A little over a week ago, we recounted the story, mentioned by many others, of a California college student (Ahmad Al-Qloushi) who claims that he was discriminated against in the grading of an essay due to its "pro-American" nature. David Horowitz's group, the ironically named "Students for Academic Freedom" has taken up his cause.
We have avoided until now saying anything about the essay because, you recall, we had emailed Mr. Al-Qloushi to ask him for an interview. This after having read a press release that said he was immediately available for interviews. We figured the interviews thing was a publicity stunt, and we figured we'd call him on it. Of course, we didn't hear back from him, no doubt because he doesn't want to be interviewed by people who don't share his preconceived ideas about his situation.
You might be wondering why we're writing about this at all. Well, despite the obviously shoddy quality of the essay and the obviously trivial nature of the incident, we have no doubt that Horowitz's group will try to use this incident to try to promote its fraudulent "Academic Bill of Rights." Furthermore, Horowitz's group claims to embrace academic standards; and when they really get behind something as bad as this, it should be hung around their neck. For these reasons, and also because it's kind of fun, we want to offer a critique of the essay here that's even more thorough than James Joyner's; unlike Mr. Al-Qloushi, we will cite sources outside of ourselves and two pithy quotations.
The essay is here. It's short (the body is 865 words) and not very sophisticated, so go ahead and read it before reading our critique.
Let's start our with the question that he's answering. The article on the SAF website states that
The final exam consisted solely of one required essay: “Dye and Zeigler contend that the Constitution of the United States was not ‘ordained and established’ by ‘the people’ as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interest.”
But if you look at the link to Ahmad's paper, you will see
Topic:
3. Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not “ordained and established” by “the people”[...]
Which appears to suggest that it wasn't "solely one required essay" -- that it was third among at least three choices. Mr. Al-Qloushi's argument is weakened from the beginning by this apparent lie, because it is clear that he wasn't coerced into the writing on that topic.
Let's examine the second half of the question:
Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interest.
If you look at Al-Qloushi's essay, the only words from the US constitution you will find are the ones already in the question itself: "ordained and established" and "the people." So we should start by pointing out that Al-Qloushi didn't even answer the question. You can't analyze a document without a quotation from the document itself.
Now let's get to what he wrote. Here's the first paragraph. Our commentary is in red:
Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not “ordained and established” by “the people” as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. [There is no quotation to back up the claim that this is Dye and Zeigler's contention.] This paper will CRITICALLY analyze the US constitution and how it was a progressive document FOR ITS TIME. [Using capital letters in an academic essay is bad style. It doesn't emphasize so much as it makes us think that you're SCREAMING THE WORDS.] And how it symbolizes and embodies what America is today a just and democratic society where all men and women are created equal and that men and women are free to pursue their own happiness and fulfillment. [Both incomplete and ungrammatical. Not relevant to the topic.]
The fact that he doesn't answer the question doesn't necessarily mean that it will be a bad essay. It could be a good essay on the wrong topic. It isn't.
I completely disagree with Dye and Zeigler’s contention that the founding father had ONLY their best interests at heart and that that the constitution of the United States was a progressive document for its time compared to the aristocratic monarchies of Western Europe (excluding Britain).
