« Crazy!=criminal | Main | »
Guessing games
07 Aug 2008 04:55 pm
Tyler Cowen has declared one blog too obnoxious to read, but he's too polite to name names. The comment thread is a lot of fun, because so many of the readers project their own dislikes onto Tyler. I have a pretty good idea of who it is, and no one's guessed correctly yet (says Tyler); I wonder how long it will take before my candidate gets the nomination.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/27086
Comments (63)
Oh, come on, Megan! Tell us your candidate!
I'm afraid that I, like Tyler, am reluctant to name names.
It can't be Sailer. Cowen is obviously talking about a blog that's obnoxious in tone, not content. Sailer is a racist and therefore a descpicable human being, but he's a very well-mannered racist.
I'm afraid that I, like Tyler, am reluctant to name names.
Either there's a giant meta-joke here that I'm just not getting, or the very purpose of this post is kinda narcissistic.
But since I'm yapping anyway, does our good buddy Molar Juice here run a blog? Albeit "obnoxious" might be a rather light and fluffy rune to apply to an output as complex as his.
aMouseforallCheeses says: "But since I'm yapping anyway, does our good buddy Molar Juice here run a blog? Albeit "obnoxious" might be a rather light and fluffy rune to apply to an output as complex as his."
Thanks, you've been a great audience!
I love that because Ross closed his comments, Moe's migrated over here. Nice job, dude!
And I do like cheese, Moe. You've been a...well, second-class supplier. It's not you; it's me. My taste expectations lurk higher than Kraft Singles and Velveeta, although in a hungry spell, I'll take what I can get.
Tyler Cowen has declared one blog too obnoxious to read, ...
Only one!?
It can't be Sailer. Cowen is obviously talking about a blog that's obnoxious in tone, not content.
Actually, Tyler says about the blog: "I find the content obnoxious and I find the style obnoxious and I find the blogger obnoxious."
Klug says: "I love that because Ross closed his comments, Moe's migrated over here."
I think I was posting here before I discovered the treasure trove of wingnut trash over at Ross's place. But thanks for your concern.
Also, note that I called aMouseforallSeasons, aMouseforallCheeses. Though I suppose the silly little Reich wing bootlickers of the Cheney-Bush Junta here aren't sophisticated enough to get the humor.
Very funny Chuckles, impersonating me. Megan, can you ban this idiot? It's obviously not me, and it isn't funny, it's just rude.
It's obviously not me, and it isn't funny, it's just rude.
I don't see how that's "obviously not" you. But as I've said before, impostors should stop. It's annoying.
Rob Lyman says: "I don't see how that's "obviously not" you."
I didn't write the posts at 6:30 OR 6:34. I wouldn't have capitalized "chuckles" or "junta." I wouldn't even use the term "junta" in that context. Or "Reich," for that matter.
I've also never asked for anyone to be banned. But you'll learn these things if you stick around.
Tyler is too squeamish to handle Roissy, so that would be the obvious candidate, but because Roissy has been mentioned in the comments (multiple times) that's apparently not the one Tyler has in mind.
In fact, not only have I never asked for other people to be banned, I have been a victim of capricious banning myself, when the wingnuts in charge of Wikipedia banned me for repeated vandalism.
Rob Lyman is right, this is getting annoying. It's pretty pathetic that someone would obsess and put so much time into inane internet commentary. Do you think it's clever, you silly wackaloon? Go get a hobby.
The 7:52 PM and 7:43 comments were both written by imposters. All I can say is that someone has taken a bizarre, almost deranged, fascination with me.
7:43, 7:52, and 7:57 are also not me, but once again, thanks for the tribute.
My feud with Wikipedia began when wingnuts (you bet!) there demanded that I stop using the name MoeLarryAndJesus there. They also objected to TortureIsWrong. If anyone feels like experiencing a complete bureaucratic farce go play with the teenagers and nutjobs who run Wikipedia. It's a cult of Amway proportions.
I've been banned from Conservapedia dozens of times.
