Back to previous post: “How To Steal an Election”

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: “Blog”

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

April 10, 2006

Seizing control of the debate
Posted by Teresa at 04:50 PM *

As Kayjay put it, “[A]pparently the conservatives even need instructions on how to be rude visitors.” She was referring to the quite stunningly something-or-other How to Handle an Open Thread on Liberal Blogs*, by one Butler Thomas:

Liberals, being the lazy sons of guns that they are, often have open threads on their blogs. That way they can keep visitors interested in talking amongst themselves, keeping them on their blogs without having to actually do any work.

Do you suppose he means us? He could always try it himself, and see if he gets the same results.

For us conservatives this presents a wonderful opportunity, if we choose to act on it. Remember, anyone is allowed to post on an open thread. There is no determined topic. This is your chance to take control of the blog and direct the flow of conversation the way you want it to go.

The conservatives I grew up with had much better manners than this.

Rule #1: Attack. Hit the liberals where it hurts. This is your time to take control of the debate. Don’t pull any punches. You want them on the defensive the minute you’re there.

Andrew, owning a black leather duster is not enough.

Liberals generally aren’t very quick thinkers, if you hit them hard in the first post they won’t know how to respond.

(Rolls about on the floor laughing.)

Rule #2: Attack …

(Wipes eyes.)

If we’d ever been hit by a rightwing attacker who was capable of that, things might have gotten interesting, by which I mean “interesting.” Usually those guys are aggressive but otherwise very, very dull. They don’t engage, they don’t substantiate, they don’t build on previous discourse, they don’t keep track of their own arguments, and they never respond well to being lampooned in verse.

Just look at ol’ Butler here. There’s far more useful and interesting advice he could be giving people who want to pull off the kind of maneuvers he advocates. Unfortunately, he doesn’t know any of that advice. His one good point is Rule #4:

Join in the side chatter. Remember, this is an open thread and there will be discussion that isn’t directly pointed at debate. While you shouldn’t let it sidetrack you from the topic at hand (the topic that you began), joining in non-debate discussion will ingrain you into the community.

Quite true. If you join a civil discussion with the intention of disrupting and forcibly subverting it so you can turn it into a venue for your own sloganeering, it’s a good idea to make conversation along the way. This will trick the locals into treating you like a human being, instead of the troll and vandal you really are.

What’s funniest is that BT characterizes liberals as being rude when he’s in the middle of writing instructions for behaving like a complete boor. This boy lacks insight into his own condition.

I’d tell him so on his own weblog—okay, what I’d actually post is “Don’t even try it, sucker”if it were possible to do so. Too bad, can’t do ithis weblog is configured to only accept comments from people who have registered Blogger accounts.

Wimp.

Comments on Seizing control of the debate:
#1 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 05:48 PM:

Teresa, I think he's kidding. Read the other post on the same site...I think this is a satirical "conservative" blog.

#2 ::: Avery ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 05:59 PM:

It's hard to tell if it's satire or just reporting the news. It's good to see they found a battle plan back in the days of FIDO Net and are sticking with it, though.

Ah, I remember when Reagan was President. Explaining to someone why the Russians were not likely to show up with an air craft carrier in the Gulf of Mexico. Good times. Good times.

#3 ::: AliceB ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 06:11 PM:

I agree that they are probably not serious, but my guess is that they are organized trolls. Here's an entry from the blog of one of their members. I wouldn't be surprised if getting a blogger of any sort to respond to their blog is probably what they're looking for.

Best,
Alice

#4 ::: AliceB ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 06:13 PM:

A kind of meta-troll group?

#5 ::: will shetterly ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 07:04 PM:

T, if all that's preventing your slap-down is a Blogger account, get one. They're free, and you don't have to start a blog--though you might have to pretend you plan to; I forget. As a Blogger, I'll offer this: limiting conversation to Blogger members only is overkill if the problem is comment spam and silly if it's anything else; the truly useful tool for fighting comment spam is the annoying verification word.

#6 ::: Jonathan Shaw ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 07:11 PM:

I thought it was a spoof site too. As well as the "How to be a Christian wife" post, the GWB quote was a tip-off: “Our nation must come together to unite.”

