Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
#2 No, no, no. Look up censorship in a dictionary. No government required.
An argument can be made that this IS censorship.
But an argument must also be made that all censorship is bad. That hasn't been established here.
Well, maybe it has been established, but that part was censored.
They should censor that movie.
@4 One's right to free speech does not extend to a privately operated weblog which has a stated policy on removing off-topic or abusive remarks.
Seriously, this entire thread is so off-topic they should just delete it.
Suzette: your failure to contribute anything of interest or value here, or presumably elsewhere, is perhaps a clue as to why you have failed to grasp the incredibly obvious answer to your pathetic question.
BTW, I thought CM's 'review' was actually pretty entertaining.
Is Fnarf's ranting above (in three posts) qualitatively any different than something posted by a "troll"? How do you make a distinction?
1. Apologize
2. Take the hit
3. Move on
It's Public Relations 101.
What you're doing now reeks of "you can't take what you dish out."
Doing something to be sarcastic still means that you did it.
This review is you eating your own shit.
Your next review should be after you eat your own shit, and then writing about it in an attempt to be ironic. It may be sarcastic, but you still ate shit.
For instance, your comment here, while obtuse, is not a candidate for deletion, because it's to the point.
please hold on to the when of this muss...
In court, truth defeats libel.
Erica was busted for shoplifting. That's the truth. It's not libelous. She has to do community service as part of her plea deal. Again, that's the truth. It's not libel.
What The Stranger did to Marlee Ginter regarding goat sex was libelous.
You really are a righteous prick aren't you?
Or, to put it in your words: Your mercurial disposition and shallow musings clearly indicate that you are (look at me everbody! My father hated me, I need your love!) a SHIT WHISTLE.
Please point to a single posting of yours in this thread that is on-topic. As in one that pertains to the actually Slog posting. You knee jerk defense of all things Slog is laughable.
Also, your blog sucks. Not just a little bit either. You'd think that'd you take advantage of what must be a fair amount of traffic from this site and spend your time building an audience for your blog rather than engaging in this constant self-flagellation disguised as Slog policing you have going on here.
Bunch of selfish jerks, just like their AIG comrades.
Look, it's as simple as this: if you give the tiniest fragment of a flying fuck about what Erica C. Barnett did or did not do in QFC, you are a moron, an ape, a crappy citizen. If you care enough to continually try to force your agenda on the other readers of a popular blog WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, you're an unflushed toilet. We would be better off without you. You would be better off without us, too, because maybe you'd find something to occupy your time that had some other function besides irritating your betters.
Off topic: Someone wants attention for their blog, someone stole something, someone had sex with a goat. Allegedly. Or something like that.
God, I need to start getting screenshots of all this. I love you Slog.
a) Erica would have a Slog post up as fast as her fingers could type it,
and b) you'd be one of the first commenters.
Fuck off, hypocrite.
On topic: Witch Mountain is precisely the kind of light-hearted escapist fiction that people enjoy most in hard economic times.
Off topic: Fnarf is clearly angry. So is Clear Thoughts. Apparently, nobody gives a damn about Witch Mountain.
Discuss.
Don't get censored or it doesn't count towards the "Most Commented" score. We need about a dozen more comments in order to get Charles bumped up into the list that Dan Savage is always hoarding.
You're right, I should have said "potentially libel". Sorry. Ginter broadcasted her slander with the express permission and aid of her employer. This is a world apart from the situation you are bringing up with ECB.
Well, um, yeah. OK. I read that a couple of times and though I'm not nearly as incisive as yourself I still failed to see where you addressed the question I posed. Why the double standard? Why do you berate people for being off-topic by posting comment after comment that it is in fact off-topic?
Your just a troll with an endorsement.
Your supposition is false; I don't give a shit what Joel Connelly does or doesn't do, professionally or privately.
But anyways: the appropriate response here would be for JOEL CONNELLY to put up something on HIS blog, and then all you shitheads could post whatever it is you're trying to say over there. If you could articulate it, but of course you can't, because your brains aren't turned on.
Hey, why doesn't the Weekly write something about it? Oh, yeah, they did. But no one reads the Weekly blogs, so it hasn't made enough of a smell for shit-sniffers like you.
The Stranger sets the agenda for Slog articles. Not you. If they say it's none of your business, it's none of your business. Life isn't that kind of contest. "Oooh, it's unfair" marks you as a no-particularly-bright middle-schooler, one with unusually poor manners to boot.
You're an ape. Your attempt to participate in the public discourse is a laughable failure.
The code's free. Nothing wrong with using industrial strength LAMP servers to host it - heck even Cisco is going that route.
The topic at hand is why a certain crowd of fuckwits think it's appropriate to hijack every motherfucking thread with their idiocy. My comments were a response to that. That's how conversations work. You bust into people's houses and shit on their carpet and they're going to take steps to hurt you. That's not off-topic.
Off-topic is hijacking the thread. Responding to the hijack with frustration and anger is absolutely ON.
THAT was the topic. You can't just use "off-topic" as a slur for someone you disagree with.
UNLESS you're talking about Witch Mountain.
Hey, did ANYBODY see it except Charles?
Hey let's go argue and get censored somewhere else now, guys!!!
On topic: the link to the review of Witch Mountain still takes me to a review for some other movie entirely. To be honest, I never even read your review, Charles.
Yeah, but aren't you just perpetuating and enabling the motherfuckers you so clearly despise? Is it really necessary? Slog moderators clearly do not have a hard time deleting comments they deem off-topic. To what end do you post your tirades?
And whats with all the adolescent name calling? If you eliminated your dickish insults from your comments they would simultaneously become half as long and twice as readable, not to mention relevant.
Fact of the matter is that not one person contributes more pubescent idiocy to Slog than you do.
Just because you don't care doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. In fact, the entire conversation about why a blog would only impose the off-topic deletion rule when the specific topic is related to the actions of one of its employees is worth discussing. If you don't like it, don't read it, or more constructively push The Stranger to address it so there is a discussion.
Will in Seattle is Plato next to you.
Why are you so mad? Are people ruining your blogging experience?
Then what the hell ARE we talking about here? I mean, goddamn...
Somebody censor Charles Mudede NOW for being off-topic.
Fnarf, Clear Thoughts, everybody else involved...
We've been HAD...
Damn you Charles. Damn you and your insane ambitions to get into the "Most Commented" list.
Come up from the basement once in a while.