« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Free MassDem
Please excuse the petulant tantrum, but I have an issue with TPM, and I'd like to know if anyone else has had a similar experience.
It wasn't my proudest moment as a member of the community here, but I posted a middle-english glossary on the thread of michelle b's post from the other day, it was really, really long but not offensive, insulting, vulgar or abusive in any way. In fact, no one who posted to the thread after me found it objectionable to say so. I also posted the exact same comment on a thread awhile ago, and it led to a rather comical spam fight.
In due course, my comment was deleted from the thread, which I really have no objection to. But now, I am not allowed to comment on any reader posts. When I try to submit a comment, I get a message that says: your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner. I am assuming the the blog owner in this case is TPM. I know that it is not the original poster, since I have tried to post on my own threads and have reveived no notification that a comment is waiting for my approval.
When I first received this message, I thought I was in some kind of tape-delay, penalty box and my comment would appear once it is reviewed and found to be harmless. This bothered me, but I figured it was probably a fair punishment my action. But, it has been roughly 36 hours since the first time I received the message and none of my comments have appeared yet.
I sent an e-mail to "management"(not calling anyone out by name) yesterday evening, and have recieved no reply. I recieved no warning that I would be restricted, there is no explanation of the deletion of my original comment.
To reiterate, posting a "spam" comment on a thread was not my finest moment, but I don't understand how it is any worse than some of the downright abusive, vulgar and personal comments I've seen posted by others (again, not calling anyone out by name). For my commenting priviledges to be suspended (revoked?) without any warning, precedent or notification that this could even be done seems excessive.
As I write this, I don't know if this post will show up, and I am reasonably sure that I will not be able to participate in any discussion that ensues, so that you for hearing me out.
Comments (91)
We're with you, MassDem!
July 2, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
FREE MassDem!!!!
July 2, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who knew that TPM had a penalty box?
July 2, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let him out!
July 2, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
FREE! MassDEM!!!
Welll, it seems to me this could be a heretofore, er, "feature" of the software, in which case, I'm quite glad to know about it.
Lila, is there some limit to the length of a post that will revoke one's posting privleges automatically? Andrew tended to be quite upfront about file deleting and informing the community of why, so it seems odd to me to see deletions without so much as an explanation.
I have an odd feeling, that as MassDem can post, but not comment, that it is likely that this is some sort of glitch. If these things happen, what is the turnaround time on having them addressed? I mean, for the record, I have sent very few emails in to TPM, but when I have the response has been in well under 36 hours. Under 12, actually.
I guess what I am saying, badly, is that this seems to indicate a rather large change in policy, (if not a glitch,) and it would be nice to hear if it is and what, exactly, it is.
Thanks.
July 2, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can we do to help? Could happen to any of us..
July 2, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we go flokmeele with the "Free MassDem" slogan kithed on our array, we might gain the biheeste of assoillyng for our freend.
Withalle, bumper stickers and buttons might help too.
July 2, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, a Chaucer reader amongst us.
July 2, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding my previous comment: one person's spam is another person's learning opportunity. :)
July 2, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec it up so Lila notices
July 2, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahoy MassDem, I've told Lila that I want to up the vigilance for rule-breaking here at TPMCafe. But our rods of correction are limited to corrective emails and banning. What you're describing isn't any sort of banning or punishment, to the best of my knowledge. That's the response you get in comments if the spam filter suspects it's seeing spam. Putting in lots of urls can trip it off, and various other stuff. So this is either a glitch affecting your account or your putting in some sort of funky characters of lots of urls that's tripping the alarm. I'd shoot lila an email. lila (at) you know what and see if she can figure out what's up. Josh
July 2, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, I am overwhelmed and pleased (in that order), that you jumped in here with such heartening news, but, if I may, and I hope I don't sound too much like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Main, but....
It's you're.
Your first your was correct, but in my block quote above, your second post was incorrectly typed and I hope that you're kind enough to overlook my pointing this out.
Peace and I love your site,
LisB
PS: Do you like The Clash? Just wondering.
July 2, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh: Try AppRiver.com as your spam filter service. Really. Huge difference in quality.
