Charley, No problem man. Thanks. Sincerely.
Are you familair with expression ‘when donkeys fly’?
It means don’t complain if the donkey doesn’t fly as long as you would like.
Also Charley, I checked. The boys said it’s OK for you to start your car now. You took it all back. The hit is off.
But I won’t forget. You were there for me man. You promoted and recommend my Petro post when no one else would touch it. I love you man. You’re a solid.
As for the rest you bahstahds. If you care, Please go back and read my most recent greaseball posts in context with my recent posts on Deval, casino gambling, Sal, and others. I knocked david bernstein on dan kennedy’s blog for some crap in the recent Phoenix article concerning sal
I have used this minor ethnic stereo type to illustrate the highly disgusting implications deval and others let float out there concerning Sal and his reasons for being against gambling.
The “greaseball” thing was Ernie saying that Deval and others are instilling fear in Mass voters similiar to tactics used in the south to raise fears among whites of blacks. After blacks work there ass off to change false image a guy like Petro comes along dressed and acting like a pimp. Then it turns out he works and hangs out with pimps. During pimp legislation season. Who should be pissed off most? Blacks. That’s who.
That’s my point. And it is reasonable, in light of this recent info, that Petro resign his leadership post pronto. And it is reasonable that Sal be questioned about this.
But anyway, thanks Charley. Go to law school if u ever can make it happen. Then, don’t practice. It sucks.
Thanks for the tremendous fun you gave me David, Bob, and Charley.
So long dudcicles.
If this act lives on, it will be somewhere else.
xxooxxoo
Ernie
P.S. Charley. The Hits still on. You have to go back and unrecommend my Petro Post. Hurry up.
fill EB’s shoes? Can we do a memorial?
necktie and ridiculous micropophone. As if he had actually grown a pair.
Right on!
I’m sure we’ll be seeing you back in a week or two. Let’s not pull a “they,” though, please? No need for a new username…
is like officially your hang-up, isn’t it?
Bryan. Note the “B”.
Bryan was the Cuts Like a Knife, Summer of 69, Run To You guy. (Lou Barlow used to cover Run To You, making Bryan indie rocker acceptable). Ryan Adams is a currently popular alt/country dude (“not to be confused with Bryan Adams”, says Wiki). He’ll get his own disambiguation page someday.
I can never be sure when you’re being serious, or not, but I’m not “pretending” to be Ryan Adams. Ryan, since 1984 (the year I was born) to this day has been around the 11th most popular name, nationally, almost each and every year. Furthermore “Adams” is an exceptionally common surname. So, it shouldn’t be a shocker that there are a LOT of people out there with the name Ryan Adams. There’s so many Ryans that, for a while, I toyed with going by my middle name. Also, there are more Ryans than Brians and Bryans combined.
I will miss your insight. The maroons don’t get it and they never will.
As a synonym for “moron”, perhaps?
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2…
You bastard! You promised me new wheels. I promoted you. Often. You car salesmen are all alike. Oops. Was that stereotypical?
Everyone and everything needs to be poked once in a while. And the way you cleverly did it with a wink and a smile was appreciated in this corner.
<
p>I don’t think you were as mean spirited as some who are unpopular here. And that’s why I, and others I think, laughed and nodded even when we disagreed with you.
<
p>Can you please clarify that you weren’t asked to leave? That would be even more of a shame.
You can’t ask or reason with the Id, as EBIII was recently characterized. It just is. Anyway, even though his post was offensive and broke the rules of the road, and even though as he or she admits here it could have been written in a more constructive and less inflammatory manner, it did raise an issue worth some discussion. Each case has to be assessed individually because the facts are always different.
<
p>The people who get banned just rave and carry on and generally make themselves useless and then they get cut from the team: no asking involved.
<
p>And Ernie, admit it, you can’t leave. Posting here is an itch you have to scratch. It would be braver of you, however, to use your real name if you really believe in the things you are writing. It’s kind of a cheap shot to claim such knowledge about how things really work and all without being willing to stand up for yourself — and it suggests you may not really believe everything you write, in my opinion. You’re all grown up in the blogosphere: time to walk on your own two legs under your own name instead of having other people carry you.
