November 5, 2008

Silver Linings Dept.

Jean Schmidt survived a challenge from Victoria Wells Wulsin Whatever (VW3) and David “Cracked” Krikorian, but not impressively. My two cents: Her vote for the bailout hurt her and helped the other two, both of whom ran poor campaigns. She either needs to return to her otherwise strong voting record next year, or deserves a stiff conservative challenge in 2010. The linked story is “cleverly” written: “In a one-on-one interview with 9News, Schmidt said that she is ready to go back to Washington, and ‘roll up her sleeves’ to work together with the new Obama administration.” I’ll bet she didn’t actually say the last eight words.

______________________________________________________

Emily’s Lister and chummy with jihadists (9:25 item at link) Mary Jo “of course” Kilroy has lost to Steve Stivers in OH-15, per CNN and the Columbus Dispatch, despite two other candidates who siphoned votes away from Stivers. Update, Nov. 7: Nope (HT to Chad Baus) — CNN and the Dispatch were wrong (how does that happen). Stivers is up by 321 pending a recount. With Brunner in charge, I’m a pessimist.

______________________________________________________

Even though OH-01 was picked up by someone who claims to be prolife but isn’t when it matters, and OH-16 was picked up by someone who claims to be in favor of 2nd Amendment rights but isn’t when it matters, the OH congressional delegation is still 10-8 GOP.

______________________________________________________

Nancy (oh) Boyda lost to Lynn Jenkins in KS-02. No more temper tantrums when generals tell the truth.

_____________________________________________________

State Rep Josh Mandel in Ohio District 17 handily defeated the his Democratic opponent who, along with his wife, clownishly criticized Mandel for “going AWOL” by returning to Iraq and threw in a bit of Jewish stereotyping as an added bonus. Mandel’s explanation for his decision to return: “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to say no when my country called.” Thank you, sir.

Jill at Writes Like She Talks, who lives in the District, did not support Mandel, and may have voted for the clownishly acting opponent. The results of a WLST site search on her opponent’s name show that she clearly followed the race closely. Yet, “somehow,” she had nothing to say about this:

Though the YouTube went upon October 26, Mandel’s opponent and his wife said what they said in July.

Jill criticizes Mandel for exaggerating a fear of an expensive campaign to build his fundraising. On the very safe assumption that Mandel heard about what happened shortly after the fact, who could blame Mandel for being worried? Marines don’t just sit back and wait for incoming, Jill. I sure hope you didn’t know about the implicit “all good Jews are Democrats” sentiment and the “serving George Bush is more important than serving his constituents” comment (soldiers serve their country, no matter who their commander in chief happens to be) contained in the vid. Because if you did, your failure to mention it in a race you chose to follow closely is indefensible. If you actually voted for the guy who said it, the meter moves to shameful.
______________________________________________________

Prop. 8 in California (SOS description, “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry”; my description, “restores conditions to where voters had them in 2001″), is going to pass, despite the LA Times’s laughable holdout. It’s up by 350,000 votes with 90.8% of the votes counted. “No” votes would have to be 68% of the remainder for 8 to fail. Many of the uncounted votes, perhaps the majority, are from counties where Prop. 8 is passing. San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin Counties are all counted. Update: 8 Passed.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this means that no state’s voters, no matter how blue, have ever legalized gay marriage. The result makes Arnold Schwarzenegger’s betrayal in advance of the vote that much more disgraceful.

Counting down the time until the California courts throw out or issue an illegal and should-be-ignored injunction against the vote …..

Share

49 Comments

  1. I know you won’t print this but. . .

    You want some lipstick for that pig?

    :)

    Comment by Bad American — November 5, 2008 @ 10:35 am

  2. Tom, if you have comments on what I’ve written, you should leave them at the post.

    I wrote nothing about the video or myriad articles on far-right online outlets, including one called, “F*** France,” because I don’t engage in or legitimize campaign tactics – name-calling of me or my choices included – that seek to induce hatred and fear or pit Jews against Jews. I’m disappointed that Mandel permitted, sanctioned or otherwise allowed the use of such rhetoric to be associated with him. And I wrote him that in when these items first appeared.

    Amazing to me that Mandel would prefer to be supported by people who post at sites called F*** France and encourage Jew on Jew fighting rather than stick to campaigning on his actual strengths – which are multiple.

