Description of the watch at the Hysek site contains some machine-translation poetry:

"...as hanged up in wheels Milky Way, a three dimensions' earth of 12mm diameter at 12 O'Clock turns on itself in 24 hours..."

"...this mechanism transforms by request the intangible hours, quarters and minutes in a crystal sound...."

"...will fascinate the amateurs of pure mechanic...."

Totally pinned the needle on my Geeker Counter.

Dang. And I have so many of these Mint In Box, cherry-red-with-blue-flames reductios lying around my LA LogicChoppers franchise. How am I going to rid myself of all this junk if I can't unload it on the gadget freaks at BB?

OK, Takuan. So from this, can we conclude that putting a bullet through someone's forehead is just a way of accelerating the natural process of senescence?

Not agreeing with random832, BTW.

I didn't think Teresa was pissed off at you.

To my ear, she sounded insulted and peeved. But OK: I can accept that I was hearing stuff that wasn't there.

I thought she was objecting forcefully to the idea that she and the other Boingers don't care what their community thinks...."Too famous to care" really sounds like "you don't care."

I guess TNH can hear stuff that's not there too. FWIW, I never said that Boingers don't care what their community thinks (and a whispered prayer that the double negative does not confuse things even more). That would be particularly stupid, given all the evidence to the contrary. All I actually *said* in my comment was that:

- Fame interferes with the ability to be as personal as you would like with people.

- That's especially problematic when being personal means responding to them on a blog.

- Those facts seem to have affected some of the discussion on this blog, especially around the topic of VB.

I thought all that was obvious.

Xeni was originally asking here for some input on how to handle removal of posts. To be responsive to her original request: I think "don't" would be a good rule of thumb. Specifically: Don’t de-link wonderful things you previously linked to, especially not if your opinion of the linked-to thing has changed. Instead, give us your new opinion of that formerly-wonderful thing and explain why you no longer think it is so wonderful. If you can't explain that for some reason, then let it go. Link rot will get it sooner or later.

@ #4:

"..a bunch of japanese people in black face running around saying "OH RAWRDY...

Whoah, doube ethnic insult in a single sentence fragement. Dude/ette, you have both my admiration and LULZ!

The Deus Ex features some pretty amazing retro-future conspiracy cut-up word salad: "Reframe the haversham. Bebop the ethical intelligence. Terminate Thomas Aquinas the primary." William Burroughs must have been very proud of his influence here.

Robina is quite fetching. :-)

I love the mix of live-action miniature puppetry against full-size backgrounds and CGI and vids in this. Rather more interesting than the all-CGI first one. Reminds me a little of "Life With Loopy" or "Action League Now" on the old KaBlam! show on Nick.

Somebody should introduce cowboy robo to Klaus Pierre. Cowboy can school Klaus on proper party-animal etiquette.

@ #2:

I am not trying to be mean, just offering constructive criticism. I hate when people post mean comments, I really mean this to be constructve.

Sorry, but I spent the last 25 years living in New York. In Manhattan. I can spot a fashion nazi at 200 yards. And you, sir/madame/thing3, are a fashion nazi.

Plus you can't spell. And judging by your handle, you're a lumpy chump to boot. You too, Brownlee.

Just trying to be constructive, y'unnastand.

#42: The thong of the 19th Century?! I thought that was "Columbia the Gem of the Ocean".

Whoops, thorry!

Workin on it, Takuan, workin on it.

As you know, not all of us are able to manifest the Buddha nature as consistently as the abbot.

Meanwhile, I will contemplate the nature of the yellow pickled radish, returning to this thread only when my digestion is reliable..

'umbly,
Uriah Heep

Brilliant. The fact that it is a video of a whole bunch of wordless gestures and movements (except for the labels on the gate illustrations, which are not really integral to the demonstration) seems to satisfy a constraint proposed by my dear old friend The Insidious Doctor Zed, a software architect who claims that all software engineers who are any good at their craft are essentially pre-verbal.

MDHATTER @551-552: Thanks for the compliment. I honestly don't see how having clunkage and hurdles built into the tool is of benefit, but that's probably my stupid acting up again. If you feel like explaining further, I'll read it.

