Can’t win an argument on the merits by using mutually agreed-upon criteria? No problem. Simply change the terms of the debate and declare yourself the victor.
Or, you know—have one of your innumerable sycophants (real, imagined, or some strange ontological combination thereof) do it for you.
Which, were we to use a cooking analogy, would be a lot like entering a chili cookoff, redefining “chili” in such a way that it encompasses things like, oh, say, lobster bisque or crab puffs or filet mignon with truffles—then declaring afterwards that most people prefered the taste of your crab puff / lobster bisque / filet mignon with truffles “chili” to the far more pedestrian chilis of your opponents, who stupidly constrained themselves to the use of kidney beans, chili powder, ground beef, and a crockpot.
Case closed! At least, so says the panel of judges consisting of noted chili connoisseurs “Rick Ellensburg,” “Thomas Ellers,” “Ryan,” and “Wilson.” All of whom—surprise!—are in total agreement with you!
How will bush redefine the fact that Maliki thinks that Israel is the aggressor in Lebanon, after bush has spent 300 billion and the blood of 15,000 American military people to buy said opinion? Peace
As a desire not to commit political suicide?
And possibly real suicide?
Oh, and Imhotep, fuck you for trying to hijack the thread on the very first post.
Now, with that out of the way, what the fuck do you mean “beans”? You don’t put beans in real chili.
So, are we still chickenhawks or not?
Cuz I get that Greenwald’s still a horse’s ass.
It’s WORSE than that, Jeff. How about completely rewriting history:
Emphasis mine.
That might have been true in the aftermath of a brilliant victory (and Bush senior was sure as hell no chickenhawk). But I remember a different narrative from the left and the batshit crazy Buchanan right. And I’ll wage a substantial portion of money that others remember it, too.
That narrative was built on the pillars of “no blood for oil,” “another Vietnam,” “ooh the Iraqi army is scary,” and “don’t fight Israel’s wars for her.” In any event, the congressional votes were 52-47 in the Senate and 250-183. Therefore, if Lambchop, Jr.’s argument is to be believed, a whopping number of Democratic congressional members were completely out of step with their constituenices.
To paraphrase a great American: Have you no shame, Mr. Greenwald? At long last, have you no shame?
imhotep: you are a cod. piece.
strange ontological combination thereof almost makes an acronym, SOCK. Hmmmm. What could supply the K?
Kukla, geezer.
Any one else feel misty-eyed? BECAUSE OF THE NEW HISTORICISM!!!
Is a sock puppet the ultimate sycophant?
Great, since I live in CA, that means I am less of a “chicken hawk” then Jeff who lives more “a far” from Iraq in Colorado. Of course, those on the Eastern seaboard are all super chicken hawks… it really is all about the layers.
I don’t know anymore.
Remember even the harsh winters and the mountains!
I once shot a socophant in my pajamas…
So the dude at the link thinks that “racism” doesn’t really describe whats going on when people are bigoted towards hispanics or arabs? Because, unlike others, they’re not ‘scientifically’ a “race.” Ok.
Whatever the term, the behavior described by Greenwald is to be deplored. But the regular ole charge that you got to be in fight to decide whether others fight? thats to be touted. The hippies should be in charge.
I remember the Graveyard of Empires. Hell, I remember the Poppies and Warlords and the Great Taliban Offensives (goats in lingerie) this very freaking year.
Actus – that’s the most…talkative… you’ve been in a while.
IGNORE ACTUS. This is your public service announcement. IF YOU ENGAGE ACTUS, I will cockpunch you myself.
Proving my point, actus. Thanks.
With that logic–Saddam Hussein sits astride the Gulf like a colossus. I remember the debates in 1990 and early ‘91 and your side sure as hell wasn’t 90% in support of anything except recovering the glory days of hippiedom. Some things never change and good luck on that…
Yoshida, I’ve got hands the size of rose bushes. I will get both of your hanging fruit, I promise
.
They dont let you use the internet while in the bar exam.
Sorry, Verc.
I’m annoyed with all the revisionism on the left that goes unchallenged.
wishbone, don’t come out to play with the Moron.