But then I went visiting the "team members" blogs, and they are an extremely smelly lot of trolls who apparently are sincere in their loathing of "liberals", which may mean that they're genuine conservatives. Of course, "Butler Thomas" may have named that troika of trolls as his team members as a way of complicating his little joke.

#7 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 07:32 PM:

It's not enough to write something stupid and claim it's parodic. As I said to Michael Weholt, what's the use of satire that makes no especial point, and will be undetectable to the great majority of its readers? And if they're just using rightwingery as cover to go trolling around and being obnoxious, how does that make them different from the majority of the Freepu Repabikku shock troops?

AliceB, thanks for the telling link. I hope you'll be pleased to know that my link to their site has a nofollow tag.

#8 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 07:37 PM:

Will, I know the account is free. I was just making a rude gesture I learned from Maria Melilli.

Jonathan, at least one other member of that group has posted to the weblog.

#9 ::: j h woodyatt ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 07:42 PM:

alt.syntax.tactical != satire

#10 ::: Kip W ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 07:49 PM:

Since anybody who disagrees with Bush on anything, any time is a goldang liberal, there must be more blogs every day that they can stink up.

#11 ::: Roger Wellor ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 08:11 PM:

But perhaps they are just so stupid they have become parodic.. Look at the Bush quote at the top and follow down.

If it is parody it is pointless, if it is serious it is the most remarkably stupid site I have seen in years, since it can only be taken as a joke.

No big brains on the Brads writing that site..

#12 ::: Scorpio ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 08:26 PM:

Would you like to use my blogger login?

#13 ::: AliceB ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 08:29 PM:

You're welcome, Teresa. Glad to hear about your link (although I'm enough of a Luddite that I had to think through what a "nofollow tag" was :-) )

#14 ::: 'As you know' Bob ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 09:05 PM:

There's something decidedly odd about the entire affect over there.

And I can't tell if it's intended as extremely subtle satire, or if they're actually that hard-of-thinking.

#15 ::: Luthe ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 09:31 PM:

I think they're on to us.

Either that, or that is the single worst unintentional pun in the history of Creation.

#16 ::: Captain Slack ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 09:35 PM:

This boy lacks insight into his own condition.

Such a lack of insight is itself part of that condition.

#17 ::: julia ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 09:51 PM:

"Ingrain" kind of sounds like diving into a silo to me.

I guess it's one of those crunchy conservative things.

#18 ::: LauraJMixon ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 10:02 PM:

Hard of thinking! Snrk!! Glghg! SNARF

#19 ::: TexAnne ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 10:02 PM:

Oooookay. I thought the Pharisee's Wife post was funny--but those comments on the liberal-baiting thread make me think that they're all bored 14-year-olds.

I believe I'll just ignore them.

#20 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 10:23 PM:

Luthe, that comment thread sounds to me like he's read my post. Where's that gatecrashing conservative brio he preaches? He's hiding out at home, whining, with nothing to say for himself, and he dasn't even identify who he's talking about.

Scorpio, I thank you for the offer, but if I decide I want to talk to him, I'll just go ahead and register.

#21 ::: Owlmirror ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 11:02 PM:

Any sufficiently subtle satire is indistinguishable from the insane wingnuttery it is satirizing.

#22 ::: Things That Ain't So ::: (view all by) ::: April 10, 2006, 11:19 PM:

The problem, of course, is that they're convinced there are two sides, and theat they are the Good Guys. Everyone who has ever watched Westerns or James Bond movies knows that whatever the Good Guys do is okay, even if it would be reprehensible for the Bad Guys to do the same.

Hence it's okay for them if their president lies, but if the Bad Guy's president lies, it's impeachment time.

#23 ::: Robert L ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 12:04 AM:

making a rude gesture I learned from Maria Melilli.

Ah, that name, mixing memory with desire...

#24 ::: Michael ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 12:10 AM:

TTAS: Bingo.

#25 ::: mythago ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 12:36 AM:

Oh, Avery, I am so glad not to be the only one who remembers the horror that was FidoNet.

and they never respond well to being lampooned in verse

The last time I tried this on a conservative, I got:

CON: It doesn't scan! The first lines go together but the last two just sort of don't match.

