I suspect that I shall spend the rest of my life being pursued by lefty bloggers who think that linking this six year old post is a substitute for argument. Nonetheless, it occurs to me that while I have repeatedly dealt with it in various places, I probably haven't here. So here's the deal. I'm going to talk about it now, because it was, frankly, a pretty stupid thing to write, and mea culpas are good for the soul. Then I'm never going to talk about it again. I have yet to see anyone deploy it against me who could even vaguely be accused of acting in good faith. On the other hand, there are readers in good faith who are surprised by it, and I think I owe them an explanation.
I first reproduce the entire thing, so that there will be absolutely no question about its contents. This is not difficult, because the entire thing is only about 100 words long, but I do understand that space may be limited on other minds blogs.
Diane E. has a link seeming to indicate that the scruffier element of Saturday's peace rally is planning on demonstrating for peace by, er, wreaking mayhem. Nothing says "Stop the Madness of Western Imperialism" like a white college student from Winnetka opening a can of whup-ass on some Korean vegetable stand!So I was chatting about this with a friend of mine, a propos of the fact that everyone I know in New York is a) more frightened than they've been since mid-September 2001 and b) madly working on keeping up the who-the-hell-cares-if-I-get-hit-by-a-truck? insouciance that New Yorkers feel is their sole civic obligation. Said friend was, two short years ago, an avowed pacifist and also a little bit to the left of Ho Chi Minh. And do you know what he said? "Bring it on."
I can't be mad at these little dweebs. I'm too busy laughing. And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.
Starting with a little bit of context: Diane E. wrote the sadly now defunct Letter from Gotham blog. Though her politics--indeed, like mine--changed in those first few post 9/11 years, I think it's safe to say that she would have a very pungent reaction to anyone calling her a neo-con loving warblogger. The post is now gone, but any of the libertarian antiwar bloggers should be happy to confirm that Diane E. was not a rumormongering warhorse who hated peace. The post was written in response to a credible belief that there were antiwar protesters who thought it would be fun to get a little WTO on New York.
Thankfully, this turned out to be a false rumor. That said, I still shouldn't have written what I did.
Not because I'm particularly sympathetic to rioters--which is what people who think it would be fun to turn a peaceful protest into a violent scene are The proper response to such people is to restrain them, by violent force if necessary. I certainly hope that if I were standing behind such people at a protest, I would have the physical courage to jump on them and use my 140 pounds of bony mass to wrestle them to the ground.
(As an aside, I note that riots certainly aren't necessarily the fault of the protesters--I was at an ACT-UP die-in in Philadelphia around 1991 that turned violent because the coffin some of the protesters were carrying tipped over onto the barricades, and Philly's trigger-happy police interpreted this as an attack. Needless to say, we were the ones who got beat on, not them. I mean "we" only in solidarity--the police tended to focus on the folks with the nose rings and the purple hair. Sadly, I had neither the physical courage nor the devil-may-care attitude towards the law that would have allowed me to use my 130 pounds of bony mass to wrestle a baton-wielding cop to the ground. I made like a two dollar bill and got scarce.)
I shouldn't have written it because even if whacking a rioter in the head is necessary to stop the riot, it's not funny. It's not funny even when the rioter is a total scumwrangler who is deliberately wreaking mayhem--any more than it is ever funny when a thoroughly repulsive criminal gets raped in prison. To the extent that either the state or private citizens are forced to use violence to prevent violence, it should always be more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger. This is not amusing.
Why did I write it? In part, because blogging was a new medium for the warbloggers, and many of us had an unfortunate tendency to say the kind of ridiculous things that one says without meaning them at bars in 3 am, except in print where everyone can enjoy them forever. If you've ever declared that people who jump queues should be shot, you have some sense of what I mean.
And I was young, and lots of things seem inappropriately funny when you're young--in your mid-twenties, empathy is often largely theoretical. This is perhaps the only good thing about aging.
And also because I'm a lifelong New Yorker who lost a lot of people in the towers, including the first boy I dated in college, and I'd just finished up working at Ground Zero, aka The Pit. I was more than a tad overemotional at the thought of my city getting another dose of random ideological violence. Though again, that's not an excuse. Only an explanation. Looking backward, I wish I hadn't let those emotions rule so many of my opinions so thoroughly.