The reason Al-Qloushi doesn't back up his claim about the Dye and Zeigler's contention with a quotation is that it's not what Dye and Zeigler contend. We found an older edition of the textbook in question "The Irony of Democracy." And though some of the wording might have changed, we'd very surprised if the following basic ideas had been removed:
Finally, a strong sense of nationalism appeared to motivate America's elites. While the masses directed their attention to local affairs, the educated and cosmopolitan leaders in America were concerned with the weakness of American in the international community of nations. (p. 35)
or
They believed that all people were equal win that they were entitled to have their natural rights respected regardless of their station in life. Most of the Founding Fathers were even aware that this belief ran contrary to the practice of slavery and were embarrassed by this inconsistency in American life. (p. 41)
So Al-Qloushi misrepresents his source; they don't claim that the founding fathers had "ONLY" their best interests in mind. But let's let him continue:
The American constitution worried monarchs in Europe. The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard of in the rest of the world. [Not true. To take just one example, the third estate in France represented everyone who wasn't nobility or clergy.] Yet in a young country which freed itself from the shackles of the greatest empire of the time. [Incomplete sentence] The founding fathers were stalwart heroes who led the brave young men of this great land and in order to establish a democracy maybe not a direct or perfect democracy but one that guarantees the freedom of its citizens. [How do we know they were "stalwart heroes?" Did they lead "brave young men?"] It is ludicrous to assume that a direct democracy can succeed in the United States. [Who's making that assumption?] Yet in the last ballots of November 2nd 2004 the people of the United States DID get a chance of influencing their political decisions in their country and that is thanks to the US constitution established by the great men of America like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
This last point is covered by Dye and Zeigler in a section called "The Ignorance of the Electorate":
Yet large numbers of the electorate are politcally uninformed and inarticulate. Some years ago, public-opinion analysts reported what is now a typical finding about the low level of political information among adult Americans. Only about one-half of the public knew the elementary fact that each state has two US Senators. (p.191)
Dye and Zeigler argue that just because people vote doesn't mean that elites aren't in control of the government; people don't appear to know what they're voting for, they would argue, so they're not engaged in a real choice. Ahmad continues:
These men paved the way for what America is today the country of opportunity and freedom. [Unsupported generalization] These men were men of nationalism and men who took great pride in formulating what is today the greatest country in the world and thank god that it is so. [Bad style; also, is their nationalism relevant?] Because of America the world is free. America vanquished Nazi Germany. America helped establish the great nation of Israel a democratic society in a troubled region. America freed Japan and South Korea. America freed Kuwait and now is currently in a fight to free Iraq and its 25,000,000 residents and vanquish the tyranny and monstrosity of Saddam Hussein. The US constitution and the Founding Fathers helped build the foundation to which all this was established. [This is a logically flawed argument, a causal fallacy of sorts. There's no evidence that anything the founding fathers did lead to American military dominance in the late 20th century. You could argue that. But Ahmad doesn't. He asserts it.]
It is through the efforts of America’s great leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Delano Roosevelt, John F.
Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, current President Bush and most importantly the American troops who risked their lives for the freedom of America and the freedom of others that this country is so great and prosperous.
Nevermind that that's not relevant. Let's take a quick look at SAF's Academic Bill of Rights:
Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
Surely we can all agree that a student who calls the 32th president of the United States "Frederick" Delano Roosevelt doesn't have the "appropriate knowledge" to get a good grade.
Ahmad:
The US constitution might have required many amendments for its to catch up with modern times but no nation had a constitution which challenged the US in terms of equality and freedom at that particular time [Really? Did you examine them all?] which made the document a very sophisticated one for its time a document which was feared by monarchs as being “too progressive”. [Run-on sentence] It’s because of the American constitution and the American “elites” that Dye and Zeigler could critique this constitution and Americas Founding Fathers. [Why?] It is because of America’s constitution that thousands of people wish to live there and walk amongst the free. “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.”
President Thomas Jefferson. [No comment]
The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed and became a greater nation the constitution is now a document held in great esteem by Americans the Founding Fathers of America are greatly enshrined in dollar bills and the American people are proud of their country and history. [Run-on sentence. Is the document held in great esteem by Americans? What does the founders being on money have to do with anything? Are Americans proud of their country and history? Why does that matter?] It is the American constitution that helps the American government to solve its problems in legal ways and in ways that will bring true American justice and resolve. The American foundation was built by the American constitution and the Founding Fathers and nothing can destroy these foundations. [Nothing?] “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President George W Bush. [Irrelevant and stupid] America is a nation which has survived problems and many attacks on its soil yet the American will did not hesitate. [Many attacks on its soil? How many? 9/11 and Pearl Harbor aren't many.] America stood its ground and the Founding Fathers are the ones who built the Foundation that this ground were built upon. [Ungrammatical] It is wonderful to have the freedom to argue Dye and Zeigler contentions and that is also due to the US constitution. [Personal opinion] If the constitution was so negative then how did the United States the most powerful nation in the world today. [Ungrammatical. Also, did anyone say the constitution was "negative"?] If it was so negative how did the Soviet Union collapse in the Cold War? [What does the Constitution have to do with the Soviet Union's collapse?] The United States constitution is a great document which for its time was extremely progressive and the evidence to the that is the United States’ accomplishments to date. [Why are the US's current accomplishments evidence of the document having been progressive for its time?] That, God be praised, is the end of the essay.
