Those McGee Apologists
You know what I want? I know that I’m not going to get it, but it would be really nice.
I want an apology from the Michael McGee apologists.
I want an apology for being called a racist when I called McGee a crook and a thug years ago when it was obvious.
I want an apology for those who told me to shut up because I don’t live in Milwaukee.
I want an apology given to Milwaukeeans by those who covered for McGee for years and allowed him to prey on his district.
Will any of the people who said that McGee was just being picked on because he was an outspoken black “leader” man up and admit that they completely misjudged the situation?
No. I doubt it. I hope someone proves me wrong. And I won’t hold my breath for an apology.
I’m sure you’ll get a shout out in Kane’s next column.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 0912 hrs
Who were the apologists? Eugene Kane?
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 0951 hrs
“McGee apologists” - would that not be a bad example of an oxymoron?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1030 hrs
So who are we talking about here?
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1033 hrs
Hahahaha, scott already has his panties twisted in preparation to defend anyone Owen names. Anything to be an antagonist!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1137 hrs
No, Jason. I don’t intend to defend anyone. I’m just curious to know who in their right mind would defend someone like McGee. Certainly not I.
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1153 hrs
I got what Scott meant. To me, “apology” implies acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions. I think there were a lot of “rationalizers” & “excusers”, but I don’t recall anyone “apologizing” for what McGee did - if anything, quite the opposite.
I want an apology from the Michael McGee apologists.
Take that out of the post, and there is still plenty of valid points made by Owen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1208 hrs
An apologist is someone who offers a defense of someone or something—not someone who expresses regret over that someone or something.
All I’m saying is that I’d like to know who was offering a defense of McGee. I’m not saying there weren’t any. I’m just saying I don’t recall anyone here saying anything like that—I certainly didn’t. So, who did? Must be someone in the newspaper, which, because I don’t read a local paper, would explain why I know nothing about it.
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1212 hrs
Give up, Scott. Owen can’t answer the question because he only imagines the kind of things he now wants an apology for. Nobody told him to shut up because he didn’t live in Milwaukee; nobody covered up for him; nobody said he was being “picked on” because he was a strong black man.
As for the pre-emptive “thug” calling, you have to understand that this is how people like Owen always refer to black people. His more overt racism is reserved for spotting cell phones, jeans and pink hair in a food assistance line. Hardly due an “apology”, don’t you agree?
Posted by Mike Plaisted on June 25, 2008 at 1250 hrs
Owen can’t answer the question because he only imagines the kind of things he now wants an apology for.
The thought did occur, but I think it’s pretty likely that someone somewhere stood up for the guy.
this is how people like Owen always refer to black people.
I don’t think that’s fair at all.
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1256 hrs
As for the pre-emptive “thug” calling, you have to understand that this is how people like Owen always refer to black people. His more overt racism is reserved for spotting cell phones, jeans and pink hair in a food assistance line. Hardly due an “apology”, don’t you agree?
So how is it racist to note that there are fat people in a line for food assistance? People who *obviously* don’t need the assistance since they can afford LUXURIES like cell phones, designer jeans and hair dye? You’re ignorant, and obviously part of the problem.
Oh, and if you don’t think the Eugene Kane was carrying water for McGee you’re willfully blind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1316 hrs
Try Eugene Kane boys and while you are at it include Joel McNally.
Posted by Fred on June 25, 2008 at 1318 hrs
Links?
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1326 hrs
You can google all by yourself Scott.
Posted by Fred on June 25, 2008 at 1341 hrs
Holt at Community Newspapers is another big McGee apologist. If you saw Skyes show last Sunday - you’ll have a good definition of an apologist. “He did so much the community…” Yeah - he robbed it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1358 hrs
Can someone tell me how McGee qualified for a public defender?! He had income and assets, so how the heck did he manage that trick?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1403 hrs
Hey Plaisted, when you said “this is how people like Owen always refer to black people” did you mean Marvin Pratt, Mayor Barrett and Eugene Kane?
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=97852
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=606346
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=764476Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1404 hrs
I just want to know who we’re demanding apologies from, Fred. Why should I have to guess—with or without Google—when Owen presumably knows precisely who he’s talking about?
At the very least, Fred, I can see that the quality of your comments—to say nothing of your attitude—remains consistent.
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1429 hrs
As for the pre-emptive “thug” calling, you have to understand that this is how people like Owen always refer to black people. His more overt racism is reserved for spotting cell phones, jeans and pink hair in a food assistance line. Hardly due an “apology”, don’t you agree?
Even McGee referred to himself as “Thug Mike” while shaking people down.