ME: It's a sonnet, you ding dong.

CON: I knew that.

#26 ::: Dan Lewis ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 01:25 AM:

Here's another blogger from their hit parade, banned at Pandagon:

"I’m banning shoelimpy. He/she is probably a parody, but he/she isn’t very funny. More importantly, he/she is a huge troll and blog whore, and not the kind of blog whore I think is cute. So he/she is going."

My sentiments exactly: it's very disorienting to try to triplethink your way to the humor. Pass.

#27 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 01:33 AM:

what's the use of satire that makes no especial point, and will be undetectable to the great majority of its readers?

That's the question that's stumped philosophers for eons: if a parody falls in the blogs and no one gets it, did it make a satire?

#28 ::: Joel Wideman ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 01:52 AM:

Looking at the individual blogs by the other members, one can only conclude that this is satire. Like Landover Baptists, but too subtle to be funny.

#29 ::: Jonathan Shaw ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 01:58 AM:

Having read the comments over there as they unfolded, I now see that it's not parody at all. He must be very young and/or have led a very sheltered life. I'm stunned that anyone could feature that quote from GWB anywhere, let alone on top of a post that celebrates trolling divisiveness.

#30 ::: Dave Luckett ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 02:31 AM:

I ran across the Landover Baptists only two days ago. For the first two paragraphs they had me fooled. Boy, did I feel stupid.

Which is the point, isn't it? Satire, I think, is something that makes you think Ha! They had me going there, not Hmm, are these guys for real?. And that means that whether it is satire or it isn't depends on the audience.

To that, I'd have to add this: anything I think is satire gets cut a lot of slack, by me. Others may differ.

#31 ::: Pete Darby ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 02:35 AM:

Let's get out my troll-o-meter...

Insult by group claimed as objective observation: Check.

Smart alecky references to people they pretend they aren't noticing: Check

Smart alecky adoption of the same tactics they're deriding: Check

Treating attention from anyone as a "win": Check

Treating being ignored by anyone as a "win": Check

Ma'am, it's big, green and ugly and lives under a bridge.

#32 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 02:37 AM:

I recently heard a story (not sure if it was parody or not) that Dubya ordered the Third Marine Expeditionary Unit to march from Basra down to the shores of the Persian Gulf and collect conchas as proof of their victory over Iraq, and that Dubya was thinking of appointing Barney to the title of Consul to the Senate.

Apparently Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have publicly announced their support for these latest moves by Bush, and say anyone who doesn't has probably already adopted an Al Queda terrorist by sending them money (50 cents a month or more), for which they get photos from the terrorist of innocent civilians that they've murdered in their sponsor's name. Several prominent Democrats have admitted Limbaugh's accusations are 100 percent true and accurate, although some say the rate was more like 39 cents a month and that the photos of the dead were often black and white and poorly focused.

#33 ::: Elusis ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 02:52 AM:

jh - do you really think it's ast folks, or just the inevitable (de)evolution of their tactics over to a blog format?

Regardless, here's the ast FAQ, which is never a bad thing to have.

#34 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 02:55 AM:

Ann Coulter's current front page must have been hijacked by the same kids who don't quite get the concept of satire. Her page currently starts out with this lame piece of crap:

"If only liberals were half as angry at the people who flew planes into our skyscrapers as they are with Tom DeLay, we might have two patriotic parties in this country."

I mean, it's clearly overvamped parody because the opening sentence contains an emotional plea to anger, invokes the dead of 9-11 while ignoring that Iraq had nothing to do with it and didn't have weapons of mass destruction, then ends with a call to the sort of blind patriotism that would allow someone to support invading Iraq based on faked intelligence reports from Bush and that Bush can "declassify" the name of an undercover CIA operative and it's perfectly legitimate procedure. One would assume that were Bush then to declassify the current position of every individual soldier currently in Iraq, that whoever wrote this poor excuse for parady would find it acceptable as well. This is obviously the work of a 13 year old who spends too much time with imaginary friends. Someone should let Ann know that her page has been hacked.