July 2, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forwarded from MassDem via chat:
and BTW, kudos to Josh for responding so quickly
July 2, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
MassDem has stated (on Lingr) that even posting a single word comment ("Hello") has sent her into limbo.
July 2, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, just to be inclusive, and in case anyone missed the previous posts, ben is referring to the lingr chat room here: http://www.lingr.com/room/TPM-aholics
July 2, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think MassDem has shown sufficient contriteness to be released from what ever box (or accident of fate) it's been caught in. Also, what workerbee said.
July 2, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget to rec, Josh.
July 2, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
workerbee is now being placed in da penalty box for sheer cheek)
July 2, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
ot- Josh, did you ban CT Voter today?
July 2, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wanted to say, I hope not.
Welcome back, MassDem.
July 2, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter? What was the offending comment???? Usually CT Voter is measured and ever so insightful.
July 2, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh, we don't go around banning people for saying things we disagree with or even things we find a bit offensive. The banning is pretty few and far between and it's reserved for people who are consistently violating the terms of use -- which inmost cases means abusive language, intentionally disrupting conversation, hate speech, etc.
July 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to sigh, Josh. ;-)
There is a reason I like this site so much and have been reading it since 2002. This place can handle the rough and tumble. You allow it. I have love for this site for that very reason, Josh. Just sayin'.
July 2, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for stopping by. What made 'ya notice?
July 2, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big Brother always watches the proles. And the Outer Party.
(We are the Outer Party.)
July 2, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently not. I'd be interested to see the long list of consistent offenses that led to MassDem's banning. I'm guessing it's about one comment long. It's my guess you've got an overzealous or biased mod on your payroll.
July 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there anything more condescending and disrespectful than sighing in reply to a comment?
If you really are Josh, shame on you for six weeks. Apologize or suffer my perpetual contempt, whoever you actually are.
July 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM: Poor MassDem; I have never seen a post by him (or her) that was offensive in any way. Plenty of other posters offend, but not MassDem.
In fact, I thought there was a group trend recently in which posters agreed to discuss recipes, or whatever, in response to suspected trolls.
Have a heart; TPM. Think outside the (penalty) box.
Readjust, or replace spam filter with one that is more intelligent; to get it right, you might try using AppRiver.com as your provider -- rave reviews.
July 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
crossing fingers
Hey! I'm still here.
July 2, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drink more. ;-)
July 2, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
MassDem would say hello to Josh if he could, but he can't, so this is all you get.
July 2, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
FREE MASSDEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On that particular post and day, it was not MASSDEM who went nuclear. He has never done anything but stand up to those who abuse this 'program'.
And yes, at times most of us have declared 'open thread' and posted recipes, song lyrics, etc. This is only done when it is believed the 'post' is either abusive or nonsense. (Okay, sure once in awhile it's backlash against a troll! I confess!)
MASSDEM is a valued and important participant for TPM posters/bloggers.
Please fix his account and let him come back and rejoin his friends (and others)!
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
July 2, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a crack-up.
You posted that glossary?! I thought a hacker was playing games with my screen or something!
Will be right there to break you out...in a couple of days. Sit tight.
;)
July 2, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, no one who posted to the thread after me found it objectionable to say so. I also posted the exact same comment on a thread awhile ago, and it led to a rather comical spam fight.
---------------------------------------------------
I didn't find it comical. I have never found that childish game to be funny. There have been numerous people who have made it clear that they find the multi page cut and pastes objectionable as well. The issue has been discussed in several threads. I see no need to repeat the arguments. Suffice it to say that there was disagreement over whether it was appropriate or not.
I take no action behind someone's back nor do I ever hide my actions. I am always totally up front with my views or actions. As soon as it was clear to me that discussion was insufficient to reach a consensus I made it very clear in several posts that I was and would continue to complain to the editor of this site when ever I saw a multi page spam post. I have no idea if I was the only one but I did send an e-mail to Lila.
I realize that MassDem is popular here and I am not. This clique is of course free to blame and condemn me if they wish.
July 2, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries Oceankat - I think the message has been received loud and clear that there's no debate anymore. The spam posts are unacceptable tactic. No one's condemning you, but I think MassDem may have expected an official warning before getting the boot. Let's all move forward in the spirit of TPM unity.
July 2, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM has it's own Unity Pony?
Excellent!
