Weds. morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 3. 2009

The Maggie's Farm fun-loving and amoral fact-checking and bookkeeping staff invite you to play the ancient traditional New England festive Springtime game called Name That Tractor:

How deeply will the O grovel? Related: Romney roasts the O's posture of apology

How GM lost its way. Ingrassia Related: Brooks on The Quagmire Ahead

The Dems are the Party of Hate. Driscoll

I survived two years of Teach for America. Sex in the stairwells

How Brit hospitals try to keep their stats good

David Warren: We Canadians are stupid

Massive estimates of death are in vogue for Copenhagen

Kasich will run for Ohio gov. Good.

Not a peep from the O on the murdered soldier. Palin knows better

We told you Geithner was funny

How to discuss issues with Lefties. AVI

I had the same thought: Is this murder, or not?

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy posted a remarkable Memorial Day piece

The bloodthirsty Presbyterians are back at it

The GM bailout only delays the inevitable

California: The lunacy of the process argument. One quote:

The thing that absolutely drives me up the wall about the argument that California's biggest problem is a process problem -- the two-thirds rule to adopt budgets and raises taxes -- instead of an inability to live within its means is that the process argument implies that California has been governed in a starve-the-beast mode. In other words, that minority Republicans in the Legislature have managed to keep taxes absurdly and unrealistically low.

Instead, the truth, of course, is that California has the highest gas and sales tax; the highest- or second-highest income tax; and the highest corporate tax rates in the West. Our property taxes are about average nationally, thanks to Prop. 13.

How can anyone look at this picture and make the starve-the-beast argument? How come no one ever points this out on the news pages of the L.A. Times or Sac Bee?

It's not a tendentious, impossible-to-document claim. It's a simple fact: Whatever the barriers are to higher taxes, California has still indisputably ended up with high taxes.

Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:01 | Comments (77) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I never thought a John Deere could look so good. I love farm girls!!!

#1 phil g on 2009-06-03 07:27 (Reply)

The year and model, please.

#1.1 Bird Dog on 2009-06-03 07:36 (Reply)

Why don't you just put links up to your soft-porn sites and try and keep this a little more family friendly??

#2 D Dvorak on 2009-06-03 08:24 (Reply)

I know, I know. Mrs. BD always says that too.
Unfortunately, like most Yankee Puritans, we have a devilish streak.

#2.1 bd on 2009-06-03 08:35 (Reply)

You call that soft porn? Looks like good clean fun to me. Well, maybe not clean, but definitely all in good fun.

#2.2 wolfwalker on 2009-06-03 12:54 (Reply)

The John Dear Turf & Surf Snatcher. 1969. Noted for turning fallow fields into thriving yields.
`

#3 Meta on 2009-06-03 08:49 (Reply)

It's a ...'57 John Deere 630 bush wacker.
A special model designed to work mostly at night.

#4 ron on 2009-06-03 09:07 (Reply)

The picture posted is entirely inappropriate. Keep up the good work!!!!!

#5 Jim in Alaska on 2009-06-03 10:23 (Reply)

The Husky Varna Make Hay & Sow Seed Tractor. 1969.
`

#6 Meta on 2009-06-03 10:26 (Reply)

It's either a fully-restored Cockshutt 50 or a Model B Beaver riding tractor, neither of which, interestingly, are manufactured any longer.

Who cares, anyway?

#7 The Distributist (Link) on 2009-06-03 10:56 (Reply)

There's a tractor?...

#8 Rob on 2009-06-03 11:37 (Reply)

That pic - while I am sure is in good clean fun, well a couple of things - it makes it rather difficult to view your web page while taking a break at work. And the pron thing, soft, almost soft, whatever, is a slippery slope for some men and could be problemativ for them or their wives. And no, I am not some freaksih PC easily offended well-educated too holy roller midwestern wife.....just someone who likes your web site, whose husband likes your web site and who has to begin refraining from viewing it most of the time b/c of stuff like that unncessary pic...too bad.

#9 hky on 2009-06-03 13:19 (Reply)

I guess I'm lucky... the Mrs. called me over to her computer this morning saying "Hey, come here, Spud... you've gotta take a look at this!"

