You know what will get you banned?
Congratulations, John Kusch at IP address 69.11.140.17, you've been banned! For your remarks in this post. To recap: some little snoot named Adam dropped his pearls of wisdom in the comments, which I mocked, because they were both dull and tired. Then along came Phil, who told me I was rude. (Gee, Phil, did you ever wonder why this site is called "Spleenville," Not "Inn of the Fourth Happiness-Ville," or "Fluffy Bunnyville"? LIKE THE FAQ SAYS, if you want your ego massaged, go elsewhere.) Then along comes this John creature, whose remarks I will reproduce here for your pleasure:
Being wrong is okay. Lots of people make mistakes. Without making mistakes, people can't learn. It's a process. But when you know you're wrong, and you keep at it, that's cause for concern.The phrase "same old lines of tired bullshit" is essentially meaningless. Adam didn't even really make an argument -- he merely stated that Natalie Maines had a political opinion, and that her opinion is shared by many Americans. He wasn't saying that we're a big powerful mob (though pro-war people often use that very argument), or that pro-war people better watch out, or really anything like that. I'd say Andrea's projecting a bit, not to mention that her jingoistic phrasing labels her far more of a sycophant than Adam, who seems to be a relatively thoughtful person.
It's so ironic that pro-war people -- people who support attack -- so often see themselves as under attack, even while they're attacking anti-war people. This phenomenon has been well-documented in psychology: we tend to see in others those things we're most guilty of ourselves.
Love the line about me being a sycophant. To whom? Myself? Dubya? -- oh that must be it. I can't wait for some other puppy to jump in here and accuse me of being one of Dubya's drones. Boring. Why are you antiwar people -- or "thoughtful," "neutral" people, or whatever you are calling yourselves -- so goddamned boring? I refuse to get into boring, pointless discussions with boring, pointless people.
Posted by Andrea Harris at May 7, 2003 09:28 AMSeveral people have attempted to be polite and reasonable at you, which seems to be like casting pearls before particularly irritable and venomous swine.
So I thought I'd just point out that you seem to be a fucking bitch.
Posted by: Sparky at May 7, 2003 at 09:45 AMBoy, these people sure are dumb, aren't they? Guess I need to add more chlorine to the blog pool.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 7, 2003 at 10:19 AMAnd Sparky, you are particularly stupid if anything you have read on this blog has led you to believe that the author gives a rat's ass what you think.
FOAD.
Posted by: Demosthenes at May 7, 2003 at 10:20 AMMary, please explain that bit to me. I'm not talking over her head, I hope. I'm not trying out amateur psychology. I'm not being thoughtful or neutral. I'm surprised my post hasn't been deleted and my IP banned yet, but I don't really see how I've played into proving her point. Maybe I just haven't been able to determine what her point is.
Here's a question: Why have a comments system if you don't want to hear what your readership have to say?
Posted by: Sparky at May 7, 2003 at 10:20 AMI suffer no illusion that she cares anything about what I think. I just thought I'd poke the rabid creature and see how long the frenzy could be maintained. I didn't feel like putting in the effort to be rational or polite like the others, given that got them nowhere fast.
Posted by: Sparky at May 7, 2003 at 10:22 AMIt sure got you nowhere fast. Oh -- and you're banned. Happy?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 7, 2003 at 10:24 AMYeah, and that IP address is banned too, assdink. Keep on shitting in my comments, and I will complain to your hosting service. I am NOT kidding. I do NOT exist for you to post your shit here. Keep it on your own STUPID, BADLY DESIGNED, BORING website.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 7, 2003 at 10:30 AMDid you say you were kidding? I hope so. Or are you going to complain to my hosting service, "I am unable to exert petty control over the voices of others on my site."
Posted by: Sparky at May 7, 2003 at 10:40 AMOf course 'Sparky' exerts petty control over the voices of others at his own website by not allowing comments there. What a dork.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at May 7, 2003 at 10:48 AMThe question is, if he did have a comments section would he be a banning Nazi bitch?
Posted by: clvrmonkey at May 7, 2003 at 10:52 AMSparky – it’s hard to flame when all your sparks aren’t exactly firing. To answer your question, a blog is privately owned and paid for by the blogger, and they have the right to refuse bandwidth and bytes to anyone they please. Andrea was making that point in her post.