So I shouldn't have written it, full stop. No excuses. But the way it's used in the blogosphere is, for want of a better word, pathetic. Those who link it never, ever mention that it referred to violent protesters, even when they have to do some exceptionally creative editing to avoid that fairly central fact. Indeed, they often explicitly state that it referred to peaceful protesters, even though there is no possible reasonable reading of that post which interprets it as randomly exhorting violence against people who were lawfully marching in protest of the war. I have been a peaceful protester, though obviously not against this war. Moreover, my boyfriend at the time was a peaceful anti-war protester; I can assure you that I didn't want him damaged, and since the relationship continued for years afterwards, I'm pretty sure he didn't think so either.
That post is supposed to impugn my character. What does it say that the people who link it are invariably either outright lying, or deliberately misleading inflicting creative omissions on their readers?
But fair is fair--it's legitimate to judge people on what they write, and for better or for worst that post, and for that matter this one, do say something about my character. What, you'll have to decide for yourself.
Going back a bit further, I remember being a long-haired kid with wire-rimmed glasses in 1968, and running into a slightly older guy, also long-haired and with wire-rimmed glasses, who was telling me what a blast he'd had at the Chicago riots. He boasted of breaking stuff, throwing rocks, capturing and beating up a cop, and concluded with "and then the fascists came in and tear-gassed us." I had enough sense not to say out loud: "Gee, why would they want to do that?"
It actually was funny, maybe not falling-on-the-floor hilarious, but it was funny.
You are wasting your time, in my opinion. Your critics will never let it go, and those who actually knew the context don't need the explanation.
I think it proves that you are human.
Honestly, as outrageous things go, it's not all that outrageous. And a desire to see violent protesters get their butts kicked hardly makes you uniquely fascistic. It makes you, well, a pretty normal American.
I totally agree with Cheerful Iconoclast. If everyone where held to the standard of being judged by saying something stupid at any point in their life, we're all guilty.
There's a great quote around this (I'm paraphrasing here): "If we all practiced 'An eye for an eye', we'd all be blind."
If anyone still wants to judge Megan based on this, they probably should get their own blog. Move on, already!
I hope I never become famous, because no doubt my pseudonym will be torn away and all sorts of blog comments will come out, with a lot of things that I wish I hadn't said because they aren't reflective of who I am today.
So from 1992 to 2003 you went from 130 to 140 pounds?
Ah, don't beat yourself up over that. I remember when I was still on active duty and there was talk of us being sent somewhere to deal with a WTO-style protest. My unit hadn't had much experience with riot training, and my boss asked me whether I knew anything about it.
"All I know about riot control,sir," I said, "is where the belt goes in and the spent shell casings come out."
So they got someone else to teach them how to do the stomp and drag.
You've been spending too much time with Atlantic liberals (or as I like to call them, feinting goats) if you think this is something to apologize for.
I don't really see anything wrong with the post considering the context. I also currently share Megan's (then) feeling about many of these protesters to this day. They intentionally provoke the police with taunts and violence and then whine when they get a wood shampoo or have to spend a night with a room full of their compatriots in a pier on the Hudson (which is very similar to the Pier where I took the bar exam, rather than with murderers and rapists in the Tombs). After all, that is what 90% of those protesters are about, fulfilling their 60's protest fantasies of sticking it to the man. This explains their ridiculous chanting and absurd 60's getups. Good luck convincing anyone that matters with this sort of demonstration (this partially explains my feelings about the protests since I was virulently anti-war myself at the time).
That being said, some of the police tactics, which were approved by the beloved Mayor Bloomie and his trusty Police Commissioner and not by the rank and file who took the brunt of the blame, were heavy-handed.
Anyone who is offended by the advocacy of the use of clubs on people who would emulate Lenin is either ignorant of Lenin, or nearly as bad as Lenin, in that they would allow Lenin to prevail rather than fight him effectively. That said, I would agree that the assumption of the presence of Lenin emulaters in a protest march is very much unwarranted, absent firm evidence, so the post would have been better off unwritten, or perhaps written in a much more qualified manner. That doesn't excuse those who misrepresent the meaning of the post, of course.
Thanks...I'd seen the reference bandied about, but never knew the exact post it referred to..
Also.. Nice reply. I firmly believe that taking responsibility for the dumb things one says (and we all say dumb things) and moving on is a great sign of maturity and wisdom..
In any case.. lately, I've found your blog more and more enlightening.. so keep up the good work.
