Here’s some more choice stuff from that stupid guy who thinks it’s “War Profiteering” when a bunch of strangers show up at your site every day to hear your thoughts on world events:
Yesterday Glenn Reynolds graced yesterdays article with the title, ‘Dumbest Blog Article Yet’. Apparently, I can’t write, and nobody is listening. Of course, there’s no point me arguing this fact, it’s obviously true.
So let’s disseminate Reynolds response bit by bit.
Uh, “disseminate it”? You don’t mean “dissect it,” do ya’ genius?
Do yourself a favor: Mix in an apostrophe every now and then. Before you know it, you’ll be writing intelligible sentences.
There’ll be no stoppin’ you after that.
’S funny; I looked at his site, and didn’t see any of those “alternative” views that he’s demanding that Reynolds present.
Of course, in his deconstructed discourse, “alternative” probably means “held by goose-stepping Chomskyites who would bear my love child and/or fellate me on demand”.
Best name for a blog ever, John: “Fellate Me On Demand.”
Run with it!
I suspect he means “decimate”, though he does anything but.
See, if he started a warblog he’d be rolling in those big bucks right quick and could afford a spell checker…
Myria
I won’t visit him, not just because he’s and idiot too dumb to know it, but because I see his game. He figures, rightly, that going after Reynolds will net him a shitload X2 of hits. Since not everyone who reads Reynolds holds his views, some of those htis will stick, and this guy will have built a healthy readership with no effort at all. He’s too stupid to give a crap about the dozen or so people who might rip him, and each of you just sends him more traffic. He’s loving this, and I won’t feed his greed. Yes, that was a cheap rhyme. Don’t thank me, just throw money.
If any of our readership sticks with him…well, asta la vista.
I mean, he’s <i>that</i> godawful…
Gawd-dammit! You just made me waste a seriously large gulp of expensive Shiner Blonde. Asshole.
Where are the frickin’ towels I washed yesterday?
I visited this dude’s site and thought it was like a lot of other “antiwar” or “pro-peace” or whatever they are websites: all pretty effects, nice design, and no content. Why bother with all the fancy html formatting if you can’t even formulate an idea beyond “Glenn Reynolds is a poopyhead!”
No, I don’t mean “disect”.
Dictionary.com: <a href=”http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=disseminate”>Disseminate</a>: “to diffuse; as, principles, ideas, opinions, and errors are disseminated when they are spread abroad for propagation. “
Somehow everyone here has managed to avoid facing the 800-pound gorilla in the corner – that Reynolds is making money from 9/11. Even he can’t argue against it, and doesn’t, and neither do you.
The insults, not backed by any facts, simply prove to me that warbloggers are quick to speak, but not to think.
Uh. Then I guess Glenn and his 35K hits per day can do his own “disseminating” (and yeah, I know what it means, genius)— rather than relying on you to “disseminate his post bit by bit” for him (which <i>still</i> makes absolutely no sense).
Insults not backed by facts, you say? Well let’s see: You’re not very bright. Your writing is atrocious. And you’re trolling for hits. Those are <i>facts</i>, first and foremost.
They just so happen to be insults, as well.
Listen: Reynolds is a law prof. offering his opinions to those who wish to give a listen. Should those visitors to his site wish to show their appreciation for his expertise, so be it.
Hardly war profiteering, though—and hardly worth any more of my time. The only reason I posted this to begin with was so I could call you “that stupid guy.”
I thought it would be funny, and it was.
No go away and troll no more, or stick around and enjoy some reasoned debate.
Let’s see. You accuse him of misusing a word – already the last resort of those with no legitmate argument to make – and attack him using the BRILLIANT sarcastic rejoinder “genius”. Then when Neale comes back and points out to you that he did indeed use the word correctly, you respond using the BRILLANT sarcastic rejoinder “genius.” Wow, you da man, Jeff. You SO da man.
“Insults not backed by facts? Look at your post! You’re not very bright. Your writing is atrocious. And you’re trolling for hits. Those are facts.”
Actually, every single one of those statements are opinions, not facts. 1+1=2 is a fact. “Your writing sucks” is an opinion. That you don’t know the difference between the definitions of “opinion” and “fact” … now THAT’S a fact.
Who’s trolling who, in the end?