    Unfortunately, Mandel now has this legacy of being supported by people on the far-right who want to F*** France. I guess if that’s the way he wants to go, that’s his choice too.

    Comment by Jill — November 5, 2008 @ 10:43 am

  3. FYI here’s the link for F*** France’s post on behalf of Mandel.

    Comment by Jill — November 5, 2008 @ 10:45 am

  4. #1, why would you think that? I just don’t let thru stupid gloats. Yours is only inane.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 5, 2008 @ 12:43 pm

  5. #2 and #3, Jill,

    Tom, if you have comments on what I’ve written, you should leave them at the post.

    I did. I just checked. They’re called “trackbacks.”

    Also, I didn’t think you’d appreciate a YouTube within the comments. :–>

    It’s also unfortunate that you’ve let your language slide a bit. I was going to ask if you had a problem with profanity appearing on your site as you gratuitiously inserted into your comments no fewer than three four times, but by this search I see you’ve let things slip.

    As to the issue at hand, it’s ridiculous to think Josh Mandel has to account for every obscure and/or profane web site that likes or dislikes him. I bet I’ll have to look and hard, and still won’t find you criticizing the leftist hatemongers of virtually every stripe that Obama had platforms WITHIN HIS SITE. Certainly Mandel did no such thing. Your point is beyond irrelevant.

    You, OTOH, have to answer for how you could have ignored (and maybe voted for?) Mandel’s opponent in your district, even though he stereotyped Jews as automatic Dems and thought answering his country’s call is automatically serving George Bush.

    So Jill, did you vote for Belovich?

    Comment by TBlumer — November 5, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

  6. You’ve made your opinion clear, Tom. I don’t share any of it.

    Comment by Jill — November 5, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

  7. #6 Jill, and the answer to my question is…..?

    Comment by TBlumer — November 5, 2008 @ 1:37 pm

  8. I understand Jack Murtha kept his seat in Congress, that would be a rust stain.

    Comment by dscott — November 5, 2008 @ 2:14 pm

  9. #8, PA is lost.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 5, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

  10. My comrad in arms, lift your spirits with the words of Ronald Reagan: http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/reagan/reagan1975.asp

    Take heart, though we must pass through the darkness these next four years, we as conservatives will gather about the shining lights within our ranks. When country is in shambles bring forward those who will lead us back to the path of reason.

    Comment by dscott — November 5, 2008 @ 4:12 pm

  11. Check out Jill’s post regarding the 17th District after the primary. She herself said it was going to be a tough race because Belovich had a larger base of votes in the primary than Mandel did. Now she says the race was never in doubt? Which is it?

    Comment by Matt — November 5, 2008 @ 4:21 pm

  12. You’ve written an item in which you name-call, judge people, and substitute your opinion for reality. You didn’t care to ask me anything about the campaign tactic during the days after it was started so I’m not sure why you care now. I have no idea what your goal is in demanding to know how I voted, but there’s nothing respectful in the way you’ve written what you have. If you’re not satisfied with what I’ve written before about how I expected to vote in my state rep race, then you’ll just have to live unsatisfied.

    Comment by Jill — November 5, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

  13. you’ll just have to live unsatisfied.

    #12, I will survive, stunned at the abuse you’re willing to observe, and take, without comment, in your own back yard. That doesn’t seem like something a Blogher would be willing to do. Party uber alles (PUA), I guess. The question about whether you voted for Belovich yesterday (tentative nickname, “Bellicosovich”) relates to how bad your case of PUA is.

    You should know by now that nick-naming is a fun pastime here, esp for the sputtering overreactions it gets from people who call others racist, bigots, etc. at every real or imagined opportunity.

    The only true “name-call” I see in the segment is “clown.” That, in the circumstances, was kind to Bellicosovich.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 5, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

  14. #11, didn’t go back that far.

    Any politician representing a district that is large-majority the other party always has to watch his or her back and stay on offense. Any such politician who doesn’t is a fool.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 5, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

  15. There’s nothing fun about name-calling and you know nothing of what BlogHer’s expect of themselves – I wrote about and they commented on the immaturity, meanness and wastefulness of name-calling just last week. If you wouldn’t let you kid do it, you don’t do it as an adult. The desire to win doesn’t trump the expectation of being civil – which you clearly don’t have for yourself, Tom.

