Monsters

Guest - November 21, 2005

Submitted by GST

I think it’s disgusting how DKL attempts to humanize himself by being photographed with an innocent child on his lap for the photo accompanying this story.

Allow me to make the inevitable, perfectly reasonable, and even-tempered analogy:

1 Comment

  1. Posted by gst552

    Comments
    If you just cannot get enough of the pics of DKL, DKL’s wife, and their offspring, you can check them out in all their glory here (9M admin killed the link). DKL posted a private link to BCC, apparently not realizing anyone could just work their way up the directories to see all the family photos. Why do I say “not realizing”? Because something tells me if DKL’s wife knew those pics of her in the delivery room were up on the net for all the world to see, they would be dealt with expeditiously.
    Posted by: Stay out of the line of fire | November 21, 2005 at 03:08 PM

    Best. Post. Ever.
    I am still laughing. Good pick-up, Rusty.
    Posted by: NFlanders | November 21, 2005 at 03:36 PM

    Huh? You mean DKL is NOT the baby?

All this time I’ve been feeling sorry for that cute kid being held by such an ugly mug. I hope the little dear isn’t scarred for life.
    Posted by: Mark IV | November 21, 2005 at 03:46 PM

    I am no fan of DKL or his acid tongue, but calling him a monster, comparing him to Hitler, poking fun at his wife and kid, and giving directions to see a bunch of rather personal photos he did not intend to post online or at least advertise is pretty lame. He didn’t write the SL Trib story. Take up your beef with Peggy Fletcher Stack.
    Posted by: Dave | November 21, 2005 at 04:30 PM

    Uh, it’s a joke, Dave. And gst didn’t provide the link to his photos, a commenter did.
    Posted by: NFlanders | November 21, 2005 at 05:04 PM

    Peggy Fletcher Stack’s article states that church critics “grabbed onto the Banner of Heaven episode as a parallel for the church’s founding, saying that it was like founder Joseph Smith claiming invented revelations.”
    They did? Really? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but I am. Now, should I be more offended that people think Joseph made it all up or that people think that Septimus is as convincing as Joseph?
    Posted by: Matt S. | November 21, 2005 at 05:55 PM

    That is an exaggeration. I don’t think the Tanners read the bloggernacle.
    How can you be offended that people think Joseph made it all up? Unless you are willing to be offended by 99.9% of people.
    Posted by: NFlanders | November 21, 2005 at 06:20 PM

    Isn’t somebody supposed to shout “He’s history’s greatest monster!” at this point?
    Posted by: Russell Arben Fox | November 21, 2005 at 07:59 PM

    I’ve only been commenting for a couple of months now, so I wish that someone would clue me in on the evils of DKL. What happened that caused his bannishment from T&S? Was it many things, or one specific event? Is he banished elsewhere? Is he a Nazi? Does he kill puppies? Just looking for some info. so I can join in the mocking. :)
    Posted by: Tim J. | November 21, 2005 at 08:04 PM

    Tim J.: He’s just a boor, nothing worse. In mitigation, he bears the marks of some intelligence, and is frequently funny.
    Perhaps one of his greatest sins is suggesting that Three Dog Night should be included in the pantheon of rock ‘n’ roll greats.
    DKL: any band that plays for free in the shopping mall across the street from my office is probably not one of the greats.
    Posted by: gst | November 21, 2005 at 08:24 PM

    Russell, comparing any modern figure to President Carter is probably overly harsh, and certainly in very bad taste. I like to practice a little more restraint than that.
    Posted by: gst | November 21, 2005 at 08:29 PM

    One more thing in DKL’s favor: I expected him to look something like, well, an actual troll, but instead he turns out to be this ruggedly handsome sonofagun!
    Posted by: gst | November 21, 2005 at 08:48 PM

    man!
    Posted by: meems | November 21, 2005 at 10:28 PM

    I’m with Dave. Hitler and DKL, just no comparison. I’m insulted for him. I don’t think it’s funny. No offense, gst.
    Posted by: annegb | November 21, 2005 at 11:09 PM

    Et tu, annegb?
    Look, my job around here is to make with the ha-ha. I can’t believe that I have to write this, but: I don’t actually believe that DKL is at all comparable with Hitler. It’s a joke, specifically, a joke on those who compare people that offend them even slightly to Hitler. That’s why I called the analogy “perfectly reasonable,” because I thought that it would signal that I didn’t actually believe that it was at all reasonable. Very few Hitler analogies are at all reasonable, and fewer still, if any, are perfectly reasonable.
    And now that I’ve had to explain the joke, I’ve sucked all the funny out of it.
    You know what else is funny? This sentence: “Hitler and DKL, just no comparison.” Yeah, no kidding.
    I still love annegb, and think that she should be Relief Society General President.
    Posted by: gst | November 21, 2005 at 11:54 PM