I doubt it was one of those opposite nicknames, like calling the fat guy “Tiny.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1430 hrs
I think the residents of the 6th District deserve an apology more than you do, Owen. No offense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1504 hrs
Liberals (and, well, lawyers) don’t have souls. Don’t expect an apology.
Posted by Brian on June 25, 2008 at 1544 hrs
Clean government needs an apology from all the apathetic enablers in his district who are willing to allow a jerk like this to threaten, intimidate, and extort! Yes people, we get the government we are willing to tolerate.
Right on Frankovis!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1546 hrs
Liberals (and, well, lawyers) don’t have souls. Don’t expect an apology.
This is why I’m bothering to chime in on this discussion in the first place: Somehow it’s “liberals” who are the target of this demand for apology. I suppose that would include me, other left-leaning commenters here, and, well, liberals at large. Which is of course bullshit. I have no doubt that the man had—still has!—his supporters, but if you’re simply trying to make this a liberal/conservative argument you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Me, I’m glad the crooked bastard is getting what’s coming to him. I don’t think I’ve ever said a word in his defense. Nor have I seen any other liberals here do so. All of which prompts me to ask: WHO owes Owen an apology? It’s surely not us “soulless” liberals in general.
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1559 hrs
Its pretty plain who Owen was speaking about.
Its not about any of you self absorbed regulars.
Read his entry, it spells it out.
Its the self absorbed regulars, who don’t get it..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1616 hrs
I’m sorry but the entry does not “spell it out.” At least not to me. Meanwhile we have other commenters blaming “liberals” in general. So, yeah, I’d like it to be made clear.
Look, if you guys just don’t want to name names, just go ahead and say so. This is getting silly!
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1618 hrs
“Liberals (and, well, lawyers) don’t have souls. Don’t expect an apology.”
Nobody has a soul you douchebag. That has nothing to do with who is supposed to be apologizing here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1645 hrs
I too am wondering who Owen is looking for an apology from, just out of curiousity. I’m wondering if he was called these things by media types, or if this was something that happened with posters on here. I pretty much skimmed over most of what Owen wrote on here about McGee, that’s why I wouldn’t know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1657 hrs
Scott - I don’t know if Owen has anyone in particular in mind, but Kane, McNally and Holt were all defending the guy for the last year or so. Also, there were plenty of folks at pro-McGee rallies led by McGee’s cronies (and his father too). I don’t know if this is who Owen is talking about but these are the folks to that come to mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1658 hrs
I don’t know why I’m surprised because I should know better, but the level of pure raw hatred towards Owen in the comments particularly by scotty and Mike P is truly freightening to behold. They are so determined to destroy Owen, I bet they’d celebrate if something bad happened to Owen.
If you’re a liberal, apparently anything it takes to destroy anyone who is not sufficently liberal goes, be forewarned
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1835 hrs
Bullshit. I think if you go back to the beginning you’ll see my comments were anything but hateful. In comment #10 you’ll clearly see me sticking up for Owen, in fact. It is only later on after getting snide, shitty remarks back from Jason, Fred and Brian that I lost my good humor.
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1848 hrs
Ya, one comment because Mike P said unbelievably hateful things, then you just kept trying to destroy Owen by asking “who needs to apologize” when you know full well he was referring to all the rationalizors who enabled McGee. Your hate for Owen’s non-liberal view shown through clear, which is fine because it’s a free country and that’s what freedom is about. Too bad, the ability of non-liberals to the same freedom won’t be returned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1906 hrs
You all are reminding me why I stopped reading blogs so much.
The level of intelligent discourse (actually engaging the issues instead of name-calling) in the comments has degenerated as compared to, say 3 years ago on this blog. Scott asks a legitimate question, a bunch of people full of pseudo-outrage jump on in, and it degenerates into idiocy. Mike P. didn’t say hateful things; he was offering his assessment of the racially charged language many commenters exhibited here a couple days ago.
Alex’s comment is the most sane one on here. Cry me a river about needing an apology, Owen. The truth is that the people who deserve a real apology (from McGee, not from his apologists—why should they have to apologize for being wrong or dumb? There are plenty of people who are wrong and dumb on a regular basis) are the people who live here in the 6th District.
I’m guessing the people Owen wants an apology from don’t read this blog, and many, despite overwhelming evidence, still may not believe McGee was anything but set up. I happen to believe he was guilty, and that the verdict was good.
