I know that the sweet, sweet, bloggy love which has greeted my arrival at The Atlantic cannot go on much longer. But it sure is fun while it lasts. I never knew so many people cared.
« Markets in everything | Main | I fear you may have misunderstood me »
Why, sir, you're turning my poor head
21 Aug 2007 01:32 pm
Comments (28)
Not to mention the super-classy "I'd hit it" comment in the Sadly, No! link. Niiice.
Not to mention your track record over at JaneGalt.net. And not to mention your poor writing.
We dirty hippies and doves call-out all wingnuts, big and small. You fall into the small category, so don't get too excited. You have a log way to go before you are mentioned in the same breath as Jeff Goldstein, Rich Lowry, or Glenn Reynolds. But there is still time.
I find it telling that the Moonbat side of the blog-o-sphere is panting about the move but the Wingnut side is fairly silent.
Libertarians can't get no lovin' on either side of the aisle.
I think that's the way they like it, Kate. "If everyone hates us, we must be doing something right." The gang at Hit and Run at least have a sense of humor about it.
You must have been doing something right if Emerson professes burning hatred for you. Although I wouldn't wear it like a medal...he's such an insignificant bedbug.
Kate - plague on both their houses, then.
Libertarians can't get no lovin' on either side of the aisle.
Yeah, neither can Maoists. It's so unfair.
Gee, why would people you suggested should be hit with a 2 x 4 for publicly expressing their opinions have any hostility towards you or your "let them eat cake" writings? It's not as if you yourself are hateful or express repugnant opinions such as blaming the sick for their illness, not at all.
Don't you mean "sweet, sweet, bloggy love that has greeted your arrival"? I mean, you're an English major, right? Or is it another Britishism?
Whining (or snark whatever it is) ill becomes you. Stop it. If you're going to write aggressive posts laying blame at very specific doorsteps, don't expect a parade of flowers for your troubles (especially since you are, as you are, very much a part of the MSM). Suck it in and explain why your detractors are wrong or move on but don't dwell on hostile reactions to hostile postings.
I believe that the problem is that there are those of us who remember when the Atlantic was a venerable institution. It's not your fault that it now sucks. Your presence is a symptom, not a cause.
Rand Simberg: The "that vs. which" problem which has plagued you prescriptivists is sorely mistaken. Megan's construction in this post was completely correct, as have been hundreds of other successful english writers over the centuries, and you should update your linguistic knowledge immediately before you rudely call people out on it. See, for instance, this entry at the Language Log if you're interested:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000918.html
Megan: Don't let the haters get you down. The fanclub is still going strong!
I'm just really glad that someone is paying you to write so I can continue to enjoy reading you like I have for years.
Don't you people have anything better to do than sit around and be mean to someone on the internet?
Perhaps we can sit around and look for opportunities to post online asking why some people have the time to sit around and be mean to someone on the Internet.
Looks like The Atlantic's HR made another boo-boo.
Megan's ethics can be summed up as "If we throw grandma out of the lifeboat do I get her food?"
Her surprise at the reaction to her naked sociopathy is a measure of her ignorance and immaturity. Many of us take heart in knowing the she too will grow old and infirm. We're looking forward to the time when that bubble pops.
Shorter blogosphere: we hate ourselves, and each other.
DU
The "that vs. which" problem which has plagued you prescriptivists is sorely mistaken.
That's the opinion of some. I don't share it. Neither do Strunk and White.
There are very good (and literally logical) reasons to make the distinction. Proper usage removes ambiguity as to whether or not the clause is restricted. As is noted here, use of "which" for a restricted clause is more acceptable in Britain (so perhaps it is another holdover from Megan's Economist days).
Give 'em hell, Megan!
I followed one of those links to Reason, where in the comments someone linked to a picture of you.
You're gorgeous. And smart. And you write well, if not perfectly. (but then again, who does?)
megan, if you link to skippy, i won't be mean to you.
buy generic online viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy get online prescription viagra
placoides mephistopheles dismembered hepatologist promptress conspirer aggroup autoregenerator
http://www.wycoller.u-net.com/ >Wycoller Shetlands
http://www.earthhaulers.com/
placoides mephistopheles dismembered hepatologist promptress conspirer aggroup autoregenerator
http://www.granadaclassics.com/wrekinskin/ >Beelzebubs
http://www.thebigzoo.com/
placoides mephistopheles dismembered hepatologist promptress conspirer aggroup autoregenerator
http://www.heraldmag.org/1998/98ma_6.htm >The Vine and the Branches
http://www.cfhs.ca/
shorter fatherlandish mildewer flustra tonally muscadine ramental linin
http://www.raclette-fondue.com >Raclette and Fondue
http://www.architectureplus.com/
| 
1. It's not personal. We just hate libertarians.
2. If Matthew Yglesias were a canny political consultant, I would have figured he slipped in the reference to your Ivy League degree deliberately in order to destroy you. Being somewhat familiar with his style, though, I think he just made a mistake. In an in-group of people who are mostly or all Ivy Leaguers (i.e. the Atlantic bloggers), reference to one's collegiate provenance is nice conversation. MY forgot, however, that the audience for the compliment was the Atlantic website's readership, not its writership. Hence the catcalls and raspberries.
Posted by brooksfoe | August 21, 2007 1:56 PM