April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Who pays the piper | Main | Better in Baghdad »

Nov 13, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dave Dobson

Should be an interesting candidacy. He better not have a uniformed military officer at a campaign event, though - that's against the military's code and also sucky (see our good buddy Pervez for an example of why you don't want the military in politics).

Tony Wilkins

Ovittore: "I don't feel that Trudy Wade, being the biggest embarrassment to Guilford County politics, should ever hold elected office again."
A very uninformed young man.
Over and under at 200 votes.
Straight up at 1.8M to 1.
Place your bets.

Tony Wilkins

To clarify: by uninformed I meant the comment about Wade, not "overall" uninformed.
I didn't like the way that sounded after I read it.
The odds remain though.

Spag/The CA

I wonder if Jordan reported that Jay Ovittore listed The Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books. How many people in the press and bloggers will give him a pass? What does that tell you about them and what they really stand for?

Keep pretending he isn't something that he is. It's all for the party- the question is which party is it really for?

Ed Cone

Why do you wonder, Sam? You can read the article for yourself by clicking the link.

If it matters so much to you, why not just ask Jay why he listed the book as favorite, and why he delisted it, and go from there?

sean coon

hey, let's make sure that all of our candidates have "approved" favorite books, movies, music, etc. before they can decide to help run this capitalist nation, which supports free... markets... and... free... speech...

hm. maybe that's a dumb idea.

also, comparing jay's favorite book to the chairman's decision to kill his blog after equating homosexuality with pedophilia is a joke, sam. as a practicing law professional, you've reduce your reputation to debate even further... if that's even possible at this point.

Spag/The CA

I don't think he'd answer me, but he might answer you.

Spag/The CA

Sean, I suppose if Howard Coble listed Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books, you would feel the same.

But I'm not surprised because you are pretty close to Marx in your ideology anyway. Further, the issue with Marcus that was made by some was that he was trying to cover up some of his positions. That is no different than what Jay has done here. All of the books he originally listed still appear on his new list except "The Communist Manifesto". Go figure.

Anytime you want to debate without hiding behind a keyboard, let me know.

David Hoggard

Overall Greene's article was a good and balanced look at my friend, Jay.

Re: The missing Manifesto reference: Removal of information from the Net is never a good idea and hardly ever successful. It just makes the removed information have more weight and cached copies are just too permanent.

I think one of Jay's biggest obstacles to appealing to the mainstream is that he is an avowed Atheist (although Jay mispells it as 'Athiest' if you are google-looking). This will probably be harder to overcome as a candidate than his preference in reading material, but we'll see.

Spag/The CA

I don't fault Jay for what he reads. Everyone interested in politics should read "The Communist Manifesto" to understand how those who support Marxism think. But a favorite book? Not unless you agree with it. That's just common sense.

And as you correctly stated, Hoggard, removing the book from the list while leaving everything else intact only draws more suspicion. The big rap on a lot of progressives is that they won't admit what they really believe in. They hide behind the cloak of the Democratic Party, when they are far more to the Left than the Democratic Party platform.

Joe Killian

Removing something from the net for whatever reason does seem like a bad move.

But I have to disagree with the assertion that you have to agree with what's in a book for it to be one of your favorites. I love Richard Nixon's "Six Crises" and P.J. O'Rourke's "Eat The Rich." If I were making a list of my favorite non-fiction books they'd probably both be on it. I don't think Mein Kampf is necessarily a great read, but I concede it's a fascinating book and wouldn't immediately accuse anyone who said it was one of their favorites of being a Nazi sympathizer.

I especially wouldn't say nasty, taunting things about them based on their favorite books without talking to them, and then say why bother asking them about it, since they probably wouldn't reply.

Jay Ovittore

Yes, it was on my favorites list. Yes it isn't there now, but it hasn't been for like 8 or 9 months.

The reason it was on my list is that I was reading it when I started my blog (how many years ago?)and as a compelling read at the time I listed it. It is an important book to read in understanding what Marxism is. I feel the need to educate myself on all forms of government. I feel the need to read about anything I don't know about, as learning is a process that never ends.

What I do know is that what is happening in DC now isn't working for average American citizens. I hope to help change that.

By the way Sam, Green Eggs and Ham was a favorite when I was 5, but I don't list it anymore either. People learn and people grow.