July 3, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM U M A!
well, not really.... it looks too much like something relating to Uma Thurman...
baking a cake with a file in it for MassDem...
July 3, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clique?
I seek out your comments, so that makes you part of my clique, I guess.
I just want to clarify something here. I happen to agree posting long comments is disruptive, and I'm not a fan. I'd put it in the catagory of rude, rather than destructive.
My objections to the objectors was that rather than merely saying so some of them decided to post long comments as retribution. That was in a word, childish and made matters worse.
My particular beef here is that there has obviously been a change in policy. If the powers that be have decided to revoke commenting ability for posting long posts, they should have made it clear before hand.
That's manners.
July 3, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The original concept wasn't to post long Cut & Paste disruptions, which MassDem freely admitted was taking it too far.
The theory was to declare an OPEN THREAD to talk about whatever topic you found interesting. Some passed along recipes. Some offered non sequiturs.
At no time was the idea to harass, but rather to diffuse old school political attack blogs without logic or reason or attribution.
July 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. There have been many times when the original post served as the obnoxious affront. Here's a good example:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/to-prevent-financial-chaos.php
This guy insists on constantly spamming the entire site with his ridiculous LaRouche garbage. But we're supposed to just ignore that, right? And MassDem, who has contributed much to the discussion here gets booted for some stupid comment. This makes ZERO sense. BOOTED. Not warned. Comment not deleted. Silenced. Way over the top.
July 3, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just took a look at the post MassDem supposedly "ruined". michelle bociurkiw. Figures. She's never posted an intelligent word in her life. 33 comments and 2 recommends. MassDem did the right thing, as far as I'm concerned. She's a HillaryIs44 troll, and an idiot. (Was that too disrepectful?) Take a look at her profile, and then ask yourself why MassDem got banned instead of her:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/michelle%20bociurkiw
July 3, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putting in lots of urls can trip it off...
I had this happen to me 2 or 3 times. I wasn't intending to spam but merely to reference the source of the assertions I was making. But doing so didn't keep me from commenting on other posts w/o the multiple url's. Who knows?
July 3, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor MassDem! Hope you get back safe and sound, buddy.
July 3, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know the number of urls you can place in a comment? I had a very non-controversial comment held for review in a thread about energy. Someone was trying to remember where they had read on another thread about a company that was using fast growing algae from which oil could be produced in large quantities. I thought they were refering to a comment I had made on another post. I linked to the TPM post, the PBS site to the transcript of the segment they did, the homepage of the start-up company, and a new article about Chevron now investing heavily in this venture capital enterprise. Four links in about two short paragraphs. At least two weeks and haven't seen it since. No notification. What's the policy, Kenneth? At least it didn't restrict me from further com
July 3, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've had posts with 2 URLs screened out. As a rule, if I want to share more than one URL, I do it in separate posts.
July 3, 2008 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you get away with 2... sometimes not.
It's very irritating. Of course, this discourages posters from citing sources!
July 3, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to Virtual Gitmo.
But wait a minute, even real Gitmo detainees get habeas corpus!
July 3, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are there others missing? Has this been their fate, too?
:(
If you are going to be revoking the ability to comment for posting long comments, you really ought to warn people. Also, not allowing them to appeal, or sitting on those appeals for longer than a day kinda sucks.
Just sayin.
Seems to me several otherwise polite and thoughtful posters are missing, (even several not so polite, but still)
July 3, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
MassDem:
I've seen this error message a bunch of times. I doubt it has anything to do with anything you've done. Here's something to try:
1). Navigate away from TPM
2). Clear your cache
3). Delete all TPM cookies
4). Close your browser
5). Open your browser and log in to TPM
July 3, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: If you can see this message and the one above, I'd say it's safe to assume that it's pretty tough to get banned around here. *:o)
July 3, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this shithead's been asking for a banning for a long time :) :) :)
July 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Experiment:
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
July 3, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try it again linking to articles within the those pages.
July 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not gonna try it--YOU try it. Oh, OK... But if I get banned, you're to blame.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/rush-limbaugh-on-his-new_n_110661.html
http://xkcd.com/386/
http://www.engrish.com/detail.php?imagename=us-bonus-shock-standerd.jpg&category=Clothing&date=2008-05-30
http://www.mulletsgalore.com/mullets/index.php?id=49
July 3, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, HRB. Worked for you.