Off topic, but when I first became a vegetarian, I didn't know how to eat right, and I became dangerously underweight. I've gained 10 mostly well-needed pounds since then.
Indeed, they often explicitly state that it referred to peaceful protesters, even though there is no possible reasonable reading of that post which interprets it as randomly exhorting violence against people who were lawfully marching in protest of the war.
Well, you did say you would sympathize if a two-by-four were used in a "pre-emptive manner" on people who were "trying" to unleash Lenin-style civil disobedience, which I gather readers are to understand equals violence. This construction at the very least creates some confusion about the order of crime and punishment, and surely leaves open the possibility that someone with no intention of protesting violently would be mistakenly beaten by a vigilante (how can you tell someone is "trying" to be violent until they've actually become violent, at which point application of the two-by-four is no longer pre-emptive?). I mean, I don't really think the post is that big a deal, for all the reasons you give, but I don't think "no possible reading" is quite right.
Eh, if no one's criticizing you, you're not saying anything worth reading. It's absolutely impossible to say anything online these days without drawing "tha haterz". Wear their scorn as a badge of honor.
What exactly is wrong with whacking a rioter over the head? I call that good citizenship.
They intentionally provoke the police with taunts and violence
Most of the time all it takes is to make fun of a police officer to be beat and arrested by them. Of course, when police show up in full riot gear to a fairly peaceful assembly they deserve the ridicule. Then start arresting people for "disturbing the peace" and you can understand how peaceful people start to turn violent.
Megan,
I honestly think a lot of people bring that old post of yours up too much, but the thing is, you're the one constantly writing about the lack of civility that comes with debates in the blogosphere. I think it's good of you to bring this up and address it straight and with honesty, but come on. Many people were bringing that post up in the context of your lamenting that others aren't writing and behaving with your same level of rationality. So what you seem to be saying here is that you expect everyone to forgive your lack of intemperance where you aren't willing to do so for others.
A) Megan's intemperance was pretty temperate, as far as emotional blog postings go.
B) Megan's call for civility largely concerns repeated incidents of various bloggers personally attacking other bloggers in an ad hominem fashion. Which is far different from one post envisioning physical consequences for a violent protest, no?
C) If we are only allowed to support positions or encourage activities that we ourselves abide by/engage in 100% of the time, the world would be a much poorer place. I think selfishness is generally bad, but I have been selfish. Does this mean I can't encourage selflessness as a virtue?
It is one thing if someone continually acts in a way that is counter to their stated beliefs. But pointing to a not-very-relevant, five-year-old post as if it entirely vitiates someone's entire position is a little precious.
My biggest concern isn't with saying that-- though, yes, I believe it was wrong-- but with the continued implication that physical or emotional proximity to New York gives one more right to comment on the events of 9/11, or the appropriate public policy that should be instituted in response to 9/11.
Freddie, I believe I was saying that New Yorkers were more emotional about 9/11--pretty uncontroversial if you've lost a bunch of people you know in a terrorist attack, and think it might happen again at any minute. I don't think I've ever said it gave me more authority on policy, although I do occasionally advance it prophylactically against more militant accusers who say I'm a pinko liberal who doesn't get the importance of terrorism as an issue.
any of the libertarian antiwar bloggers
also known as "libertarian bloggers."
Seems like a perfectly reasonable idea to me.
Why are you apoligizing for that post. It is one of the best things you have ever written. Too bad you became a lefty Obama lover in the interim.
In reading your original post I never saw it as an exhortation for or an endorsement of violence.
It kind of reminded me of an old Mike Royko column where he followed up a description of assaulting Jeremy Rifkin with a tire iron with the phrase "Oh I wouldn't do that but thinking about it makes me feel good."
So, I don't know if the clarification and apology were necessary but the discussion of responses to civil (and uncivil) disobedience I found very enlightening. Thanks.
First, there is nothing wrong with liking Obama, and especially if an individual has problems with how policy is going now (for the comment@442).
As to this apology thing, it's absurd. Why bother? Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly and sin no more. Your critics are always going to be your critics and often for the stupidest reasons.
And when you apologize enough it loses all meaning, in the same way that when you are "horrified" enough over something over and over, that loses all basis in reality.
You have to be pretty humorless and sad to get all worked up over that post. Personally, I find the idea of some cynical New Yorker preemptively clonking a rioter over the head with a 2x4 is pretty funny.