Actus: You should stop taking the drugs you currently imbibe: they are reducing your alreadyincoherent posts. Best and Piece(40 mm Glock)
Shorter actass: “Hey you guys, quit obsessing over that other guy and kick me around some. I needs me some lovin’ over here!”
actus, you’re missing the point.
Jacoby wasn’t advocating, and no one here was advocating, the employment of the term—what Jeff is doing is decrying the attempt to use a newly ginned-up meaning (complete with suspiciously altered Wiki) to render empty the set of users of the term.
One can accept the terms currently used to refer to an action one deplores, and in deploring the change of those terms continue to deplore the action. Please tell me you grasp that.
Do you like history, wishbone? Rome’s greatest adversary, Hannibal, defeated Roman armies three times but one general starved him of support until Roman armies defeated Hannibal’s base of support in Spain, Sicily and side adventures in Illyria and Greece. Then with Hannibal’s forces starved in Italia, Rome threatened Carthage and forced him to withdraw.
Let actus talk and talk and bluster and bluster.
He cannot scale the obstacles of knowledge on virtually any matter that comes up nor can match argument for argument a logical discussion. Yet he thinks that he is superior in some way or another.
So starve him. Let him destroy himself on our walls and when he fights so far away from his base of support, which he will no doubt go, sweep through his exposed rear as Rome did at Metataurus.
He is vain. Destroy his vanity. IGNORE him. Trust me, I know.
You’re right to be proactive on this, Verc.
Congrats may well be in order for Actus, however, on confronting (and passing, I take it?) the Bar.
When there is no truth and words have no meaning, any text, or any event for that matter, can be turned around and made to say or mean the exact opposite of what it actually says or means.
Turning truth and reality upside down. Travelling to a place where black is white, up is down, and intent doesn’t matter as much as forcing it to fit into a new, interpretive paradigm that bears no resemblance to any sense or significance allowed by the author.
It is the dialectic, dammit, the dialectic!
IT reveals the truth. IT derives the truth from contradiction. IT is inexorable. As soon as you understand it, you understand liberals, their logic, their academe, the failure of communism, and everything!
Steve, MD, Tricky Dick, and McGehee, NO PIE FOR YOU!
Verc, I will let you sweep through actus’ exposed rear.
Oh well, I intended to drink heavily tonight, anyway.
I’ve got that cockpunch sandwich you ordered, geezer. Hold the mayo?
I think the Chickenhawk thing is appropriate when describing those who are unduly pro -War but are unwilling to inconvenience themselves to support the war effort.
For example, I think a relevant question to Chickenhawkedness is, to use a favorite example of the Left, ‘How many times has Jonah Goldberg donated blood? Donated items or money to the USO?” Or, is Jonah Goldberg bitching about a foreseeable domestic consequence to the Iraq war (e.g. higher gas prices)?
People who ‘support the war’ but don’t do a damn thing except blog about their support of the war are rightly the objects of scorn in the sense of ‘All that’s necessary for Evil to triumph …’.
On another Greenwald trope – the Eliminationist Rhetoric of the Right (or how Jeff Goldstein is perhaps the Most Evilist Person in America){ed note: my characterization} Greenwald is alternately stricken then afflicted by what he sees as baby-step eliminationist rhetoric used by the Right.
This includes the ‘rope, tree, {whomever}, some assembly required’ schtick used by Misha and, oh, SadlyNo.
With all the talk about SockPuppetry, I looked to dKos and found there’s been some of that there recently. A long-ass Kossack post regarding Kos banning of Christopher Floyd for alleged sock-puppetry back in June of this year.
The post is here: Sockpuppets and Kos Basically, Kos booted a popular commenter based on alleged sock-puppetry. Whining ensued.
But the whining is secondary to the ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC used by Kos Himself.
Kos replies to a defender of the sockpuppet here:
Verc sez:
There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image; make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity.
tw: money
Yes, but moreso, we require your fealty.
Totally. Whatever the term, the linking of pro-warness with personal courage should be deplored. Whatever the term, the idea that someone who has not served being able to comment on war should be touted.
I’ll settle for chickenhawk becoming the former, and not being the latter. Sounds like a good way to achieve that objective.
But the whole bit about the scientificnesss of races? that was just kind of weird.
I think the Chickenhawk thing is appropriate when describing those who are unduly pro -War but are unwilling to inconvenience themselves to support the war effort.