Christ, now it’s the tag team geniuses!
Yes, I am the man. I know it, you know it, your li’l friend knows it.
And yes, I know the difference between “opinion” and “fact.” I also know how comedy works. If you don’t get it, you’re welcome to haunt other sites.
Genius.
No, “Your writing sucks” isn’t an opinion, Flapjack, it’s a matter of taste—yours apparently being in your mouth.
Good/dumb…whatever.
All I see is the predictable result of notriety. You’ve got the big dog getting nipped at by all the little dogs. It’s a version of the Alpha Male/ Beta Male thing that manifests itself in human behavior through trying to tear down or sully the reputation of one who has gained a measure of popularity that’s been denied others. This behavior is often wrapped up in a “cause” to give it an air of legitimacy, but the cause is nothing more than an excuse to engage in shenanigans.
Has the moron bothered to ‘splain HOW this war profiteering is being done? Is it the “tip jar”? I read his post and it wasn’t clear, at all. All he does it trot out the bog-standard “he’s telling people what they want to hear!” (POT! KETTLE! BANG!)
Most blogs are just places to vent, either hosted on a free service or paid for out of the blogger’s pockets. People who get popular enough have to offset the costs of supporting their habit; thus, tip jars. Most bloggers are spending much more than they could ever hope to bring in. Heck, MY blog nearly got me sued by that guy featured in a recent salon.com story.
If it’s “war profiteering” to express an opinion, then I submit that the anti-globalisation crowd, every media outlet in the world (especially the self-proclaimed “alternative” press), and every anti-war politician is ALSO a war profiteer.
I guess Michael Moore would be an “anti-war profiteer,” then?
Neale’s use of disseminate is, of course, incorrect. “Let’s *propagate* Reynolds [sic] response bit by bit.” That may not be a null statement, but it means something closer to advertising Glen’s site (in small pieces) than taking it down. The profiteering charge hasn’t been answered only because it’s so lame. All journalists who make any money owe some debt to the events of the world around them. However, the idea that someone with a law degree could post as much as Glen does and receive fair compensation for his time is rather absurd.
What a moron—he still doesn’t know what disseminate means.
But I really like DoublePancakeGuy’s comments—he exemplifies the humorlessness endemic among the antiwarblogger crowd. And he doesn’t know what disseminate means, either!
I gotta go phlegmatically inseminate some of my opponents’ expectorations, over on my own website.
Glenn Reynolds started his blog before the war and he talks about a lot more than just the war. And I remember when he started the tip jar. It was at the suggestion of his readers.
I still don’t think Neale used “disseminate” correctly. He’s just pretending he knew what it meant all along to save face. Why on earth would he want to disseminate information that he finds abhorent? Is Reynolds giving him kickbacks from all of his “war profiteering” funds?
Hello/Oye,
Me am hip-styli antiwar blawgr.
It am time to disseminate me up some tasty non-GM soy-based snacks. Mmmmm… PC.
Why antiantiwarblawgr make fun of people who am disseminated? Test tube babies rewl.
viva la dissemination!
This guy reminds me of a lot of slashdot posters– they are aggressively ignorant. Rather than admit their mistakes, their ignorance, or even their malaproprisms, they attack any who dare expose their ignorance, then proclaim that they are the only truly enlightened among us.
This guy in particular has only brought his ignorance with him, and is determined to leave with it intact.
Here’s the best yet from Warblogger Watch:
<blockquote>Let’s all stand up and declare that it’s not okay that the Israelis commit genocide upon the Palestinians. That, if in fact, the choice comes
between relocating the entirety of the Israeli population to the United States–where they would be welcome–and commiting genocide over
a piece a land, surely they would choose to move. Otherwise, they would be no different than the Nazis.</blockquote>
Happy (belated?) Birthday, Jeff!
I am surprised that a social liberal like yourself would get so upset by right wing nuts. Technological progress can be scary, and I’m sure he fears being sprayed with protein wisdom, even if it is artificially disseminated. ‘nuff said.
One of the worst things about warbloggers is that they will link to anything as long as it insults one of their favorite targets.
Glenn Reynolds, if you’re out there—I want the five minutes back I just spent reading these comments.
It took you a whole five minutes to read those comments? Hmmm.