July 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. Or maybe I'm banned now. I'm gonna hit "Send" but I'm scared--real scared. OK, here goes...
If you don't see a reply, you'll know I've been kicked off. (Recursive nerd humor.)
July 3, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recursive nerd humor :) Funny!
Ok, now try...heh, heh, just kidding.
July 3, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it's a function of how long you've been here. I, too, can post numerous links in a comment. I've never had a problem with it.
July 3, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey All-- Sorry for sitting on this for a bit-- I've been swamped with a couple of housekeeping matters that have taken a lot of my attention. At any rate, this plea has definitely been heard, and I'm going to be lifting the hold on MassDem's account. But let this also stand as a warning guys-- I'm watching, and I really want this to be a site where real discussion takes place. And a long discussion-killing middle-english glossary comment really doesn't cut it. That said, have a great holiday weekend, and thanks for loving TPM so much! In short: MassDem is FREE!!!!!!!!
July 3, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you DID ban him? Mean!
July 3, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might help to make rules a bit more transparent. You'll be banned when you do this or that, you'll be banned for so long, appeals court is here, that sort of thing.
I hear some people are actually fed up with secretive and all-powerful government. I'm sure that's completely unrelated.
July 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Lila. I think a post about what qualifies for immediate caging of tigers and other folk would be in order. Hope I have not been banned for the comment re: bunkitty above. Guess I'll find out now!!!
July 3, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something about the tone of this is unsettling...
What constitutes a "real" discussion, anyway?
July 3, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it is unsettling, in a scolding parent to naughty child sort of way. When I try to post something at HuffPost that they don't like, they just don't publish the post. That seems reasonable. I mean, if this site's being moderated, then there's really no reason to ban anyone unless they insist upon repeating the offense. Locking MassDem out for posting a long discussion-killing middle-english glossary comment seems unreasonably harsh.
July 3, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Worse, it sounded dictatorial. Were I Josh (her employer), I'd have some clenched teeth over that remark. Unless that's the new mood he wants to set.
July 3, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dictatorial. Precisely the word I was groping for. Well, we'll all just have to watch what we say from now on. All except for michelle bociurkiw. It seems her moronic tripe is just the sort of thing TPM is looking for.
July 3, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey All,
I think my last comment didn't come off in quite the way I intended it to. I did temporarily ban MassDem's comments. He was pasting pages of jibberish into comment threads which just literally shuts down a whole conversation. We don't like to be in a position of judging what this or that person writes in comments. But if we don't police, the place can quickly degenerate and the kinds of convos we love becomes impossible. And stuff like this isn't expression, it's an effort to shutdown conversation. So Josh and i want to nip these things in the bud and be proactive. I've unbanned MassDem. So all's back. But we just feel a little more proactive involvement on our part is necessary to keep things moving along. Make sense? Thanks guys~
July 3, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, right. This place was like your typical Yahoo! board just a few months ago. Glad we have the new sheriff cleaning up!
For a website that promotes left-of-center values like transparency, etc. from ruling parties, this is an odd way to show those values. While I recognize that TPM is a business and not the government, it's still a bit jolting to the customers (us) when there is a "I'll know it when I see it" policy.
July 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does make sense to me, my only issue now is with the communication of and threshold for such restrictions. I do feel strongly that my actions were tame compared to others I have seen, but that is no excuse. I would have appreciated:
1. A warning that there could be restrictions.
and
2. A comment explaining the dissapearance of my offending comment (maybe this could be the place for the warning).
All in all, an expectation that a system be perfect all of the time is foolish. In this case, I think the feedback went both ways effectively, and that seems like the way it should be. Take as evidence that this post and thread, which is very critical of TPM, by and large, has continued unabated and been responded to by management in a fair and equitable manner.
July 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition, bear in mind that my offending comment was CLEARLY not intended to contribute to the conversation, rather to annoy the original poster. If comments start dissapearing for other reasons, such as political viewpoint, we would have a big issue, and a smaller community as a result, but there is NO indication that this will take place here.