She is, what we call in Maine, "A keepah!"

I agree that it is only safe for work if, like both of us, you work at home.

#9.1 The Distributist (Link) on 2009-06-03 13:39 (Reply)

Yep, alerted my husband to it b/c he reads at work on lunch break and they monitor closely. He is about whom I was thinking when I commented. Of course, the alert will I am sure cause sufficient intrigue for him as to check it out at home.....he thinks I am a keeper too. Glad you got one; every man deserves a good wife that keeps him happy - as we need good productive stable men in this world!

Guess I am a bit sensitive b/c I have heard of so many lives and marriages destroyed by a seemingly low start, in porn such as this. Same for alcohol and drugs, except the pics, well they can get in the brain and have an impact without a person doing an act of their own volition 'cept for reading this web site...

Still, love the Farm....

#9.1.1 hky on 2009-06-03 13:50 (Reply)

I like it, and it gets my full endorsement

#9.2 ricefarm on 2009-06-03 14:06 (Reply)

I am shocked, shocked, that these women have shown up for work so unprepared for toiling in the fields. Just look at their footwear--twisted ankles all day.

#10 Marcus on 2009-06-03 13:52 (Reply)

John Deere 720. If Deere had thought of this for a marketing campaign they would have sold 5 million of them.

#11 ricefarm on 2009-06-03 13:59 (Reply)

If it were an 18th C. French painting of nude girls around a horse and wagon, nobody would give a darn.

#12 Bird Dog on 2009-06-03 14:04 (Reply)

good point...why is that? You made me think -as does Maggie's often...you know I like the place...

#12.1 hky on 2009-06-03 14:23 (Reply)

Thanks, Alison .... I was having trouble finding the words to express by feelings about the photo appearing on the front page of The Farm .... you have more guts than I, but those are my feelings exactly.

To those readers and posters who can't figure out the difference between the usual posted Theo cutie pies or the buff figures in glorious 18th century art and the offending photo .... well, I just can't explain it to you.

Liz

#12.2 Liz on 2009-06-04 14:15 (Reply)

Keep UP the good work! This is what always helps make my day. My work just blocked Theo, which may be where this one came from.

DON"T ever change how you run this site.

#13 Joe Winbigler on 2009-06-03 14:49 (Reply)

I love the lurkers who only comment to upbraid you when you show some T & A, BD. Evidently, nothing else you post here is worth their time. Ah, sanctimony at its finest.

I bet the ones griping are on perpetual Weight Watchers and don't own a muff tractor.
`

#14 Meta on 2009-06-03 17:48 (Reply)

I comment often and I never lurk - but this one, way over the top, I think Alison is on to something. What I wonder is why everyone is so sensitive to someones (my) negative opinion when the pic itself is posted in a positive light and many of the posters like it. Any freedom of thought allowed or are the readers supposed to be so free as to have no thought about our limits of tastefulness and decorum and proper times and places?

As for excuses like work and porn and stuff as a means to convey some sort of as of yet unaddressed insecurity - my husband would find you silly, as would my neighbors that see me clean my pool...

#14.1 hky on 2009-06-04 11:56 (Reply)

You comment often? On other blogs?

"just someone who likes your web site, whose husband likes your web site and who has to begin refraining from viewing it most of the time b/c of stuff like that unncessary pic...too bad.
#9 hky on 2009-06-03 13:19 (Reply"

You say some men find porn a slippery slope and that it could be 'problemativ' for some men and their wives. Your husband 'has to begin refraining from viewing it most of the time'? Why? Does he sneak over and boink your neighbors' wife when she's out cleaning the pool? I'm sorry for his lack of control. Why, you must be so anxious. So sorry.
`

#14.1.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 17:29 (Reply)

You guys are what my 17 year old daughter refers to as "Creepsters"!

Listen, there is a time and a place...wise up!

#15 D Dvorak on 2009-06-03 18:02 (Reply)

Joe: Nah, not one of Theo's as far as I can tell.