Violence can be hilarious... depending on the context. And anyone who wants to start a riot should get knocked over the head.
freddie-
My biggest concern isn't with saying that-- though, yes, I believe it was wrong-- but with the continued implication that physical or emotional proximity to New York gives one more right to comment on the events of 9/11, or the appropriate public policy that should be instituted in response to 9/11.
Excellent post, dude!
*I'll support the war when Jenna and Barb enlist!*
Megan,
You've now discussed the context of your post, and I am glad that you now regret it.
On the other hand, you are neglecting the context of the time from the other side of the fence. This was the era when your colleague, Andrew Sullivan, suggested that liberals would act as a fifth column with respect to the country's response to September 11. This was the era when Glenn Reynolds referred to anti-war protesters as being objectively pro-Saddam Hussein. In other words, this is an era when many prominent voices on the right side of the fence were implicitly stating that the left side was treasonous and should be dealt with accordingly, without the slightest basis in fact.
As noted above, you advocated pre-emptive violence towards protesters whom you are assuming, based upon nothing more than gossip, will be violent. Looking within that context, why are you surprised that people lump your post with the more offensive statements by prominent bloggers?
FWIW: I marched in all the NYC protests and I don't remember any violent protesters anywhere.
James Watt had a great response once when someone was hammering him on some decision he had made, "Look, I make hundreds of decisions every day, some of them are bound to be wrong!"
Part of the problem a lot of folks have with you is that they see you as an apostate. Well, Hell, you ARE an apostate. You were raised as, if not a red diaper baby, at least a pink diaper baby, in the Church Of The Upper West Side. There is an orthodoxy. You have left it. And you haven't just slunk away, no-no-no. You are arguing against it. And you write well, and are a threat. And you have landed in one of the best writing jobs in the country, one that many Birkenstockers think ought to be reserved for COTUWS members in good standing. Of course people are going to want to bash you for it. It's very similar to what has been handed out to Caitlin Flanigan. As something of an apostate myself (raised in Berkeley, now vote at least as often for Reeps as Dems) I've run into some of this myself, which is likely why I see it here.
Kathy G in particular baffles me. You seemed perfectly willing to engage her, link to her, argue respectfully - and then she peed all over you. I think, Jesus, was she raised in a barn, or what?!
My favorite bit of poetic commentary after that post went up was this: both groups referenced abstractly in the post (violent protesters, 2x4-wielding citizens) turned out to be fictitious and nothing transpired...and yet those persons who took the most offense at the statement demonstrated their allegedly superior sensitivity and taste by by unleashing extraordinary verbal evil against a real person with feelings. And have then kept picking at it for six years.
Violence can be hilarious... depending on the context. And anyone who wants to start a riot should get knocked over the head.
So you prefer to still be living under British rule? Do you support "Bull" Conner like tactics?
hose persons who took the most offense at the statement demonstrated their allegedly superior sensitivity and taste by by unleashing extraordinary verbal evil against a real person with feelings.
Yes, because you've demonstrated such profound respect for me (a real person!) for my feelings in the past.
Look, what if this thing was the other way 'round? Would you be burning a candle for an anti-war blogger similarly afflicted?
I can't believe you would.
Wow, I was expecting some sort of racist comment.
That wasn't bad at all.
Megan,
Have you seen Across the Universe? I watched it last night. I didn't like it, but I liked the part where the communist guy gets punched in the face. And I thought it was a little funny. Does that make me bad?
I thought your post was funny too, even though I wouldn't want to hit a violent protester or enjoy seeing it happen in real life. I'm not sure finding it funny in theory is wrong...
People getting hit in the head with things made of wood (sticks are usually best, but logs, planks, or bats work, too) is funny. The problem with the linked post isn't that it's intrinsically unfunny, just that it's not funny enough. If it were funnier, lefties wouldn't link it because nobody likes getting laughed at.
Good idea, though, posting this when asking for permission to call yourself a feminist. "It's not funny," are the most important words in the feminist handbook. Really, it could have slipped in to the third slot in the Things You Believe About Feminism post, above.
Megan, that posts says about your character exactly what people use it to say.
You dehumanize your opponents. Anyone who disagrees with you is being stupid, or misunderstanding you or some other bullshit claim of yours.
I'm not making this up. Go back and see for yourself just how often you use snark, sarcasm, and insulting language in general to deal with those who dare disagree wit you.