For example, I think a relevant question to Chickenhawkedness is, to use a favorite example of the Left, ‘How many times has Jonah Goldberg donated blood? Donated items or money to the USO?” Or, is Jonah Goldberg bitching about a foreseeable domestic consequence to the Iraq war (e.g. higher gas prices)?
People who ‘support the war’ but don’t do a damn thing except blog about their support of the war are rightly the objects of scorn in the sense of ‘All that’s necessary for Evil to triumph …’.
On another Greenwald trope – the Eliminationist Rhetoric of the Right (or how Jeff Goldstein is perhaps the Most Evilist Person in America){ed note: my characterization} Greenwald is alternately stricken then afflicted by what he sees as baby-step eliminationist rhetoric used by the Right.
This includes the ‘rope, tree, {whomever}, some assembly required’ schtick used by Misha and, oh, SadlyNo.
With all the talk about SockPuppetry, I looked to dKos and found there’s been some of that there recently. A long-ass Kossack post regarding Kos banning of Christopher Floyd for alleged sock-puppetry back in June of this year.
The post is here: Sockpuppets and Kos Basically, Kos booted a popular commenter based on alleged sock-puppetry. Whining ensued.
But the whining is secondary to the ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC used by Kos Himself.
Kos replies to a defender of the sockpuppet here:
So, using a Greenwaldian analysis, favored by Glenn Greenwald and at least three others in the blogosphere, we know that Kos favors the unitary executive, and also he would put NINE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES in conditions WORSE THAN GUANTANAMO Bay and, further, KOS would suspend our laws by declaring martial law.
Well.
That’s what Kos said.
Maybe Greenwald just doesn’t know that Kos wants to be the kind of unitary executive that Greenwald is so skairt of.
If you go and follow the link you’ll find out that Kos was being hyperbolic (I think) in response to the defender of the Chris Floyd. For instance, Kos goes on to declare that were he in charge the Cubs would win the World Series. Come to think of it, though, the Cubs winning the Series is the Seventh Sign of the Apocalypse – so Kos is not only a unitary executive wannabe but one consumed by his religious zeal.
or something.
Words. Context. Some Assembly Required.
Maybe Greenwald should buy the T-Shirt.
But, remember, kiddies – if anybody on the Left says that the Right is consumed with Eliminationist Rhetoric, you can always reply:
I bet all Glen’s sockpuppets are noticibly stiff and cruncy about the mouth…
Sorry, sorry, sorry….
Hold the mayo?
Ewwwwwwww…
I’ll pass.
Pablo, I think that Verc is not demanding unquestioning fealty. He is requesting consistency.
Actus is a proponent of what this thread is about. For example, he fails to realize that the link is not about the “scientificness” of race, but about the left’s consistent use of race to silence debate, and even education to inform opinion, when race is not even an issue. His use of the idea of the “scientificness of race” as being wierd or haunting or chilling in this discussion, for example, is not central to the essay at the link. The use of racism as a charge, as a straw man, as it were, is a common tactic of the left used to change definitions, to silence debate, when the debate becomes too burdensome. He uses that ploy even now.
Is it any wonder that Verc gets pissed? I do, when lefties quash debate with unsupported charges of victimization, racism, poverty, exploitation, blah, blah, blah.
You would think with all that moving around that the goalposts would start to get heavy after a while. Not to mention all that post-hole digging.
Maybe Queen LaDouche is enjoying seeing all those ripped abs and cut biceps in action.
Goalposts and etymological feng shui: “Its a deadlycombination!!!” /FMB
Pablo, actus brings out my natural Agent Orange and drives me crazy. When other people start jumping in the ankle deep wading pool that actus is in, something just snaps and so I go completely crazy like a Piranha.
Usually I go after actus. But NO MORE!
I realize that actus is ‘hugging’ PW commenters like Hezb’allah ‘hugs’ hospitals, and so therefore the best way to cure us of this problem is to shoot the hostages. Life’s a bitch.
He’s just so damned willful. I’ll have a word with him after Two Minutes Hate.
But thats not the point that nuthouse made. The point he made was that its incorrect to call anti-hispanic or anti-arab bigotry as racism. Which is just kind of weird. And seems to me to be the redefinition of the term.