Owen’s assertion of the “obviousness” of McGee being a crook and thug “years ago” is a big disingenuous. Unless he had access to the kind of evidence seen in court, it wasn’t clearly obvious beyond doubt. It was unsubstantiated rumor that seemed probably true. Investigators need to build a case in order to convict, and it’s good that they do. Bloggers are more likely to be targets of anonymous rumormongers because they are more wiliing to publish rumors and don’t rigorously substantiate information from sources.
It shouldn’t be that hard for Owen to understand that his opining from the suburbs might offend some people who live in and care about the city of Mllwaukee and don’t take kindly to people who know less than they do about where they live telling them what to do or acting like they know better. Why should anyone apologize for that?
Hindsight is always 20-20, Owen, and it’s fun to play “I told you so,” but would you be apologizing to your readers for smearing McGee’s name if he was found innocent—or would you be expressing outrage at the inadequate justice system?
Before a bunch of commenters jump all over me for defending McGee, I didn’t do anything of the sort. I’m glad he can no longer cause harm to a community that needed so much more than he gave. I’m just somewhat disgusted by all the posturing around this issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1946 hrs
I wasn’t aware that asking for clarification as to whom the post was directed at constituted “destruction.” Is he referring to “all the rationalizers who enabled McGee”? I’m not sure that works. He’s calling out people who allegedly called him a racist and told him to shut up. He is asking—at least in part—for a personal apology, and I want to know who he’s asking.
Did someone tell Owen to shut up about McGee? Did someone call Owen a racist—even indirectly—when he criticized McGee? WHO?
And the reason I am bringing this point up is because, absent more specificity, all us lefty’s become the target, as indicated quite clearly in Brian’s comment, numbered 21.
For the record, I don’t hate Owen one bit. It’s true that I assess him the same way one local writer did—smart, principled and wrong—but hate? No. Owen and I have had a beer or two together. Just today I sent him an email having nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever. If you sense hate in this discussion please look in a mirror to discover it’s source.
Posted by scott on June 25, 2008 at 1951 hrs
Shitty remarks from me? You can google all on your own Scott.
That’s as far as I took it.
Your pallie JIJARWM is claling people douchebags…
No comments for him?
You are just them smarmy selectively outraged person you always have been Scott.
Typical liberal hypocrit
Posted by Fred on June 25, 2008 at 2001 hrs
“Mike P said unbelievably hateful things.” Uh, like what? All I did is point out that Owen can’t point to anyone who should apologize because no one said or did any of the things he’s trying to get an apology for. It’s been a while now on this thread, and I think his silence proves my point.
As for his racist post about the cell phones, jeans and pink hair in the food assistance line, well, that’s his problem, not mine. I don’t see what is so hateful” about pointing out his racism. As usual, there’s an easy answer—if you don’t like people pointing it out, stop writing racist shit.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on June 25, 2008 at 2004 hrs
Show me where Owen wrote racist comments about the folks looking for a free government hand out.
Last I checked you don’t have to be black to own a cell phone, wear designer jeans and have dyed hair. Clearly its you Michael who is engaging in the classic race bait and switch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 2034 hrs
Actually, Mike P., I’m staying silent because this thread is an amazing character study and because I was busy at work today. At this point, I don’t really see the point in replying to idiotic comments, but just to make you feel better about your hateful comments….
Scott,
Your question was certainly valid, but I took it as deliberately obtuse. Anyone who read the news, blogs, watched TV news, etc. over the past few years has seen the McGee defenders in full force. My post was more of a general call for an apology from the McGee apologists - The Kanes, people who tried to shout down Biskupic, the mayor of Tosa, Hines, and on and on and on.
But yes, if you go back through the nearly 65,000 comments left on this blog, you will find numerous instances of the examples I cited above - including in some of the McGee threads - not to mention emails, comments on other blogs, verbal comments, etc. You’ll just have to trust that I’m not making it up because I have other things to do tonight than dig through archives to prove a point. If you don’t believe me, so be it. I can live with that.
Posted by Owen on June 25, 2008 at 2047 hrs
Just what I thought. Nothing.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on June 25, 2008 at 2050 hrs
Well said Owen.
Posted by Fred on June 25, 2008 at 2051 hrs
Owen, Pres. Hines has NEVER defended McGee—not once—and you know it. I’d like to know how you can possibly lump him in with Kane? To the contrary, Hines stripped McGee of all his committee assignments LONG before this guilty verdict.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 2058 hrs
Hines also gave him those choice committee assignments when any reasonable person knew that McGee was a thug. He could have shown good judgment and marginalized him long before he did.
Posted by Owen on June 25, 2008 at 2059 hrs
Stripped him after he was arrested… Oooo that was bold.