The problem is not whether disseminate is or is not being used correctly; the problem is whether or not the United States and Israel have a right to defend themselves against those who would attack them. Since this gentleman obviously feels that we and the Israelis do not, there is hardly any point in continuing the conversation. He is convinced of the correctness of his views, and he is welcome to that belief, but I believe that he is the wrongest kind of wrong. His site is a prolonged apologia for appeasement, despite the overwhelming historical evidence that appeasement does not and will not work against those determined to destroy you; it can only delay the inevitable showdown, usually to a time and place of your enemy’s choosing. But it’s a reasonably free country and he may believe what he chooses.
Y’all have to learn to appreciate this twerp’s site for what it is…an extended exercise in absurdist comedy. Come on now, you’d have to have seen Yassir Arafat’s face when he finally realized just where that cigar Bill gave him had BEEN to laugh any harder. We should be encouraging him (not least, encouraging him to buy a Strunk and White’s and a decent dictionary), not tearing him down…
ProF REynolDs: WE hAve yr reSpOnse. if U eVeR waNt to sEe It in 1 PIEce aGaIn, u MusT leAve $10,000 iN unmArkEd $20 Billz IN loCker #24 oF tHe kNOxviLle gREyHound dePOT beFORe nOOn WED. If wE HavE nOt hearD FrOm u bY thAT Time oR if U trY To coNTacT tHe poLIce, WE wilL dISsemiNatE yr rESpONse 1 seNtencE at A tIme TO u & eVry1 elSe oN oUr mAiliNg liSt. “U hAVe Been waRneD!”
Speaking of profiteering…I haven’t seen many comments here that link directly to their page selling their books. Except Roger Cadenhead. Can I have my 15 seconds back, Roger?
<BLOCKQUOTE>”you’d have to have seen Yassir Arafat’s face when he finally realized just where that cigar Bill gave him had BEEN to laugh any harder.”</BLOCKQUOTE>So THAT’S where Time got that cover picture!
There is a large difference in the meanings of the words “dissect” and “disseminate.”
To illustrate this point, I will use an example simple enough that even an anti-warblogger might understand:
To “dissect” a barrel of frogs, one would take them out, cut them open, and analyze the pieces.
To “disseminate” a barrel of frogs, on would pick them up and throw them at people (preferrably women, because it’s more fun to watch them scream).
I think that what the stupic guy really meant was “deconstruct” not “disseminate”. Regardless of what he meant, he’s still an assh**e in my book.
we note, in passing, that this site has a rather prominent ‘give me money’ link on its right-hand nav. we make no comment about whether the author is actively trying to profiteer from his vile opinions, but hope the jar is full of the same kind of hot air that he spouts.
“We” note?
What, do a bunch of you just sit in front of a computer and “surf” the “warblogs” together? Pansies.
And tell me—are my opinions “vile” because they’re different from (and better thought out than) your opinions (which, as opinions go, must smell like babies and flowers and rainbows)? Or are they “vile” for a more specific reason?
Add me to your “list,” troll monkeys.
“tell me—are my opinions “vile” because they’re different from (and better thought out than) your opinions”
Not, they’re vile because you’re a sick freak who can’t tell right from wrong, or even true from false.
Your kind runs around singing praises of the whack-jobs who deny flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Your kind has no regrets holding hands and singing “kumbaya” with Islamofascists who think Jews were behind the WTC attack (when you march or picket to protest against the war).
Your kind thinks suicide bombers are on the side of “peace” and “justice.”
Your kind lobs ludicrous charges at people who disagree with you, like accusing warbloggers of being profiteers.
Your kind has nothing but suspicion for the mainstream “corporate” media which supposedly tilts to the right–but you’ll lap up anything without question if it comes from an “indy” source.
Your kind IS vile, stupid, dishonest, obnoxious… etc. etc. etc.
Er, Mike?
I think you meant to address “devotchka blank” and not me, did you not?
I’m clearly pro-Israel, and if you catch me singing Kumbaya without a hint of irony, I hearby invite you to summarily smite me with a garden rake.
No, I was addressing your comments.
At least, I was addressing my misunderstood interpretation of your comments.
From a second, “disseminated” reading, it’s clear I was mistaken.