    It’s mean. See New Cool Thang for how this should be dealt with.
    Not one member of the church should be ridiculed the way DKL has been. How can we be so cruel to each other?????
    Posted by: chronicler | November 22, 2005 at 12:17 AM

    New here. I thought that this was basically an LDS blog. Was I wrong? I can’t believe what I’m seeing here. Don’t any of you know who Hitler was? How sad that members of the Church are behaving in this way. Shame shame shame on you!
    Posted by: TMG_Founder | November 22, 2005 at 12:35 AM

    New here. Welcome!
    I thought that this was basically an LDS blog. It is. Basically.
    Don’t any of you know who Hitler was? Hmmmm, Hitler… it sounds familiar… Oh! Yes, isn’t he the guy… oh, no, I was wrong, that was Smithers. Who’s Hitler?
    How sad that members of the Church are behaving in this way. Shame shame shame on you! Shame on you for coming to my blog without any context or understanding of the conversation and shaming my guest poster and my readers! (imagine my index finger wagging back and forth)
    Posted by: Rusty | November 22, 2005 at 01:30 AM

    WOW!!This is a perfect example of one of my favorite topics!
    Offense! Did you know that we as mormons find taking offense to be a favored pastime!? It has been well practiced at FHE, Sacrament Meeting, Priesthood Quarem, Relief Society and even Primary! Its so well taught as a major principal of our religon that we practice it every time we walk out our front door! Its so easy, even kids can choose to be offended!! 
Did you think that you could only be offended in person? Well say good bye to the olden days cause now we can even be offended by random people we’ve never met, nor ever will meet, on a private blog!!!! Yes thats right! Now you can sit and be offended by everyday life from the convienence of your own home! You dont even have to walk out that big front door to the scary world beyond!
Act now, and you can get a free sample of “Life as a constantly offended Mormon” by just emailing me at umc4life@hotmail.com and Ill be happy to send you a piece of my mind anytime! Act now, supplies are limited due to frequent demand.
    Posted by: Bryce | November 22, 2005 at 07:26 AM

    This is a rather shabby comparison. Won’t anybody stick up for Hitler?
    Seriously, I believe it is illustrative to compare this thread to others. There are so many I could use, but I just offer the following:
    Almost exactly a year ago, I made a comment at Times and Seasons that used the word dyke (please note that throughout the thread that I link to, the term dyke was edited read “*lesbians*”). In the discussion that ensued (starting at comment #10), more people chimed in to voice their staunch and “principled” objection to the use of the term dyke than to the distasteful use of imagery here on this thread. It bears noting that not a single person spoke up to defend my usage of the term dyke based on the fact that it was “just a joke”—including the author of this post, gst, who was the commenter who objected to the term dyke in the first place.
    And so, I must admit to feeling more than a little bit disappointed in how this thread has turned out.
    NFlanders and Rusty and gst, you shouldn’t have chided Dave and TMG_Founder and annegb for having altogether wholesome reactions to this debacle. I’m grateful to Dave, meems, annegb, chronicler, and TMG_Founder for speaking up.
    Posted by: DKL | November 22, 2005 at 09:01 AM

    gst, I for one got a nice chuckle out of this post. DKL is sufficiently thick-skinned, self-deprecating, broad-minded, generous-hearted, quick-witted, and sharp-tongued to appreciate similar qualities in others. He’s amused by this too.
    In fact, I have it on good authority that DKL’s biggest concern about this post is that Hitler’s descendants will feel insulted.
    Posted by: Christian Y. Cardall | November 22, 2005 at 09:02 AM

    “Not one member of the church should be ridiculed the way DKL has been. How can we be so cruel to each other????? ”
    Perhaps you could ask DKL…
    Posted by: Anon | November 22, 2005 at 09:03 AM

    Oops! I should let DKL speak for himself.
    Posted by: Christian Y. Cardall | November 22, 2005 at 09:04 AM

    gst, Rusty, etc. – while I recognize one might be able to find the humor comparing DKL to someone responsible for the deaths of millions of people (heehee!), I think it’s in poor taste. If there were any Jewish readers of the bloggernacle, I’d say this post would be highly offensive to them. That picture of Hitler with the children made me cringe.
    In any event, DKL is awesome, and I think he deserves his own fan club, since he’s got quite an impressive online following. He’s sort of like the Simon Cowell of the bloggernacle. He calls them as he sees them, and even makes people cry sometimes (sorry, Jasmine – you really were awful). But, still. Where would we be without DKL? The blogs wouldn’t be half as much fun.
    Posted by: Elisabeth | November 22, 2005 at 09:22 AM

