Well, I meant to post something, but playing with trolls' heads over on Blair's blog is just so much more fun. It's just so much fun I might put comments back on my own blog.
Tell me, is it me, or are all sorts of wiggly, maggot-like lifeforms emerging from the oozy depths these days? No, don't answer that; rhetorical question.
PS: that thing about putting comments back is, so far, merely sarcasm.
Look who has gained the courage to peek out of their caves -- two of my trolls have come creeping back. Let's see if I can draw more: Noam sux! Bush rox! Down with the UN and Barbara Streisand! Support gay marriage!*
*Why do I have to have just one species of troll?
As promised, "Mork's" third letter. We've become such pals, him and me. It's so nice to find a special friend. Isn't the internet wonderful?
And later, when I get around to it, I may add earlier correspondence from some other "special friends" who have communicated their love for me to the hate mail page. Because on the internet, no one can hear you scream, but everyone can laugh at you.
Some people do seem to be under the misapprehension that blogs are supposed to be democratic or something. Well, some people enjoy the sort of mudpie throwing contest that often results in an "open comment forum" -- but that's their problem. For myself, I assure all of you that I will continue to run this blog the way Fidel runs Cuba.
(PS: think invoking the sacred name of Fidel will get me respect from the lefties now? I mean, their respect is so important, or so I am always being told. Maybe I should replace the picture of Frodo with a photo of the Bearded One. What do you think?)
Update: Phil at Flying Chair comments. He will get an extra ration of rice!
I am going to let a guy have the last word -- the indespensable Jim Treacher. His new MT-ized blog hadn't even been up a week before he got to taste of the vinegary wine of Innernut Luv... and as a consequence he has come out with the hands-down Best Line Ever:
And to the bored dipshits out there who didn't think things were miserable enough already and tried to start even more fights between people, do your little victory dance. Be sure not to forget the move at the end where you go fuck yourself so hard that it affects the Earth's orbit around the sun.
Okay, that's two lines. So sue me.
Oh yeah -- and read his review of Attack of the Clones. I haven't seen this thing yet. However, a friend of mine gave me a video tape of Left Behind. So should I watch Kirk Cameron laying down some fierce Bible shizzat on Satan or George Lucas's Interstellar Wankathon? Decisions, decisions...
In light of remarks left on this post by one John Callendar, proprietor of an anti-everything site appropriately called Lies.com, it has occurred to me that of all the little internet conflicts that erupted here on my blog, by far the most unpleasant ones have been started by males. I have also noticed that all of the female arguers have eventually apologized for starting a fuss or at least backed off the hateful talk, at least conceding that I have the right to my own opinion on my own website. Whereas the male commenters have continued to attempt to have the last word. Now, I'm not into this male-vs.-female thing, in general, but I find it interesting how considering that I get most of my flack from those calling themselves liberal, and that a tenet of modern liberalism is the equality of men and women, how it so far has seemed to be the men who are most unpleasant and who refuse to leave me -- a woman -- alone or stop commenting on my blog when I request it.
The argument in question isn't even an argument -- it has descended to "You're a bitch, I'm going to bother you about it because I can." They aren't going to get anywhere with this -- it's just some sort of chest-beating gesture. They don't even seem to care, or realize, that they are making themselves seem much more unpleasant than me. All that matters is they must win, no matter what the battle or outcome. It adds nothing to the "dialogue" or "discussion" they are always babbling about. It certainly doesn't attract me or anyone else to their cause, whatever that is. It makes me wonder just how seriously they take their own beliefs.
Addendum: and to answer Mr. Callendar's charge -- no, I don't particularly "get off" on disagreements and flames. I try to have fun, here on this webbe syte. When someone posts something nasty, I am certainly not going to let them get away with it without responding in kind. Saying people "get off" on things is the usual charge people throw at others who won't bow down to them. Perhaps he would rather I did as some other people do, and turn off my comments, or post something about how "hurt" I am, or perhaps take down my site altogether. Does he "get off" on attacking people on their own website?
Okay, Mr. Paulsen has had enough of a scare -- though the phone call he refers to (see the comments) could have come from anyone for any reason -- if he is as obnoxious in real life as he is on other people's websites, I am sure there is a long list of people who'd love to call him names.