Posted by Fred on June 25, 2008 at 2108 hrs
Plaisted, I read your rant. Besides spewing the usual left hate rhetoric, it didn’t make any sense.
But I do give you a little credit, as far as I can tell, you were the only lefty wrtiting about the incident at the the welfare center.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 2134 hrs
Owen, you can’t have it both ways. I’m sure you know that Pres. Hines gets blasted every day for coming out against McGee by people on the other side. Why attack those with whom you agree.
If he really had any faith in McGee, he would have made him chair of a committee. Or, at the very least, a vice chair. That’s where the real power is. The very fact that he was not given any kind of chairmanship shows that Pres. Hines put no faith in him.
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree here. I know that James T., Charlie, Patrick and most others would disagree with you too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 2151 hrs
That’s fine. This country was built on disagreements
Posted by Owen on June 25, 2008 at 2156 hrs
One word describes it for this thread regarding McGee—obsession.
There are lots of elected officials who run afoul of the law. A good share of them are Republican (probably most) as we have seen over the past six years or so. And don’t make me enumerate and don’t play dumb. Google.
The rich part is the more you and Chuck and Mark would bellow and cry over this politician, the more you made him a hero in the inner city.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 2214 hrs
McGee apologists on display here
http://www.justice4michaelmcgee.com/and here
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=627850and here
http://www.wisn.com/politics/15359643/detail.htmlhighlighted here
http://www.dailytakes.com/?cat=22and here
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=304295Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 2242 hrs
Drinking the kool aide again, Keith? I guess the Democrats just don’t have any ethical problems, do they?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 0124 hrs
Are you serious Keith? In the U.S. senate, they have murderer there and any day he may meet Mary Jo Kopenche, the person he killed and covered up the crime.(of course she maybe in Heaven and he may go in the other direction) You have a former KKK memeber (is it like the Marines- Once a Marine, always a Marine? Once a KKK member, always a KKK member?), and then you have Dodd and Conrad playing kissy face with Countrywide Mortgage while they vote on their bailout. In the House, you have a guy who had a prostitution ring run out of his house. And of course, the page problems. In Milwaukee you have 4 liberal aldermen/women who have been sent to jail. One more and they have their own basketball team, but at least they can play beach volleyball. How about Chuck Chavala, sleaze president of Wisconsin. At least Republicans eat their own when it comes to crimes and personal sins (Craig maybe an exception, but some Republicans tried)with Democrats and liberals, it’s a badge of honor to be associated with crime and scandal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 0303 hrs
I don’t need to look into the mirror. You and Mike P are perfectly free to hate Owen and all other non-liberals, that’s the beauty of this country. I don’t want to shut you up for having a different opinion, but in order to perserve my right to have an opinion and express it freely, I’m just trying to illustrate how the need for totalitarianism of thought by the left is designed to eliminate any non-liberals right to speak his or her mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 0604 hrs
Nice try trying to do Owen’s research-after-the-fact for him, Fraley. Everything you cite is just people complaining about his pre-trial treatment.
Still nothing about who told him to shut up because he wasn’t from Milwaukee. Still nothing on who covered up for McGee. In this post, Owen seeks apologies from people who don’t exist. Scott gave him the benefit of the doubt that he had actual people in mind - I knew he didn’t.
And, to Owen and others here, what is so “hateful” about asking questions? Stop being such a wimp. People who throw unsubstantiated bombs shouldn’t complain when people question the substance. If you don’t like it, follow McBride down the cowardly hidey-hole.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on June 26, 2008 at 0732 hrs
Owen, if what you meant was “more of a general call for an apology from the McGee apologists,” then that’s what you should have said in the first place. Implying that someone called you a racist and told you to shut up because you weren’t from Milwaukee isn’t called for. It falsely places you in the role of the victim of this bad treatment. Nobody did anything to you. Still, I can see where you meant this rhetorically.
As I said before, I wouldn’t even have had a dog in this fight if it weren’t for the fact that the vagueness of the offenders identity invited readers to place the entire Left at fault. Before anyone tries to say this is an unfair assumption, let me direct you to comment #21 and the general tone of many other comments in this thread.
Posted by scott on June 26, 2008 at 0830 hrs
Scott, again, while I meant it as a general call, I was using my own experience as an example.
Posted by Owen on June 26, 2008 at 0833 hrs
Scott,
That is exactly what he said, “I want an apology from the McGee apologists.”
Posted by Fred on June 26, 2008 at 0908 hrs
Fred, In Owen’s clarifying comments he uses the words “general call” for an apology, while his original post omits any reference to generality. In fact he gets quite specific, asking for “an apology for being called a racist,” and an apology from “those who told me to shut up.”