His other point, on the chickenhawk/personal courage thing, is pretty on. Perhaps the name for those who associate pro-warness with courage is something more like the 101st Keyboard brigade. But thats not quite on. Thats people who think they’re fighting the war—so some assumption of personal courage. But the main problem is that its limited to the internets.
I could never figure that one out. Afghanistan has basically the same climate as my home town, Alamosa.
When was the last time you heard that an Alamosa winter would kill thousands?
God. There’s some pun to be made here with Punic, but I’m just too tired.
(I did once call the biggest blackest Master Chief In The Navy “C.P.O. Africanus.”)
tbogg sighting!
Jeff gives the ladies-hosiery sales technician a slap in the foreskin that SHALL BE SUNG BY HEROES FOR A THOUSAND GENERATIONS.
Act just gets off on derailment.
I’m an American taxpayer. It’s not chickenhawk in voicing my opinion where my money should be spent. I suggest I do have a legitimate voice in how the American military should be used.
How dare they question my cowardess!
fwiw, the only people associating pro-warness with ‘courage’ is the Left. It helps them make the ‘Chickenhawk’ argument, as such.
Nobody on the Right, I hope, associates their <u><i>blogging about events while living in America
as being an ‘act of courage’.
That peculiar definition of ‘courage’- writing about stuff in a country that allows free speech – belongs to the Left alone.
Perhaps those Lefties comprise the 82nd “Get the Fuck Over Yourselves” Chairborne Division.
And my cowardice!
Was that a “bar exam” or a “behind bars”?
tw: as Return Of The Living Daed
BumperStickerist, you have until the count of -1 to put the special bike helmet down and egress the troll cage. Not YET…
N.O.Brain, where’s schoolmarm when you need her?
The point he made was that its incorrect to call anti-hispanic or anti-arab bigotry as racism. Which is just kind of weird. And seems to me to be the redefinition of the term.
The point is that liberals tend to call any criticism of Hispanics or Arabs or blacks (ahem: African-Americans) or Jews bigotry and racism. Contemporary liberalism has equated criticism with racism to silence debate.
I will re-read the article at the link to be sure that your use of the word “bigotry” is unwarranted. I think he was saying it is incorrect to call any criticism bigotry and racism, not that bigory cannot be called racism.
Contemporary liberalism has equated criticism with racism to silence debate.
There would seem to be a pattern emerging. Got nothing of merit on the war? Call your interlocutor a chickenhawk! Can’t defend 40 years of failed social programs on the merits? Call him cold-hearted for questioning the outcomes rather than lauding your good intentions!
TW: Just maybe it will become clear.
More bad news for GiGi.
ACLU Vs. AT&T Case Dismissed
Justice Department sues to block Missouri from getting phone records
I have re-read the pertinent parts of the linked article, and it does not assert anything about “scientificness” of race; it rather condemns the tendency of contemporary liberals to assign race to groups in an effort to assign victim status in an effort to harvest political power.
Difference does not mean inherent disadvantage, unless one is a liberal in search of political power.
If you dedicate yourself to contemporary liberalism’s goals as a minority, you become a self-fulfilling victim.
Verc – troll cage?
actually, the repost was that I was trying to fix an html tag, but doing so poorly. If Jeff cares to fix the tag in the first post and delete the second post – and this post – then so be it.
Otherwise, remember that the Big Billy Goat Gruff defeats the troll in the fairy tale by knocking him off the brige.
But nobody’s ever uses the nick ‘BigBillyGoatGruff’ when dealing with a troll.
Probably because of the Jews.
,
From the ACLU vs AT&T case:
“The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government’s intelligence activities,†the 40-page opinion said.
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly’s ruling would appear to be at odds with Mr. Keller’s.
Not to mention that Terkel, et al., couldn’t demonstrate that THEIR records were turned over. And they didn’t have standing, neither.
(Does strict grammar count in the TW Olympiad?)
The war in Afghanistan was supported by roughly 90% of Americans, as was the first Persian Gulf War, even though only a tiny fraction of war supporters would actually fight in those wars which they advocated.
You’d think a “best selling author” who is so “smart” would bother to source that utter bullshit.