Can we move on now?

Spag/The CA

When you're five, you don't know any better.

Joe, I get what you are saying, but c'mon, you have to admit there is a huge difference between biographies and commentary and essential books on political ideology.

Maybe Jay can explain why it fell out of favor with him.

Joe Killian

I think "Six Crises" and "Eat the Rich" ARE books on political ideology -- it's just that they're both better reads than either "The Communist Manifesto" or "Mein Kampf" (which is, strangely, not as much a book about political ideology, necessarily, as the other three).

As O'Rourke talks about in the opening of "Eat The Rich" -- books about political and economic thought come in all sorts of forms. Some of us respond better to the pop version than the source text. I don't dislike "The Communist Manifesto" because of ideology -- I think that's sort of a dumb reason to dislike any text. I dislike it because I don't feel its terribly well written.

Here's my larger point: I've met Jay maybe three times. I know him really not at all. I can't say whether or not he's a pinko commie who should be mocked, tarred and feathered. But I do know this: if I'd made a "favorite books" list a few years ago that was still hanging around on the Internet somewhere it would probably have included On The Road, Tropic of Cancer, a few books by Hunter Thompson and Norman Mailer and a lot of detective fiction. I don't hate any of those books now, but I also wouldn't call them my favorites. A number of them seem sort of silly -- like some of the music I've loved but now shake my head at. People calling me names and implying something about me on the Internet based on reading such a list without having a single conversation with me about them wouldn't really be in a very good position to talk about who I am today or why I might have been drawn to those books, how they shaped my character and what I now think of them. I also wouldn't take people likely to do that very seriously.

Spag/The CA

Joe, you are turning this into something that it isn't. It is one thing to read "The Communist Manifesto" quite another to list it as a favorite book. I'm not asking for Jay to be chastised for his views, but to take responsibility for them. This isn't about group censorship or the thought police (I'll leave that to Marx...), or saying nobody should be allowed to have a political career based on a reading list. But I do think that Jay should explain why that book was a favorite and why it no longer is. This will not be the last time this comes up in the next year unless Howard completely ignores him (which may be a good strategy).

I also think there would be a big outcry if Coble claimed that Hitler or a book on Nazi philosophy or racism was one of his favorite books and I don't think he would be given any leeway by certain voices around here to explain it, so there is always the element of hypocrisy.

Joe Killian

I see what you're saying Sam, I just don't know that I'm taking it as seriously as you are.

I don't buy that someone's online "favorite books" list is a window into their soul or something they should have to explain. He also has "The Chronicles of Narnia," "The Stand" and a book about Frank Zappa on his list. Do they hold some insight into his deeply held Christian faith (no), his supernatural end-of-the-world paranoia (I doubt it) or his musical genius (you be the judge -- haven't heard the guy play).

I agree that if Howard Coble had a blog (fat chance there, and conversations like this are a good example of why politicians are hesitant to have blogs where opponents can search for something to slime them with) and it had a list of favorite books that included something the left was extremely opposed to (let's not compare Hitler and Marx anymore than we have to because it's sort of ludicrous and go ahead and say it's a book by Jerry Falwell or something), there would be some people who would search out that information and pummel him with it.

And you'd think they were kind of slimy for doing that.

You're maybe the most vocal opponent of hypocrisy that I've ever encountered everywhere -- you feel like it's your mission in life to point out the left's. That's fine. But I do wonder why you so often engage in political rhetoric or ranting that you'd find ridiculous and low from the other side, with the excuse that they do it so you can too -- or else it's hypocrisy.

Perusing peoples' reading list, not asking them about them and then taunting and insinuating things about them on the Internet is slimy and low. You're right that the very people you hate would do it. I'd think that would mean you'd want to avoid it yourself.

Ed Cone

It's been a long time since I've opened either Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto, but isn't Mein Kampf a more explicitly offensive and hateful book, in that it advocates a specific racist/anti-semitic agenda, as opposed to a (flawed, doomed) system of economics and governance?

In any case, both books would seem to raise red flags, so to speak, with many voters.


Maybe we should demand that politicians write book reports as a qualification for office. Or we could replace party primaries with book clubs. And the debates we could have! "Turning our attention from health care to Proust: Rep. Coble, what do you consider to be the primary goal of the author's transposition of the sexes throughout 'In Search of Lost Time'?"