    Comment by Jill — November 6, 2008 @ 7:12 am

  16. “Blogher” was shorthand for a female blogger, not the organization. And you failed to respond to the substance of the comment, which I await.

    Nick-naming is NOT name-calling, and I will not accept a construct that attempts to make them equivalents, because they aren’t. If you want to call nick-naming “uncivil,” I guess you’re going to have to clear out half of humanity, which routinely nicknames kids, teammates, workplace acquaintances, and the like (often, but not always, friendly, i.e., Tom “The Hammer” Delay). If the nicknames have basis in reality (which, for example, “BOOHOO-OUCH” does, in so many ways), they’re perfectly defensible, and you don’t get to arbitrarily decide otherwise.

    Therefore, I must assume you’re limiting your criticism to my calling Belovich a “clown.” I should correct myself and call his behavior “clownish.” In fact, I just did that, and one other, and appreciate the nudge. I believe that now makes the post devoid of true name-calling.

    I’ll consider worrying about what my kids do with their nick-naming (which they have engaged in, even with each other, to no apparent ill effect) when you worry about typing F*** France in my blog comments four times with no apparent remorse. You don’t regret that?

    Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2008 @ 8:07 am

  17. I disagree with you on the namecalling. It’s wrong, that’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it.

    As for the blog name, no regrets – that’s the name of the blog, Tom. Talk to the blog owner, not me.

    No need to assume limits on my criticism. Your entire post suggests labeling, insinuation and ad hominem attacks. I don’t agree with any of it and take issue with all of it – I just don’t think it deserves anymore attention from me. Which is why I didn’t write about it in the first place.

    If, when you say that you think I haven’t responded to the “substance of the comment” you mean your attempt to bully me into telling you how I voted, my response remains the same as what I’ve already written: if you aren’t satisfied with how I blogged my vote for that race, then that is your problem, not mine. And if you aren’t satisfied with that response, well, again – you’ll have to live with that. It’s my response.

    FYI – BlogHer is a corporation with multi-millions in VC and several million members.

    http://www.blogher.com/about-blogher-0

    If you’re talking about Bloghers, then you’re referring to those members. If you want to talk about female bloggers, then just call them female bloggers. Or risk being misunderstood. Again, your choice.

    Comment by Jill — November 6, 2008 @ 9:55 am

  18. One more thought. There are only two ways to run as a candidate- unopposed or scared.

    Comment by Matt — November 6, 2008 @ 9:55 am

  19. “Bully”? From 250 miles?

    I guess that makes every journalist who repeats a question a bully. Remember that the next time you re-ask somebody a question. You’re bullying; it’s your definition. (“bullying” — hmm — that’s meets Jill’s definition of name-calling, etc. ["labeling, insinuation and ad hominem attacks"], doesn’t it?)

    The “substance of the comment” is that you didn’t criticize Bulovich when he clearly crossed the line in a campaign in your district that you followed closely. You may have gone beyond negligence into condoning the behavior by voting for him, perhaps only because he has a “D” by his name. It would appear that some or all of that’s OK, but nick-naming is out of bounds and re-asking questions is “bullying.” Un-real.

    You had a chance to call out bad behavior, and from all appearances you didn’t. You appear to be more offended by Palin expressing her prolife, Biblically-based views than you are by a politician of your own party blithely assuming that all Jews are (or should be) Democrats and assuming (again, stereotyping) that solidiers like Mandel are in Iraq enthusiastically serving George Bush and not doing what they believe is their duty to their country. If I’m wrong, correct me.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2008 @ 10:20 am

  20. Tom – what part of my comment #6 didn’t you understand?

    All that you’ve stated is your opinion. It’s not fact.

    I completely disagree with your opinion. But you’re free to write it and say it as often as you like.

    Likewise, you’re free to define bullying anyway you like and even write what you think my definition includes, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what I really believe to be bullying nor does it require either of us to have an allegiance to your definition of what you think my definition is.

    The best part about your writing this post is to air this issue about bullying – I think it’s a huge part of why so many conservatives lost this year.

    Comment by Jill — November 6, 2008 @ 10:44 am

  21. #20 Jill, what you’ve made clear is that you won’t explain yourself about Bulovich, and that’s on the record.