As you can see, there is virtually no sentence in it that doesn't fall short of the minimum standards of an academic essay. Remember, this was a take-home essay, not an in-class final exam. At first we didn't want to write this post, because the kid is from Kuwait and English probably isn't his first language (even though he went to an English-language school) and he seems to sincerely believe what he's saying. But given that he and Horowitz's group are exploiting his intellectual charlatanism for political gain, we feel obligated to call them on it. If you want to claim that the academy is biased, and that this is somehow a problem, fine. But don't defend this kind of clap-trap and pretend you're being discriminated against because you're conservative. And if you are going to defend this kind of clap-trap and pretend that it doesn't deserve a failing grade, do not, do not, do not pretend like yours is the party of personal responsibility. If there are any honest conservatives left out there, it's time for you to stand up to this kind of fraudulent pandering. You're making America stupider.
For Christ's sake, he is only a college student and his country was just ravaged by a war ten years ago. How many college-age kids that have survived a war in a repressive oligarchy have their shit together? Give him a break.
Of course he deserves a failing grade, but in the interests of good manners it is better to let this one go. There is no credible person out there who would defend this essay and there is no need to attack it. It collapses of its own weight.
Before you respond that you are only critiquing the essay to point out the ridiculousness of the right-wing claptrap making the circuit about it, consider this. If every conservative went around trying to pin Bill Clinton's sexual escapades on the far left simply because some on the far left defended some of Clinton's policies, we would have a political war on our hands that would make the one we are currently engaged in seem like a picnic.
Let's find someone else to discuss that has a little bit less cringe factor, like the global warming apologists, the think tank psychologists or the war-mongering policy hawks for instance. Picking on kids is bad form even if attacking them by proxy. This is the type of thing we on the left would scream bloody murder about if it were to happen to us regardless of how ignorant the author was.
I vote we bury this here and now.
Posted by: Cheryl | January 27, 2005 at 02:08 AM
"I vote we bury this here and now"
Um, no.
The wacky right doesn't get to cry "foul" or "do over" when the shit it's trying to exploit backfires on it.
No apologies.
Posted by: Bulworth | January 27, 2005 at 01:06 PM
maybe it's me, but i've had a thing against starting an essay, even an answer on an exam, with "This essay..." or "This paper..."
bad form, as far as i'm concerned (which is more a reflection of how i was taught).
Posted by: d | January 27, 2005 at 10:23 PM
Wow. College? Really?
I sure there's a way to actually sccomplish the goal of the essay AND be patriotic, but i don't think he got the former.
Really? It was take-home?
I'm only a few years out of college, and i've re-read some of the filth i spewed out that received good grades... but i'm going to say that he doesn't really attack the issues the essay required addressing.
you're right - they aren't picking their battles too well.
Posted by: d | January 27, 2005 at 10:36 PM
That's the thing, d--Horowitz and his ilk don't really pick their battles based on the merits of the battle itself. If they did, they'd have precious little to bitch about. What Horowitz does is gin up an non-existent controversy, then throw it at a wall and see if it'll stick. Considering that he knows exactly which walls to throw them at--Drudge, etc.--it's no surprise that they tend to stick, at least until they undergo some basic scrutiny. Which is why we have to keep debunking them until even Horowitz's more unreasonable allies start dissing him.
Posted by: Incertus | January 27, 2005 at 10:59 PM
I did enjoy the usual goofy right wing mention of the fall of the Soviet Union. Since a mention of the USSR is the ubiquitous tactic of the right, as in "the reason a graduated income tax is bad is because the USSR fell", I suppose the author thought his essay hinged on this point. Since trumpeting out this factoid always gets raves from any righty, he assumed that it would work anywhere.
