Chill out. April 1, 2006 Jill Jeff needs to relax. Seriously, the guy is getting out of control. But congrats on the Molly Bloom award, friend. UPDATE: Uh oh, looks like somebody doesn’t find it so funny… who peed in his paste this morning?
May I just say, I *love* the ad on the Liberal Avenger for the conservative dating service. “Sweethearts, not bleeding hearts.” I also whole-heartedly encourage Google’s new Soulmate Search.
Ah! I love the “Open Question to Feminists” one! “So I’ll pose the question in good faith–why is that? Is it because you’re intellectually dishonest?” I almost peed.
Mary Catherine Gallagher? Isn’t she that crazy Carnie Wilson impersonator that writes for Townhall.com?
Apparently it’s fair game to release the parodist’s work information for hosting the April Fool’s prank.
They don’t call him MTS (Micron-Thick Skin) for nothin’. An analogy would be a Dean Martin roastee… let’s say Jackie Gleason… telling Art Carney (one of the roasters) that he knows Carney’s son is a pill-popping habitual masturbator. A few nervous coughs emanate. Gleason then pushes Martin into the buffet table and storms out. THAT’S entertainment.
I have literally never seen such a whining, crying baby in all my life. Good on him for staying home with his kid, but bad on him if he has to have his kid calm him down from his temper tantrums.
This is the problem with satirizing those too insignificant to merit the attention: they never appreciate the magnanimous gesture.
8: It looks like that link has been removed. It has appeared on the site before—someone put it in the comments in response to a 8/15/05 post.
Ha! I didn’t even realize how perfect a parody it was–until I read his response. “Lefty morons, thinking they can rattle me with their stupid internet parodies…besides, Roxane’s a cobweb-crotched jerkface. And she’s not even funny.”
Jeff is a tool when it comes to joking about himself… He loves to poke fun at others, but has no self-sense of humor. F**king prick too for having that link on Roxanne.
“Lefty morons, thinking they can rattle me with their stupid internet parodies…besides, Roxane’s a cobweb-crotched jerkface. And she’s not even funny.” Wow. I’ve been traveling today and I missed THAT one. On another note, the tag on the header we used is turning out to be something of a Rorshach. I didn’t read into what alot of people seem to be.
F**king prick too for having that link on Roxanne. If it’s on the internet it’s fair game. As I posted over at Jeff’s place, what’s the point to these things? They take a lot of effort. They’re not that funny. And everyone just gets pissy about them.
If it’s on the internet it’s fair game. I seem to recall someone having an entirely different opinion on a similar matter, Gabriel.
ilyka, I think the link you provided actually supports the idea that Jeff has been consistent. Here, someone writes a parody and Jeff points back with a link, “It’s her.” There, some guy named Paul wrote on his webpage and commented on other sites and a liberal professer decided to call his dissertation advisors and complain. Again Jeff points back with a link, saying, “it’s this guy.” All the info on the internet. Consistent treatment both times. [Incidentally, this is exactly what I was talking about in my first comment above when I said: “what’s the point to these things?” I mean, WTF am I doing writing about this on a Sunday morning? Do I really care so much that I have to have one more post to “set the record straight?” ::Sigh:: I guess I do.]
All the info on the internet. Consistent treatment both times. Not in the least. Either you believe it’s okay to let events on the internet get to you so much that you bring the offline into it–by, say, posting someone’s work information (Goldstein, Cooper), or perhaps by attempting to thwart their pursuit of education (Hettle, Deignan)–or you don’t. Assholes do. Decent people don’t. Want to ruin commenting on blogs? Start treating everyone who participates in them as though we don’t have that unwritten rule. Do you think people would say half the things they do on PW, or here, or on any blog, if they thought it could affect their livelihoods? Or any aspects of their lives away from the internet?
1. The two things you cited (different from what I cited) are not the same. Jeff didn’t “bring the offline” into it when he linked to online information. Hettle did “bring the offline” into it when he–offline–called that guy’s advisors. See the difference? One occurred entirely online. The other did not. 2. How dare we start treating everyone who participates while using their real names as if their participation has an impact on “their lives away from the internet”? I mean, next you’ll start asking me to pay real money for my online purchases!!! I agree that there are some benefits to anonymous communication. However, a person who has chosen to identify themselves has no right to claim them.
I agree that there are some benefits to anonymous communication. However, a person who has chosen to identify themselves has no right to claim them. That was EXACTLY one of the arguments used to justify Hettle’s actions against Deignan: “Well, Deignan used his real name online, and he said where he was going to school online, and he was kind of a jerk, so . . . .” I mean, knock off the nonsense here, Gabriel, because if you paid attention to that whole deal back when, I’m sure you saw that excuse trotted out as often as I did.