GG:

The "Ace" commenter is satirizing a post that Instapundit promoted.

AhHahaha! This is that same "Ace" who's so askeerd of vaginas?! He is one truly confused individual; I strongly recommend counseling. Also, I see Glen Reynolds' obsession with you and all things manly continues unabated. Thanks for explaining that; I, for one, was confused.

Ace = satire

The "Ace" commenter is satirizing a post that Instapundit promoted.

I confess that I actually complained via email to the Salon editors/moderators.

We know you like satire, but that really seemed over the top, especially in a comment thread where the boundaries are so unclear, even to Arne.

Perhaps he should call himself CrudePundit, instead of Ace. That might make his satire more "visible."

I see Glen Reynolds' obsession with you and all things manly continues unabated.

I think Glenn Reynolds and Instapundit are one in the same. Aren't they?

Ace = satire

I'm a fan of satirical comments here, but these seemed to have the potential to cause some coronary events, which I thought it best to avert.-- GlennGreenwald

Understood, respected. Don't worry about my heart; I'm pre-menopausal. But, I'll never understand men. Not if I live to 100. Somewhere inside all of you is this loogie-horking love of gross.

Also,

Arne/shooter242 = undefined.

shooter242/Arne = 0

Oh, my! And I thought one of them was the other one's sockpuppet, I just wasn't sure which.

We need a RWA org chart (no pun intended-- really).

"Fitzgerald has finished his work'. No, I don't think so. Mr Fitzgerald is standing in those dung spattered stables they got Hercules to clean, holding a shovel. He could be some time.

LOL... But, I'll never understand men. Not if I live to 100. Somewhere inside all of you is this loogie-horking love of gross.

Your comment reminds me of a related thought I had earlier... but I can't post it here. At least not now. Maybe later.

If I were the WaPo, I'd be crapping bricks:

http://tinyurl.com/2kvezl

They are.

Conference on State of Newspaper Industry Draws Huge Crowd

On May 14th, Stanford University and McClatchy Company co-sponsored a free community forum at Cubberly Auditorium to discuss the fate of the newspaper industry. Speakers included Bill Keller,Executive Editor of the New York Times, Gary Pruitt, Chief Executive Officer of McClatchy, Marissa Mayer, Vice President of search productsand user experience at Google, and Harry Chandler, a former executive at the Los Angeles Times. It was the 41st of such events sponsored by McClatchy.

Titled, "Pressing Times: Can Newspapers Survive in the New World of Journalism?," the event drew a capacity crowd and left the impression that these executives had very little hope for the newspaper industry of the future.

"The inevitable conclusion is that newspapers are dying," offered Pruitt. Joel Brinkley, a journalism professor at Stanford, gave a summary that the four panelists had a hard time denying — the survival of the newspaper industry is threatened, and the Internet is the cause of it... It is clear that at least three out of the four panelists believed that newspapers as we know them will not exist for much longer, but their hope is that what comes will still be a venue for quality journalism, despite the loss of the printed word.

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4530

but I can't post it here. At least not now. Maybe later.

-- Karen M

What? Do we have to wait for the kiddies to go to bed or something?

Somewhere inside all of you is this loogie-horking love of gross.

I haven't collected bugs, toads, frogs or snakes since I was 11 or 12.

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.

Authoritarianism for thee but not for me, eh Shootster?

Will any of those CEO's even consider the possibility that improving their product might save their asses rather than blaming their failure on the internet? Maybe if they would put out any real journalism, much less great journalism, they'd have a shot at succeeding and staying afloat.

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,

Worst vice being advice and other caveats being duly noted: A few thoughts, here, libertarian to libertarian:

1. There are times when libertarianism is relevant to the conversation. And times when it's not, no? There's a time to let your libertarian freak flag fly, and a time to join (or observe) the conversation on its own terms. Some folks in these discussions make a hobby out of inchoate rage, true, but some of them are annoyed at you because you try to make every conversation about libertarianism.

2. Ron Paul is not happening. There's a lot of criticism of Ron Paul that's unfair. There's also a lot of criticism of Ron Paul that isn't unfair. He'd be lucky to be the James Baird Weaver of this election, if not the Andre Marrou. Who? Exactly.

3. There's a reason why libertarians have this funny reputation for being Johnny-One-Notes forever banging the spoon on the same theme. That reason is, not to put too fine a point on it, you. (And me, sometimes.) I don't want to be harsh, here, but maybe you should take a deep one, read a couple of chapters from "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," and ask yourself whether this is exactly the right place to be having this fight on a near-daily basis with folks who, for the most part, don't have much of a genuine interest in the ideas you're trying to explore.

I'm not saying don't bring it up when it suggests itself, especially when replying to one of the more thoughtful writers, such as Andrew Leonard, who seems to have a genuine interest in how and why markets work and what capitalism means to the world. Sometimes the subject comes up, and sometimes there's an interesting libertarian take on the day's conversation. But sometimes not.

That's my suggestion, anyway. But it's a free Internet.