I've also never asked for anyone to be banned. But you'll learn these things if you stick around.
It's downright hilarious to be treated as a newbie; I've been reading and commenting on the writings of our gracious hostess in multiple fora since about 2002 or so. Ask the mouse; he and I go way back.
That said, I for one will call for banning imposters. Using someone else's handle is far more obnoxious than even the worst honest trolling.
Given how obsessed they are, you would think my stalkers would at least have studied me well enough to know that I was never banned from Wikipedia. The 7:52 post was the only recent one that was by me.
Whoever is sock-puppeting? or trolling? Moe should stop. Megan, this ain't right. Please fix it.
"Whoever is sock-puppeting? or trolling? Moe should stop. Megan, this ain't right. Please fix it."
I am of two minds about this. I agree, on the one hand, that most of the time impersonators should not be allowed. However, Moe has been a bit lacking in the civility department, so one could argue that he his identity isn't really one that needs to be protected. Still, the impersonators might consider toning it down a bit.
Lurker, I think the impersonators went away to jack off to Cheney. But thanks for calling me uncivil, you girly little pisant (civil enough for you?). Have a nice day.
Lurker:
No, no, you're darn right about the civility thing. ML&J's favorite insult, that of the porcine nature, is really, really irritating. But 2 wrongs don't make a right.
The post at 8:52 is another impostor. I would never spell pissant wrong.
I freely admit to being "a bit lacking in the civility department." There are times when civility is an irrational response.
Klug writes: "No, no, you're darn right about the civility thing. ML&J's favorite insult, that of the porcine nature, is really, really irritating. But 2 wrongs don't make a right."
I assume you're referring to my use of "Bushpig" and "Repiglicans." I'll be happy to stop using them if the Republicans gain the upper hand in the GOP again. While the Bushpigs rule it and they're the party of torture I would say these are pretty mild epithets.
If anything I owe an apology to actual pigs, who are smart animals who don't really deserve the association. But I'm just using the cultural symbols at hand.
Are there really many people who will look back at this cesspool of an administration fondly?
You can always tell it's me because of my dry cool wit and incredible natural charisma. Infinite wisdom straight from the source can't be duplicated.
Are there really many people who will look back at this cesspool of an administration fondly?
No serious person is going to look back on this or any other admistration fondly for at least 20 years after they leave office, at which time the vast majority of people will most likely have decided it was something of a mixed bag. But keep up the juvenile comments. I admit that they do serve to shed some light on where the cesspool is in our political culture.
What in the world is the point of Cowen's post (or this one for that matter)? Unreadably obnoxious blogs are legion, from neo-nazi websites to grade-school bullying blogs. What's the point of singling out your own pet bete noir and then not naming it?
Lurker says: "No serious person is going to look back on this or any other admistration fondly for at least 20 years after they leave office, at which time the vast majority of people will most likely have decided it was something of a mixed bag."
I guess all the Republicans who canonized Saint Reagan the minute he left office weren't "serious," so you may have a point. And yes, this administration will probably be seen as a "mixed bag," but I'll say now that the mix will consist of incompetency, criminality, stupidity, war crimes, hypocrisy, and basically nothing in the way of actual accomplishments. Call it "a series of minor f**kups punctuated by major catastrophes," if I may quote myself.
"But keep up the juvenile comments. I admit that they do serve to shed some light on where the cesspool is in our political culture."
They sure do. It's the playpen for Dick Cheney and the people who love him. I'm glad you noticed.
GLENN GREENWALD! For Christ's sake. I guessed it instantly, I'm amazed that a cumulative 150+ posts have spit it out yet.
I'll say now that the mix will consist of incompetency, criminality, stupidity, war crimes, hypocrisy, and basically nothing in the way of actual accomplishments.
That could be the Clinton administration except for the accomplishments parts. Clinton did succeed at forcing us all to use toilets that don't flush properly, so that's one feather in his cap.
Dylan says: "I'm amazed that a cumulative 150+ posts have spit it out yet."