No worries, it is accepted fact among those following along with him.
It makes them feel less treasonous.
By the way “supported” is hardly a ringing endorsement of modern day liberalism and the silly (and false) “support the troops” mantra.
I did a post on this topic using this poll:
A
Greenwald is a sockpuppeter, a liar, and an embarrassment to his cause.
Although there is no formal definition for it, the “chicken hawk†criticism is not typically made against someone who merely (a) advocates a war but (b) will not fight in that war and/or has never fought in any war (although, admittedly, there are those who mis-use the term that way).
That would be news to 99% of your readers “Wilson.”
Honestly, the depths these intellectual lightweights will sink to is stunning.
Ok.
If they didn’t have standing, then the court wouldn’t have subject matter jurisdiction to issue this ruling.
Do you see the problem if it is laid out in front of you actus? Hispanic and Arab is defined by language and/or religion. This does not fit the traditional definition of race, or racism. But the term has been misused so much it hardly has any definition at all anymore, it is interchangable with bigotry and prejudice.
Never mind, I give up. B MOE and geezer, come to the front counter for your complimentary cockpunch.
Now that deserves some sort of award.
And not Verc’s cockpunch variety either.
Thats what I thought. Thanks.
But I’m still unclear on which races are ‘scientifically’ so.
If I only read the bolded parts, things do look a bit problematic. But we can go beyond that. Its ok.
Lik I said, I think its ok to call anti-hispanic and anti-arab bigots “racists.” And I think most people would agree that anti-arab and anti-hispanic bigots are “racists.”
Like redefining “racism†to include ethnic groups that are not of another race and are in fact, scientifically speaking, as white as the driven snow (Hispanics, Arabs, and anyone else who wants to piggyback on top of the grievance culture of the left
This is the precise point. Racism has become a mantra of the left divorced from reality, engaged only for political benefit and not for any moral reason.
For example, certified malicious liar Al Sharpton is a political power in contemporary liberalism’s arsenal, but he was found guilty, in a civil suit, of defaming WHITE police officers and a WHITE prosecutor in an effort to ruin their careers and lives, all for political gain. Sharpton has been nominated for president by the Democrat Party, a completely amoral achievement! It was engaged only for political gain, ignoring the hate Sharpton espouses.
What the article asserts is not a dismissal of racism. What it reveals is that racism no longer means, to contemporary liberals, hate based upon identifiable physiognomy; it is merely political opportunism based upon class warfare principles.
We can even make it repetitive.
We can even make it repetitive.
Look at the Stalinist group International ANSWER( Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). You do not make something a part of your plank, your raison d’etre unless you think it is pliable enough to fit anything and anywhere.
If you can just make stuff up, there’s no need to even worry about wheter anti-hispanic bigots are racists or not.
That was probably meant to be “name placed in nomination”, actus.
But by all means continue to ignore Greenwald’s rewriting of history.
“Going beyond that” is redefining the terms. The bolded parts are what racist and racism meant when I was a young man. It was a serious insult to be called a racist, it put you in league with the Klan. Because it had such a sting, people began to abuse the word until it is now a joke. By your definition I could be called a racist for saying I don’t like Italian cooking.
Since you are obviously concerned with people making up stuff.
By using the definition in the dictionary. Gotcha.
But I don’t know if you know bout this, but sometimes the meaning of words change over time. I don’t have an advanced degree in this stuff, so I cant really explain to you how it works. But I will say this: people were referring to things like the ‘german race’ way before I was born.
Are you an anti-Italian bigot?
RACIST! <cockpunch>
If you can just make stuff up, there’s no need to even worry about wheter anti-hispanic bigots are racists or not.
Posted by actus | permalink
on 07/25 at 09:52 PM
That was probably meant to be “name placed in nominationâ€Â, actus.
But by all means continue to ignore Greenwald’s rewriting of history.
Posted by wishbone | permalink
on 07/25 at 10:02 PM
Thank you, wishbone.
A nomination can mean less than the one who runs for a party in the final race, and I was not specific enough to anticipate a debate dodge, eh?
Actus,
Can you get of the nitpicking (I’m not sure why I’m asking because that’s what you do) and focus on the FACT that Greenwald made up shit? Bald-faced made them up? All to reinforce his cockamamie reinvention of the chickenhawk mantra?