Josh @554: I've really enjoyed reading your posts throughout this thread, and this one's the capper. I'm gonna take a break; it's frustrating to put effort and thought into several posts and succeed only in pissing off the mods. Here's hoping someone will pay attention to your questions about the BBer/commenter relationship. That's what I'd like to know too. To me, those are Shirky's questions: What's the promise? What's the bargain? That ought to be useful to the Boingers, surely.

Stuff lust! Wan' it! Will you have it in sizes suitable for men in their 50s?

Wow, this is great. I saw this when it was originally broadcast. Read Puharich's book very soon after and spent the next 10 years trying to get some. And got some :-)

Teresa Nielsen Hayden @ 553

I thought I accepted your offer on the same sincere terms. I'm sorry if that was unclear. And I don't think it's making a Bush-style signing statement to point out that:

1. Epistolary relationships are different in kind from others not so mediated. Doesn't mean they're worse or better, just different (some are, in fact, better). Depends on the correspondents. Is that surprising or somehow unacceptable to you? Does this then mean I haven't actually accepted your offer?

2. My clumsy point about caring because it was "part of your job" is simply that you additionally speak (however authoritatively) for an organization (however loosely defined). I speak only for me. We each have a different relative status with respect to that organization. That has to change the way the relationship is conducted and what it is possible to communicate within it. Is that really so odd or metaphysical or snarky? How am I sandbagging or rejecting you by pointing that out? Look, I'm already apologizing profusely to you for being unclear. Do you honestly think that level of apology is absolutely unaffected by our relative status and, say, the amount of time you have to devote to replying thoughtfully to any one post?

I'm also sorry if you think I've sandbagged you with my comment about you and David being quick to jump on my comment about restoring reader respect. It was my (again) clumsy way of pointing out that it is very clear the Boingers are concerned not only to retain readers (something that could be dismissed as narrow commercial self-interest), but also retaining reader respect, which is a personal ethical stance and not dismissable at all. If I'm doing anything with that comment, I'm simply inviting you to examine the overlap between the personal and the artistic/professional domains that seems (to me) to be at least half of what you're all struggling with. I think the other half of that is the fame issue you will not countenance. I thought it was perfectly obvious that it's hard to solve personal/professional overlaps, and much harder to solve them naked in public. But you don't want to hear that.

May I suggest that you're too famous now to care that deeply about retaining readers?

No, you may not. You're free to believe it, if that's what floats your boat. Obviously, you're free to assert it. But damned if I'm going to agree with you, or even let it pass in neutral silence, because it flat-out isn't true.

Well, I'm sorry you seem so upset about that assertion.But why are you so sure I'm wrong? As you say elsewhere, fame is relative and situational. How can you be so categorical then about it not applying to the Boingers? Not snarking; just asking. If it's your gut telling you that, OK. I'll accept it as input from an old hand. But I sure don't see it from my side.

If you ever become famous in some context, you're going to discover a dispiriting thing: some people can't distinguish between "I perceive you as famous" and "you're a supernatural being who can't be hurt." It's not a denial of connection, of relationship, to remind readers that you're still a human being, and that you're still subject to all the usual real-world considerations.

I think all of us with any humanity left have witnessed that from the outside. I also think you're making my point for me. Or stated alternatively: Given all that Xeni has probably had to endure personally as a result of this, how is your statement about what happens to people's perceptions under the influence of fame a demonstration that fame is not now an operative force in (at least some) Boingers' lives and work? If that fame=invulnerability misperception weren't a factor here, why would a pack of gossipmongers care about some deletions of old BB posts? Your romantic involvements and mine are not "juicy" "news" for idiots to "report" about. How come? Why would they think they could get away with such a wretched invasion of privacy, if the persons "reported" about weren't to some extent "public"?

You think fame is magic. It isn't. I've watched my friends Bill Gibson and Neil Gaiman and Cory Doctorow become famous. There wasn't some point where causality started working differently for them.

I think fame is about as magical as electricity, riptides, and ostracism. Yeah, they're scalar forces, tendencies, potentials, relative and situational, all that. But they have causes of their own, and laws must govern their effects at various strengths. Those effects don't just suddenly appear, like Athena from the forehead of Zeus; something produces them. And given sufficient concentration, the effects are very nasty.