Posted by: knuckles the dog | February 01, 2005 at 12:36 PM
Only in America can two people pop out their red crayons to improperly quote, invalidly punctuate and ultimately fail to spell simplistic words from FRAUDULENT, POLITICALLY, ELEMENTARY, CONSTITUTION, to even the word THE
The irony behind with this is too droll for me to stomach.
How does that old saying go about beggars being choosers?
The saddest part is that this kid is a foreign born seventeen year old, which begs the question of what our author’s excuses are (seeing as how it somehow took two of them to create this second-rate assessment).
Posted by: Dick | February 10, 2005 at 03:53 AM
dick, that's a great a comment! the word "constitution" is written many times in this piece, and one time a "t" is left out of it. wow! great point! you really got me there! i must be a real dummy. but thanks for pointing it out. i'll fix it.
i don't know what beggars being choosers has to do with anything, but if your criticism is that i mispelled three words, you must really lack imagination. your right-wing friends can do better than that. the least you could do is call me a traitor or something.
if you have an example of an improper quote, please let us know. as for your own punctuation: in English, it's traditional to end a sentence with a period.
but of course, i don't really care about that. my critique is a blog entry, not an academic essay, and i'm sure if i had turned it in as an academic essay, i would have spell-checked it, unlike your friend ahmad. i only bring up your own error because you couldn't think of anything else to say. now, if you'd care to address the substance of our critique, feel free. if you'd like to defend mr. al-qloushi, feel free. otherwise take your rather inaccurate sense of irony and go somewhere else. thanks.
Posted by: here's what's left | February 10, 2005 at 10:57 AM
Ouch….You just misspelled “mispelled” there smart guy….
My advice is to invest your money into a spell checker before trying to make a professional career out of being a peer evaluator.
http://spellcheck.net/
To further contribute to the madness of your meager attempts at belittlement. I suggest you take a college history course before attempting to exact others.
The American Constitution came into effect after receiving the approval of the requisite nine states in 1788. The Third Estate (that you mentioned) declared itself to be a representative congregation for the general masses of France only after leaving the Estates General at Versailles and creating the National Assembly in 1789.
So even if you were delusional enough to somehow believe that the power gaining efforts by the wealthy Bourgeoisie was performed in the best interest of the French peons, the timeline for these events still fall pitifully to the knees of histories contextual timeline.
So keep trying, after all, it's the only thing deficient Progressives are renowned for.
Posted by: Dick | February 10, 2005 at 06:42 PM
dick:
OK, if we're going to do this then I'll have to call you on your lack of a complete sentence:
Furthermore, in this sentence you appear to misuse the word "exact":
Exact, when used as a verb, has only two definitions as far as I know:
1 : to call for forcibly or urgently and obtain
2 : to call for as necessary or desirable
synonym see DEMAND.
Since it's a transitive verb, your usage is incorrect even if you had the meaning right. Congrats on making two mistakes with the same word.
I could do this all day, but I won't, and you know that's not the point anyway. As I said, this is a blog entry, not an academic essay. I assume you won't address that point since you didn't address it the first time. And I also assume that you won't concede that there's a different between a typo ("consitution" instead of "constitution") and calling FDR "Frederick." Furthermore, I fixed the (four) typos.
But, as I said, that's not really the point. The point is that you don't seem to have a substantive criticism of my critique. And if I were particularly mean, I would point out the irony of the fact that in the one point of history that you try to correct me one, your correction is false. But I'm a nice guy, so I won't.
The third estate was the representative of the commoners since the founding of the estates general in 1302. Which perhaps you would know if you consulted a history book. Now, no one's saying that they're the equivalent of the US Congress, but that wasn't the point.
Even if you were correct, that doesn't change the fact that the tidbit was there as one small example of the patently false statement made by Mr. al-Qloushi:
(For what it's worth, the third estate was, in fact, elective, and the fact that the richer peasants might have had the most power doesn't seem to be all that different from the decidedly non-universal suffrage that existed at the beginning of the life of the US Congress.)
