Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
Re: "Ace of Spades" posts...
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Holly, to the troll...]: Not really. We're having a little trouble understanding what it is you're trying to say. Your "voice" is unclear -- it's almost as though there were some obstruction in your mouth, impeding the movement of your tongue......
Perhaps you should turn the lights on, dear.
This "Ace of Spades" is like "Shooter243"; a parody (but not as clever as "shooter243") of the real McCoy.
The real Ace of Spades has a RW blog (Google it if you need; but for the best synopsis, search "site:sadlyno.com ace spades") with marginally more S/N ratio than our poster here. Best to ignore it.
Cheers,
-
@ jeremys
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, sorry for my comment (but even if I had the power to delete them, I'd leave them in just so others similarly attuned don't get suckered in by the superficial allure of your comments).
I'm afraid these are parlous times, and it's so hard to tell the difference between serious 'argument' and snark.
Might help to put a:
>/SNARK<
tag at the end for those of us with our Snark-O-Meters set on "low".
Cheers,
-
@ L.W.M.
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Arne]: I'm afraid these are parlous times, and it's so hard to tell the difference between serious 'argument' and snark.
Even with the lights on, it's hard to tell.
Even with name tags on, it's hard. I say we just shoot 'em on sight and let Gawd sort 'em out..... Ummm, come out in the light where I can see you, L.W.M. Slowly. No sudden moves. ;-)
Cheers,
-
Just a FYI, folks...
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here].... day 37 of ignoring "bucky1". And I'm a happier man for that.
Cheers,
-
@ L.W.M.
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's about illuminating the dangers of how the Democratic Party--and especially Democratic Presidential candidates--are falling into the same trap today. I wouldn't keep brining it up if not for its vital importance as a lesson for today.
I had to "explain" to a DCCC fundraiser today that not all Democrats meet my approval, and that this election cycle, I'm not going to let the DCCC decide who is "Democratic" enough to get my money. I'm going to be very careful as to which of them deserves support. He said something about getting electing Democrats and getting a Democratic Congress, blah-blah-blah, and I told him that's not what is important to me; what is important is growing a spine and standing up to the machine ... for as long as it takes to get this country back.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, infinitesimally small.
"Arne, I still think you'd make a fair unit of measurement for some aspects of the blogosphere, just not dickosity. It's probably a unitless ratio in any event.
-- Holly McLachlan"
"shooter024" mistakes "infinitesimal" for "unitless" (or "dimensionless"). They are not the same. But thanks for playing, "shooter0.000000000000000000000000...1for2".
Cheers,
-
"shooter0for29184378636515425427267671656.... tries again:
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So let's see if I have the new standard straight....
* Any agency can request a special prosecutor for any reason.
<*BZZZT!*> Wrong. CIA didn't request a special prosecutor.
* The investigation doesn't require resolution of the stated reason for requesting a special prosecutor.
<*BZZZT!*> Wrong. Not all investigations "require resolution". But be that as it may, I believe that Fitzgerald did/does have to put together a report in the end.
* Any conflicting statements by objects of special prosecutor result in multi-year prison terms.
<*BRRIIINNGG!*> Right. You lie about material facts under oath, and obstruct justice, and you're facing jail time.
Does that about sum it up?
I guess so. I'll accede if you choose the new nom de plume "shooter143". Fair 'nuff?
Cheers,
-
@ binzinerator
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've always looked forward to reading your posts, as you are often among the most wicked of snark-masters here. And when your own snark-scope fails to pick up snark, that signals a significant event for me.
Yes, to me too. Dunno what's the matter with me. Guess it means we're out on very thin ice. Speaking of losing track of reality, check out the latest post on my blog, or just go here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/19/the-constitution-according-to-jack-bauer/
In any case, guess I should have took the Snark-O-Meter in for a tune-up along with my regulator....
Cheers,
-
@ Karen M
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps he should call himself CrudePundit, instead of Ace. That might make his satire more "visible."
His stuff was rather obvious (in part because of the gratuitous crudity; most RW foamers outside of the ones that slithered under the LFG rock have learned to do at least a simulacrum of "civil" conversation, in part so they can turn around and complain about the "crudity" of the LW blogosphere).
I will admit that the faux "Ace of Spades" was a bit more recognisable if you knew the past history.
"jeremys" was a bit more subtle. The error there was well within the reach of an earnest RW foamer.
Cheers,
-
@ Holly McLachlan
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks. You're too kind.
Cheers,
-
@ Democritus
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shooter Drunk, Shooter Sober
Sure sounds like USSR style justice to me, but apparently Dems are down with it -- Shooter 242, Tuesday June 19, 2007
You folks might want to consider, that unless you offer something better, authoritarianism is the only game in town.--Shooter 242, Saturday, April 7, 2007.
Which is which?
Cheers,
-
@ bucky1
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](OK, I've gone long enough without attacking his eedjitcy):
However, until Glenn gives his view, I doubt the local cabal (the ones who live here 24/7) will take a position.
Just goes to show you're truly clueless.
Cheers,
-
@ Paul Rosenberg
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, I know. I'm kicking myself as we speak....
Cheers,
-
bucky1 gets it wrong yet again
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Then prove me wrong!
No. I really don't give a fig what you think, and my thoughts I share at my pleasure. Not to mention, I have no desire for any 'conversation' with you. Prove you are right. Or STFU.
Sidenote to Paul R.: You're eminently wiser and more judicious than I.
Cheers,