Teresa, I wish I had your grace and concision. I also wish some of your responses here were not so disappointing. You're imputing several motives, emotions, intentions and beliefs to me that I honestly don't have and don't think I gave you much reason to infer. You're a very experienced moderator, obviously, so I suppose you automatically defend against possible avenues of attack. And perhaps you are so experienced that, just by the way I express things, you understand my hidden motives better than my shrink does.

In any case, I get the strong feeling sometimes that my comments seem to you like a clumsy, inexperienced dentist probing your very sore tooth. I'm not stupid, nor inexperienced, but if that's how it seems to you, just say so and I'll stop. I've never been the kind of guy who forces his attentions on ladies who are not interested.

I wasn't actually seeking a response, David. I was responding to Teresa, who was telling me that she would undertake to care about how I feel about Boing Boing. I thanked her for her sincere offer, while also implicitly questioning it as being not cognizant of the fame issue I'm trying to raise with you.

The fame issue is not about you (or Mark or Xeni or Cory or John) announcing that you are "Internet famous". I'm not asking you to say anything like that. I'm not trying to feed egos, butter anyone up, or set anyone up for a public fall, or anything else negative. I was only trying to make the following points (which could be completely stupid -- up to you to decide):

1. You (Boingers) already are "Internet famous". Doesn't matter whether you think you are, or announce it, or not. It's just a fact. Look at your page views, compare them to huge sites. Daily Kos has an army of contributors posting content 24/7. And here you are, four lads (and a lass) from Liverpool, with a few roadies and your funny haircuts, trying to keep up. :-)

2. If the fame is a fact, the fact brings with it inescapable impacts (which is why I brought up Clay Shirky). One is all the weirdness from (some/many members of) your audience around this VB incident and how you handled it. VB clearly enjoys being a pince-sans-rire shit-disturber, which is obviously part of what turned this into a big megillah. But the reaction on BB comment threads also had some strong elements of fanboy/fangirl weirdness. I don't think any of you failed to notice that. I'm not sure you noticed it enough. And because you are not noticing it enough, you are not taking active measures to address it, which I predict will give you more of it. Especially if (as I think is your right, and as I hope) you continue to want to be as free as possible in how you post content.

3. You might therefore want to actively address it by considering some changes in the structure of the blog that might help you deal with issues arising from fame-constrained communication better.

4. One suggestion: Get a comment structure that allows commenters to respond to each other instead of directly to the Boingers, which is implicitly the social contract around commenting on BB right now. Yeah it obviously is possible to respond to other commenters. I'm doing it right now, duh. But the tool does not build that in; it's clumsy, and not the way the tool sets things up.

5. Another suggestion: Permit group moderation in Slashdot style instead of relying on by-hand moderation by folks like the Noble Teresa and the Good Takuan.

6. How does suggestion 4 help? A commenter-centric response structure would bleed off some of the energy going into kvetching (of the "how come they're haven't responded to my oh-so-important question already, hell, it's been five whole minutes?!" variety) into discussion with other commenters, who can offer plausible explanations or counsel patience. It becomes an argument among the audience, not between the audience and the Boingers. I think that could have been very helpful in the instant case, and there was some of it; but the interface is clumsy and doesn't promote it, so it is discouraged and ineffective when it does happen.

7. How does suggestion 5 help? Well, nothing whatsoever against your moderators (far from it). The two I've mentioned have amused and enlightened me many times. It's just that good moderation, at this level of fame, may be something no individual can do properly. With a group moderation system, commenters get modded by other commenters. Commenters who get modded down have no individual to attack for that result, and commenters who fend off trolls and comment postively are regularly modded up and given more power to moderate others (cf. DKos' "trusted user" mechanism). Your audience have some power over the course of threads, which tends to also bleed off kvetching and build audience trust and a sense of community. Teresa and other current moderators can still ban or disemvowel abusers, and seed discussions. They serve pretty much the same function, as interfaces between the Boingers and the audience. But on the audience's side, they are more like fellow commenters instead of authority figures. They can be relied upon for intelligent and reasonable comment when discussions are starting to jump the rails, a form of moral suasion that Teresa (at least) already provides and clearly enjoys providing. I think it would be more fun for them, more informative for you. And you would not kill them with an impossible job.