You probably mean "haven't." But who knows? Anyone who despises Greenwald's work probably has multiple cognitive dysfunctions.
Anyone who despises Greenwald's work probably has multiple cognitive dysfunctions.
I have to second this. For those of you who don't know, Greenwald is a graduate of a top 5 law school and worked at the most prestigious law firm in the country. In 9 months, he managed to become one of the most cited and heavily-trafficked bloggers on the internet.
Rob Lyman quotes and replies: "I'll say now that the mix will consist of incompetency, criminality, stupidity, war crimes, hypocrisy, and basically nothing in the way of actual accomplishments.
That could be the Clinton administration except for the accomplishments parts. Clinton did succeed at forcing us all to use toilets that don't flush properly, so that's one feather in his cap."
There were elements of those things in the Clinton administration, though I think it was notably light in the criminality department when it came to actual job-related activity. I suppose I should have put "unrelenting" before "incompetency" in my summary. The truly special feature of the Bushpig era was how extreme and constant the mess was. And that's just based on the stuff we know about now. After the Great Delousing a lot more will come out.
I can hardly wait.
My toilet flushes just fine.
Ellers says: "Greenwald is a graduate of a top 5 law school and worked at the most prestigious law firm in the country. In 9 months, he managed to become one of the most cited and heavily-trafficked bloggers on the internet."
He's also an equal-opportunity marksman - he goes after members of both parties who are disgracing themselves. I suspect he'll gain some right-wing fans during the coming Democratic hegemony.
Dylan: Yeah, I instantly guessed Greenwald, too.
MoeLarryAndJesus: Whoosh! Hear that? That's the sound the point of Eller's post makes as it flies over your head.
As for how history views the Bush administration, it could be bad.. or good. It rather depends on how Iraq and Afghanistan turn out. If the long term results are modestly stable and democratic governments in each country... Well, you might not want to think about it too hard about how that might be viewed, I wouldn't want to provoke any cognitive dissonance. If they are modestly good democratic government decades hence, I'm sure everyone will be totally sympathetic to your view that their existence is due to bungled unnecessary wars and they'll all agree we'd be better off if their totalitarian governments were still in place. You seem dead keen on being certain about the future, though, so perhaps it's best if you don't think about it too much.
Mercutio says: "Whoosh! Hear that? That's the sound the point of Eller's post makes as it flies over your head."
It flew lower than that. Note the "also" in my reply.
Greenwald is doing more for this society than most 'graduates of top 5 law schools' are doing.
"It rather depends on how Iraq and Afghanistan turn out. If the long term results are modestly stable and democratic governments in each country."
Does the "rather" add anything to that sentence other than the air of tweed jackets with elbow patches?
Hold your breath waiting for the stable democratic governments in those countries. Neither one is any closer to that outcome than they were a year after the respective invasions, if you look at them without Bushpig-pink tinted glasses. Perhaps you're too busy parroting the "girls get to go to school!" line about Afghanistan to have noticed the rape epidemic that's going on there now, but I'm not. Some success story you've got there, sport.
"You seem dead keen on being certain about the future, though, so perhaps it's best if you don't think about it too much."
The people who were "dead keen on being certain about the future" swore to us up and down that the Iraq War would be a "cakewalk" that would almost immediately start paying for itself. I'm nearly 100% sure that you didn't call them out the way you're calling me out, and I was right about this war back then. How about you, chuckles?
Can you tell us if your candidate has been nominated yet?
It flew lower than that. Note the "also" in my reply.
Hahah, you didn't get it, did you? Also has nothing to do with it. And now you're just pretending you did, rather than admit there's something you don't know by asking what the point was. Go ahead dude, just ask. Learn to accept that you don't know everything.
Neither one is any closer to that outcome than they were a year after the respective invasions, if you look at them without Bushpig-pink tinted glasses.
Yeah, except for the constitution, the democratically elected government, the burgeoning strength of Iraqi security forces, the reduced violence, the Anbar awakening and the repudiation of Al Qaeda by the Sunni tribes, the government turning on Shiite militias, and those militias surrendering in cities that were their strongholds, and so on and so forth. You know, various minor and inconsequential points.