#35 ::: bryan ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 03:20 AM:

I can't help but think it would be beneficial to do a mash-up of his rules for attacking liberals, and Todd James Pierce's rules for getting published.

#36 ::: bryan ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 03:24 AM:

"And that means that whether it is satire or it isn't depends on the audience."
If, in order to find something satire, I must envision a target audience of morons I would rather place the material in the bin marked not satire.

#38 ::: Bruce Baugh ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 06:26 AM:

A lot of this is the pathetic, incompetent, juvenile form of the style of humor noted in the Hacker's Dictionary as ha ha only serious. The difference between the twits and the sort of people they'd like to be - John M. Ford or Avram Grumer, say - is that the real ones take responsibility for what they say. Sometime fairly early in Rush Limbaugh's career he figured out that he could weasel out of responsibility for spewing vile trash by claiming it was humor of some sort. He wasn't the first to do that, of course, but he had a lot to do with making it a standard tactic on the right.

#39 ::: lightning ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 07:58 AM:

The problem with right-wing "parody" is that the current right-wing cant is self-parodying. In other words, a parody of a right-wing screed is another right-wing screed. And the right-wingers have already pushed their limits about as far as they can without attracting the attention of law enforcement.

For another example of self-parody, "The Weekly World News" is a parody of a tabloid. It's another tabloid.

#40 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 08:35 AM:

John M. Ford or Avram Grumer or Bruce Baugh, I'd say.

Conchas indeed, Greg London.

Ann Coulter has always been a dancing bear. She'll last until she loses her looks and can no longer fuel the private fantasies of lonely right-wing ideologues.

#41 ::: TexAnne ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 08:42 AM:

Ann Coulter has looks?

#42 ::: Michael Weholt ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 08:56 AM:

Ann Coulter has looks?

Yeah, I was gonna ask... until she loses her looks? So far as I can tell, she's the Stepford Bulimic.

#43 ::: Joe J ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 08:56 AM:

I'm convinced it's satire, bad satire. Actually, satire is too nice a name for it. It's more like internet graffiti. There doesn't seem to be any greater purpose to it than to be noticed and to maybe get a rise out of people. Someone seems to be looking for attention.

Despite feeling that, I'm reminded of what Kurt Vonnegut said: "We are what we pretend to be."

#44 ::: Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 08:59 AM:

Lightening: The sad thing is, many have passed the point where law enforcement getting involved might be a good idea.

There are those who have called for other bloggers to be beaten, or killed, (in a left handed way, e.g. "It would be terrible for the family of "x", were he to be shot someday, but given his traitorous ways they could only say he brought it on himself") and then published his address.

That seems actionable to me. Thankfully it seems most of them really are the cheetos stained idjits they are accused of being. I am just afraid someday some of them will decide to live out a "manly" fantasy and rid the world of some troublesome blogger.

#45 ::: Carrie S. ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 09:11 AM:

Well, she has a figure at least. And she's blond, which I imagine is a big help. I don't think her features are actually unpleasant, either, but I have no idea whether that translates to "sexy" as my asessments of female attractiveness are of a purely academic nature. :)

#46 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 09:25 AM:

Anne Coulter has blonde hair. This functions as a substitute for attractiveness (since her face is otherwise rather bland).

#47 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 09:46 AM:

until she loses her looks? So far as I can tell, she's the Stepford Bulimic.

depends on who you ask. I've heard that there's a guy who's raking in the megabucks because he opened a 1-900 number that is nothing but women quoting Ann Coulter for their ultra-right-wing clientelle who call in to listen while masturbating. There was also a recent study done that found a certain segment of right wingers in pavlovian-style experiments start getting sexually aroused at the phrase "liberals love terrorists".

#48 ::: Jackson B. ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 12:36 PM:


Do you suppose he means us? He could always try it himself, and see if he gets the same results.


I thought that he was referring to Duncan "8 Open Threads in a Row" Black. Anyway, as the "Christian Wife" post suggests, this has got to be a spoof or satire of some sort.

#49 ::: Michael Weholt ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 12:44 PM:

I've heard that there's a guy who's raking in the megabucks because he opened a 1-900 number that is nothing but women quoting Ann Coulter for their ultra-right-wing clientelle who call in to listen while masturbating.