Your curses and abuse also fall under the ‘boring’ category. It’s just more of the same. You can't be surprised that you’re banned..
Posted by: mary at May 7, 2003 at 10:56 AMHe's not surprised that he was banned. He's surprised that John Kusch was banned.
If a blogger wants her "ego massaged" then she should restrict posting to a hand selected few.
Posted by: clvrmonkey at May 7, 2003 at 11:11 AM‘she should restrict posting to a hand selected few’ – those are your rules, and you’re free to apply them to your own site (if you have one).
Posted by: mary at May 7, 2003 at 11:25 AMHey, "clvrmonkey" (wow, bet you sat up all night thinking up that one, you hacker, you), get your own blog and talk about me behind my back there.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 7, 2003 at 11:25 AMNazi bitch? Please. Andrea has comments up for people CONTRIBUTING THINGS TO THE DISCUSSION. As you verbally flatulent leftists have been on the wrong side of pretty much every issue since 9/11- except for "Trent Lott is a silly old man," natch- and your comments on this blog have been singularly pathetic, OF COURSE Andrea thinks every character you type is a waste of her valuable server space, and deletes it.
Frankly, I don't think you gave a damn that your heroic anti-fascist, Michael Moore, shut down his forum section entirely after his idiot remarks in England got noticed by sufficient numbers of people. But it's hardly relevant. This site is Andrea's PROPERTY. While you passive-aggressive quasi-socialists no doubt have a problem with the concept, understand that if you keep harassing someone and abusing their property, they have a right to tell your ISP to "discourage" you from further disturbance, re: deleting your account with them.
Oh, and clvrmonkey? I think it's hugely amusing that, just like Bill Whittle's trolls, you don't have the goddamn courtesy to sign your own fucking e-mail address to what you write. You're just an anonymous Marxist bitch who can't live with taking criticism which is far more coherent and valid than your broken mind could ever design. You also have a hella lot of gall telling Andrea how to run her blog. If she wants to restrict comments based on a username/password system like a LOT of Internet forums do, fine. If she wants to continue with her current system, fine. But it's her terms, as she pays for the bandwidth and writes the material, and certainly not yours.
Posted by: trevalyan at May 7, 2003 at 11:43 AM"..get your own blog and talk about me behind my back there."
Does this mean you prefer I talk behind your back, or that you want me to do it elsewhere?
"Andrea has comments up for people CONTRIBUTING THINGS TO THE DISCUSSION."
Unless she doesn't like the contributions. In which case she bans the user.
I include my email address on trusted sites. For all I know Andrea Harris could make her living off of selling addresses to. It's a moot point actually. I've been trying to use smaller words to avoid talking over any one's head. It's boring. Goodbye.
Posted by: clvrmonkey at May 7, 2003 at 12:14 PMUh, yeah, I make my living selling email addresses to -- whom? You didn't finish your sentence, fool. And you know, I could easily find your email address if I cared to, which I don't.
Bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass, crybaby.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 7, 2003 at 12:26 PMIt must be very frustrating to believe in a failed ideology. Why, oh why don't they switch. Marxism had some hint of credibility in the 1920's but it's been all downhill from there. After 11-9-89 (Berlin wall falls) I really had hoped they would finally figure it out. But no, they continue to "deconstruct" reality until it has finally come to this...
Fortunately they really are being recognized widely in the US as a wretched band of crackpots.
Posted by: andi at May 7, 2003 at 01:25 PMYou know, maybe it's just me, but I think that Trevalyan has the right idea with the whole username/password system.
It might save you some level of irritation in the long run, Andrea (how many trolls really would want to bother registering?).
Just a thought,
Paul
Posted by: Paul Jané at May 7, 2003 at 02:31 PMGood Lordy LORD!
I come here for my daily dose of spleen, not to be affirmed or massaged or pleasured, or whatever. Which. Part. Of. S-P-L-E-E-N. Don't. You. Idiots. Understand? But, frankly, can you expect anything more from the congenital imbeciles who flock to this site like masochistic moths to Andrea's Flame-o-Spleen? They get exactly what they want, and thrive on this sort of self-inflicted flagellation.