Perhaps you're too busy parroting the "girls get to go to school!" line about Afghanistan to have noticed the rape epidemic that's going on there now, but I'm not. Some success story you've got there, sport.
Hahahah. Oh god you're a funny troll. Yeah, I bet there was no rape epidemic during the Taliban's rule. Everyone knows how well fundamentalist Islamic law deals with rape victims! Sure the Taliban may have had a few problems, but at least they made the trains run on time^H^H^H they kept those rape statistics down. Well, at least out of sight and out of mind at least.
The people who were "dead keen on being certain about the future" swore to us up and down that the Iraq War would be a "cakewalk" that would almost immediately start paying for itself. I'm nearly 100% sure that you didn't call them out the way you're calling me out, and I was right about this war back then. How about you, chuckles?
Like who? Got a quote for that "cakewalk" quote? Because you're not just making that up, are you? Gee, I remember Bush stressing that the war on terrorism would be long and hard.
Greenwald is doing more for this society than most 'graduates of top 5 law schools' are doing.
A lot of this hatred of Greenwald is just jealousy, based on the Best-selling book and his media appearences, along with the success of his blog. MoeLarryAndJesus, you would not believe how envious his detractors can be.
By the way, I hope the loser imposter troll who was posting under your name grows up. Posting under a fake name has got to be the lamest thing ever to hit the internets.
Mercutio replies: "Yeah, except for the constitution, the democratically elected government, the burgeoning strength of Iraqi security forces, the reduced violence, the Anbar awakening and the repudiation of Al Qaeda by the Sunni tribes, the government turning on Shiite militias, and those militias surrendering in cities that were their strongholds, and so on and so forth. You know, various minor and inconsequential points."
Yes, they're all minor and inconsequential, and will fall apart if the occupation ends. You'd probably find the same sort of merits in the Vichy government. I don't. The current puppet regime you in Iraq has been complicit in the slaughter and torture of hundreds of thousands. There are about 2 million displaced due to the violence. I know you don't care about them, but what happens when they want to come home?
"I bet there was no rape epidemic during the Taliban's rule. Everyone knows how well fundamentalist Islamic law deals with rape victims! Sure the Taliban may have had a few problems, but at least they made the trains run on time^H^H^H they kept those rape statistics down. Well, at least out of sight and out of mind at least."
Your side is the one claiming Afghanistan is a better place to live now than it was. I'm saying your side is full of shit. You seem to have no refuting argument.
I despise the Taliban and everything they represent. You merely pretend to do so. You're quite willing to install another regime just like them and crow about "victory." I'm not.
"Got a quote for that "cakewalk" quote? Because you're not just making that up, are you? "
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give
simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3)
we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps." - Ken Edelman, 2002.
"In early March, for example, General Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, serenely anticipated “a short, short conflict.” On the Sunday before the opening “shock and awe” barrage, Vice-President Cheney said that the war would go “relatively quickly,” and that American troops would be “greeted as liberators.” He went on, when asked if the fighting might prove to be long, costly, and bloody, “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way.” (As Dana Milbank, a Washington Post White House correspondent, noted, “Cheney has spoken that way for months.”) Perle, still a Defense Policy Board member, though no longer its unpaid (if not exactly unremunerated) chairman, predicted on the eve of the war that it would last no longer than three weeks, adding, “And there is a good chance that it will be less than that.” Last summer, he declared that “support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.” In the February 24th issue of National Review, David Frum, the former “axis of evil” White House speechwriter, wrote that “the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts.”"
How do you like them apples?
If you're pretending that the Bushpigs weren't all over the place predicting a swift and easy win you have a short memory or you're a liar. No other option.
"I remember Bush stressing that the war on terrorism would be long and hard."
I remember the scumbag playing dress-up and proclaiming Mission Accomplished. Who's the idiot?