Is this another "Is it satire" test?

#50 ::: Joel Wideman ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 12:46 PM:

As if anyone needed proof:
One of the contributors got himself banned from a forum for trolling. And he's proud of it.

#51 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 02:17 PM:

The comment thread makes it clear that it isn't parody, but actual idiocy.

In online environments where I control participation, I make my rules very clear up front; anyone who violates them with his (so far, always "his") first post is banned instantly and permanently. Also I delete their comments.

But I'm not running a political blog. It's a friendly-discussion kind of thing, and anyone who's too unfriendly gets kicked out. Different rules apply. But I have fantasies of the sort of preemptive ban that I use over there being used over here...

#52 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 02:20 PM:

I'm going with Pete Darby's assessment: it's big, it's green, it's ugly, and it lives under a bridge. But since a lot of the Freepopotami ground troops won't be able to tell that, and will take it as encouragement to go make a nuisance of themselves in centrist and liberal open threads, I figure it was still worth deriding.

#53 ::: Renee ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 03:06 PM:

The 'Christian Wife' thing looks a lot like a pamphlet on the subject of 'How to be a good wife' that I read some years ago. The pamphlet was printed some time before 1955; the edition I saw was 1954, but I believe it was a reprint.

Advice included things like always smiling, dressing up to greet your husband when he got home from work, arranging to keep the kids quiet and out of the way during the evening, and that reading cookbooks was a good way for a wife to spend her free time. I sincerely believe the pamphlet was not satire, but an honest attempt by the (male) author to give reasonable advice to young wives.

Therefore... the Christian Wife thing may be satire, but it's not particularly clever or original satire. On the other hand, it may just be plagiarized (some of those points look awful familiar.)

#54 ::: Avery ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 03:10 PM:

Ann Coulter has looks?

Geez, cut the lady some slack. Do you have any idea how hard it is got get even a gallon of virgin's blood together in this day and age?

#55 ::: Ceri ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 03:52 PM:

The Christian Wife thing is reminiscent of "The Good Wife's Guide", which I came across some time ago, though I've no idea where. Of course, there's some debate as to whether that one is real as well.

#56 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 04:25 PM:

Sure, Ann Coulter is pretty.

I have fantasies about having her as my prisoner at Abu Ghraib, and all the ways I'd go about getting her admit that she's a member of al Qaeda.

#57 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 05:00 PM:

Estimated time required?

#58 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 05:02 PM:

My Ann Coulter fantasies started when she suggested using a baseball bat to communicate with liberals. Of course, she had in mind a helpless liberal without a baseball bat, fascist bitch that she is. But mine involve me, her, both with baseball bats, in a karate studio.

I let her take the first swing, which I dodge. Then while she's crowing about how liberals avoid real fights, I take out her knee. She drops her bat and grabs the knee, screaming. I smash at the knee again, crushing her hands (note: the sign for "I give up" is slapping the mat).

Once she's well and truly down, I smash both her feet beyond repair, so she'll never be able to walk unassisted again. Then her ribs, so every breath hurts. The other knee and both elbows.

Then I let the EMTs take her away while I vomit. But I'm satisfied; I know I've done my duty. This is a person who advocates, publicly, killing people like me (for more than one reason). This is the same as doing it herself, except that all the risk involved is assumed by others.

She wants baseball bats? I'll give you baseball bats, you ugly emaciated whore.

#59 ::: fidelio ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 05:05 PM:

Now, now, Xopher. As a weak, silly liberal you know sharing and caring is the right thing to do.

So let us know when you get this set up. I'll bring my own baseball bat.

#60 ::: fidelio ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 05:10 PM:

Oh, by the way, Xopher--why do I get the feeling you've seen The Princess Bride more than once?

Prince Humperdinck: First things first, to the death.
Westley: No. To the pain.
Prince Humperdinck: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.
Westley: I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.

#61 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 05:20 PM:

Things influence us without us quite realizing it, don't they?

#62 ::: Dolloch ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 05:56 PM:

Perhaps the attraction to Ann (hurts just writing that) is a subset of the guys who used to read Men Today.