Now, if you want to defend him, go ahead. I know conservatives like to keep their head in the sand, but surely even you must admit that that al-Qloushi's is a false statement and not borne out by even a cursory knowledge of history. I don't know, maybe you'll come up with some way of saying that nothing existed before the American constitution was written. I look forward to hearing your argumentative gymnastics.
But at least I cited a source, unlike you and unlike Mr. al-Qloushi.
And if you want to come to my blog and argue with what I've written, at least make sure to believe what you're saying, which I bet you don't. I think you know the essay sucked. So why it is that you're quibbling about my spelling of the word "the" is confusing. Probably it wasn't very well thought out. Perhaps you read my post here and said, "ha! they misspelled a word."
If you have problems with what happened between the professor and the student, which, I'm guessing is really what troubles you, fine. Make sure you get all the facts, not just the kid's side, and then go argue with someone who wrote on it. I didn't.
Posted by: here's what's left | February 10, 2005 at 07:41 PM
Having consideration for my limited audience, I’ll save both our time by disregarding your partisan drivel and going directly to the commentary worthy of response (which isn’t much).
“The third estate was the representative of the commoners since the founding of the estates general in 1302.”
I honestly didn’t believe that anyone would be unintelligible enough to make a case stating that the third estate and the estates general have been a real representative and elective assembly since the dark ages and the spawn of feudalism.
Perhaps, just perhaps, if you spent half the time actually reading your sources and putting less time into playing intellectual elitist on a forum board, you might have stumbled across this little gem (from your own source none the less):
“The lay lords and the ecclesiastical lords (bishops and other high clergy) who made up the Estates-General were not elected by their peers, but directly chosen and summoned by the king.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_States-General
Followed by:
“Due in part to a limited franchise, the representatives of the Third Estate actually came from the wealthy upper bourgeoisie; sometimes the term's meaning has been restricted to the middle class, as opposed to the working class.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Estate
This, of course, reinforces my previous notion that they didn’t become a representative body (to the extent that you were so desperately trying to illustrate) until after the creation of the National Assembly in 1789.
As is shown here:
“Then they voted a measure far more radical, declaring themselves the National Assembly, an assembly not of the Estates but of "the People".”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_States-General
The rest of your partisan rhetoric aside, I’m glad you are at least competent enough to be able to take up my spell checker advice. Now all you need to do is find something of substance to work on besides wasting bandwidth trying to gain some sort of pretentious pride out of subjectively analyzing some foreign teenagers writing assignment. Call this my personal contribution to helping you advance your “left-wing” dogma.
Posted by: Dick | February 11, 2005 at 04:24 AM
"I honestly didn’t believe that anyone would be unintelligible enough to make a case stating that the third estate and the estates general have been a real representative and elective assembly since the dark ages and the spawn of feudalism."
I honestly didn't believe that anyone would be unintelligent enough to use "unintelligible" in such a moronic manner. Obviously there is much more to this “writing” thing than spelling checking.
MORAL: ignorant people should not throw stones.
Posted by: Ignorant people should not throw stones. | February 11, 2005 at 01:37 PM
gosh, that "intelligible" thing really is funny, i have to say.
i have to say, i love republican argument style. pick and choose a paragraph that appears to fit their preconceived notion. just so everyone knows what we're talking about, here's the whole relevant passage:
Now, I'm not saying it's like the current US Congress, I'm saying it shows that Al-Qloushi's statement, "The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard of in the rest of the world," is untrue. The third estate's representation was furnished by election. And I just chose that example
And you find a nice phrase, trying desparately to find anything to argue with:
"The lay lords and the ecclesiastical lords (bishops and other high clergy) who made up the Estates-General were not elected by their peers, but directly chosen and summoned by the king."
wile forgetting that those are the other two estates. It's actually pretty clear from the context. You should try reading it.