    You told me what “your” definition of bullying includes when you labeled what I did (re-ask a question). You can’t walk away from it.

    More importantly, you’re wrong, and if I didn’t have better things to do, I’d be demanding an apology, because you don’t get to define the word (nor do I). I looked it up; it doesn’t include re-asking a question, and re-asking a question from a distance of 250 miles can’t reasonably be construed as being overly “aggressive,” “intimidating,” or “making someone do something.” Hence the open apology.

    In fact, your employment of the term “bullying” when none is occurring is a lot closer to real bullying than my re-asking a question. But I forgive you. :–>

    Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2008 @ 11:43 am

  22. 1. You wrote: “you won’t explain yourself about Bulovich” What I’ve “made clear” is that everything I have to say about the race is on my blog. If that’s inadequate for you, then it’s inadequate for you.

    2. You wrote: “You can’t walk away from it.” I can’t understand why you think that, but then, I’m not understanding why you choose to make the conclusions you do anyway so that’s par for the course. I absolutely interpret your harassment of me here as bullying. Yes. Included. Not walked away from.

    3. I have no idea what you are talking about re: apologies. If you feel bullied, then say so. If you don’t feel bullied, then don’t say you’re feeling bullied. I wrote that I feel you are bullying me with the repetition – that’s not universal. I own it. You were the one who started to try to make generalizations for all bullying based on how I said I felt, Tom. No one needs a dictionary to tell them how they’re feeling. Intent on the part of the actor is something completely different.

    I’ve lived a long time with feeling that people cross the line into bullying and intimidating behavior when other people might not think so – and I’m just fine with that. All I’ve done here is say how your insistence that I write about things I’ve already written about makes me feel. That it wouldn’t or shouldn’t, in your opinion, make me feel that way is fine – but it’s your opinion and doesn’t change how I feel.

    Comment by Jill — November 6, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

  23. #2, Obama is supported by the Black Panthers, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Farakhan, Khalidi, et. al. They have said and DONE a lot worse than F*$%@ France.

    By that logic, Obama should renounce those groups and be ashamed of their affiliation. Is it OK for them to pit black Christians against white Christians or does the messiah get a pass?

    Comment by Rose — November 6, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

  24. #22, Bullying? snicker, snicker, my, my, liberals have such thin skins. They can sure dish it out but can take it. LOL

    And yet you continue to post on the thread making inane arguments adding nothing to the discussion regarding the topic of the thread.

    I guess this is how the new Fairness Doctrine will be managed, like a DV complaint. “I feel threatened or bullied, therefore you are guilty.” The accused is guilty because they are accused. Next we will find out you have filed a complaint claiming Tom is stalking you over the interet when you post on HIS blog…shades of David Letterman http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5432

    Comment by dscott — November 6, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

  25. #22, harassment?

    Zheesh, this is getting really sad. Jill, I respect you too much to draw you into embarrassing yourself further. I’m just going to chalk this up to your having a couple of bad days, and hope it’s not a trend.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

  26. Tom, #25 did elicit a good-hearted laugh from me, but there’s no bad days here at all. I’m very serious. I haven’t commented on your blog during most of this election cycle because of how much I dislike the name-calling and tone of your posts related to several topics w/in the broader topic of elections. But we are bloggers, we have our styles and preferences. It’s free speech and I’m free to not read it and I’m free to not agree and I’m free to decide for myself what’s bullying or harassment. You’re free to say I’m thin-skinned or whatever. And I’m free to not engage.

    I respect that you have an opinion, even though I disagree with it. I explained in comment #2 why I didn’t write about the topic of the item in this post in which you mention me. I stand by my explanation there and my decision.

    Comment by Jill — November 6, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

  27. Any answer for the question @ #23?

    Comment by Rose — November 6, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

  28. Rose – you are asking me?

    I don’t respond to stuff with the name-calling Messiah thing. Shows you have no real interest in the conversation – only in discrediting.

    Comment by Jill — November 7, 2008 @ 1:02 am

  29. LOL, #28, that was a good laugh, George Bush, a war crimes criminal was a regular part of the liberals discrediting of him but that was a conversation the country had to put up with from liberals but Obama being called the One or Messiah is discrediting… Got to love liberal double standards.