Ok ... BORED now.
YAWN
Posted by: Brother Nikko at May 7, 2003 at 02:50 PMChrist, Andrea, when did you become such a fucktard-magnet? Gotta get some spray or something...
Posted by: Sekimori at May 7, 2003 at 03:20 PMNikko, you obviously have a greater overall level of faith in humanity than I do to expect most of these people even know what "spleen" means in this context.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at May 7, 2003 at 04:08 PMSorry, Sekimori, a spray's not gonna do it. Andrea need a 55-gallon drum of industrial-strength T*rd-Be-Gone to deal with some of these tards (or however they spell it).
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at May 7, 2003 at 05:01 PMAndrea, you better ban me now, because I believe that Bill Clinton was a good man and a good President.
Posted by: barney gumble at May 7, 2003 at 06:55 PMWow. First time visiter. This sounds like the fights I have with my closet liberal wife (she came out when the war started and we have been fighting ever since). Anyway, I probably would have been better off if I had married Andrea. At least I would know where I stand (and most likely, where to stand!) "Oh, I should move over to the right, no problem, babe".
Thanks for the smiles!
Posted by: John McCrarey at May 7, 2003 at 07:41 PMHeh heh. Five minutes of marriage to me would make you run back to your first wife so fast your feet would leave scorch marks on the concrete. Either that or you'd join a monastery. But thanks for visiting, and, um -- enjoy!
Up next: I address "Barney Gumble"!
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 7, 2003 at 10:25 PMRE one barney gumble
Andrea, even though the temptation to ban young barney is strong, please resist. Upon review of said blog, I have concluded that the anencephalic can be a source of humor.
No -- he is merely inane without even the amusement of being pitiful, and his posts are too long. They are also boring. I am not possessed of infinite server space.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 7, 2003 at 11:06 PMI just love how the left redefines the meaning of words. Xenophobia means an irrational fear of the other. How is opposition to the policies of France xenophobic in any way. France has a stated policy of opposition to the United States and many of us in the US take umbrage with that policy. Thus we have decided to not purchase French products as a way of showing our displeasure. Was it xenophobic when the left boycotted South Africa.
Andrea's right, these arguments are old and boring. What purpose do they serve. You disagree with the world view presented on this blog and all you can do is rant and rave and hurl epithets.
Come back when you have a rational argument.
Can you deny the results of the administration's Iraq policy? Can you deny that the Iraqi people are better of now than under Saddam? I sincerely doubt it.
The Administration's Iraq Policy changed when the war started. Where are the Weapons of Mass desctruction? This is a huge credibility problem for the U.S. The result is we invaded a country on flimsy premise then tried to change the subject.
Posted by: Phillip Harrington at May 8, 2003 at 04:29 PMNo, the result is the Iraqi people are many times better off than they were when Saddam was in power. The result is Saddam's government is no longer funding terrorists.
We had enough premise to invade when Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War. We should have invaded during the Clinton administration.
The policy has never changed. The policy was to get rid of Saddam. The stated justification may have changed but the policy never wavered.
Hey Andrea, Why not save yourself some time and trouble by limiting your responses to either "I know you are, but what am I?", or "la, la, la - I have my hands over my eyes and can't see what you wrote."?
If, as you contend, you did not care what others think, you wouldn't spend some much time saying so.
You're a fucking psychopath, established beyond a doubt by your rules prohibiting the expression of anything you don't understand, or "trying out amateur psychology BS on me."
oops. bet I just got myself banned from the kingdom.
Posted by: The Voice of Reason at May 10, 2003 at 02:51 PMOh, sweet fruckin' Jesus, the CLAMOR of you! Somebody make it shut up! Meanwhile, despite my tremulous FEAR of BANISHMENT from this den of self-righteous wisdom ("please don't publish my IP address! please please please please, AAAGGGGHHHHHHH!"), and since John Kusch can no longer respond in this most crucial of public forums, let me re-produce his comments on the subject directly from his site:
Posted by: Perry at May 12, 2003 at 11:45 AM