    Elisabeth is clearly stumping for President of the DKL Fan Club. I’ll second her self-nomination.
    David, give it a rest. You are one of the most insensitive people on the Nacle. You regularly trample people under the feet of your sophistry, and do it with glee. Now you are bent out of shape that someone jokingly pokes you in the eye? And you compare that to your deliberately using terms that are known to be generally offensive and demeaning.? Just more of your self-promoting self-justifying sophistry.
    Posted by: Kurt | November 22, 2005 at 09:39 AM

    But isn’t it true that Hitler really did attend Primary when he was a little boy, and that he organized the German army after the order of the priesthood?
    Posted by: Mark B. | November 22, 2005 at 09:44 AM

    Alright people, we’ve gone from straight-out Hitler bashing to bashing him via jokes about defending him. But let’s all get something clear. Outside of the war room, Hitler was a very nice man. I refer you to the documentary “Blind Spot: Hitler’s Secretary”, and the docudrama “Downfall,” about the last days of Hitler. Granted, at his day job he did some terrible things, but when he got home from work, he was widely known to be a warm, caring person. His staff adored him and, believe it or not, the kids loved him.
    Posted by: Eric Russell | November 22, 2005 at 09:57 AM

    Eric – “Downfall” was a great movie. I loved it. By many accounts, Hitler WAS very nice to his staff (at least when they told him what he wanted to hear), and to his German Shepherd. But, “some terrible things”, just doesn’t accurately describe what Hitler did, and to highlight his pleasant demeanor while acknowledging his role in presiding over the systematic destruction of an entire people is shockingly absurd. I know, I know, I’m taking this WAY too seriously, but I just finished reading Phillip Roth’s book “The Plot Against America”. It’s a chilling account of what might have happened if FDR had lost the election right before WWII, and a President with an affinity for the Nazis rose to power instead.
    Anyway, feel free to return to the jokes – sorry to have interrupted.
    Posted by: Elisabeth | November 22, 2005 at 10:33 AM

    Elisabeth,
The topic of Hitler being bad at work/good at home is an interesting one. I guess this thread seems as good as any to discuss it. Don’t worry about the threadjack.
    Anyone offended by the joke,
I’m just curious if it’s at all possible to make a joke with any kind of Hitler reference without offending someone (especially Jews). Can it be done? Or is Hitler such a moster that we cannot invoke his name with a smile on our face? Is it still too soon? How about jokes about Amalickiah? Are we worried about offending the (now extinct) Nephites?
    I can understand the sensitivity to DKL, that we shouldn’t make such comparisons… except this kind of humor is RIGHT UP HIS ALLEY! This is the exact kind of joke he’d make… and it’s funny. The irony of using the words “inevitable, perfectly reasonable, even-tempered” is perfect because it’s very evitable, not reasonable and unevenly-tempered.
    Of course, it’s probably bad form to compare someone to Hitler and then tell him to lighten up because it was a joke. So I’ll try to avoid doing that.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 22, 2005 at 11:08 AM

    Of course, if DKL (or you Elisabeth) has a problem with me we can duke it out on Friday night :)
    Posted by: Rusty | November 22, 2005 at 11:12 AM

    Rusty – The popularity of the movie and musical “The Producers” answers your question as to whether or not jokes about Hitler and the Nazis are acceptable. I’ve never heard anyone being offended by the subject matter of “The Producers”, but I do remember a few friends saying how much they disliked the movie “Life is Beautiful” – because they thought it trivialized the concentration camp experience. Who knows – someone out there will always be offended by what seems to be the most innocuous of references, although it’s fair to say that Hitler/Nazi references must be carefully crafted to avoid making light of anti-Semitism and the carnage of WWII.
    Posted by: Elisabeth | November 22, 2005 at 11:17 AM

    LOL, Rusty! Bring it on. I challenge you to a duel of DDR to the death (or to the pain?).
    Posted by: Elisabeth | November 22, 2005 at 11:20 AM

    What’s wrong with using the word “dyke”?
    Posted by: Susan M | November 22, 2005 at 11:21 AM

    DKL: Do I get any love for recognizing that, unlike most of the physical grotesques that habitate the blogosphere, you are “ruggedly good looking”? I mean, not quite Matt Evans or Ryan Bell, but still handsome.
    I stand by my objection to the term “dyke,” but am not willing to consign you to the class of the world’s greatest villians because of it, which I thought should have been clear.
    Posted by: gst | November 22, 2005 at 11:25 AM