    Sorry Jill, we will enjoy incorporating the moniker the One or Messiah in all our conversations just because you libs don’t like it. We had 8 years of Bush lied people died foolishness, you can put up with 4 years of Obama being called the One or Messiah. Get use to it. What comes around, goes around.

    Comment by dscott — November 7, 2008 @ 9:12 am

  30. Dscott, you wrote:

    “Sorry Jill, we will enjoy incorporating the moniker the One or Messiah in all our conversations just because you libs don’t like it. We had 8 years of Bush lied people died foolishness, you can put up with 4 years of Obama being called the One or Messiah. Get use to it. What comes around, goes around.”

    Watch out – your conscience is showing – you just apolgoized for what you say you’re going to keep on doing, when I’ve made it abundantly clear that I ignore it, and obviously so do a majority of voters.

    If you want to stick with those losing ways, you just keep right on doing it. Your audience will continue to diminish, I’m quite sure.

    Comment by Jill — November 7, 2008 @ 12:05 pm

  31. #30, Ummm, keep the blinders on, the group losing the readership and viewership is the MSM not us. Even the non partisan Newsosaur blog is predicting the demise of what you hold dear. http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2008/11/campaign-08-msms-last-hurrah.html

    Reality really sucks doesn’t Jill? Put your VR goggles back on, enjoy the view until the batteries run out.

    Comment by dscott — November 7, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

  32. (Note: A comment that read roughly as follows was inadvertently deleted, from a “Tim Russo.” Because I deleted it before fully reading, I’m not sure it’s from him, and I’m not sure it was meant for this post. Thus, I have posted it, and the reply that follows, here and here).

    Tommy, you’re beautiful when you’re incoherent.

    Comment by Not Known — November 7, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

  33. #32, If that really was you Timmy, you’re one of the last people anyone should rely on relating to what is beautiful and ugly. Should I elaborate?

    Comment by TBlumer — November 7, 2008 @ 7:23 pm

  34. Buehler? Buehler? Still not answering the question sweet pea…

    Instead you argue around tangents in the WAY questions are posed and then look for reasons NOT to answer them. Why not simply write the rebuke in the answer to the question and maintain some semblance of credibility.

    Jill, you are EXACTLY why there is a good old boys club, and the fact that you give them standing really ticks me off.

    Comment by Rose — November 7, 2008 @ 8:48 pm

  35. Dscott – I’ve been blogging against the MSM for more than three years so your comment is pretty nonsensical. I don’t know what VR is and I don’t know which reality you’re referring to as sucking. But you know – you just stick with what you feel.

    Comment by Jill — November 7, 2008 @ 8:55 pm

  36. Go for it Rose – explain this one:

    “Jill, you are EXACTLY why there is a good old boys club, and the fact that you give them standing really ticks me off.”

    Talk about arguing around tangents.

    Dingdingding on that “sweet pea” thing. Don’t feel badly though – I dinged Obama on his “sweetie” thing too.

    Btw, do you even know what the question was?

    Regardless – if you liked how Sarah Palin handled Gwen Ifill, then you should be accepting of the answer I’ve given Tom, in this thread, multiple times already, to the actual question (which I do actually know):

    “I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear…”

    And so it goes. As I said to Tom, if it doesn’t satisfy you, you’ll have to live unsatiated. I really have nothing to do with that.

    Comment by Jill — November 8, 2008 @ 12:00 am

  37. FYI re: #19 and what is bullying:

    The Indy Star:

    More than 700 educators and law enforcement from 10 countries were in Indianapolis this week for the International Bullying Prevention Association’s annual conference to share research and techniques aimed at ending the aggression.

    “Bullying is usually what we call repeated acts or gestures that are used to make fun of, humiliate or intimidate another person,” said Clarissa Snapp, director of the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy and an organizer of the conference at the Sheraton Indianapolis Hotel and Suites at Keystone Crossing on the city’s Far Northside.

    While bullying can escalate into physical attack, Snapp said the most-used weapons are behaviors that are emotionally damaging, such as eye rolls, taunts or mocking gestures.

    I’ll stand by my threshold of if it’s not okay for my kids to do it, it’s not okay for us either.