Now some of the stuff Theo posts is borderline-pr0n. But this? Not in my most humble opinion. Certainly NSFW, though. You never know who's monitoring your Internet usage ... and you shouldn't be looking at a pure-fun site like here on company time anyway.

D Dvorak, I can understand your daughter's reaction, but honestly, if she finds something like that photo 'creepy,' she's gonna have an awful lot of trouble if/when she goes to college, and maybe even more when she gets out into the World.

#16 wolfwalker on 2009-06-03 18:43 (Reply)

"If it were an 18th C. French painting of nude girls around a horse and wagon, nobody would give a darn"

That's because you're over-porned. They weren't back then. They appreciated female beauty and yep sexuality without mixing fuck objects into every single aspect of culture like socially inadequate zitty teens just discovering their cocks throb.

A woman's sat up there with her legs open. Why should his daughter be the one to feel like she's in the wrong. Maybe the woman has some grace and dignity, a whole stack of her own fantastic sexuality but prefers gentlemen who can make it through the day without getting all their politics dressed in cunt.

#17 alison (Link) on 2009-06-03 19:19 (Reply)

Alison, you're out of order. But, hey, you are the first to use the big 'C' on this blog. I know you're proud.

People need to get a grip. You women using husbands and daughters and work as an excuse to scream obscenity need to go look in the mirror and see if you can detect the source of your insecurities. If you don't like the naked girls, leave. Take a hike.

You click on this blog, click off. But shut the hell up if it's your choice to stick around.

The picture is funny. It is not porn. If you can't see the humor in it, that's your problem.
`

#18 Meta on 2009-06-03 19:54 (Reply)

I saw a number of egregious errors in grammar and spelling in the "Sex in the Stairwells" article by Thomas Gibbon that you linked to ("me and many others attended classes..." and "waive" when he meant "wave," etc.). Perhaps the author is not well suited for a career in teaching.

As for the naked ladies, I assume your purpose is to educate us about a back-to-nature farm movement, which calls for plowing au natural. I'm glad to see that Maggie's is keeping on top of such important avant garde movements. For me it's like reading Playboy for the articles. So, ummm, "informative."

#19 Agent Cooper on 2009-06-03 20:15 (Reply)

In WA state the democratic legislature passed an "all but marriage" law last month. Signatures are being gathered for Referendum 71. This would challenge the issue on November's ballot. To be clear those who sign the petition for Referendum 71 want the subject of "everything but marriage" to be voted upon by the citizens. HOWEVER, we have an active and mean group of homosexuals in this state. The latest example of their unlimited contempt can be found here: http://whosigned.org

The leader of "Who Signed" was interviewed on the local radio show. His defense of this action was this: "We want to know who the people are who signed this referendum, so that if we see them in a grocery store, we can engage them in conversation about gay families in WA state". See that here:
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=173635

#20 anotherone on 2009-06-03 21:47 (Reply)

Love the picture!
That has to be a melon farm!

#21 RL on 2009-06-03 23:21 (Reply)

The only way to farm those ladies out is with a Big Bud from the land of the Big Sky.

#22 bob on 2009-06-04 02:57 (Reply)

Meta -

If I'd been first to comment I would have remarked that they look like a bunch of dairy cows, with one on heat ready for fucking. My comment was way down the thread of concern and insecurity with you cleaning up to tell some bloke's daughter how it should be. I think it's you who is insecure. You wax anxiously justifying perving it, take a blind shot at anyone who might disagree, bypass the open legged woman but cannot handle the word explicitness of what it is you are gawping at - tits and cunt? That's what's on show. I think it was Hirsi Ali who pointed out the burqa is Islam's way of defining women as walking vaginas. Here you are justifying yourself in the reverse.

I like Maggie's Place other than the old man leching. You've linked to a couple of my posts on other sites with praise unfortunately for you. I cannot access it at work because it is blocked and defined as porn.

Incidentally I see a beautiful naked girl every day I get dressed and catch myself in the mirror. But better yet I sure as shit can see beauty in women wearing more than birthday suits and lingerie.

