Furthermore, the fact that no one has been prosecuted for committing a crime, doesn't necessarily mean that no crime has been committed. Therefore, your opinion that "no crimes were committed" are no more factual than someone's opinion that there were crimes committed. In other words, it's only your opinion and yet, you state it as the unequivocal truth.

Why?

-- Jebbie

Shorter Shooter: "You cannot just state an opinion and have it be true. But, I can. And, I'm going to do it right now."

But, the other thing is that there is a huge pile of evidence that Bush committed crimes. Shooter's got... Well, Shooter seems to think that, if he believes something, that makes it true (and, if he doesn't want to believe something, it doesn't exist). But, he's spent all day lecturing me on why that's not okay.

What gives? Is he actually crazy?

Shooter's hypocrisy has often been on display here, but today he must be bucking for some kind of trophy or something. He could be talking to himself. For example:

Shooter: No one in the Bush administration has proffered a plea. Nor will they. No crime has been committed.

Shooter's Response:This is one of those arguments where someone like you claims it's OK to call someone else a jerk "because it's true". Sorry kid, but that's not going to fly in a courtroom. Grow up.

AND

Shooter: Anything you have to offer as criminal activity is covered in the Constitution under Article 2. No crime has been committed. Don't like it? Too bad, write your Congressman.

Shooter's Response: That's all you have to offer. Personal opinion.

Come on, Shoots, admit it. You're yanking our chains. No one is this much of an idiot. Or are you just so egotistical that you think your own rules don't apply to you? That your every belief is so magical that it defies logic or the need for evidence?

Or are you just barking mad?

Makes me wonder what goes on in your mind.

-- Iokannan in the Well

Clearly not much that has any basis in reality.

Shooter has no principles, only party loyalty (or, perhaps, loyalty to GW Bush). He decides on an outcome, and then denies any facts which are contrary. Sort of like a toddler who puts her hands over her face and thinks that, since she can't see you, you can't see her, either.

It's not as if Glenn summarily banned them without giving them one more shot. As PDA and Omooex have noted, they could have avoided banishment had they followed Glenn's reasonable request. But, they couldn't even do that. (Side note: I'm not clear if they have been banned - Glenn?)

For those of us who don't read them, the loss will be small. I know there are several who have relationships with Art, however, and it will certainly be a bummer for you if he doesn't come back. But, he and Klytus showed a lack of respect for both Glenn (as well as other commenters) by refusing to abide by Glenn's request. They have to take their lumps.

One other thing, and then I'll shut it: I think most of us would prefer that Glenn be able to spend his time writing, interviewing, responding to our comments and all the other valuable things he does rather than having to police his comment section. One may say that he should, then, just let the comments be, but this comment section is a gold mine. Glenn himself has said that he learns things from his commenters, and I definitely see these pages as an invaluable resource. I agree with Glenn's desire to protect it.

So yes, I'm now having all of their posts deleted without consideration of content or frequency. To be honest, I resent their obvious indifference to my time and energy, particularly in light of how many times they've already brushed aside what I asked as though it were the most irrelevant thing in the world.

-- GlennGreenwald

Thanks for clearing that up, and for your candor. I posted something similar, above - it irritates me that they've caused you to have to waste your valuable time and energy policing the comment sections, after having given reasonable warnings. Your time is much better spent elsewhere [/Captain Obvious].

What I can't wrap my head around is what people expect when they criticize a roomful of strangers.

-- Paul Daniel Ash

Not only did he criticize a roomful of strangers, Tommy1733 came here, demanded that the blog's author issue an apology to a commenter (!) and suggested that the author change his writing style to protect this commenter's delicate sensibilities.

I mean, who does this guy think he is? And, as you say, what kind of response did he think his petulant, self-centered whining (and absurd demands) were going to receive?

As you also note, this is one of the most calm, measured and rational comment sections (with a few exceptions, and you all know who I'm talking about) on the 'net. There is very little "flaming" ever going on. In addition, Glenn's tone is completely warranted when he's discussing what is going on in this country - a Constitutional crisis and the collapse of the rule of law, for the love of all things good and holy!

Seriously, I can hardly believe that someone is issuing lectures about politeness and in a discussion about torture.