    Comment by Jill — November 8, 2008 @ 10:32 am

  38. #37 Jill, you just proved that what I engaged in wasn’t bullying, and you don’t even get it.

    None of what I wrote was done with the intent “to make fun of, humiliate or intimidate another person” (and you’ll note that it doesn’t depend on YOUR feelings). It was done in an attempt to get an answer to a question.

    Unbelievable.

    As to the rest of the definition in your third paragrpah — ALL stand-up comedy or TV/radio programming that pokes fun at anybody or anything, ever, is hereby outlawed. And if I ever hear about you watching Saturday Night Live, or Stewart, or Colbert, or Leno, or Letterman, Limbaugh, Air America, Garrson Keillor, ad infinitum, I’ll know that you’re engaging in hypocritical enabling activity.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 8, 2008 @ 11:07 am

  39. WTH? Sybil, I mean Jill, get back on the meds sweetie, too many of your personalities are competing for these posts…

    I sincerely hope that you are able to “integrate” soon. Have a great day, doll!

    Comment by Rose — November 8, 2008 @ 11:56 am

  40. I watched Saturday Night Live religiously as a teen and in my 20s or so, until it started to suck; lately I’ve only watched the political pieces this season. But I don’t watch any of the other stuff except if a clip has some merit for some other point. Just to get that out of the way.

    Repetition of labels, names and stereotyps still only results in you defining something for yourself and whomever wants to agree with you, Tom. Last time I checked, we are no one’s conscience but our own.

    I standby everything I’ve written here.

    Comment by Jill — November 8, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

  41. Nice way to encourage dialogue, Rose. I can see how interested you are in conversation as opposed to just discrediting others. At least you’re consistent in your not niceness.

    Comment by Jill — November 8, 2008 @ 10:39 pm

  42. You’re the one who wouldn’t answer the question, baby doll…

    Once more, you criticized Mandel b/c he was supported by an organization you didn’t like and yet your silence indicates that it’s OK for the messiah’s campaign to be associated with the Black Panthers, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Khalidi, the PLO et. al. So does BO get a pass? You’re even OK with his supporters who want to annihilate the homeland?

    Comment by Rose — November 9, 2008 @ 7:00 pm

  43. Rose – I’m sorry your life is so devoid of intellectual intercourse that you have to continue to name call someone you don’t even know – do you speak to all the people you engage with in this obnoxious and disrespectful of discourse way in an effort to keep discrediting them?

    I have nothing to add beyond what I’ve already written.

    Comment by Jill — November 10, 2008 @ 9:51 am

  44. #43, for someone who supposedly decries uncivil discourse, the insulting meanness in your comment is astounding — and hypocritical– and disgraceful — and, especially disturbing, because you appear to totally not grasp it.

    This is because she called you “baby doll” and “Sybil” and “sweetie” and “sweet pea”?

    Line ‘em up against a “life …. devoid of intellectual intercourse” — and you’re going to tell me you have the high ground? Far from it, and obviously so.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 10, 2008 @ 12:53 pm

  45. Jill said “intellectual intercourse”….um…is that a freudian slip or something? Doesn’t she mean discourse, or is her slip indicative of her true problems with being so cranky? Just asking. Maybe there is another source to her “frustration.”

    Comment by Mark — November 10, 2008 @ 1:30 pm

  46. Mark, that was too easy. …. But Jill made it so.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 10, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

  47. #43, Sweet cheeks, all of those terms pale in comparison to what we know here to be true, so in that regard, you owe me a big “thank you Rose, darling!”

    Oh, and don’t think I didn’t notice that you still haven’t come up with even a bad answer to my question. Pity, pity, pity…

    Comment by Rose — November 10, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

  48. I’m sure you will all enjoy this:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081107-bully-brain.html?source=rss

    And I promise, it’s the last thing you will hear from me here. You are shameless in your nastiness. I’m very sorry for you.

    Comment by Jill — November 10, 2008 @ 9:29 pm

  49. #48, Jill, you continue to provide evidence that those besides you who identify and write about the phenomenon of bullying aren’t describing yours truly or any of the regular commenters here (except those who have strayed in from the left and said threatening things like “you’re either with us or you’re against us”).

    The reinforcement from the clinical community is indeed appreciated — and vastly misunderstood by you.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 10, 2008 @ 10:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.