The Company We Keep
by matt at 1:30 pm on February 16th, 2006 in Politics2006: Iran Renames Danish Pastries:
Iranians love Danish pastries, but when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for “Roses of the Prophet Muhammad.”
2003: House cafeterias change names for ‘french’ fries and ‘french’ toast:
The cafeteria menus in the three House office buildings changed the name of “french fries” to “freedom fries,” in a culinary rebuke of France stemming from anger over the country’s refusal to support the U.S. position on Iraq.
sarabeth wrote:
I guess it’s official then. They’re learning it from us.
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 2:16 pm ¶
Fernando wrote:
“From you, all right? I learned it from watching you!”
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 2:50 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Hmmm
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 4:42 pm ¶
matt wrote:
are you out of your fucking mind?
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 4:46 pm ¶
Fernando wrote:
I’m breaking my own “Ignore JimC Rule” here, but:
a) What on god’s green earth does that link have to do with this post, and
b) When exactly did Saddam Hussein become a reliable source for anything?
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 4:46 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, this guy is now using the Comments section as his personal blog.
Not kosher, in my book
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 5:01 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Omigod, I have an internet stalker!
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 5:03 pm ¶
Fernando wrote:
You most certainly do not! Or at least, it’s not me.
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 5:32 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Please don’t make me say “Just kidding!” My circuits will self-destruct if I do.
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 5:56 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I just didn’t want to repeat what I’ve asked/said several times before, about what seems to be “news” worthy. It is just to show how far you go to ignore *anything* that doesn’t serve your agenda.
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 8:41 pm ¶
matt wrote:
let me break this down for you by way of your one final warning:
this is not your blog. jason and i started this blog 2 1/2 years ago and have spent literally thousands of hours researching and writing it. we will write about exactly whatever the fuck we feel like writing about, and will willfully ignore any topic exactly as we see fit. the comment section of this blog is for comments about each individual post and nothing more. you don’t get to decide what the topics are and you don’t get to hijack the comments when you think something is more important. these rules are not subject to debate. commenting here is a privilege, not a right.
blogging software is free, and wordpress.com and blogspot offer free hosting. i have repeatedly offered to spend my own time (unpaid) to help you set up your own blog where you can slag us or anyone you want, write about whatever hannity or o’reilly are ranting about on any given day. but you can’t do it here.
you can choose to abide by our rules or not. but be clear: my patience with your actions here is at an end, and that was all that was saving you from a ban. you’ve said you would wear a ban as a badge of honor, well, continue to disrespect us and our readers and i’ll give you the honor, bet.
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 9:04 pm ¶
Jason wrote:
Jim:
I hesitate to add on to this, but this is frustrating because we’ve been over this ground before, and recently.
I wrote this only ten days ago, when you challenged us about the whole Danish cartoon controversy:
This isn’t a difficult concept. And it’s certainly preferable to hijacking the comments of an unrelated post. Like I said, this was written ten days ago so it shouldn’t be some kind of surprise. You want us to write about something? Send us a link. Maybe we’ll write about it. Maybe we won’t. But at least we’ll have the time to look it over and see what happens. But if you want to make sure that a certain topic is being covered, the best way is to start your own site. It isn’t hard.
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 11:59 pm ¶
Ken wrote:
I have generally been inclined towards sympathy for both the VP and Mr. Wittington. Accidents happen.
But given the way that the VP handled the aftermath (e.g., delaying meeting with law enforcement for 18 hours, not following Mr. Wittington to the hospital), even a reasonable person must question the official accounting of events.
Mr. Hannity’s defense of the VP sounds like an adolescent trying to get away with something he knows to be wrong. It’s easier to lie when you cloak yourself in false righteousness.
Posted 17 Feb 2006 at 9:05 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m doing that right now…stay tuned, it may take a while though, I’m busy with work, stupid money…
In my defense and to see my logic if even you may think it is illogical. My post to me was on topic for I was comparing this bit of news to the other big story that came out. Granted that’s not the reaction I’m sure matt desired but all topics can have many possible paths that spread out across into many directions and I see what I post as one possible thread off of this topic. May not have been obvious nor welcome but still valid. But of course this is your site and you can create the rules. I was not attempting to “hijack” the thread but to lead it in an unexcpected direction which obviously was again not well liked but being well liked isn’t my goal. You obviously have an ideal of which you write posts to support what you believe is correct . You also leave open comments from readers. My response to this post was no doubt not what you expect but none the less my “comment”. Which is that this story seems in my opinion a non-story and to compare it to a real story that came out as well. You may not like my commentary and it is your right to block it or remove it. However you see it, don’t claim it is irrelevant or invalid just label it as offensive to your ideal.
Is my post any more or less relevant the little banter between sarabeth and Fernando? Or even Kens (unless he posted to the wrong thread)?
I could be wrong but it seems that this rule only applies if it does not sit well with you, which is your right, but is that what you stand for? inequality? If I don’t challenge you in the manner that is to your liking does is it any less of a challenge? I could be wrong…
Posted 17 Feb 2006 at 11:53 am ¶
matt wrote:
i don’t care what “to you was on topic.” it clearly wasn’t even in the same universe.
you should stop thinking like that here. it will not end well.
obviously off topic, unwelcome, counter to direct instructions, and valid in no way shape or form.
your job here isn’t to lead. it’s to speak your mind about the topics we highlight if you choose, or to shut up and read what we have to say. unfortunately for you, there is simply no other option. i’m deeply tired of having to explain this to you. this isn’t up for debate.
in what other language can i explain this to you? it wasn’t “offensive to my ideal.” it was off topic. if you want to get into the merits, your link was asinine. as someone who advocated and mindlessly defends the decision to remove saddam from power, what on earth is his word worth to you. (this is a rhetorical question. don’t even think of answering it.)
the point of this post was to compare the small, petty actions of a few congressmen with the small petty actions of some in iran.
not that you are owed an answer to this, but obviously ken’s comment should have been on another post and was not an attempt to go off topic. the other comments were responses to other comments. yours was neither a mistake nor a response to anything that was going on.
i’m certain i have the right to do whatever i want here. i have allowed you to make a complete ass out of yourself for months. i have allowed you to comment on posts and links that you clearly haven’t bothered to read. i have resisted demands to ban you on many occasions. that’s all done now. i am finished explaining the rules, i’m finished with your nonsense. play by the rules or don’t play.
Posted 17 Feb 2006 at 12:16 pm ¶
marc wrote:
A telling statement, since this is precisely how he chooses to argue the majority of his points. When one direction isn’t working, argue something else no matter whether it’s closely related or not.
Still wondering what “out across into” means..
Posted 17 Feb 2006 at 12:50 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>Still wondering what “out across into” means..
Huh? “spread out across, into many directions”…is that better?
Posted 17 Feb 2006 at 1:56 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Jim, across & into are two prepositions in a row. “spread out” is probably spread-out given the way you’re using it. Regardless, one preposition should suffice.
Posted 17 Feb 2006 at 2:05 pm ¶
Shawn wrote:
Does anyone know if they’re still being toddlers and calling them “Freedom Fries” in DC or did we go back to “French Fries” after we realized the war was going sideways and the French, regardless of their motivations, were smart enough to stay out of it.
Unfortunately, I suspect it’s the former simply because that would require admitting that we, you know, weren’t welcomed as liberators and Baghdad remains off of McDonald’s and Starbuck’s franchise plans.
Posted 20 Feb 2006 at 1:47 pm ¶
matt wrote:
not sure what kind of frites they are serving these days, but one of the brains behind the change changed his mind about the war last year…
Posted 20 Feb 2006 at 2:05 pm ¶