#64 ::: candle ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 08:30 PM:

to march from Basra down to the shores of the Persian Gulf and collect conchas as proof of their victory over Iraq

I think I heard about this: the Iraq-Concha scandal, right?

#65 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 11:26 PM:

First rule of urban combat: never bring a baseball bat to a gunfight.

caveat: Unless, of course, you've also got a forty-five under your belt, too.

#66 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 11:30 PM:

I wonder if Donald Rumsfeld masturbates while listening to the Ann Coulter 1-900 hotline? Or perhaps he prefers tossing off while oogling a pyramid of naked men? Or, perhaps, he does both at the same time? AC/DC?

#67 ::: Bruce E. Durocher II ::: (view all by) ::: April 11, 2006, 11:31 PM:

Never heard or seen Ann Coulter--life is too short to search her out on TV--but her square-jawed picture brings this song to mind.

#68 ::: Hamadryad ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 09:55 AM:

I didn't know who Ann Coulter was so I looked her up online. She's a bit of a nutbar isn't she?

It baffles me the way that patriotism is used as a weapon by some people. If anybody dared to call me unpatriotic because I questioned the policies and actions of my government (something that I consider not only a right, but a responsibility for anybody living in a democratic society) I'd clock him.

That thread about liberal baiting was mildly entertaining even though butler thomas was sadly predictable. TNH threw a few zingers his way and there were a few good anonymous comments. It might be a satire, but I have to agree with lightning. Too much actual right-wing cant sounds like satire itself. The parody is sometimes more believable than the subject being parodied. How sad is that?

Not that bt doesn't make the odd good point about a certain subset of the liberal crowd, as much as it pains me to admit it. There are nutbars in every camp.

#69 ::: Hamadryad ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 09:57 AM:

I wonder if Donald Rumsfeld masturbates while listening to the Ann Coulter 1-900 hotline? Or perhaps he prefers tossing off while oogling a pyramid of naked men? Or, perhaps, he does both at the same time? AC/DC?

Somebody please wipe away this disturbing mental image of Donald Rumsfeld wanking to anything.

#70 ::: Avery ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 11:00 AM:

My Ann Coulter fantasies started when she suggested using a baseball bat to communicate with liberals. Of course, she had in mind a helpless liberal without a baseball bat....

I'd spot Ann a baseball bat. While conservatives like to believe they are all some sort of ninja warrior, their actual grasp on tactics is generally pretty weak. You can pretty much bet the whole farm that Ann would go for a head or knee shot before she was really in range, and would give it her all, making quick recovery a non-option. (Remind you of anything in our current foreign policy?)

#71 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 12:14 PM:

Hamadryad: Calling Ann Coulter 'a bit of a nutbar' is rather like calling Hurricane Katrina 'a spot of rough weather'.

#72 ::: j h woodyatt ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 12:41 PM:

James D. MacDonald writes: "I have fantasies about having her as my prisoner at Abu Ghraib, and all the ways I'd go about getting her admit that she's a member of al Qaeda."

I can honestly say that, as much as I despise Ann Coulter, I do not entertain such thoughts— and if I did, I would call them nightmares, not fantasies.

"Our torturers have been punished most horribly of all: They are turning into swine; they are departing downward from humanity." —Alexander Solzhenitsyn (ganked from the Five Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong particle).

More often than not, my nightmares revolve around being the prisoner at some secret location with a bad pun for a codename, and having to figure out what horrible confession was the one I needed to give to make the torture stop.

#73 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 12:53 PM:

Calling Ann Coulter 'a bit of a nutbar' is rather like calling Hurricane Katrina 'a spot of rough weather'.

Fragano, I'm tempted to make that my email sig line.

#74 ::: Hamadryad ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 01:12 PM:

Calling Ann Coulter 'a bit of a nutbar' is rather like calling Hurricane Katrina 'a spot of rough weather'.

Ah! I see. I can only plead ignorance as my defence. I've seen her face a handful of times, but have never had the dubious pleasure of listening to her speak or reading anything she's written. The only (American) right-wing commentator with whom I have even a passing familiarity is that weird, nerdy guy on CNN who wears the ugly bowties.