And then on top of it all, you periodically go on these rants about how people aren't treating you with civility.
You may be civil to Ezra over lunch, Megs, but you're not a civil blogger as that post, and a plethora of others, show.
A real mea culpa would be an acknowledgment of that and not this lame blog which spends just as much time maligning people for using your own words against you as it does apologizing.
Those words are you, Megan. Each and every day you write more words just like those. It wasn't out of character. It was you.
"Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey, you know?
"We should go there, get some guys together.
"Get some bricks and baseball bats and explain things to 'em.
"There was this devastating satirical piece on that in the Times.
"Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks get right to the point.
"But biting satire is better that physical force.
"No, physical force is better with Nazis. It's hard to satirize a guy with shiny boots."
See what I mean? The only mistake here was trying to do the joke better than Woody Allen did.
Oh, goodness gracious, Toast, are you sure Megan isn't related to the Piranha brothers?! Sarcasm?! I may faint!!!!
The mindless invective often directed towards Ms. McArdle in this forum towers over anything she employs in return, in terms of sheer, fatuous, hostility.
Dear god Will Allen, hypocrisy? NOOOO!!!!
I also forgot to ask how this whole setting the record straight jives with the redirects you have set up from links set up by Kathy G.
Care to explain that one?
Yes, because you've demonstrated such profound respect for me (a real person!) for my feelings in the past.
Freddie, I don't respect some of your ideas. There is, or should be, a difference between those and your feelings. If there isn't, I recommend avoiding the Internet -- it's a minefield out there. And you haven't exactly shown any enthusiasm for all of my ideas, which is perfectly fine by me. I don't lose sleep over these casual conversations.
Look, what if this thing was the other way 'round? Would you be burning a candle for an anti-war blogger similarly afflicted?
I don't believe in unleashing "extraordinary verbal evil" -- which, if you are familiar with the history of that post, you realize included numerous simultaneous vitriolic posts from leftwing blogs that subsequently yielded a torrent of obscene character-assassination and violent death threats in her email -- on anyone. Jesus died for both the axe murderer and me, and when one tallies the sum of my less glorious accomplishments in this life, it's rather a tossup as to which one has sinned the more.
Sure, I've disagreed with people, including you, sharply and even caustically on occasion. News flash: so have you. It's the Internet; ride the walrus.
I can't believe you would.
See, this might explain WHY, in general, I don't respect some of your ideas. In three sentences and less than fifty words, you took my previous lack of respect for some of your ideas, conflated it into disrespect for your feelings, put me in some hypothetical situation, then determined what my negative response was, all in a manner that apparently confirms whatever it is you think of me.
So, here are today's Helpful Hints from Heloise: the effigy should weigh about 22g, have glossy fur (you pick the color), beady black eyes, and a glorious tail. Any standard-issue spring trap should do the trick. I bring this to your attention because if you've been trying anything before now, it didn't work; I'm a picture of health and presently enjoying something called "Mennonite Cheese", which, strangely enough, was made in Mexico. Go figure.
Megan,
I don't think you had a thing to apologize for in that post.
Fortunately, there was no violence in NYC at those protests comparable to the WTC, but look...you didn't say you would personally find it funny if their rioting little dreadlocked heads were acquainted with a 2 x 4. You said some WOULD find it funny. And that, in my view, is objectively correct.
Look at this another way: People who are frequently acquainted with violence and its results, up close and personal, such as law enforcement, soldiers, paramedics, mental health workers and ER people, frequently develop a black sense of humor towards it.
It's not unusual at all for such people, who put themselves on the line every day, to find humor and irony in any number of tragic or violent situations. I've done it myself, and I can appreciate the trait in others and where it comes from (though not everyone draws the line in the same place)
It's a valuable defense mechanism, and it keeps us from going crazy or breaking down.
What I find annoying, though, is the tendency of the sheltered class who would take offense to your innocuous missive, and thereby regard themselves superior and enlightened compared to those who've developed that antibody.
HAHAHAHA, I love the lecturing from the shit-stain that stalked me to a dating website to post nasty shit about me.
Meghan is easily the most vain blogger on the Atlantic.
I mean who cares? what she posted 6 years ago.
NutellaonToast, actually I did explain in her post, but perhaps that requires a public post too. It'll be up in five.
Megan wrote, six years ago:
And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.