All of these are just suggestions, offered in a constructive spirit. I hope that was all clear (or clearer, anyway). If I can be clearer, please let me know. If you think these suggestions are fully or partially idiotic, that's OK too. :-)

#504 Teresa Nielsen Hayden: Willibro, I'm not one of the Boingers, but I'll personally undertake to care how you feel about Boing Boing. That's an honest offer.

Thank you. Part of your job as moderator, right? Clearly, a lot of BB sees it this way, as both you and David chose to respond directly only to the part of my post acknowledging that it might be OK with you guys if my respect had not been restored.

May I suggest that you're too famous now to care that deeply about retaining readers? And that this is not necessarily a bad thing? Clay Shirky has helped everyone get very clear about the attention budget involved in getting famous: That it is not just hard, but impossible for famous people to respond directly, appropriately, and in timely fashion to every, or even a lot of the, individuals in their audience.

A lot of this discussion simply does not acknowledge that. For example: In several posts, you express puzzlement at things like how personally everyone took this, or how ready they were to infer the worst simply because the response wasn't as timely as individuals in the audience felt it should be, or how revelatory some find an otherwise anomalous event. Or how some couldn't care less about the whole thing. Easy to explain if you add fame to the equation: Many of us out here seem to think we have a personal relationship with the BB "stars", and are reacting the way, say, Paris Hilton fans do to her latest gaffe or failure to answer a fan letter. Other people have their heads screwed on straighter.

Heck, the design of BB itself pretends its not famous. We're being invited to "contribute", when really all we're doing is commenting. The design of the comment interface is what you'd expect to find at some personal Wordpress-hosted blog read by, say, 25 people, instead of a blog with more traffic than DKos. You use active human moderators to separate the comment wheat from troll chaff, instead of Slashdot-style group comment moderation. Frankly, I don't think you can go on this way. You will eventually have more incidents like this, and waste similar amounts of time dealing with the blowback.

The point is: You don't really have a personal relationship with your audience, or anything like one. Not mediated via BB, anyway, or not anymore. You can't, because the blog's too famous.

That said: I like and respect the blog, and your moderation work, but failure to acknowledge this fame issue may end up dangerous to your health. I once had a job answering letters for Newsweek. It was a week's temp assignment and quota was something like 100 letters a day. I quit after 2.5 days. Had I lasted the full 5, I'm sure I would have turned into a Nathaniel West character.

There is some shockingly good stuff here. Thanks, David.

#483 takeshi: Um, willibro, I think it's plenty obvious that I was just dishing it back. But thanks.

Well, in that case, thank you. My apologies if my response seemed either patronizing or obtuse. But, no, sorry, it wasn't obvious to me at all. I'm not normally very dumb about stuff like that, I think. And I'm not sure I see how "dishing it back" actually helps anything, in this thread or any other. I guess it just didn't sound much like the very reasonable Takeshi I'm used to reading here.

Which kind of encapsulates my feelings about this whole thing. People whose (online personas) I liked and respected suddenly appeared to be behaving in ways I didn't much like or respect. Which was surprising and confusing. And not much helped by what seemed to be an unnecessary level of mystery (I'm still not sure whose privacy has been maintained here, given that one participant apparently did everything she could to help a passel of gossip-mongers make BB look as nefarious, spiteful and juvenile as possible).

Thanks to the folks I liked and respected, I think I have information now sufficient to cut those folks some slack and to restore my liking and respect for them. I know that failure to restore that liking and respect would not be an issue for them, thanks. Just sharing the results of their courage.

One thing is still true for me, though: It is problematic at best to make assumptions about what's obvious or not about interactions conducted over a low-bandwidth medium like typed text. No doubt I will get schooled on this again.

JACKDAVINCI@478:
Couldn't agree with you more. #2 gets my vote too. I think the issues you deal with go to personal integrity, and how to maintain that integrity in a public forum that is group-authored. Which is quite a challenge.

But dangerous territory. Hope your constructive suggestions (which would certainly renew my interest in BB, which I used to read every day and now do not) are not taken as personal attacks.