Rick Ellensburg writes: "A lot of this hatred of Greenwald is just jealousy, based on the Best-selling book and his media appearences, along with the success of his blog. MoeLarryAndJesus, you would not believe how envious his detractors can be."
I've seen it. It probably helps him, in the end.
"I remember the scumbag playing dress-up and proclaiming Mission Accomplished. Who's the idiot?"
Probably you, since he never proclaimed mission accomplished.
A sycophant defends: ""I remember the scumbag playing dress-up and proclaiming Mission Accomplished. Who's the idiot?"
Probably you, since he never proclaimed mission accomplished."
Afterwards his "team" tried to claim that the sailors had been responsible for the banner, but it turned out that the Bushpigs did it. I'd say that still makes you the likely idiot.
How many times did you vote for Bush, anyway? Include primaries.
"The White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship, who did not have the facilities for producing such a banner. Afterwards, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy's idea, White House staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up." According to John Dickerson of TIME magazine, the White House later conceded that they actually hung the banner but still insists it had been done at the request of the crew members."
"The vast majority of casualties, among both coalition (approximately 96% as of November 2007) and Iraqi combatants, and among Iraqi civilians, have occurred after the speech."
Mission Accomplished!
I stand in awe at the unrivaled ability of Bush supporters to make excuses for the ridiculous retard.
Yes, they're all minor and inconsequential, and will fall apart if the occupation ends.
You certainly hope so, because if they don't... Well, that hardly bears thinking about.
You'd probably find the same sort of merits in the Vichy government. I don't. The current puppet regime you in Iraq has been complicit in the slaughter and torture of hundreds of thousands. There are about 2 million displaced due to the violence. I know you don't care about them, but what happens when they want to come home?
Hellooo, alternate reality. Who slaughtered and tortured? Al Qeada and affiliates did. Sectarian militias did. The Iraqi government is fighting them! Wow, that's so complicit I can't believe it!
Your side is the one claiming Afghanistan is a better place to live now than it was. I'm saying your side is full of shit. You seem to have no refuting argument.
So even if a govermnent goes from totalitarian theocracy to modest democracy, but rapes remain the same, it's not a better place to live? Right...
I despise the Taliban and everything they represent. You merely pretend to do so. You're quite willing to install another regime just like them and crow about "victory." I'm not.
Just like them? Oh right, in your BDS alternate reality. I forgot.
How do you like them apples?
Most of those quotes seem to pertain to the combat phase, the war against Saddam Hussein and his army, rather than the whole nation building phase. Look at phrases like "the Iraq fight itself". Looks like the old bait and switch, presenting quotes saying that the fight against Saddam and his army will be fast and easy as evidence that the whole thing will be fast and easy. Would you describe the combat phase as being particularly hard or long?
Rick Ellensburg writes: "A lot of this hatred of Greenwald is just jealousy, based on the Best-selling book and his media appearences, along with the success of his blog. MoeLarryAndJesus, you would not believe how envious his detractors can be."
I've seen it. It probably helps him, in the end.
Hahahah. Dumbass still doesn't get the reference and still refuses to ask. Invincible ignorance rock on!
The White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship, who did not have the facilities for producing such a banner.
Clearly, the White House is lying here. After all, your quote goes on to refute this statement. Really, it does. You just can't see the refutation because it is invisible.
Hahahah. Dumbass still doesn't get the reference and still refuses to ask. Invincible ignorance rock on!
I don't know quite what you are on about. Ellers and Rick Ellensburg both make excellent points about the jealosy Greenwald inspires. Not everyone gets read on the Senate floor by Russ Feingold.
Mercutio again: "Hellooo, alternate reality. Who slaughtered and tortured? Al Qeada and affiliates did. Sectarian militias did. The Iraqi government is fighting them! Wow, that's so complicit I can't believe it!"
So the "Iraqi government" has no connection with any of those sectarian militias? Really? When did you land on this planet, chuckles?
"So even if a govermnent goes from totalitarian theocracy to modest democracy, but rapes remain the same, it's not a better place to live? Right..."