#23 alison (Link) on 2009-06-04 04:22 (Reply)

Your logic is flawed. It appears you are looking for a fight. That's fine, but don't compare a bunch of happy, naked women to muttered verbal filth and expect to win the fray.
`

#23.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 17:41 (Reply)

Who are you kidding Meta that this about female beauty! It�s about way more than that. Alison may be blunt in words but actually no more so than the picture is blunt in image and bodyparts and in what IT was intended to provoke. I enjoyed the clever irony in the direct style. She makes some good points too. Like it or not women in the nude or in skimpies means sex. Alison, some of us guys out here aren�t juvenile or lechers and can appreciate women�s beauty in more than skin or lace. I�ve never understood why there is this inclination to mix in naked women to political debate on blogs. Theo�s site is a bit juvenile for my tastes. (The Sun�s being doing this for donkey�s years in Britain but it�s always been seen as a bit �naff�. I think he appeals to a US audience who have missed out on The Sun). If it�s for �wallpaper� then it�s bound to be a bit tiresome for some women who visit and prefer to consider themselves as something other than perma sex objects.

As someone said above there is a time and a place for leering and sex. Because some of us think so doesn�t make us insecure Meta. I would agree that it smacks more of the other way around.

So saying, it would be interesting to see just how insecure us men became if we were permanently blasted with images of semi naked perfect male torsos and women going all soft in the head over them, week in week out. Or how inclined you would be to view a site at work, assuming colleagues would think you were gay. I expect that's why you miss out the pics of "male beauty". There were certainly enough around in the 18th C.

#24 PJ on 2009-06-04 06:00 (Reply)

"Who are you kidding Meta that this about female beauty!"

I didn't say a word about beauty, PJ. I said it was funny.

As for the rest of your maundering, I don't waste my time on creepsters.
`

#24.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 17:35 (Reply)

My own theory is that naked women, if they're not presenting themselves as sexually available, look ridiculous; which is what makes the picture funny.

I'm sure naked men must look ridiculous too but haven't considered it, and what would be the point anyway.

#25 Ron Hardin (Link) on 2009-06-04 08:26 (Reply)

Please don't consider this piling-on..that's not the intent.

I for one appreciate Alison's views and applaud her for standing on principle concerning morals and values. I have visited her blog and she seems to be an intelligent and talented lady, and was looking forward to her participation in the conversation at Maggie's.

It's apparent that she is a new reader of the comments here, otherwise she would have noticed the decorum while expressing opinions or disagreeing with the content on display.

She set a new low standard and indeed relinquished the moral high-ground when she choose to use vile and vulgar language to express her opposition to the photo. Were the words meant to shock? if so that was childish.

The visitors to Maggie's is probably more males ( some sharper than others) than females (every one highly intelligent/insightful and sophisticated.) What you see here is a smorgasbord,with something to please the palate of most.
I believe Maggie's to be an adult blog, not a family blog and certainly not suitable for the kidos, and as of now not totally feminized.
I dread the day when I hear, take off your muddy boots, extinguish that stinky cigar and no more eye-candy for you.

#26 ron on 2009-06-04 11:07 (Reply)

34 comments i wonder what all the hoopla is about ? hmmm.....

#27 opie109 on 2009-06-04 12:42 (Reply)

Hiring an abortionist to rip vacuum a child from it's womb is torturous murder of an innocent soul.

A nation whose leaders applaud it is codemned.

#28 Leag on 2009-06-04 12:51 (Reply)

Of course I didn't relinquish either Ron. I deliberately chose to use that language because it suited the picture. The picture of itself set a new low standard for Maggie's Farm and was a totally childish choice designed to provoke a reaction. So you got several varying from "knock it off" onwards. I'm amazed at people's concern for intentionally flowery language when there's a woman sat up there with her legs open. There is nothing anymore vile or vulgar about the word cunt than there is about the sets on display above. If taking the piss out of women is what this place is all about by that picture and not mere lechy perving, or somewhere in between, then consider the language taking the piss right back. It worked as intended. I certainly won't be apologising for the language while the choice of picture is justified or applauded!

#29 alison (Link) on 2009-06-04 13:57 (Reply)

"It worked as intended."

What worked as intended?
`

#29.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 17:19 (Reply)

Thanks, Alison - I was having trouble finding the words to express my feelings about the photo posted on the front page of The Farm - I don't have the guts that you do when it comes to commenting - but I agree with most all that you said.

For those readers and posters who can't see the difference in the usual Theo cutie pie or glorious 18th century art of the nude figure .... then I just can't explain it to you.

Liz

#30 Liz on 2009-06-04 14:41 (Reply)

"...then I just can't explain it to you."

Don't worry yourself, Liz. I think we have it. Alison couldn't explain it, either.

Nice to see new commenters. Do drop in again.
`

#30.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 17:45 (Reply)

Opie
As they say a picture is worth a thousand words......
Maybe,maybe not?

#31 RL on 2009-06-04 15:14 (Reply)

Didn't appreciate today's picture, I check google reader with my kids in the room...

#32 Jean Anderson on 2009-06-04 17:54 (Reply)

Easy fix: Don't open MF until the kids go to bed.

Thanks for commenting!
`

#32.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 20:06 (Reply)

Meta - Oh I explained it. As explicitly and candidly as the picture. Consider the words mere "humour". You don't seem to be able to much handle ANY criticism of the picture choice.

#33 alison (Link) on 2009-06-04 18:34 (Reply)

You explained nothing, Alison. You did prove you have no sense of humor and a most disgusting mouth and an immature sense of logic.

What I don't tolerate is hypocrisy and whiny women. I view the picture as it was intended: Humorously. I am certainly not offended by it, but if I were, I'd click out rather than make a fool of myself shrieking obscenities to the wall.
`

#33.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 20:00 (Reply)

By the way, you didn't answer this. Maybe you didn't see it.

"It worked as intended."

What worked as intended?
`
#29.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 17:19 (Reply)
`

#33.2 Meta on 2009-06-04 20:03 (Reply)

It's you without the humour Meta. Your sour critique of each and EVERY single posting that isn't what you want to hear goes some way to demonstrate that.

You're pretty disgusting with your pre-slur way up above that indicated in advance what type of people you expected to condemn the picture and women who won't play along with your view of how they should react to the picture. Regards what is after all THEIR sexuality, you little mullah. Or as you put it a humourous picture. We should all chortle along at your view of what goes? Get a grip on something other than your ego and your nuts.

As for your inability to handle acutely ironicly used words for female genitalia out of some concern they're vulgar or obscene now you are being funny. With that picture up there? Get over it.

I don't tolerate whiny small-minded men. So we'll get along just fine on all these types of picture fests won't we.

#34 alison on 2009-06-04 20:31 (Reply)

You didn't answer the question.

By the way, you didn't answer this. Maybe you didn't see it.

"It worked as intended."

What worked as intended?
`
#29.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 17:19 (Reply)
`
#33.2 Meta on 2009-06-04 20:03 (Reply)

By the way: I am a female. :)
So much for your paying attention and your sweeping generalizations. ha ha.
`

#34.1 Meta on 2009-06-04 21:35 (Reply)

That picture is about as titillating and amorous as standing in a post office line. It's a bunch of women who were either enamored of some particularly artful photographer who convinced them that getting nude for the camera was a poke in the face of 'the man'... or else a group of women who thought it would be great fun to get nude and stand in front of a tractor.

Besides, find me a man who doesn't mentally undress every woman he meets... or even glimpses from across the street. It is innate I believe. Tis the mystery of the unseen, so as to let imagination run rampant, that is truly sensual.

That picture is much ado about nothing I feel.

#35 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-04 21:13 (Reply)

"Every woman he meets"? Dude, where you live? Arizona is it? Zip code please. I take it housing prices are holding up there?

#35.1 KRW on 2009-06-04 21:30 (Reply)

Housing prices have taken a hit... but not as much as many. Though, you realize, I will require a certain percentage for privileged information. On the other hand, as regards 'every' I could just be a pervert. But I don't think so, based on life experience.

#35.1.1 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-04 21:50 (Reply)

Nicely put, Luther. The point of the picture, I think, is as you said: In the face of men. But there is another point overlooked by any so far: The women are completely natural. No boob jobs, no pubic hair, no 'set' hair, and the setting is nature. It is saying, "Here we are... take us or leave us." I daresay they are the kind of woman Alison strives to be... that is, if she were able to laugh about such funny absurdity.
`

#35.2 Meta on 2009-06-04 21:32 (Reply)

Yes, Meta. Natural.

That's why I can't be offended by it.

It wouldn't happen here on this blog, filled as it is with elixer... but the same shot with men would likely elicit the same response on a different forum.

There are nudist clubs for a reason... folks like to get naked. Doesn't mean there is some nefarious reason behind it... just some sort of perceived freedom from cultural restrictions.

We're always more complicated than we think we are.

#35.2.1 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-04 21:58 (Reply)

Just saw this. Somewhat relevant, eh? Don't miss the mouse-over.

#36 KRW on 2009-06-04 22:01 (Reply)

Got the mouse over... so even in the most basic of conversations... money must find credence. Fuck.

#36.1 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-04 22:23 (Reply)

I still like it. No, I am not into porn but it is my right to like what I want, and your right not to. But for crying out loud, if you don't like it go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to look at or read anything. That is what Maggie's is all about, in case you don't get the meaning of the little mission statement at the top of the page.

#37 ricefarm on 2009-06-04 22:07 (Reply)

Dear Alison,

Read the instructions before opening: "...Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for."

Lovingly,

-TD

P.S. I'm probably undressing you in my mind.

#38 The Distributist (Link) on 2009-06-04 23:04 (Reply)

What difference does it make if you are female meta?

It's a photo. It will encourage views and they will tend to be subjective. Rather stuffy old commu e you have if you cannot even handle hers and others negative views here

I thoroughly enjoyed alisons comments. And from clicking on her her blog and seeing a picture if the woman it would appear you are the one making generalizations about her.

#39 Ek on 2009-06-05 07:04 (Reply)

It only makes a difference that I am a woman because Alison thinks I am a man.

I made zero generalizations about her. As well, I have handled 'hers and others negative views here' rather well.

Now add something substantive to the thread or buzz off.
`

#39.1 Meta on 2009-06-05 12:12 (Reply)

Alison complains about being banned and not being able to express 'an alternate opinion', but that's exactly what she did to me on her blog on this subject. I was told to sling my hook to some right wing site and my final post was deleted. I didn't swear or anything. Still, if it makes her feel important ..

#40 Julio (Link) on 2009-06-06 00:58 (Reply)

I don't believe Alison has been banned, Julio. That's a rarely swung sword round here.

#40.1 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-06 09:10 (Reply)

BD ..

has Alison been banned from commenting at MF ?

#41 ron on 2009-06-06 09:30 (Reply)

On her page she states that MF has banned her for her posts on this thread.

QUOTE:

I was going to point out I do the odd nudey shot in my photography and sell the damn things but Maggie's Farm, like whiny insecure leftwing feminists, don't do alternative opinion on femaleness and banned me

#42 Julio (Link) on 2009-06-06 10:11 (Reply)

Well, perhaps that's the case then. But I'm surprised if it's true. And if true it would certainly not be for her opinions, perhaps her language, though that would surprise me as well.

#43 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-06 11:04 (Reply)

Alison is delusional. This blog accepts alternative opinion with more grace than I've seen on any other blog. I am guessing her 'alternative' language is what got her banned. Good.
`

#44 Meta on 2009-06-06 11:08 (Reply)

I've been reading MF every day for the past three or four years, it's one of my favorite blogs and I have high respect for the men and woman who contribute their time to make this place so wonderful. It's a true treasure in a sea of mediocre blogs. I would like to add that the News Junkie is a big reason why I catch my morning fix at the Farm, he has it all waiting for me at 5:30 am central time. Thank you.

I've never left more than a handful of comments and I rarely read the surprisingly meager threads, so lurker doesn't fit my profile and I apologize for the lateness of my entry to a contentious discussion as a newcomer.

I saw the naked lady pic when it first went up and I was a more than a tad put off - it wasn't at all like the usual totty frippery, which I enjoy. It didn't strike me as humorous or naughty, it's full frontal nudity and whole hell of a lot of it. It wasn't Maggie's Farm norm at all and I didn't care for it. I didn't say anything because, hey, it's not my site - do what you like. But I also didn't pull Maggie's Farm back up for a few days. The photo just didn't fit this place for me - it was seriously off-putting.

So why am I commenting now? Because a friend and co-blogger of mine, Alison, mentioned this thread in the tail end of one of her posts. Apparently she had the stones to disagree with the photo in salty terms with her usual fierce brio and was taken to task by Meta and was banned (?) or censored by the blog master for expressing herself as freely as the women in the questionable photo.

Alison is not delusional. She's not a prude or a left wing feminist, she's quite beautiful, highly intelligent, and well educated. She is conservative, strongly opinionated and can curse like a sailor when angry. All qualities I usually like in a woman friend.

Meta, you are a royal bitch. You've been a topic of many private discussions amongst many bloggers as the sole reason why many readers don't comment on this fine site. I don't have a clue who you are or how you're connected to MF, but you run these threads like your own personal fiefdom and you come across as highly unpleasant and domineering. You're obviously intelligent and handy with words, but you're quick on the draw to be obnoxious towards anyone outside your small circle or those willing to be critical of your opinions.

This blog might actually be more accepting of alternative opinions (and have more commenters in general) if you backed off your proprietary bulldog stance and behaved as if you actually welcomed other's comments on the Farm, even when they go crosswise to your own or criticize a post.

#45 Daphne (Link) on 2009-06-06 23:13 (Reply)

You hurt my feelings, Daphne.
`

#45.1 Meta on 2009-06-06 23:40 (Reply)

Nice to see your sense of humor return, Meta.

#45.1.1 Daphne (Link) on 2009-06-07 00:47 (Reply)

I also think you don't really understand Meta. Let go of assumptions and stereotypes, then you may get closer to a full realization of what she is about.

#45.2 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-06 23:54 (Reply)

"Meta, you are a royal bitch. You've been a topic of many private discussions amongst many bloggers as the sole reason why many readers don't comment on this fine site. I don't have a clue who you are or how you're connected to MF, but you run these threads like your own personal fiefdom and you come across as highly unpleasant and domineering. You're obviously intelligent and handy with words, but you're quick on the draw to be obnoxious toward anyone outside your small circle or those willing to be critical of your opinions."

Do you have any fucking proof of this... seems to me like Alison's friends are coming in by the shitload to defend her... in anyway they can. I was trying to take a calm approach to all of this, just my way. But now I'm becoming seriously pissed off. Daphne... you should wish to be half the woman of Meta. Have you considered that perhaps her grasp extends your reach.

#45.3 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-07 00:11 (Reply)

Have you considered that perhaps her grasp extends your reach.

No Luther, I haven't. I've read her, acknowledge her intelligence and well constructed opinions. Meta's a woman of considerable knowledge and wit. She's also a shrew and freely castigates those who don't agree with her point of view.

The proof is in several years worth of threads. I can see you're her friend and I admire your support, but maybe you're living too close to the source to be an objective advocate.

And, yes, like you Luther, I do defend my friends. I also waited several days to see how this party played out before offering my opinion.

#46 Daphne (Link) on 2009-06-07 00:43 (Reply)

"No Luther, I haven't."

Then perhaps you should.

I happen to like independent thought. Which is why I have attempted to give Alison and her friends wide latitude in their criticisms.

But I'm finding, now, that ad hominem seems to be the preferred approach when all else fails.

I would prefer a more thoughtful approach, it appears as if that will not be possible.

#47 Luther McLeod on 2009-06-07 01:45 (Reply)

As an Illuminated Anglophile, well, wide latitude and fun and sarcasm and cows and John is a Deere and all, well y'all keep up the Great Works...

#47.1 Thomas Kasper (Link) on 2012-10-28 23:46 (Reply)

The Left has no sense of humor. When our side loses its sense of humor, we all lose. Get over yourselves.

#48 The Distributist on 2009-06-08 22:01 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 3. 2009

Weds. morning links