Uh, Takeshi, maybe you ought to take some of your own advice and buy a shorthop ticket on the chill train.

I don't think any of Argon's points are applicable in this case, so I won't defend her/him/it. But there are obviously legitimate questions to be raised about the social bargains involved in blog authorship. Some of those extend to legal exposures, as I'm sure all the Boingers and their moderators are very much aware.

The entire point of Xeni's post is that the Boingers themselves are struggling with what those contracts are, and how best to set and meet them. I'm grateful she took extra time, once again, to explain that struggle, so some of us can learn from it too.

In any case, the analogies between bloggers and journalists, politicians, rock bands, tinkers and tailors are not yet nearly as clear cut as anyone in this thread makes out. So can I recommend a little more light here? The heat certainly isn't making anything clearer.

Great story, thanks for the link

I was once a video game reviewer myself. I had the opportunity to review the "Mario Bros" arcade game when it was first introduced as a "Donkey Kong" spinoff. I said it was much too hard and had none of the charm of DK.

To my eternal regret. As this fool will no doubt be feeling.

Well, don't see that any issues got settled here, although all sorts got raised. The Boingers can do as they wish with their blog? Xeni's human and isn't keen to admit or explain her private business? Wow. Quelle suprise.

One thing's sure true for me, though: BB just got a lot less interesting. It's just some kids with a magazine, trying to get famous and make a buck. They have this Letters to the Editor column and an interesting blend of stuff, but not fundamentally different from lots of other media -- unlike, say, Daily Kos, where there really is a conversation going on.

Too bad. But then they didn't pretend to be something special, right?

This is great stuff, Xeni, thanks so much. I've been an admirer of KK for many years, and he comes across in your interview just exactly as clear and sensible as I have always imagined him.

I'm...waiting for my man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hugY9CwhfzE

Your article is a lot better than what they ran this week. No wonder they killed it. As most long-time NYT readers know, by the time the Gray Lady gets on to something, it's usually over.

So, Richard, do you think they're going to ask for their kill fee back?

Is this over now? Can I go back and enjoy Stein's plaintive cries in Ferris Bueller again?
Anyone?
Takuan?
Anti?
Takuan?.

Dude. Wow. Wait. What?

OH, I say! Do let's! :-)

#8: Oh, you bet, Kev, that would be news (assuming he actually "kicked off his campaign" there)! Also: No chance at all it would get coverage.

@21: Sorry, Mark, but the "wingnut" epithet is earned. Read Kev's old posts. By him, every left analysis of every issue is just "wacky", "BS", "childish" and "fringe".

As for Klein: I honestly don't know how people like her manage to get the right wing so upset. They've had everything their own way for almost a whole decade now, and quite obviously, the the Capitalist Paradise they promised us is almost here. Why, look at the great lives we all have!

One woman who Could Not Be Contained.

Your caption wittily encapsulates both the weaponlike appearance of the Selectron and the cheesy scifi ambiance of the historical period during which it was produced. Well played, sir, well played.

#122: My bad. Xodarap has owned the terminology of the opposing side so effectively that I had to read the comments twice to figure that out.

Mine too. Spent a whole half hour digging through all Xoda's posts and reading his site for exactly the same result. Must prove something. One born every minute? Arguing religion with a believer is like wrestling a pig? That just because he has a complete set of nice, shiny tools doesn't mean he's a neurosurgeon?

Logruszed: I wouldn't sign up for Xopher's crackpot job description so easily. Slippery slope, homes. Next thing you know, your "evangelical atheist" tuchus is just another a featured body part in the latest edition of the Festival of Folk Epistemology -- which today happens to star Rep Davis, but is (as always) hosted by that inimitable frontman, Hizzonah DJ 100-Foot Zombie Jeebus.

Oh, and I'm definitely checking out Xodarap's logical refutation of atheism/proof of the existence of God, too (on MySpace, that fount of all good research things both original and peer-reviewed). That will be immediately after Xodarap checks the specs on my perpetual motion machine and my diagram of a squared circle.

And people here sometimes have the gall to accuse Theresa of being an "intrusive moderator." My, my....

In addition to the A/V stuff at the main URL given in the post, the actual prose article that appears here is very much worth reading.

Dr. Jardin, may I have my unicorn chaser now, please?

Taku, that might be your aftershave. But if so, don't mourn, organize:

Long-haired preachers come out every night
To tell you what's wrong and what's right
But when asked how about something to eat
They will answer in voices so sweet:

You will eat, bye and bye
In that glorious land above the sky
Work and pray, live on hay
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.
That's a lie

And the starvation army they play
They sing and they clap and they pray
'Till they get all your coin on the drum
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

You're gonna eat, bye and bye, poor boy
In that glorious land above the sky, way up high
Work and pray, live on hay
You'll get pie in the sky when you die
(Dirty lie)

Holy Rollers and jumpers come out
They holler, they jump, Lord, they shout
Give your money to Jesus they say
He will cure all troubles today

And you will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky, way up high
Work and pray, boy, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you fight hard for children and wife
Try to get something good in this life
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell
When you die you will sure go to hell

You will eat, bye and bye
In that glorious land above the sky
Work and pray, live on hay
You'll get pie in the sky when you die

Workingmen of all countries, unite
Side by side we for freedom will fight
When this world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

Well, you will eat, bye and bye
When you've learned how to cook and to fry
Chop some wood, it'll do you good
You will eat in the sweet bye and bye

Yes you'll eat, bye and bye
In that glorious land above the sky, way up high
Work and pray, and live on hay
You'll get pie in the sky when you die
That's a lie....

Takuan, thanks so much for the musical interludes starting @#43. It's been a long time since I was reminded of "O Lucky Man", not to mention Al Smith or Horst Wessel. And as usual, yours are, by far, the most *useful* contributions to this discussion.

Oh, fuck the old crypto-fascist. And his snarky, posturing, distressingly right-wing vanity rag, NR.

CVR's comment #15 and the Slate quote suggest that fashion constitutes an active Creative Commons system. Since there is no copyright in fashion, and both large and small producers participate, all the elements are there: We have an attention economy of fashionistas and their followers who encourage rapid turnover and innovation founded on a "range of creative work available for others legally to build upon and share".

In that content, it is very interesting that some people here have the perception that Hussein Chalayan did some kind of harm to Tina Marrin if in fact Chalayan ever saw that issue of CRAFT. It would seem rather like we have an example of Martin Hardie's point: "When one examines closely just exactly what sort of 'freedom' is ultimately to be had within [Creative Commons] licenses, one is quick to discover that they are primarily set up as tools meant to feed directly into corporate co-option."

NO SLACK ON BB??!! You must be confusing BB with LGF, Media Pink!

Theresa has laid too much pipe. It's been over 30 seconds and 'batty still hasn't replied.

And I was so hoping we would get some troll pron confessions. Takuan tried so hard...

Yet another: things got very, VERY far away and/or looked tiny (e.g., endless hallways or doorway too small to walk through) for awhile. Always: In childhood (to about age 13), when ill and especially when feverish, and environment was dark. No recurrence in adulthood. And I could never get people to understand it! Amazing.

You mean net admins don't like it when you port-scan their servers? Who knew?
/snark

You mean net admins don't like it when you port-scan their servers? Who knew?
/snark

#98, Danny O'Brien: Many thanks for actually providing some information to counter BOUR3's take on this.

Wow.

Well, I'm out. Got to get back to Dominating the Competent. There's just so many of them, you know? A Collectivist's work is never done [sigh] .

NOE, please let me know when you're planning another Groupthink Hyprocrisy session. I just get all goose-pimply when I hear a total babe say "epistemology". :-)

And my apologies, NOEN, for making false gender assumptions. Hardening of the wrong parts, I'm afraid.

I am not interested in making collectivists take me seriously. I am interested only in showing that collectivists--you chief among them--have behaved abominably in this thread.
Pretty funny.

A lot of us have treated your argument with much more seriousness than I think it deserves. You've also been at least as intellectually dishonest, angry and ad hominem as you accuse your threadmates of being.

NOEN, in particular, in #72, took far more pains than I would to point out precisely where your argument, and Objectivism in general, falls apart simply on logical and philosophical (it *is* a profession, you know) grounds. Yet your alleged "summary" of the thread does nothing more than deride his comment as a highly suspicious "attempt to convince me". Others you dismiss as "avowed socialists", and KICKYFAST's offer "let's not fight" is just ignored.

Try a sip of your own medicine, my friend. You have no more claim to "objectivity" than anyone else here (me included) and therefore no business trying to make all us silly children "conscious of how you behave".

#39 Identify five Objectivists and explain how they use rationalist philosophy to justify their greed and will to power.

Duh, OK, I'll bite: Uncle Miltie Friedman. A well-known Ayn Fayn whose beneficent influence is rather thoroughly covered in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". At least go read the wikipedia entry. It's all there: Milt's retread monetarism has been the shield for several generations of greedy swine.

Be sure to read the "Criticism" section, which contains a real howler. Uncle Miltie basically tries to argue that, since the inhuman oppression and butchery of the Pinochet dictatorship his ideas helped create for Chile was eventually replaced by a democracy, therefore all of his ideas are vindicated. This is like Attilla the Hun making a bid for a Nobel Peace Prize based on his brilliant and innovative approach to population pressure in pre-Medieval Europe.

Come to think of it, I guess we could also use Klein's book to answer upthread claims about there being no widespread implementation of Objectivist ideas similar to those that have happened with Marx's ideas. As Klein demonstrates, all of Miltie's politico-economic rugrats, from Reagan on, are still running around setting policy for governments all over the world, and are arguably winning over every alternative.

But I won't go there. Doing so would, of course, treat us to the spectacle of Objectivists on this thread immediately trying to claim that "these are not really truly Objectivist" societies -- much like all my old Marxist buddies would try to do with Russia and China and North Korea, as we sat around drinking lemonade on a sunny afternoon and discussing the societal benefits of mass murder.

Don't you just love politics and economics? Yeah, me neither.

Nice. No doubt the artist that day was feeling myriad-minded.

You krazy kidz. Slapping each other around over a freaking T shirt. With extra helpings of smarm and patronization! Here, let me help: You're ALL forgiven!

Now, in the immortal words of Moe Howard: "Recede!"

Dat shit is bad.

I'd like my unicorns now, please, doctor.

Wow, Kevitivity, dude, I can barely keep up with all this great stuff you're puttin' down:

1. I read your fine article. "Quotes" from *anonymous* "CIA officials" are certainly all I need to convince me! After all, the CIA never lied to me about Iraq WMD, or Valerie Plame's status, or how wonderfully effective "enhanced interrogation" techniques are (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866).

2. Waterboarding is NOT torture because the Democrats haven't banned it yet and because they only did it to three people. Cool! Hey, dudes, let's dust off the thumbscrews! We're golden, as long as we only use them on three guys and the Dems don't ban them!

Frankly, my friend, the only "fringe moron" posting here is you.

Xen, that fuschia top is YOU, diva!
Great Scott Carney story, more of this please.

Wonderful. Same great taste as the regular blog, and just as filling!

Mr. Zed, I think the only person who has used a stereotypical term for arabic people on this thread is you.

@MICHAEL ZED
Showing politeness to cops who tell you how to freakin' *dress yourself*? Uh, that would be a "no".

YAY! Please, oh please, find that cell phone movie!

Thanks, Xeni, for keeping us informed about this. Best wishes to Todd and SRL.

OK, try again: Informing people about the existence of a site (including linking to it) does not constitute advocacy of the site's content. Conversely, failure to inform/link does not constitute disadvocacy.

It's certainly Xeni's right to choose not to link to them. I don't question that. But the idea that she's somehow helping or hurting Overthrow with either decision is just piffle. You're not a proxy bigot if you link to them, you're not MLK if you don't.

Sure, Google aggregates eyeballs. Eyeballs also moves on to other sites rather rapidly. You don't honestly think you're going to help/hurt Overthrow's *ad revenue*, do you? :-)

Clear this time?

"A knowledge of syphilis is not an instruction to get it." -- Lenny Bruce
Go ahead and link their site. It's not going to:
A. Stop these cowardly nazis from publishing their tripe
B. Convince even one more person to join them who wasn't already into their shit.
C. Offend any but the tragically PC.

Oh...and Free the Xeni 1!