Posted by scott on June 26, 2008 at 0925 hrs
Owen, if what you meant was “more of a general call for an apology from the McGee apologists,” then that’s what you should have said in the first place. Implying that someone called you a racist and told you to shut up because you weren’t from Milwaukee isn’t called for. It falsely places you in the role of the victim of this bad treatment. Nobody did anything to you.
See, panties in a twist and defending unnamed victims. Well played sir, I love good humor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 0956 hrs
Jason, I wish you would try to be less of a dick.
Posted by scott on June 26, 2008 at 1002 hrs
Jason, I wish you would try to be less of a dick.
There’s a pattern to my being a dick, it should be pretty obvious to everyone. FYI, I’m not ALWAYS a dick to you…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 1212 hrs
Scott, in one of your first comments on this post, you claimed you didn’t read the local paper, so you didn’t didn’t really know about this topic. So why are you so concerned? Yes, people did tell Owen not to talk about this issue because he did not live in Milwaukee. One person sent emails and threatened to come to our home to “discuss” it, and posted our personal information online in a way to threaten Owen. Just because you are not privy to every detail of Owen’s life (thank God) does not mean that you can say what has or has not happened in the past five years.
I appreciate that you comment on this blog, but sometimes it’s hard to defend you when you seem intent on just being an ass for no purpose except to show your perceived superiority.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 1233 hrs
I never said I knew anything, Wendy. I wasn’t making a statement, I was asking a question. Therefore, my not reading local newspapers is irrelevant.
Furthermore, I never sought to deny that Owen had been the target of some McGee-related abuse. I only asked who the guilty parties were. And I only wanted to clarify this because—as I’ve said at least twice so far—absent any specificity, “liberals” become the de facto perpetrator.
Please be careful who you’re calling an ass, Wendy. It’s hard to be nice to someone who does that to you—especially when it’s undeserved.
Please think carefully before calling me an ass. Occasionally I deserve it, maybe. But for this? C’mon.
Posted by scott on June 26, 2008 at 1303 hrs
Scott,
The problem here is that you’re being overly nit-picky, and then, instead of just owning up to being overly nit-picky, you keep going and making it worse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 1333 hrs
No, I think the problem here is that I asked a simple goddamned question, for what turned out to be a self-evident reason, and then—because I was right—got accused of being an asshole who has to prove that he’s right.
Posted by scott on June 26, 2008 at 1340 hrs
LOVE YOU WENDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Fred on June 26, 2008 at 1433 hrs
Well there’s an erudite, helpful and insightful comment about the disagreement. Thanks, Fred.
If I were Wendy (or anyone, for that matter) I’d take no comfort in the fact that you were on my side of an argument.
Posted by scott on June 26, 2008 at 1436 hrs
“Your side is full of hate…”
“Your side has no soul…”
“There are criminals on your side…”
“Yeah well your side has…”
The football has been thoroughly humped by you monkeys.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 1440 hrs
I was speaking to Wendy Scott.
Do you know what your problem is, sometimes the appropriate thing to say is nothing at all.
Your mind lacks that capacity.
Posted by Fred on June 26, 2008 at 1446 hrs
Scott, when you have to say that you’re right because no one else recognizes it, it’s generally a sign that you are not right or have not effectively shown you are right.
I don’t dislike you. I find you incredibly frustrating sometimes because you seem to have this need to appear smarter than everyone else. In your effort to do so, you come across as a complete ass (not an asshole, an ass—a stubborn mule).
Whatever, this post reached the Rule of 35 some time ago, and I’m done.
No hard feelings, I hope, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 1452 hrs
Sometimes the appropriate thing to say is screw you, Fred. I know you’re wetting yourself over the opportunity to pile on Scott—the guy who used to rudely interrupt your conservative wacko circle-jerk of a blog with facts and reason—but you seem have little to offer here besides that.
Posted by scott on June 26, 2008 at 1455 hrs
Wendy, sometimes you can be right even if nobody else agrees with you. And sometimes when you make a perfectly logical argument, people will ignore it.
I don’t dislike you, either. No hard feelings. If I didn’t have thick skin I wouldn’t last a day here.
You’re quite right about one thing, though: time to abandon this thread as it has devolved into a pissing match and I’m all out of piss.
Posted by scott on June 26, 2008 at 1459 hrs
Tell me about it. At least you get to stand up!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 1502 hrs
How do you get an apology from straw men?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2008 at 1533 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134055
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:03 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:07 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).