But of course, you're still not addressing my larger point. I assume you won't at all, because the facts aren't your side. The point is that that's not the only example of people choosing their representatives. Both direct and representative democracy go back at least as far as ancient Greece. "Democracy" is a Greek word, in fact. Maybe if you're enterprising you can figure out what it means. You seem to like dictionaries.
It's not intellectual snobbery, it's just the facts, ma'am. You republicans like to pretend like you want people held accountable. You like standards. Well, the kid wrote a shitty essay. Then he bitched and moaned when the professor gave him a bad grade. That's pathetic. But, as I said before, I don't think that's really what you want to talk about, because you know the essay sucked. Time to admit that or go away. Thanks.
Posted by: here's what's left | February 11, 2005 at 05:18 PM
I honestly didn't believe that anyone would be unintelligent enough to use "unintelligible" in such a moronic manner. Obviously there is much more to this “writing” thing than spelling checking.
I find that be amusing seeing how you chose to do it yourself.
BTW: It is called spell checking, brain child.
Learn to get the terms correct if you are going to play on the "internets"
Posted by: Dick | February 11, 2005 at 06:24 PM
“wile forgetting that those are the other two estates. It's actually pretty clear from the context. You should try reading it.”
Do I really need to hold your hand and key board to point out where I have already addressed that point? For the sake of sanity, let’s not chase our tails around in a circle repeating ones self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Estate
Try starting there in the not so odd event that you can’t figure out where else to look.
“You republicans like to pretend like you want people held accountable.”
Now that’s very funny. You sure are quick with the old generalizations I see. I guess that’s what happens to people who spend the bulk of their free time thinking in monotone colors and playing inside a binary logic box all day. Anyone who isn’t a hard leaning leftist =’s Republican. That’s almost as amusing as that political pundit who decided to call Ralph Nader a feeble-minded Democrat. Boy, let me tell you, do we have egg on our faces. Who would have thought that only getting the robust offerings of a staunchly left-wing blog site wouldn’t be enough to prepare people like you for more than two different ways of critically analyzing these broad issues *gasp, the colors, Duke*.
“You like standards. Well, the kid wrote a shitty essay. Then he bitched and moaned when the professor gave him a bad grade. That's pathetic.”
That’s just silly and you know it. This kid bitched and moaned from being advised to seek counseling for writing this bad essay. He also bitched at the ‘supposed’ allegations that this had escalated to the point where he was being intimidated by threats of having his student visa revoked (A claim that is still uncorroborated as of to date).
“As I said before, I don't think that's really what you want to talk about, because you know the essay sucked. Time to admit that or go away. Thanks.”
Indeed it did suck...as did your subjectively ambiguous peer evaluation, which is the reason I blessed this place with my presence. :)
Posted by: Dick | February 11, 2005 at 06:53 PM
"I find that be amusing seeing how you chose to do it yourself."
Really, you find that "be" amusing? You "be" amazing. You "be" unintelligent (or is it “unintelligible”?). You “be” idiot that is lucky to string two sentences together (only reason you “be” able to spell is “spell checker”). You “be” confusing the difference between being a nasty, arrogant, self-absorbed prick with actually having something (anything) meaningful to say.
You "be" typical hypocritical and ignorant republican with nothing better to do than criticize people's musing on the “internets”.
LOL you "be" needing a life...
Posted by: Ignorant people should not throw stones | February 11, 2005 at 07:05 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unintelligible
*Yawns towards our newest typo filibusterer*
Posted by: Dick | February 11, 2005 at 07:15 PM
First, you really are clueless aren't you? I mean if you had access to "http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unintelligible" then why didn't you use it for your previous post? Dumbass...
2nd, you calling me a typo filibusterer (btw, LMAO)? ROFL, the only reason you posted here was because you took on the role of the holier-than-thou ”typo” police. To put it in your terms – You “be” hypocrite.
I’d ignore this one, just another worthless pretentious troll…
Posted by: Ignorant people should not throw stones | February 11, 2005 at 07:42 PM
“First, you really are clueless aren't you? I mean if you had access to "http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unintelligible" then why didn't you use it for your previous post? Dumbass...”
