I'm probably in EPU-land now... but I was too busy yesterday to be able to read any comments, or much of any posts, either, so I had missed until now your comment about the drunk candy. Poor candy. You're right... someone meant well. You might as well enjoy if them if you can.

...to satisfy its own agenda.

Josh Marshall has a post up complaining that the Times has still not printed the complete quote by Hillary in the paper...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063477.php

...but have persisted with a truncated version which could, arguably, alter the meaning of her statement, which admittedly was a bit clumsy or inartful.

Remember the vendetta that the Times led against Bill Clinton, specifically, in the 1990s, and more recently against his and Hillary's marriage, not to mention certain columnists' obsessive practice of projecting their own issues into the fray?

I think you mean Paul Fussell.

Ordinarily, I'd have been on to the next thing, too, but I'm behind and have been catching up... and I've actually read a collection of essays by Fussell, which is why I knew his name. ;~) That's what we're all here for... to help each other out, right? The current tone of the threads notwithstanding.

For as long as I've been reading Glenn (since before he moved here to Salon), I don't recall him ever deleting a post or banning someone merely because he disagreed with them... even when he thought they were deliberately trying to cross the line.

In fact, Glenn seems to thrive on some of the controversy that arises in the threads.

However, he has deleted posts or (tried to) ban(ned) people who persisted in hijacking the threads and monopolizing the discussion. Even then, he would first warn them, and follow through only if they continued to act in bad faith.

I missed the poem that was deleted, but I suspect that a Salon editor might have deleted it, rather than Glenn, and probably because of racist language, as others have mentioned.

We had quite a discussion about racism (and sexism) in these threads quite some time ago, including the issue of reclamation, although more of that discussion happened on other blogs, and not so much here. My sense of the consensus (then) is that it doesn't really work, perhaps because it usually consists of those who are not part of a particular identity trying to use (for political purposes) epithets that are traditionally aimed at another identity and telling those who are members of it that lots of use and exposure will get rid of the stigma.

I don't think it works that way...

He calls himself Garry Owen and he could hardly be accused of hijacking threads or racism or sexism.

Sorry, but he really did. I didn't see it all, and I don't believe it was necessarily racist or sexist (but it might have been), but GO did hijack the threads here. That was why Glenn banned him from here. If he's not still posting here, it's only because GO is honorable enough to mind the ban.

The only way to institute an actual ban that does not permit one to post comments is to do it Salon-wide, and, believe it or not, even Salon won't ban those who consistently hijack threads and write abominable things about other people... even if the blogger requests it.

Lots of readers here like to complain about Salon's "censoring," but they really don't know how much is not censored that would be if it were posted anywhere else.

That's not censorship. That's just expecting and demanding a reasonable amount of common courtesy out of 'everyone'...

Otherwise, as I've said before, these threads become a joyless enterprise... and why bother to post anything then?

Many pages back, I threw down a challenge to the trolls to defend Bush's actions in barring potential protesters from rallies.

And were there any substantive responses? Because if there were, I missed them.

Personally, I would up the ante, and ask for a defense, not just of barring potential protesters, but of allowing only those who have signed a "Loyalty Oath" to attend taxpayer-funded events, at which the administration's agenda is to further its political agenda.

She was probably wearing a t-shirt, right? Or something sheer?

;~)

Not too long, nor too cumbersome.

Even better, it's easily understood.

A chocolate lab?

At first, I was picturing test tubes and cocoa butter,

but then I wondered if you meant one that barks...

I have two friends with the second kind... not for me. They jump.

* * *

Do I need to submit an updated request for you?

Thanks for the link to that letter from Ike to Ed, LWM. I loved it.

I've seen small excerpts of it before, but never the whole thing. I must still agree with my "topic" above, but wonder if we shouldn't add, "but their power has grown," except that now I'm more hopeful that it will diminish.

Dan Froomkin had a link to this WSJ story yesterday... It did my heart some good:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120027737099687613.html?mod=blog

Divadab, we did have some discussions about splitting infinitives, among other things, but not everyone really cared, and they didn't want to read such posts, either. So, we took them to The Chocolate Interrobang, where we have been a bit dormant, but are beginning to post more regularly again:

language-grammar.blogspot.com

If you want to rant about something or other, just email a request to any of the contributors for an invite that will allow you to post.