Then I’d suggest you be more careful.
<
p>:)
I figured he wasn’t asked to leave, because the post was left on, just taken off the front page. I just wanted it to be clear and on the record.
<
p>Still curious what, if any, help Charley had in discovering the error of his ways in promoting the piece to the front page.
<
p>I continue to believe using a pseudonym has nothing to do with cowardice. There are creeps out there in the googleverse and EBIII could well be cautious about protecting himself or those he loves.
<
p>There are also financial interests that can be put at risk. Getting hit for doing this when you should be doing that is one thing, but losing a job or business opportunity because someone didn’t like what you posted here is another. Especially if it has nothing to do with the business relationship. After all, this isn’t the perfect world; people have to make slight compromises all the time.
<
p>We’re not testifying before Congress, we’re debating ideas. I think a nice level playing field where everyone has to depend on the strength of their ideas and any evidence they can present is a strength of this and other sites. The experts on issues around here quickly demonstrate their skill and knowledge, the “trust me, I know” folks are also clearly identifyable and often discounted.
<
p>And I don’t care a whit if he believes what he posts. A Devil’s Advocate is a worthy role to be written into this play.
<
p>BTW, it ends here. Just showin’ Bob a little luv and respect. He, David and I (with few exceptions) are probably the only ones that really appreciate that portion of the comment.
<
p>Now where’s Gene Wilder? I Guts me some ridin’ off to doo.
i always wonder why people insist that an argument is suspect unless they know the identity of who has made it. an argument stands or falls on it’s intrinsic quality. wanting to know the identity of the commenter implies to me that you will judge comments based in part on what you think of who makes them, not by the comments themselves.
<
p>and on a practical note, echoing what noternie said. if you think there aren’t people who attack other people’s livelihood and body because of their political ideas and social activism, you really need to get with reality. needling people to divulge their identity to an anonymous international audience is irresponsible and makes me wonder if you understand the medium in which you are writing.
tend to make people suspicious, such as those pertaining to cultural matters, patriotism, economic justice, and even the military.
Identity is sometimes part of the argument, or is relevant because a comment derives some part of its force from implied qualities or virtues of the commenter and implied or explicit deficiencies in the audience or the public at large.
Maybe these types of discussions, where identity is somewhat relevant, don’t occur here as much as they do elsewhere, but consider, for example, a person who declares that anybody who fails to support the President and the Iraq war is merely a coward who doesn’t appreciate the sacrifice of the troops and is scared to fight for freedom.
If this comment is coming from a middle-aged man who got three deferrals from Vietnam and then, say, enlisted in the National Guard at the first possible opportunity, obviously doing everthing in his power to avoid going to Vietnam, I would find this fact about his own biography to be relevant in terms of how his comments should or should not be incorporated into our overall understanding of the issue at hand. The biographical data could help to locate the comments as either: a.) a legitimate defense of the Iraq war coming from somebody who sincerely believes that it is necessary to our national security, or b.) a hypocritical call to arms for the younger generation, possibly by an individual who owns stock in Halliburton or Raytheon, or from a person who is just a coward by nature and who is happy to have his retirement protected with the blood of young Americans and Iraqi civilians. Either way, the deferrals and frantic efforts to avoid his own “patriotic duty” would essentially preclude scenario “a”, which is important.
Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass?
Silence Dogood?
Peter Porcupine?
<
p>All were pseudonyms for famous Americans who could never have published under their own names. Seems people stifled free speech back then. People were intolerant, narrow minded and biased back then. You’ve come a long way, baby!
I always liked your stuff and would encourage you to stick around. As far as Bob saying you don’t always believe what you post, well, what good satirist does? I think you added a perspective of snark, cynicism and genuinely funny humor that was worth having around.
<
p>All that being said, however, none of it really means much if you can’t take a tiny portion of it being thrown back your way without grabbing your ball and going home. Man up, dude.
and neither do donkeys. Feel free to graduate and join us over at the anti-New World Order Party. Yes it is a strange mix but then again no more delusional than conventional M$M driven politics.