Possibly, just possibly, because it’s a bit more entertaining fore me watching you act like a haughty academic imp. Accusing others for inventing words before having the common decency/sense to actually look them up is obviously a national past time for you and your ilk around here.
“2nd, you calling me a typo filibusterer (btw, LMAO)? ROFL, the only reason you posted here was because you took on the role of the holier-than-thou ”typo” police. To put it in your terms – You “be” hypocrite.
I’d ignore this one, just another worthless pretentious troll…”
Wow, all this coming from someone who has attributed nothing to this conversation but playing the very same semantics, typo hawk, and intellectually elitist role that he is now trying to accuse others of doing. Go figure......
It must be nice to be so far up on a pedestal that you no longer have to hold yourself to the standards of blatant insincerity and self-importance that you try to hold others at. I’m also glad to see you indecisive progressives haven’t been able to get over your dogma of creating ridiculous double standards and stereotypes for any and everyone that you are unable to compromise with.
Gg’s for being able to out drivel a troll, troglodyte.
Posted by: Dick | February 12, 2005 at 02:09 AM
BTW: Before you get your lacy (gay marriage approved) panties in a bundle:
"fore" = for.....
Since your next round of anecdotes obviously won’t be competent enough to get past that typographical error.
Posted by: Dick | February 12, 2005 at 02:17 AM
Posted by: Ignorant people should not throw stones | February 13, 2005 at 05:50 PM
Is this an example of
ROFL, Dick's hypocrisy never ends. I rest my case…
Posted by: Ignorant people should not throw stones | February 13, 2005 at 05:57 PM
“ROFL, why should I be civil towards you when you obviously lack the even the smallest hint of civility. Your comments here were NOT sincere or helpful.”
Seeing as how every single one of my comments has been revised above (in full)….I’d say they were pretty damn helpful, or else wouldn’t have been corrected (No?).
“Problem is assholes like you made people like me realize we can’t be nice anymore.”
And assholes like you do what for the world exactly?
“We need to put pompous, self-righteous, arrogant ass wipes like you back in your place.”
Putting me in my place? Talk about being full of ones self. While I can see that you are too far beyond mental resuscitation to realize it, you’ve done nothing but fuel the flames of absurdity in this thread.
“If we need to stoop to your level then so-be-it.”
“We”? Sorry, tiny Tim, but I only see one ugly duckling in your pond right now (Although I’m sure those other voices in your head are being represented in spirit)
“OMG get over yourself already! The bullshit you spew out is the reason why compromises can’t be made. People like you prove the stereotypes, that’s what makes it difficult to counter. You know the stereotypes that say republicans are ignorant assholes. "Dick" is just evidence that the stereotype is absolutely true.”
Says the child who conveniently calls himself “Ignorant people should not throw stones”.
Glad to see your sense of selective irony has remained so buoyant.
BTW: I love how you still put me into the Republican corner simply because I have come to a self professed Liberal blog site and decided to chew paint with one of its most premier devotees. This further demonstrates the notion that people of your myopic mindset have to create “Republican bogeymen” in order to justify your psycho delusional babble over the internet. It’s unfortunate that you have such a limited mental ability to comprehend more than two choices.
The rest of your drivel is merely an “ASS-U-mption” by a boorishly bliss troll who has to continue putting all of their troubles into a finite box so they can sleep better at night thinking they have some kind of an intellectual grip over the world around them.
How pathetic.
Posted by: Dick | February 13, 2005 at 06:47 PM
“This from the troll who’s first post was”
By the way it is supposed to be “whose”, not “WHO IS”.
http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/UsWhose.html
“there is more to writing than spelling”
Says the mental midget court jester. LOL
Posted by: Dick | February 13, 2005 at 07:40 PM
I must say that I found this entire little spat to be quite entertaining despite the fact that it had nothing to do with the crappy essay written by a dee-luded kid who probably could use come counseling before he goes out and hurts himself (or someone else) with his right-wing drivel.
Ole' !
Posted by: Cheryl | February 14, 2005 at 12:29 AM