No fuckin’ shit, for real?
I am sorry, verc, I should have listened:
THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?
Wingnuts are still pushing the Greenwald “scandal”? Look, I too think it would be groovy if Ace could make anough cash from his blog to buy that duplex he’s had his eye on, but, let’s face it, this story has no legs…
He was fun. INTEL operator. Had forearms like Popeye from 30 years of typing traffic on an ASR33.
I think actus is right on the point that it is reasonable to call those who are anti-hispanic or anti-arab (or anti-german) racist. In the spirit of being fair.
Fuck, busted using a sock puppet, too.
Wingnuts are still pushing the Greenwald “scandal�
Glenn, you are one tireless little busy bee.
Is that why Greenwald got all those extra socks laying around? He gots no feet to put them on?
I did. I said that if what greenwald said is chickenhawk is in fact not chickenhawk, then we need to come up with some other term for it. Because its pretty deplorable stuff. And meanwhile, we should work to untether this concept that those who do not fight cannot discuss the figth from words with negative connotations—words like chickenhawk. Because its actually a good thing when those of us who have no wish to fight are given an equal say in whether or not we fight.
Perhaps it would be better if we just did use his definition of chickenhawk, and not any other.
Ben, repent your misdeeds with the Typing Telephone Pole. Only through scrotal-slapping may absolution lie.
BTW: if you google “chickenhawk personal courage” you’ll find that greenwald’s use of this concept in his definition is not novel. Ie. he’s not making it up.
I prefer to use the term Greenwald “egotistical mastubatory pathetic imitations of Charlie McCarthy.” But to each his own, “boozer.”
P.S.: Your wires are showing. Some good CGI software can help you with that.
Maybe.
However,
He is making this up. Kinda undermines the whole foundation, huh?
Idiot.
I think all this intellectual dishonesty from the left is a relic of Marxist propaganda, the object of which is to foment rebellion and class warefare in the interests of the ultimate goal of revolution. In order to goad people into acting so rashly, it is necessary to condense language into a series of code words that create a visceral response having nothing to do with fine distinctions in thought.
Wench, can you pour me another?
You know, its really quite beautiful when you think about it all. The divine prophecy–the destiny–of one inevitable conclusion slipping closer by the comment.
It is really poetry in motion, a fantastic exhibition like watching the steady prowl of lions on the sahara or a date-rapist popping up his collar before he hands the 13-year old the Roofie-garita.
YOU KNOW how this is going to end up. You’ve seen this move too many times before and yet, watching the engagement with Actardo never fails to inspire an appreciation of nature, like watching a meteorite fall from the sky, missing the brothel, crackhouse and mob bar and landing directly on the blind old lady collecting blankets for disabled orphans.
Well, judging from the many comments on this post, one of which actually highlighted my quote from Mr. Moran’s post, I can only summarize this.
Most of you were educated in whole language learning–which, for the uninformed, is an academic fad (read: fraud) based on the idea that one can learn a language by studying it as a whole–as opposed to traditional grammar that stresses one can only learn a language by studying its component first–parts of speech, vocabulary, syntax, punctuation–then learning how to put them together as a whole.
The latter produces educated minds capable of independent thought. The former produces only Calibans: “You taught me language, and my benefit on’t is, I know how to curse” (The Tempest).
Nope, sorry, phonics and old fashioned traditional grammar, on account of I’m old.
I also grew up out here on the Open Range, where we learn to tell a normal guy from a raging dickwad.
Guess the normal guy wasn’t in at your house today.
Most of you were educated in whole language learning…
You willing to wager on that one, Occidental?
So, are we still chickenhawks or not?
Posted by Great Mencken’s Ghost
Yes.
Even the veterans and the active and reserve members of the military? Are we chickenhawks?
actus: There is no such thing as a chickenhawk; the concept is as irrational as Jacoby suggests. It’s a piece of bullshit Kos pulled out of his ass. The term caught on with the crowd of youthful, undemanding intellects that hangs out at his place. Otherwise, it’s laughable. You might as well call someone a ‘big fat poopyhead’ for all the sense it makes.
Umm, Verc, I think you forgot to close your earlier <cockslap> tag.