July 3, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks MassDem-- I think you're totally right on here. We have never banned people for political reasons, for having differing viewpoints, etc, and we definitely don't plan on starting. And I will absolutely get in touch the next time before placing a hold on someone's account. As far as transparency on commenting policy goes-- i think this link
says it all.
July 3, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, Lila, your link goes to a user generated blog. Again, you may want to rethink about the message that this conveys.
Isn't there a permalink to the official TPM policy?
July 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
there is no way to link to this kind of site generated feedback - I tried to link to the message I was getting in my post, but the link didn't work.
July 3, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was talking about a TPM link to the TPM policy.
They can generate that. It's typically available on a Terms of Service/Use page:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/termsofuse.php
July 3, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lila -- thanks for the explanation. While we're on the topic of communication, I know it's difficult for TPM to make changes to the blog software, but the standard "this comment has been held for approval message" is misleading and confusing. I've seen numerous people wondering who was approving their message and what that actually meant -- usually in the case where someone had attempted to included 3 or 4 links in a reply. Perhaps the text could be modified to say: "Your comment submission failed. Contact the blog administrator if you have any questions." (I know, that sounds less friendly, but it's clearer.)
July 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how will you know a missing comment isn't there?
This may well be the top of a very slippery slope.
Ironically, this site was very tame (by Internet standards) without moderation.
July 3, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make sense?
Jawohl, meine Dame.
July 3, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Lila, and I applaud your effort to keep the level of conversation on a high level. I am truly regretful that I had to be an example of bad behavior, but I do get a little mischevious at times.
Man, I feel like Red in the last 20 minutes of shawshank redemption, do I know how to handle freedom? Have I been institutionalized? What was the name of that town in Mexico where Andy was headed? I gotta go get some therapy.
July 3, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back! It wasn't as much fun without ya!
(Now you'll have even more reason to celebrate Independence Day. Couldn't resist.)
July 3, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zihuatanejo
July 3, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey MassDem, when you finish the cake I sent, please send the file back. I might need it some day.
July 3, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
10-4
July 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's really funny is that you can be banned from making comments but you can still blog about it and create a citizen movement in favor of your own release.
MassDem has put an end to the blogisan politics of old and has ushered in a new era of yes we can (protest getting tossed into the penalty box).
July 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't point that out too loudly. Had MassDem been banned from blogging as well, the community would have had no place to learn of her plight and rally.
Why is this website starting to feel like it's run by Republicans???
July 3, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least a few of us learned of it here, first: http://www.lingr.com/room/TPM-aholics
But still, for the benefit of those unaware of such hang-outs, your point is well taken.
July 3, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, but imagine what would have happened next:
Someone would have had to take it upon themselves to repost and/or report on the situation from Lingr to here.
Why is that an issue? Because it alters the group dynamics of the community here. It will begin to set an us vs. them mentality with those that run the website.
That's why I thought Lila's response has some rather heavy handed lines in it. I have never seen Josh wade into that type of territory.
This group is rather self-policing for the most part. And as has been pointed out, MassDem would hardly be thought of as someone truly disruptive here. Why pick on her?
Frankly, it already doesn't feel the same here. Genghis was moved to apologize to Lila for a post that Frog Leg made.
July 3, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, there is something wrong with all of this.
I'm frankly not a big fan of the "posting nonsense in nonsense threads" technique because I do worry that some new, well meaning people do actually come here, start topics and look like trolls until they're gently persuaded, by the mostly polite community, to get with the real debate (which is, by the way, FISA and nothing else!)
Still, much as I disagree with what MassDem did, it's not as if he did it to Billy Glad or readytoblowagasket or, well, to me to be frank about it. It's not like MassDem attacks the site's self described iconoclasts. He went after, well... a sucky poster. And he goes after, well, the Larouche guy who needs practice to become a sucky poster.
I mean, Lila, I know there's no way to quantify this but... how about an "all bets are off with people who suck consistently rule?"
And yes, that means that Kozmik and Lamont Williams can have their ways with my posts.
July 3, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eaney meaney miney moe
Catch a tiger by the toe
If he hollers let him go
Eaney meaney miney moe
July 3, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holding a sit-in for you now, MassDem.
Keep on posting!!!!
July 3, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! This was nothing. Just wait till the new FISA Amendments pass!
July 3, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment