The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky
http://richarddawkins.net/articl...topher-
Hitchens
Yeah. I saw this yesterday too. Talabani walks like a Tellytubby.
It's good to see the leaders of these two great neighboring countries getting on so well togeher.
Yeah, the transparent propaganda of USraeli pundits, politicos and generals aside, Iran is quite close with the Iraqi gov't (even with goatherder Talabani). Fighting the Usraelis and the Nawasib has nothing to do with "seeking to destabilize Iraq" or "hating democracy" or "fomenting terrorism."
Oh, this is so painful.
Is Hitchens mates with this guy? Olasky was a former Leninist who became a ferocious right winger, and author of "Compassionate Conservatism". You may remember Shrub expounding on this.
Michelle Goldberg wrote an excellent book called "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism" which has the full scoop on Olansky.
I haven't watched the video, so it may well be that Hitchens is slagging Olansky, in which case I am making a dick of myself. I'm gunna watch it now and judge for myself how much my knee-jerk outrage has landed myself in the poo.
Of course, it's possible in my addled state that I have mixed up my Olanskies. What a bugger that would be.
So he's called Olasky (strike one) and he actually hasn't lined up with the poor bastard. Thus spake the Lord: never shooteth from the hip.
Still -- Hitch is now an ally of La Horowitz, which I never would have believed possible. John Mortimer once produced a delightfully Pommy saga which concluded with "Titmuss Regained", in which the former rightwinger renounced his earlier activism and then found God. I know our boy has made megabucks out of his latest, but really, there's little that separates Olasky and CH these days. Could Hitch really be on Olasky's trajectory? Could the gawky strongbean convert the fat alcoholic damned-to-hell warmonger? I know everyone here will be watching.
You guys are ridiculous. Have you heard of diplomacy? It's something leaders of countries do sometimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
197..._visit_to_China
You guys are ridiculous. Have you heard of diplomacy? It's something leaders of countries do sometimes.
Just imagine if Talabani expressed hostility towards Iran -- then Sonic could accuse him of being a pro-Western stooge! Heads I win, tails you lose, on Hitchenswatch!
We may be biased, but at least we're fairly biased. Apart from a few references to the booze and lack of grooming, we leave his personal life alone. Would you really prefer a mixture of hagiography and hymns of praise?
Where this leaves Hugo Chavez on the totalitarian/glorious revolutionary scale is anybody's guess.
I do think that Hitch looks 100% better cleanshaven.
I do think that Hitch looks 100% better cleanshaven.
Indeed. If you are reasonably good-looking, why hide it with a beard? On the other hand ...
On the other hand ...
Creep.
So what, again, is the point of Sonic's post: that an honorable Iraqi leader would refuse to engage Iran diplomatically?
It seems we will have to start "dumbing down" our output so as Ryan can keep up.
Do not fear, my dearest Sonic, the 'dumbing down' here occured with your first post some two years ago. But compared to the sunny days of yore here at Hitchens Watch these days we also have the endless one-line repeater, ban master and cut-and-paster extraordinaire FGFM and the longwinded closet christian and out-of-the-closet conspiro-nut greywolf doing the honors as well. I don't think you should think of 'dumbing down' any further.
Well you never took me up on my offer to write a piece or two for us exhibit. It seems you are happier moaning from the sidelines than actually contributing anything.
Thanks. Maybe i'll take you up on it one day. I had actually forgotten about your noble offer. I am impressed by the fact that you have posted stuff by Mark G, who isn't exactly an anti-Hitchenser in any real sense, even if he does buy into the turn-to-the-right bunkum.
"i'll take you up on it one day"
What day?
"we also have the endless one-line repeater, ban master and cut-and-paster extraordinaire FGFM"
Glorious warmonger!
"turn-to-the-right bunkum"
You are a clown, and not a particularly funny one.
Sonic, I don't understand your question. Come again?
"Sonic, I don't understand your question."
Go to sleep.
”and the longwinded closet christian and out-of-the-closet conspiro-nut greywolf"
Charmed, I'm sure. Thanks so much for sharing that.
So what, again, is the point of Sonic's post: that an honorable Iraqi leader would refuse to engage Iran diplomatically?
"So what, again, is the point of Sonic's post: that an honorable Iraqi leader would refuse to engage Iran diplomatically?"
Maybe noted diplomat Holy Joe Lieberman can help out?
http://lieberman.senate.gov/news...e.cfm?
id=278247
Although no one desires a conflict with Iran, the fact is that the Iranian government by its actions has declared war on us. And while I sincerely hope that diplomacy alone can convince the Iranian government to stop these attacks, our diplomatic efforts are only likely to succeed if backed by a credible threat of force.
No, FGFM, Lieberman's comments yesterday don't tell me what Sonic meant.
He hasn't found time to dumb it down yet, either, so slower folks like me are left to sit here thinking Sonic would have been just as happy to score a point against Hitch for Talabani's refusal to talk to Iran.
Jalal Talabani is arguably one of the most shrewd political operators the Middle East has seen. He is on talking terms with basically every major political leader in the Middle East. Although he led his people in the cause of national liberation, Talabani's internationalism has always been stronger than his nationalism. That is why most Kurds are happy to see him as the president of Iraq, rather than as the president of Kurdistan.
Here is an interesting article about Talabani from a few months back:
http://kurdistanobserver.serveht...t-of-
power.html
Back to the post, if Sonic thinks relations between Talabani and Ahmedinejad is so cordial that it would make Hitch cringe with jealousy and anger, well, he is wrong. I might have thought the same until watching the video Sonic posted.
Did you also notice how Talabani and Ahmedinejad never spoke or even look at each other once during the entire footage?
So, to ask one last time:
Did Sonic actually have anything specific in mind, or was this just a lazy and sloppy attempt at a "gotcha!" against Hitchens, which, upon scrutiny, turns out not to actually mean anything?
In response to this question, Sonic has called me stupid, and complained that to substantiate the implication he thinks he's making would constitute servitude (see comments for the "man in the mirror" post).
And FGFM has given it his best go, but fell a bit flat and ended up merely expressing brave dissent against Joe Lieberman. I suspected he was as baffled as I by Sonic's post, as he didn't even have it in him to say "How's that glorious war going?" once in this thread.
I expected Greywolf to come in by now to offer some alternative to the jibberish and non sequiturs, but he's stayed out of this one.
Normally, I'd be content to leave those things exactly where they are, but I'm really at a loss: it's like staring at the "cow tools" Far Side and wondering what the hell the author intended.
Seamus, you've seemed bored in your responses lately. Perhaps it would amuse you to pretend to be Sonic for a little while and elaborate on the meaning of this post?
So, to ask one last time
Bye.
Seamus, you've seemed bored in your responses lately. Perhaps it would amuse you to pretend to be Sonic for a little while and elaborate on the meaning of this post?
"Let's you and him fight!"
"Let's you and him fight!"
What is it with you and fisticuffs, FGFM?
Don't you know that boxing will go the way of public smoking in the gloriously safe and inoffensive PC future your cothinkers are constructing for us?
Get with the programme, kid!
Ryan-
Tempting offer but I fear the chalice, though not poisoned, lacks potency. The first hint I've seen that our host is not a complete fool is his silence of late. Then this. I'm sure the word "hypocrisy" banged about in his skull just before posting. It's one of his favorites. Not much else gets through though.
Don't you know that boxing will go the way of public smoking in the gloriously safe and inoffensive PC future your cothinkers are constructing for us?
Another strawman. Happy to see that you are having another productive day at work.
"Let's you and him fight!"
Swing and a miss.
Happy to see that you are having another productive day at work.
Hmm, I wasn't going to say anything, but perhaps I should: you should respect people's privacy, FGFM, or I am going to stop posting here. And that includes your little trick with your "home page". By all means abuse me in the way that I abuse you (which I know you love, you little tinker, you) but there is a line that should not be crossed, friend.
I am going to stop posting here.
Be my guest.
Montag is right, FGFM. Sticking your nose into people's personal affairs and making issues out of it is not pretty.
If the personal info voluntarily given, then there is no problem, you may be entitled to make an issue out of it. Otherwise, respect other's privacy. It is none of your business whether they connect during work hours or past bed time.
Also, remember, you don't speak for the blog either. Your name is up there but by the grace of..., ahem, God.
You might well be trying to be friendly, but it would be wrong to treat this place like a local barber shop in Uptown, Chicago.
It is none of your business whether they connect during work hours or past bed time.
So much for freedom of speech.
You might well be trying to be friendly
No, I'm not.
No, I'm not.
That's right, you are not. You are trying to intimidate me into not posting, by making sure people know I am posting from work, and just who my employer is. So fuck you and goodbye, you silly little prick.
"So much for freedom of speech."
This is the funniest thing FGFM has ever said.
Thank you, Montag.
Sorry: sHx gets credit for that one.
And Montag: don't let the village idiot provoke you into leaving this site. The worst revenge one can take on FGFM is the one he insists on: that you go on allowing him to be exactly who he is. Letting him bother you is like letting an impish 5 year old get to you.
Sorry Ryan, but some years ago I was hounded off Usenet by a left-winger who made prank calls to my home and my employer, including accusing me of downloading child porn. They also posted up my address and phone number so anyone else could do the same.
Sadly, the Left is full of people who are prepared to do that kind of thing, no doubt while spouting off about how they really believe in free speech. That's why, when I looked around and really thought about the personalities of my "comrades", I abandoned the Faith.
I ended up changing jobs and moving house, and didn't post a single word on the Internet for seven years. I don't think me or my family are willing to go through that again, for the sake of a few laughs.
So farewell all, good luck, and thanks for all the fish.
So farewell all, good luck, and thanks for all the fish.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
This is the funniest thing FGFM has ever said.
Try posting contrary comments on a typical right-wing blog (if they allow you to) and see how quickly you get banned.
"Try posting contrary comments on a typical right-wing blog (if they allow you to) and see how quickly you get banned."
Therefore, Montag's previous criticism constitutes a sort of Orwellian nightmare for you. That makes sense.
Therefore, Montag's previous criticism constitutes a sort of Orwellian nightmare for you.
Not at all. Most of what Montag says about people is total projection.
"Try posting contrary comments on a typical right-wing blog (if they allow you to) and see how quickly you get banned."
So you've decided to carry out your trolling functions, the best thing you do as far as I can see, here in this left-wing blog, knowing that you'd never get banned or warned but promoted instead for being a troll.
Bloody hell, I have even seen you providing a link to a porn site on this blog and get away with no rebuke. How much money did you have to put to the blog-owner's collection tin for this privilege, FGFM?
I do agree with Montag. For months, FGFM's strategy seemed designed to discourage Montag from contributing to this blog. What Saemus dished out to FGFM in the last several days is no different than what FGFM has been doing to his opponents day in day out since I have known him. What a bloody troll FGFM has been!
Anyway, what was the title of Sonic's post? "With friends like these"
Let's review:
Montag complained that FGFM posted irrelevant and unnecessary information of a personal nature about him, and requested that it stop. sHx seconded this sentiment.
FGFM claimed this request - mind you, the request itself, and not some mandate, which only Sonic could provide anyway - constituted an unreasonable encroachment on his right to free speech.
I chuckled at the utter absurdity of this reply.
FGFM defended his claim with the following "point": some right wing blogs (which have nothing to do with this conversation) have unfair banning policies.
I know it does not generally please Sonic to be asked to do anything by those who come here with unpopular viewpoints; some of the material on this thread is generated by that very issue.
However, if ever there is a time for the host to make an appearance, this is it: Sonic might weigh in on whether or not FGFM has crossed a line.
If Sonic thinks not, then at least Montag is leaving because of a site policy, and not the behavior of an unserious and petty - heckler.
If Sonic thinks that FGFM ought to abide by Montag's request, then this matter could be dropped.
Decents revive their periodic banning campaign.
How much money did you have to put to the blog-owner's collection tin for this privilege, FGFM?
I just split the money I get from Soros 50-50.
This is the first time I've looked at this thread for a couple of days, and I see that Montag has a complaint against FGFM.
Ryan thinks so too.
I haven't contacted FGFM or Sonic, but I've just read this thread through twice, and the comment at issue was FGFM's: "Another strawman. Happy to see that you are having another productive day at work."
From where I stand, that could be a perfectly innocuous statement, or it could be an implied threat from FGFM to inform Montag's employer that Montag is blog-hopping on the firm's time.
NOW, AM I MISSING SOMETHING IMPORTANT?
HAS ANYTHING ELSE TRANSPIRED THAT HAS WIZZED PAST ME? - BECAUSE I AM OUT OF TOUCH WITH "THE REAL WORLD" OF TECHNOLGY AND MEANNESS IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA.
I don't believe FGFM is mean enough to do such a thing, not even to Montag. I'm sure FGFM has the know-how to do it if he wanted to, but I don't for a minute believe he would.
As to the site's policy, as far as I know, we are fair and balanced, which means we would never do anything to compromise the confidentiality of the people who post here - but to be honest it has never occured to me to try to check out a poster's ID in the first place - I'm not like that.
I'll draw Sonic's attention to this and we'll see what he has to say.
But regardless of what assurances any of us three give, if you really don't trust us not to be "decent" about your personal info, and you are posting from work in violation of company rules, then perhaps it would be better for you not to post from work.
Is the situation really that bad in the States?
it could be an implied threat from FGFM to inform Montag's employer that Montag is blog-hopping on the firm's time.
It certainly wasn't my attention to do anything like that.
"It certainly wasn't my intention to do anything like that."
Magna cum laude scholar backtracks.
"Ryan thinks so too."
"it could be an implied threat from FGFM to inform Montag's employer that Montag is blog-hopping on the firm's time."
"NOW, AM I MISSING SOMETHING IMPORTANT?"
My point, above, was to take FGFM to task for the non-sequiturs and persecution complex in the face of a reasonable request from Montag, and not so much to weigh in on the Montag's side of the initial complaint.
As to what you are missing, Greywolf, I think it pertains to this comment by Montag:
>And that includes your little trick >with your "home page".
I checked, and at the time FGFM's homepage was redirecting to a business that I assume related to Montag's place of employment. Montag should really fill in the details here, though.
I don't think anyone believes FGFM was going to harass Montag in any serious way. Perhaps Montag thought so, but in any case I agree that there's no evidence FGFM intended - or attended, as the case may be - anything like that.
The point was that Montag voiced concern over it, and cordially requested that it stop, at which point FGFM began behaving in a rather neurotic and paranoid manner. His most recent follow up to my stated opinion - that it would be prudent for Sonic to adjudicate this matter - was that we 'Decents' are reviving our "periodic banning campaign." I'm not sure what this could possibly even mean, since only he has mentioned the idea of banning and only Sonic would have the power to do so anyway. But it is more evidence that FGFM is at least a little nuts. So if Montag - whose concerns are understandable given his previous experience, but misplaced given current circumstances - is to leave, it ought not to be because of FGFM.
Magna cum laude scholar backtracks.
Not at all. I have no idea who Montag is.
FGFM began behaving in a rather neurotic and paranoid manner
If you say so, champ.
since only he has mentioned the idea of banning
You're new here, aren't you?
But it is more evidence that FGFM is at least a little nuts.
But it's a rather divine sort of madness.
Magna cum laude scholar denies intimidation.
Magna cum laude scholar denies intimidation.
I most certainly do. If Montag likes, he is free to seek civil and/or criminal penalties against me.
Me: "...since only (FGFM) has mentioned the idea of banning"
FGFM: "You're new here, aren't you?"
I invite anyone here to read this exchange and deny that FGFM's frequent "misunderstandings" are willful.
The point, FGFM, if I pretend for a moment that you objection is sincere, was that you were the only one to mention banning ON THIS THREAD, and that it made no sense to bring the prospect of banning into this conversation. (All subsequent mentions have been to discuss your use of the word. That last sentence shouldn't be necessary, but at this point I expect you to quote my earlier criticism of your mentioning "banning" as proof that you weren't the only one talking about it. God, it's like talking to a 4 year old.)
I invite anyone here to read this exchange and deny that FGFM's frequent "misunderstandings" are willful.
I deny it.
you were the only one to mention banning ON THIS THREAD
So, I take it that you don't think that I should be banned? (I await the Decent Dodge!)
God, it's like talking to a 4 year old.
I realize that you hate smart-alecks.
http://www.fgfm.info/dotd.gif
"So, I take it that you don't think that I should be banned?"
No. This is a further example of what I have described as paranoia - bordering on a persecution complex - on your part.
I do not think you should be banned, and I haven't taken any other position here. My only claim was that Sonic should come in and adjudicate the situation. If he had decided that your inclusion of Montag's "personal information" crossed the line, Sonic could simply have asked you to stop.
I imagine that official policy enforced by our host would have been enough for Montag. (If Montag thinks that insufficient, then it ought to be Montag's problem.)
"I realize that you hate smart-alecks."
Actually, I don't mind smart-alecks so much as I mind people who are constantly derailing the conversation with their inability to follow a simple thread. But since you've explained to us in your most recent post that this tendency is beyond your control, I'll try to be a bit more patient, if you'll follow the exchange a bit more carefully.
Ryan: "As to what you are missing, Greywolf, I think it pertains to this comment by Montag:
>And that includes your little trick >with your "home page".
I checked, and at the time FGFM's homepage was redirecting to a business that I assume related to Montag's place of employment. Montag should really fill in the details here, though.
I don't think anyone believes FGFM was going to harass Montag in any serious way. Perhaps Montag thought so, but in any case I agree that there's no evidence FGFM intended - or attended, as the case may be - anything like that."
Thanks Ryan for enlightening me. You may not agree with me. But it seems to me that Montag and FGFM have issues that go beyond what goes on here at HW. And we've all witnessed the way they get on like a married couple after the sex and romance have gone out the window. But FGFM hasn't, as far as I can tell, abused the technical features of the HW site in order to harass Montag.
If everyone would be reasonable, use their common sense, and show a bit more respect and understanding toward each other, things would go so much more smoothly. I know - fat chance!
Oh, incidentally, I've started using a new version of Firefox and it gives me a lot more info as an ordinary visitor than I could get with my old Safari program. Seems anyone of us can easily drag up the IP address of anyone else on line and make nefarious use of the information. It's a bit scary, really.
No. This is a further example of what I have described as paranoia - bordering on a persecution complex - on your part.
Are you a shrink or do you just play one on the Internet?
I do not think you should be banned, and I haven't taken any other position here.
Great! Then I guess that we have nothing more to discuss about the matter.
My only claim was that Sonic should come in and adjudicate the situation.
You have his email address and don't have to badger me about the situation.
Actually, I don't mind smart-alecks so much as I mind people who are constantly derailing the conversation with their inability to follow a simple thread.
How do you feel about people who try to derail the site with regards to its stated goal of bashing Hitchens?
FGFM tops himself here; seldom have I seen a reply so confused on so many simple points.
In any case, I am no longer willing to grant his earlier claim, that his blatant misunderstanding of almost everything he replies to is not absolutely willful.
Ryan, stop being such a pompous ass. This whole issue has been dealt with by me, if you don'tlike how I have done so you can log off the site and not come back.
Can it, last warning.
"How do you feel about people who try to derail the site with regards to its stated goal of bashing Hitchens?"
Cat out of the bag.
To my knowledge the blogowner never stated that the goal of his endeavour was "bashing Hitchens". They always denied it. Both Sonic and Greywolf always claimed that they were carrying out a little humorous but an honest evaluation of the subject matter, not merely throwing around lies, insults, invectives and accusations.
It turns out they were all lies, lies, and damn lies. This is all about bashing, stupid! Watching has nothing to do with it.
Glorious Hitchunt!
"Ryan, stop being such a pompous ass. This whole issue has been dealt with by me, if you don'tlike how I have done so you can log off the site and not come back."
Actually, I have no problem with the way it has been dealt with by you. Quite the contrary: for almost all of the material here I was responding to FGFM's admixture of disingenuous replies and persistent heckling, which is the real reason this conversation has had to drag on.
I notice you don't puff out your chest quite the same way when it comes to and his (above) refusals to engage in cordial and discussion, including his recent assertion that this site isn't intended to be open to contrary views any more than it is intended to be open to posters who deliberately derail discussions.
To be merely "pompous" in an exchange with FGFM is an achievement not to be dismissed so readily, but anyway I'm happy to be held to account for any inappropriate specific comments about the way you run your site. I think you'll find I've said nothing so bad as the tone and content of FGFM's replies would lead you to believe.
Apologies for not signing that, and for the gratuitous "and" in the second paragraph.
FGFM tops himself here; seldom have I seen a reply so confused on so many simple points.
Nice work there with the semicolon.
Glorious Hitchunt!
And I'm locked, cocked, and ready to rock! Hey, how do you Decents feel about the whole Libby Lewis matter?
Quite the contrary: for almost all of the material here I was responding to FGFM's admixture of disingenuous replies and persistent heckling, which is the real reason this conversation has had to drag on.
Is that some sort of law of physics or something?
posters who deliberately derail discussions.
Derailing can be in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that you and a lot of the other Hitch apologists would love the site to turn into a discussion of my personal shortcomings. I, on the other hand, would like to discuss Hitch and his scumbag pals who got us into this filthy war and would like to expand it to Iran.
"Nice work there with the semicolon."
It is nice to be appreciated. I do tend to overuse semicolons; I'm not sure if it is a reflection of the way that I think or simply my second-rate prosaic abilities.
"how do you Decents feel about the whole Libby Lewis matter?"
I haven't been following it quite closely, but from what I gather Hitch takes a selective and shallow view of this issue.
To commute his sentence is sillier still: the lack of pardon acknowledges the crime, the commuting declares perjury a trivial matter.
Ryan, Can it, final warning.
"To my knowledge the blogowner never stated that the goal of his endeavour was "bashing Hitchens". They always denied it."
Want to join him in the naughty chair, your pain in the arse lies are starting to bug me again.
I feel a clear out is called for, I'm sick to death of stupidity in these comment fields and I'm sick and tired of moderating p*ss like this.
Life is too short, start stayingh on topic or bugger off. If you need help going away I'm happy to bring out the banning stick.
My site, my rules. Deal with it.
Not sure what you're warning me about. My most recent post included unusually friendly banter with FGFM over my use of semicolons, and an cordial answer to his question about Libby.
And far be it from me to challenge your moral high ground, but I would ask you to recall that my initial attempts to stay "on topic", and constructively discuss the original post, were met with a non-response in which you felt it both appropriate and sufficient to simply call me stupid.
Get as sick to death as you want, but the record remains above.
You just would not let it lie
Goodbye
I implore visitors to read this thread carefully, and come to their own conclusions.
Commenting by HaloScan
