're not even addressing that, since he supported your point of view :) It's nice to have filters that only let you see what you want to.

As to moderators posting, people don't become Switzerland when asked to moderate. They're allowed to have opinions, and to speak of them. If that's too liberal for you, the best way to show your disapproval is to boycott the site!

Posted by: PotKettle? at July 26, 2006 04:30 AM

---

PotKettle, the first post in response was as follows:

>> "Since the grave was at Vimy Ridge, Ms. Teskey may have been contemplating the tragedy of young men being killed or disfigured in war. You have no way of knowing if this was insincere emotion.
You have surpassed even your own standards of cruel-minded self-righteousness."

Please explain the criteria by which you are convinced that the disagreement was hatefully expressed.

Posted by: Chairm at July 26, 2006 03:45 PM

---