Drive on, Jay.

Joe Killian

Yeah -- I really don't think comparing those two particular books is a good idea, if only because even the most stodgy and well regarded of economists (dust of Economics or Foundations of Economic Analysis by Paul A. Samuelson from your econ class if you went to a good business school) consider Marx an important economist whose ideas weren't workable not a dictator who systematically carried out a genocide.

But I think that's sort of a side issue. Combing someone's blog for an objectionable book, deciding independent of their input that a book's placement on that list is an indication of their politics and then stating as much on at least two blogs without so much as ringing them up or dropping an e-mail to ask about it isn't expressing a healthy curiosity as a concerned citizen. It's opposition research. I agree with Sam that if someone did such a thing to Coble it would be gross. So I don't see how doing it to Ovittore is a good idea.

Further, I think I'm insulted on Jordan Green's behalf. Sam criticizes him for "leaving out" this tidbit from his blog. Jordan's piece was good -- he just didn't go combing Internet "favorites" lists for something he could "catch" the subject with. Since the only person who seems to have done so is Sam, and he's clearly done it for political reasons, I'm not sure Jordan should get poked for it. It's not like this is an issue people are all abuzz about in the community (unlike all of the issues actually discussed in the piece) and Jordan chose to exclude it.


Marx=communism=socialism=liberalism=Democratic Party. Therefore: Jay has some vague connection a commie book, proving that he is a communist, proving once again that Democrats have a secret agenda to create a Stalinist state. And the liberal media is complicit in all this anti-Americanism, because, you know: It hates freedom.

Does that help clarify things, Ed?


And that, friends, is why litmus tests imposed from any side are foolhardy. You get equations like the one above.

When we start labeling human beings by artificial categories (like "Fav Whatevers") the slope isn't slippery; rather, it's a STEEP incline that Sam fell down in the comments above.

Jeffrey Sykes

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It ... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment” ... for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation ... Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

This is pretty accurate, but it's too bad there's *nothing we can do about it.*

Target anyone?

You do not like them so you say,
Try them, try them, and you may.

Spag/The CA

Sue, I'm glad you feel it is such a steep incline. I am also quite certain that you would feel differently if my Coble analogy was true. I haven't labeled Jay as anything. He describes himself with his own blog, and that book was part of it. It just so happens to compliment so many of his other stated economic positions. Drawing a conclusion based on the evidence is not being unfair at all. People do that every day. For the record, Jay could explain why the book is no longer a favorite and why it was in the first place, but he hasn't done so. Do you not believe that it is an extremely odd choice for a favorite book and wouldn't you expect a political candidate to explain it a whole lot better than Jay has?

Taking "Mein Kampf" off the table, let's assume Coble listed some other radical book as one of his favorites, such as a treatise on fascism. Anyone reading this thread with an ounce of integrity knows that nothing Coble could say would get him off the hook.

Don't complain about transparency in political candidates if you are going to whine when someone asks a legitimate question about why they chose to select a highly controversial book involving an ideology that is offensive to most Americans as one of their favorites. Try as you will to make it about me, it isn't.

Joe, I'm not really poking Jordan Green. Rather, I am making a point about what little bits of news get blown up and which ones will be ignored. We are seeing that play out right now on this very issue. I am the only one asking the question and nearly everyone else is trying to cover for Jay.

Joe Killian


This conversation may have run its course -- but I'd love it if you'd answer this question anyway. Let's say Coble did have some book the left would strongly object to on some "favorites" list. Would it then be all right for the left to make political hay of it in the blogosphere?

All your comments thus far seem to suggest you'd think that was disgusting -- and yet that's exactly what you're doing here. I agree with you that they probably would -- I just think it's slimy and beneath dignified discourse no matter who does it.

"The other guys would be pricks, and this is just my showing that" doesn't seem to explain for me your engaging in behavior I think you'd oppose if the shoe were on the other foot.

Spag/The CA

Joe, I haven't said or attempted to imply it would be disgusting. The hypocrisy of some would be disgusting, but I think the question itself is entirely fair game. We aren't talking about someone's sex life here, we are talking about a persons ideological beliefs.

If Coble listed a book praising or advocating an ideology that most people find offensive as one of his favorites, then I think he should absolutely have to explain why he likes the book so much and let people decide what his answer says about him and decide whether they want him to represent them. This is about being honest about who you are. If I'm wrong about Jay, he has every chance to explain himself.

I can't believe this is even debatable, much less the flak I'm getting for raising the issue.

Danny Wright

Sam, I am sorry, but the Communist Manifesto -- no matter how badly you wish for it to be -- is NOT a highly controversial book. It is the work of a German slacker that was so off-base in its predictions that its only relevance is that it was cited by totalitarian rulers who then ignored pretty much the entire content of its ideas while they ruled. The forms of Communism implemented by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al were military-initiated actions more political than economic in their realization (and were thus only marginally Marxist), were implemented nearly 70 years at the earliest after the work was written, and pretty much all failed.

But I get the jist of your posts -- you would love to play up the fear-mongering that has worked so well for your party over the last several years. It is a strategy tried and true, and you deserve credit for seeing an opening where you do . . .

Joe Killian


As I said at your blog -- asking someone a question about their beliefs is legitimate. That's not what you did. You mounted a political attack on someone based on an Internet favorites list without ever once talking to that person about it, when they made the list, what "favorite" meant to them (Most important? Most influential? Best written? Sentimental attachment?), came to conclusions about it and then went after him for trying to hide the conclusions you've come to.

That's the part I object to.

If a man has a question about me or something I've said, I expect him to ask me about it. Decent thing to do. No problem there. If a man makes assumptions about me without once speaking to me and then pastes his assumptions and accusations I'm trying to hide my true self on the Internet I call him a coward and a slime.

Of course, Jay's running for office. So he'll probably just say: "I wish he'd just asked me, but I bear no ill will."

Spag/The CA

Or Joe, he could answer the query and get himself off the hook.

Danny, your description of "The Communist Manifesto" is even more reason to call into question Jay's esteem for the book.

Keep making excuses. I am not surprised at all. In fact, I predicted as much.

Danny Wright

Joe, Sam's 12:22 PM post today pretty much sums his intent. Almost 1/2 hour after Jay answered Sam's question, Sam posted another question for Jay, but didn't even have the courtesy of responding to Jay directly. I think you can infer a lot from that. Just pot-stirring.

Spag/The CA

Danny, it's not a separate or new question. It's the same question. It refers to him deleting it from his favorites, a point made in the initial post. It was a favorite, then it wasn't. Jay offered an explanation for the former, not the latter.

Spag/The CA

And Joe, this idea of calling someone to get their side of the story before blogging about them seems to be an entirely new standard. Nobody does that except reporters. Does Cone call all the people he quotes or comments on? No. The idea that I had some duty to call Jay before blogging about something on his site and offering my opinion on it is ludicrous. I am not a reporter like you, Joe. If I was writing for your paper, I would have done what you suggested because I think journalistic ethics require it when reporting on news. But I'm not reporting news, and I'm not writing for a paper. Neither are most of us writing blogs. People quote me and others from things on our blogs all the time and never ask me about it before hand. The comment section is there for people to raise questions and respond, making it unnecessary.

There is a big difference between taking something Jay has on his blog and writing about it and repeating an unfounded rumor from a third party that hasn't been confirmed.

But since you brought it up, you do write for a paper and this seems like a fair question for a reporter to ask a candidate running for Congress in North Carolina, so why don't you call Jay and ask him?

Joe Killian

Again: a man-to-man question about something that makes you genuinely curious has dignity. A blog broadside on something this dumb against someone whose politics you don't like is beneath you.

I don't know Howard Coble well and there may be things about which we'd have to disagree politically -- but I don't doubt the guy's integrity. If you came to him and said: "Hey, Howard -- you know this young drummer who's running against you? He once listed 'The Communist Manifesto' with 'The Stand' and 'The Chronicles of Narnia' on a 'favorite books' list on the Internet. What do you think of that? Shouldn't we talk about that in this campaign" -- I'd bet money all day long you'd get laughed out of the room.


"But since you brought it up, you do write for a paper and this seems like a fair question for a reporter to ask a candidate running for Congress in North Carolina, so why don't you call Jay and ask him?"

Too uncomfortable, I'm sure.

On the other hand, did you notice the deflection attempt with the Howard Coble question?


personally, I think Jay was trying to hide something others might deem controversial. Why else would he remove it? I would say the same about MK.

Spag/The CA

For something so "dumb" you are certainly paying a lot of attention to it. Where were you when Marcus was getting flakked for deleting his blog?

I think any voter would want to know why Jay likes the book on Communist ideology so much. I think it's incredibly odd that you think that is insignificant. Maybe you don't care about what candidates believe, but if that is the case, then why vote?

I haven't lied about Jay. I haven't made anything up. I haven't attacked his character. I simply said "This used to be on his blog, now it isn't. It seems rather suspicious like he is trying to hide something". I ask a question that is rooted in an undeniable fact.

The attacks on me for raising an entirely legitimate question that has yet to be answered says a lot more about you than me. I said there would be a bunch of people trying to rationalize this and make excuses and I was right. It's not about me- why don't you ask Jay to answer the question instead of riding my rear end for asking it? This isn't "Green Eggs and Ham", it's the playbook for Communism and Jay is running for Congress. You are a newsman Joe, surely you know that your attempts to minimize this as a relevant question can't be taken seriously.

Joe Killian

Not my beat. Direct political coverage questions to Mark Binker. Local ones to Margaret Banks.

Sam: I take issue not with the question but, as I said, the way you brought the whole thing up in a tone and manner that was more consistent with a political attack than a legitimate question.

Also, you made no attempt to discern why Ovittore would have put this book on such a list. You could have done that with one phone call or e-mail, so that at least then you could have said: "I think he's trying to hide his true far left ideology -- but he says he was just interested in it at the time and put it on there without thinking much about it, as many people do many things on the Internet. He says he took it down because...etc."

Ed does this pretty frequently -- you'll see posts where he says, "I talked to XYZ via phone/e-mail and he says..."

By just assuming that his impetus was political identification with Karl Marx and then accusing him of trying to hide that you went from raising a question to making a political attack. I don't know how you can view accusing someone of trying to lie to the electorate about their true political ideology as "not attacking his character."

As I said in an earlier post (which makes me think there's no point posting any further) I enjoy political books with which I disagree. Some I find important, some I find amusing, some I take something from but don't identify with. If someone noted a P.J. O'Rourke or Richard Nixon book on my "favorites" list (or something heavier, like the book of Emerson's sermons that is on my bookshelf at home right now), decided they knew why I liked the book, stated this on the Internet and then accused me of trying to hide my feelings about the book from people I'd definitely consider him at the very least a jackass. He couldn't have called me first, like a decent human being, to talk about it like people do in a civilized society? Ovittore is not a president or even a County Commissioner. He is incredibly easy to reach, should you want to. I think if you're going to talk about his political ideology and integrity on the Internet you owe him that courtesy.

His removing it from the Internet? Dumb.

But with people like you looking over his "favorites" list for something to wallop him with, I can't say I'm amazed at the misstep.

I was around when MK deleted his blog. That was dumb too. The only real difference I see is that Kindley's blog was an actual catalog of his actual political opinions, how he expressed them and how he responded to people. Ovittore's "favorites" list item was something from which those who are so inclined could read deep political meaning, whether it was there or not.

I don't know whether it was there. But if I wanted to know, I'd pick up the telephone rather than throwing down on him online.

Spag/The CA

Joe, I'll leave it with this:

You said "I think if you're going to talk about his political ideology and integrity on the Internet you owe him that courtesy."

Really? People have done that about me ever since I started blogging and commenting and my phone hasn't rung once- before or after the comments. Nor have I ever called anyone else whose political ideology and integrity I have discussed. I hope you are prepared to apply this new rule of yours to everyone and will comment every time it isn't applied.


One of his favorite movies was The Godfather.

....mafia connection? :)

sean coon

are you for real, sam? if you're going to bait me with a "challenge," try something with a little more bravado than, "Anytime you want to debate without hiding behind a keyboard, let me know." that's the nerdiest shit i've ever heard.

i didn't comment to debate you, dip shit; i commented to illustrate how moronic it is to give a crap about someone's favorite book, equating it as a 1:1 to his ideology and/or political agenda and then start a blood hunt to find out why it "disappeared"... in america no less.

the chairman burned his blog because it received (along with his party) negative national attention for his position on an issue of the day; jay changed his favorite book list and you're the only whack job (so far) who seems to think he's hiding something.

big difference.

for the record (the one that losers like you keep): howard coble could've been referenced *in* mein kampf for all i care (he's old enough); it's his words/actions that i've historically taken issue with.

back to enjoying the music...

Spag/The CA

And once again Greensboro's resident blogging tough guy Sean Coon thinks that if he cusses enough and calls people names they will cower in his presence. I guess I'm supposed to be intimidated that techie boy called ME a nerd.

Here's a clue, Sean, just because you're from New Jersey and cuss at people, that doesn't make you a badass. Grow up, man. Stick to being a tech geek, because you know absolutely nothing about politics.


It's correct that a book on a whimsical favorite book list is not a 1:1 measure of one's ideology. It's also true that Jay scrubbed his blog in preparation for public scrutiny. I also suspect that if, as Spag suggests, Jay was a Republican and the book was some right-wing manefesto, the roles of accusing and defending commenters would be reversed.

Remove the political alignments and what is left is that a favorite book list offers some degree of insight and that covering one's blog tracks will never be praiseworthy.


Uhh... just fyi, but Sean isn't a tech geek, Sam. Speaking from the tech geek's perspective. Get your facts straight, Sam. :p

Spag/The CA

I'm sorry for the mistake. I forgot, he's a Sean "Big Dog" Coon, the bad ass "activist". Ooh.


That's okay, Sam. I forgive you. lol.

Ed Cone

Comparisons are inexact. Mein Kampf is not The Communist Manifesto. Marcus' blog, embarrassing in ways far beyond the single post cited here, is not the same thing as a reading list. A sitting congressman is not a young blogger. Etc etc.

Jay seems to have scrubbed his reading list to remove an inconvenient item.

Jay's statement on the matter.

So, what have we actually learned, beyond being reminded for the zillionth time that the seemingly ephemeral web has a long memory?

Spag/The CA

Ed, I was hoping we might learn something about Jay's beliefs as reflected by his fondness for a certain book on ideology. I don't understand how that is not a fair question for someone running for office. That is one issue. The other is as you have stated, why he scratched the book from his list of "favorites", which has still not been answered.

sean coon

now try to be original. ed already used the "jersey tough guy" line.

i'm not trying to get you to cower in my presence, asshole, i'm trying to get you to understand that what you consider to be "politically" relevant, simply isn't. i just happen to think you're a douche as well, so the language just seems to flow. my bad.

you can own "understanding politics" sam. i've no desire to wake up one day and be sitting in your shoes.

and thank you, ben, for clearing that up. ;)

Ed Cone

In the interest of accuracy, Sean, I believe I referred to you as a hip-hop loving white guy from Jersey, with an implied degree of grittiness.

Sam used to challenge me to debate, and at some point seemed to imagine that there was some sort of actual debate that I was ducking. I remain mystified over that one.

Spag/The CA

Sean, your command of the English language is remarkable as is your ability to express yourself. I know your type, Sean. You wake up everyday angry but you're not sure why and you have zero tolerance for people who don't agree with you. So you lash out by screaming out cuss words and calling people names.

Ed knows that I have raised a valid point, but rather than concede as much in response to your post, tough guy, he chooses to make the discussion about me. There is no way in hell Ed Cone will ever publicly concede that Sam Spagnola has a point about anything, so I really don't care about his debate remarks. For the record, Ed, Sean brought up the subject of debate, not me.

For one who says they have never ducked a debate, you still haven't taken me up on the offer. If I take one side of an issue and you take another, there is no "imagining" a debate. Like Sean, you prefer to hide behind the keyboard where your friends can come to your rescue and where it is far to easy to distort what is being said. Perhaps some day we will serve on a panel together on the opposite sides of an issue, but I suspect that you would decline because you can only function when you are the star and have some control.

It's really a shame that you have no idea what some people say about you behind your back. It makes your frequent smart comments towards me and arrogance a private joke among some people that may surprise you. Keep it up, please.

sean coon

actually, samuel, i wake up each day excited to be alive. i only get angry when flapjacks like you open their mouths.

i'm working on that, though.

The comments to this entry are closed.