"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
16 February 2007Quote of the weekMcGehee, moonlighting, or something, at protein wisdom:
Q.: Why did the anarchist cross the road?
A.: "Who told the @#$!ing state it could build a @#$!ing road across my path!!??" Thank you. He'll be up here all week. (Incidentally, last time I linked to something on pw — by Dan Collins, as it happens — I got a complaint about Jeff Goldstein. If I get a complaint about Jeff Goldstein this time ... but never mind, you can draw your own conclusions.) I assume he spits. Posted by: CGHill at 12:48 PM on 16 February 2007That would mean he's not a nice person, wouldn't it? Posted by: McGehee at 1:21 PM on 16 February 2007You got the complaint because you were linking to him for political fiction masquerading as fact, Chuckles. And such *foul* language. Someone call Bill Donohue. Posted by: Matt at 11:31 PM on 16 February 2007This from a man who was still defending Mary Mapes months after Rathergate? Come back when you feel like exhibiting some credibility. I'm not holding my breath. Posted by: CGHill at 9:43 AM on 17 February 2007@#$!! Bill Donohue. Posted by: McGehee at 3:01 PM on 19 February 2007Your barbs sting not. There is something to be said for a controversy about documents where no one disputes that the content of the documents is accurate, but because 3rd-generation photocopies can't be authenticated, somehow we're supposed to ignore that all the people who would have been involved in producing the originals say that that's what those documents said. In a rational world, this is supposed to override John Hinderaker's opinion about kerning in a 3rd-generation photocopy, but we haven't lived in a rational political world since long before the word "Billary" entered the vernacular. What a shame Jeff can't settle all this just by, as he so humorously and repeatedly put it, slapping people around with his (@(%. Posted by: Matt at 2:39 AM on 21 February 2007"Can't be authenticated"? They sent up an obvious fake and presented it as evidence, as though that would be sufficient. Of course, if your idea of truth includes fraud as an irreducible component — but never mind, we've apparently established that. |