Sorry Megan, but your use of the word "pre-emptive" (which you went out of your way to emphasize in the original post) completely undercuts this silly argument of yours. If someone hits a rioter with a 2x4, then it is not exactly a pre-emptive act, is it? The rioting has begun (you cannot have rioters without an actual riot), and the bashing is now a reaction. It's only pre-emptive if we're talking about potential rioters as the targets. As for who is or is not a potential rioter, well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, innit?
You can try to convince yourself you meant something other than "bash hippies with 2x4s" if you want, but a plain reading of the sentence I quoted above shows that you most assuredly were not saying "I hope that rioters - and only rioters - get bashed with 2x4s."
Learn to write better, Megan. Or learn to obfuscate better.
I was correct.
Megan, you're never going to hear the end of that post, unfortunately; I really have no idea what you ought to do about that. I am sympathetic to the situation.
But, with apologies for continuing the complaint, the one thing that you need to cover in your disavowal of the post, but don't, is that the general contours of the situation in 2003 were as follows: the war protestors were right. You and the rest of those who supported the invasion of Iraq were wrong. You joined in a nationwide cultural offensive to paint those war protestors as violent Leninists bent on destruction, when in fact the people who more closely fit the description of "violent Leninists bent on destruction" were working in the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. You did so because like many other New Yorkers and Americans in general, your political instincts had been deranged for a period of several years by the 9/11 attacks.
I completely agree that you should not have to spend the rest of the existence of the internet apologizing for an old post. But I do think the post illuminates something very important about that political moment and the political landscape that enabled a series of monumentally stupid, costly and evil decisions to be made. Because the post's anger is directed against hypothetical enemies who did not in fact exist, but who then stand for and replace real, good people -- anti-war protestors -- and paint them as enemies. And that tells you a lot about what happened to the US in 2003.
Yeah, Matt. The war protesters were right. That is absolutely, incontrovertibly self-evident, the 25 million people who now have a democracy notwithstanding.
Oh. And O.J. is a Promise Keeper.
Keep in mind that riots will also occur if there are saboteurs in the crowd.
Have you checked your strawberries this morning, Toast?
HAHAHAHA, I love the lecturing from the shit-stain that stalked me to a dating website to post nasty shit about me.
Cupid says what? Maybe you can substantiate that claim. Or maybe I will -- I think there was something about what a sensitive, generally caring guy you are. Maybe the Internet Wayback Machine can dredge it out of the archives for us. In any case, I also categorically deny posting anything about you that could be construed as "nasty !@$%#"; that's merely a slander on your part.
However, if by any chance you HAVE been flattering your own ego at a dating site, I think the unfortunate young ladies should see what you post about Megan over here and at FMM. After all, some day you might be saying it about them, and they might find that relevant.
Um, Will, my strawberries are quiet fine. A little brown around the edges on a few leaves but I've heard that can be due to over-watering. Why do you ask?
Mouse, love the defense of the stalking. You're doing God's work, to be sure. And I did substantiate that. There's a post at FMM about it and I emailed Megan. Even she seemed a little shocked you would do something so... what's the word.... batshit insane? Yeah, that might be the words I'm looking for.
BTW, "we are legion" was a quote about a man with multiple personalities (demons) and doesn't actually have anything to do with acting as a group. I mean, unless you meant to indicate you had schizophrenia, which you might.
Tell ya what: I'll get help for my schizophrenia, just as soon as you get help for that manic depressive condition which seems to have been agravated by your chronic pain issues. We can meet over coffee on alternate Thursdays to shoot the breeze over Life and Issues. Deal?
Naw, I'm good. Pain's under control now thanks to acupuncture and methadone. Thanks for asking, though.
I ask, toast, because you seem to be on the verge of a paranoid break from reality.
megan, do you know what "pre-emptive" means?
What does that have to do with strawberries, Will?
Forget I mentioned it, toast. I don't want to complicate things more than they are.
Oh, but you've got me so intrigued.
What does schitzophrenia have to do with multiple personality disorder?
I'm late to this party, but I see no good coming from exhuming the dead horse and conducting a thorough autopsy.
The horse is still dead.
Hey, I didn't like that post and harshly criticize you on occasion, and this retrospective won a few brownie points with me. So don't feel like it was in vain.
Wow, I was expecting some sort of racist comment.
That wasn't bad at all.
My thoughts exactly.