You have no evidence for either the "modest democracy" or the "rapes remain the same," ut let's face it - it's not like you care about the reality. You're pimping the "success" of your failed president. Prematurely. The same guy who swore he'd capture bin Laden. How's that going? Oh, wait, I forgot, he explicitly abandoned that goal.
"Just like them? Oh right, in your BDS alternate reality. I forgot."
Of course you did. If another lunatic regime ends up running Afghanistan you'll still say the war was a success. Most of the country is now under the sway of warlords just as nasty as the Taliban, and you think you've "won."
What have you "won"?
"Most of those quotes seem to pertain to the combat phase, the war against Saddam Hussein and his army, rather than the whole nation building phase. Look at phrases like "the Iraq fight itself". Looks like the old bait and switch, presenting quotes saying that the fight against Saddam and his army will be fast and easy as evidence that the whole thing will be fast and easy. Would you describe the combat phase as being particularly hard or long?"
What part of "the shooting should be over" is hard for you to understand? Should I produce the additional quotes about how oil production would pay for the costs in short order?
If you're claiming that the Bushpigs were honest and/or accurate in their assurances and predictions about the course of the war you're either a malignant liar or a congenital idiot. Here's your big chance to pull back and admit they were absurdly sanguine (at best) or simply ignorant or liars. Take your pick. What they weren't is easy to summarize - they weren't people who knew what they were talking about.
Wilson, don't forget that he graduated from a top 5 law school. That is the kind of ethical training we need to instill after we scrap the Repugnants.
We need leadership from thinkers like Greenwald, who doesn't lie, or stoop to silly impersonation games.
Lurker says: "Clearly, the White House is lying here. After all, your quote goes on to refute this statement. Really, it does. You just can't see the refutation because it is invisible."
You won't see the support for that "crew requested it" claim because it doesn't exist. If it did the Bushpigs would have plastered it all over the place.
I know that gullibility and stupidity are hardwired into movement conservatives, but I'm surprised that an ability to at least feign critical thinking ability hasn't been added to any of the more recent models.
"Hi, White House! We're the crew of the Abraham Lincoln! Could you whip us up a "Mission Accomplished" banner, please?" Being stupid enough to believe that this took place is a truly special gift.
From Time: "Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech."
I know idiots will always exist, but must they always be so stubborn?
For a while there, someone was pushing a button that Moe actually didn't want pushed. Strange sight.
Then of course the thread devolved into the usual mutual masturbation...
Note to Moe: you can be highly intelligent (and you clearly are - no one was fooled by the impostor) and someone else can be too, even if you disagree with one another. Threads can be other than intellectual pissing contests.
> What in the world is the point of Cowen's post
> (or this one for that matter)?
Fishing? There may be no direct point in the original post, but maybe some posts are worthwhile for the comments alone?
Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser???
(for the uninitiated, this is the pet name for Mrs Instapundit)
Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser???
(for the uninitiated, this is the pet name for Mrs Instapundit)
Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser???
(for the uninitiated, this is the pet name for Mrs Instapundit)
Jens
There are two possible reasons for Tyler Cowen's post. The first is that he is explaining why he does not often read his own blog without going to the extreme of shutting it down.
The second, even more likely, is that he is trying to compile a list of blogs readers detest in order to see if they can later be induced to put money values on their degrees of detestation. ( I doubt if he sees that as leading into a new world where blog commentators pay fractions of a cent for the privilege of posting, but he has colleagues who always welcome the idea of a new market.)
Megan, on the other hand, is an astoundingly well-mannered young lady (she must have gone to a finishing school, but I can not imagine which one). Our hostess is merely trying to discretely assemble a database of what we detest, in order to guide the future of our discussions.
My guess would be crooked timber.
Most definitely not Crooked Timber. Tyler has linked to them many times.
My toilet flushes just fine.
Apparently, I crap bigger than you. :)
| 
I would guess Steve Sailer, but "obnoxious" is too tepid a description for his pustulent site. "Festering boil on the ass of humanity" would be closer to the mark.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 7, 2008 5:02 PM