By the way, I do not approve of calling people's phone numbers and harrassing them. If someone who admires me thought they were helping by making an obscene phone call to Mr. Paulsen, let me tell this person now that they were not. If I had wanted Mr. Paulsen called, I would have done it myself. I put his info up on this page (I have since removed the address and phone number) to show Mr. Paulsen that one can't hide on the internet behind a fake name. (Actually, I wasn't even sure that this was his real info, until he helpfully confirmed that it was.) And no one here is my "little toadie" -- they made the decision to do what they did (if they really did) on their own time and out of their own free will, and if they get in trouble with the police because of it that is their fault not mine.
And to answer Mr. Paulsen's repeated claims that what he did was okay, because my website is "publicly accessible," I must remind him (and anyone else) that this site is not an open forum like a newsgroup or a message board. I consider this site to be more like a house -- my house. Sure, a house is publicly accessible, in that it has doors and windows, but there are also laws and customs regarding how the public must behave in and around someone's private home. I am sure that Mr. Paulsen would not appreciate having strangers watch him through the windows of wherever he lived, even if it was only to observe his most innocuous behavior (watching tv, eating, and so on). Also, I am sure that if he invites a friend, acquaintance, or stranger into his home he expects those persons not to start fistfights, smash the furniture, pee on the carpet, or call him, the host, names. Why does he and other trolls like him think this is fine to do on someone's personally-owned website? (I consider calling someone names and generally being unpleasant without adding anything to the conversation to be the equivalent of peeing on someone's carpet.)
I pay for this site, and I provide it free of charge (donation buttons notwithstanding). I consider the comments part of the site to be kind of like a salon where people can get together and discuss things. I don't mind a little snark, some disagreement -- but if you can't keep to the barest minimum standards of civility then I suggest you find some other weblog to read. There are so many other blogs out there. For the most part I do try, when I leave a comment on someone else's blog, not to call them names, swear at them, and so forth, no matter how much I disagree with what they have said. (That's what I have my own blog for.) If I have been as rude as Mr. Paulsen on anyone else's blog, let me take this opportunity to apologize, and say that it will not happen again. But as far as I can recall, I have not gone to anyone else's website and left comments calling the host or his other commenters such names as "fucking bitch." After all, I am not in my own "house," as it were.
On the other hand, in my own "house" -- this blog -- I can curse and swear all I want. I do try to at least make my tantrums entertaining. If you really can't stand what I have to say, and want to call me names, use your own website to do it. Then I will mock your post on my site, and you can mock me further on yours, and so on. But you don't get to have a nice, pretty site full of sensitive poetry, and then use mine to make your messes. I did not set up this website for you, anymore than I pay rent on an apartment for someone else to live in. I really don't see how hard this is to understand.
I think I've spotted the newest trend: declaring your cussed independent nature by stating (in the comments to someone's blog*) that you "refuse to get a blog of your own."
*No one has said so on mine so far as I can recall, but I've seen this stated by many a pseudonymous email-addressed commenter in many other blog discussions.
Update: aaa-and... just to stave off the onslaught of pouts I can already see coming, I am not demanding that everyone who does not have a blog or a webpage or whatever go out and put one up. I'm just mentioning that there seems to be a tendency for some people to announce "I neither have nor want a blog" now that blogs are being "noticed" by OtherMedia, and are being talked about, and so on -- it's a way of making oneself stand out from the crowd along with all those other people standing out from a crowd.
Me, I have a blog because -- no, this is not going to develop into a tedious "why I blog" credo with a lot of boring blather about "connections" and "community." I have a blog because it beats talking to the teevee, here alone in my apartment with my cat, and because I like to write and spout my opinions and stuff. I can't keep a conventional "what I did today" diary because I would die of boredom, and I love the way you can manipulate colors and fonts and things on the web without having to go to the art store and buy expensive paints and stuff, and the fact that I can get feedback from other people all over the world without actually having to meet them in person is an added bonus. (Meeting most of my commenters is beyond my budget, needless to say -- and my relationship with humanity is neatly expressed in this famous quote of Jonathan Swift's: "I hate the animal called mankind, but I like the occasional Tom, Dick, and Harry.")
Let me repeat: MICHAEL MOORE IS FAT.
He is a huge lardass, fattyfatfat, Fatty McFatperson Three-Big-Macs-Per-Minute Corpulent Sack of Fat. And his ego is ten times as fat. His self-regard is swaddled in layer upon layer of fat.
He is a BASTARD who is FAT.
That means he is a FAT BASTARD.
FAT FAT FAT.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.