#75 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 01:12 PM:

Xopher, you're most welcome to do so.

#76 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 01:16 PM:

Unfortunately, Hamadryad, it is pretty hard to avoid the dread Ms Coulter who, in addition to appearing on television and in person, has a regular newspaper column syndicated to a lot of birdcage liners. She takes positions that make Attila the Hun look like John Stuart Mill.

#77 ::: Kayjay ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 09:28 PM:

<squee!>

Truth be told, I wasn't entirely sure if it was supposed to be satire or real either, but it certainly seemed to fit the character of most of the trolls that are out there...some of whom have paid visits here.

#78 ::: CHip ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 09:45 PM:

Hamadryad: better he should wank than be reproducing himself....

#79 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 10:01 PM:

"Or perhaps he prefers tossing off while oogling a pyramid of naked men?"

I want to remark on this new word "oogling" (infinitive, "to oogle"), which I've been seeing everywhere all of a sudden. Yes, it's time for a (drum roll) Google Plebiscite:

"ogle" about 7,700,000
"oogle" about 1,390,00

"ogling" about 778,000
"oogling" about 88,300

The newfangled "to oogle" verb even gets used by commanding-heights-of-the-media types like Maureen Dowd. One can't help but wonder whether it's being backformed from "Google" and its verb form "to google." Authentic language-formation mystery, before our very eyes!

#80 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 10:10 PM:

I do believe you're on to something, but I don't think it's a backformation. Rather, I think "ogle" picked up an extra "o" from rubbing up against "google" and "oogly."

#81 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 12, 2006, 10:11 PM:

Ah, a textually transmitted dese O's.

#83 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: April 13, 2006, 12:09 AM:

One can't help but wonder whether it's being backformed from "Google"

I always pronounced it oooh-gull, long before the internet existed. Don't know why. It just stuck. Like the way I always pronounce "gist" as "yist". I know it's "jist", but I end up saying it "yist" out of some habit. Glitch in the system, I guess.

#84 ::: Martin Wisse ::: (view all by) ::: April 13, 2006, 01:42 PM:

I've always thought it was oogling as well, but I'm a Damn Furrigner.

#85 ::: Nancy C ::: (view all by) ::: April 13, 2006, 11:44 PM:

I find Ann Coulter oddly attractive, physically. Since I am a straight woman, I was slightly weirded out by this, until I figured out why: she looks a lot like my boyfriend. His personality is pretty much the exact opposite of her public persona, though. His insides match his outsides.

#86 ::: Kija ::: (view all by) ::: April 14, 2006, 03:00 PM:

I don't think it's satire at all. 'read the entirety of the blog's main page and that post is consistent with the same trite talking points we hear all the time; it just lacks the dressing that obscures the idociy and vapidity of most other conservatives.

#87 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: April 14, 2006, 05:15 PM:

Nancy C: I caught a glimpse of Coulter last night, in a mutual masturbation exercise with Bill O'Reilly. Her outside is getting to look more like her inside. Or, perhaps, I was too intently looking for the skull beneath the skin.

#88 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: April 14, 2006, 06:28 PM:

You want to see something freaky?

Look at Ms. Coulter's left hand:

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=silver-dress.jpg

Yes, that's on her official website.

#89 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: April 15, 2006, 01:17 AM:

Look at Ms. Coulter's left hand:

Cripes! The ring has an eye in it, and it's moving! GAA! Someone warn Beastmaster!

#91 ::: bryan ::: (view all by) ::: May 28, 2006, 05:27 PM:

"I wonder if Donald Rumsfeld masturbates while listening to the Ann Coulter 1-900 hotline? Or perhaps he prefers tossing off while oogling a pyramid of naked men? Or, perhaps, he does both at the same time? AC/DC?

Somebody please wipe away this disturbing mental image of Donald Rumsfeld wanking to anything."

Oh don't worry, I'm sure Rumsfeld won't wank to just anything. There has to be death involved.

#92 ::: Serge feels like singing "Spamalot" ::: (view all by) ::: April 08, 2007, 07:43 AM:

Spamalot!

Choose:
Smaller type (our default)
Larger type
Even larger type, with serifs

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.