    DKL: Do I get any love for recognizing that, unlike most of the physical grotesques that habitate the blogosphere, you are “ruggedly good looking”? I mean, not quite Matt Evans or Ryan Bell, but still handsome.
    I stand by my objection to the term “dyke,” but am not willing to consign you to the class of the world’s greatest villians because of it, which I thought should have been clear.
    Posted by: gst | November 22, 2005 at 11:33 AM

    When I hear the word “dyke” I think of the ugly, scary lesbians. So I’d prefer to be called just a lesbian. Or a lipstick lesbian or a femme or something. “Dyke” just sounds so, well, ugly. So, I think I’d refrain from using “dyke” in polite conversation, unless you self-identify as one.
    Posted by: Elisabeth | November 22, 2005 at 11:34 AM

    I don’t think I know how to spell “villains.” Perhaps I meant “Vaudevillians.”
    Posted by: gst | November 22, 2005 at 11:40 AM

    Did Elisabeth just come out of the closet? Somebody tell Travis!
    Posted by: a random John | November 22, 2005 at 12:20 PM

    “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” -Thomas Paine
    Posted by: Tim J. | November 22, 2005 at 12:48 PM

    Im just happy to see so many people getting offended on behalf of DKL, since he wasnt doing a good job at it.
    Posted by: Bryce | November 22, 2005 at 01:32 PM

    ARJ: LOL! Stay tuned for the next episode of South Park.
    Posted by: Elisabeth | November 22, 2005 at 02:01 PM

    Friday night?! Is that when Steve’s shindig is? Crap. For some reason I thought it was during the day. I might not be able to come after all.
    Uh, not that this has anything to do with anything. . .
    Posted by: Logan | November 22, 2005 at 04:08 PM

    You wouldn’t know this post was about offending people till you read the comments, or I guess I should say I wouldn’t have known.
Anyway, about that. I decided awhile ago to just go beyond offensive metaphors and comparisons and now just tell people I hate them, nobody likes them and that they have no friends.
    Posted by: Bret | November 22, 2005 at 06:46 PM

    I just clicked on the Hitler picture, and there, in finally legible script, was the title of the lovely little book/pamphlet:
    Kinder, was wisst Ihr vom Fuehrer?
[Sorry, I can't generate umlauts or odd German letters here]
    or
    Children, what do you know about the Leader?
    I can see it now:
    Kinder, was wisst Ihr vom DKL?
    Posted by: Mark B. | November 23, 2005 at 01:21 PM

    I didn’t post earlier because I didn’t want to barge in on your joke. Now that the thread appears to be dead, I assume that this will be read by almost no one. However, I really don’t think that I can stand by in good conscience while my husband is labeled a monster and compared to Hitler. This post is in bad taste. In fact, it’s really quite disgusting. And besides that, it’s painfully tired, pathetic, and cliche. To gst, who wrote this, and Rusty, who sponsored it: Shame on you.
    So now that your satire has run its course, I’ll explain why David appears in the picture with a small child. The explanation is simple. In the past eight years, I don’t think that a single photo has been taken of him without myself or one of our four daughters in the frame. He’s not so egotistical or narcissistic that he poses for pictures by himself.
    Not that I would expect any of you to know this from David’s comments on the blogs, but rest assured that while David is not spending what little spare time he has going toe-to-toe with the bloggernacle, he is a devoted, loving father of four darling daughters and a wonderful husband. Oh, and did I mention that he’s dashing?
    I understand that this was meant as satire, but it crossed a line. And I think it’s important that everybody who thinks so, says so. I appreciate greatly everyone on this thread who has courageously done so.
    Posted by: DKL’s Wife | November 24, 2005 at 06:38 PM

    Admin Note:
    For any newcomers who may not know what we’re talking about here, DKL is the guy who often says the most provocative, outrageous, funny, offensive things in the Bloggernacle. He’s been banned on T&S (others?) for giving offense. He’s also the only one of the Banner of Heaven crew that didn’t apologize to its readers, but rather mocked them in his self-aggrandizement. And this didn’t come as a surprise to anyone.
    Posted by: Admin | November 24, 2005 at 10:39 PM

    Something I didn’t consider during Bannergate with DKL’s lack of apology and his reactions to others is that you never really know if he’s being genuine or not. I can’t tell if what he said above (or even his wife) is fictional, farcical, ironic or truth. Given his track record of offense-giving, joke-making, other-mocking it’s hard to believe he’d actually be that hypocritical to be hurt by this joke. But like I said, I don’t know what to believe now.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 24, 2005 at 10:41 PM

    DKL’s Wife,
I have no doubt David loves his kids (and you). In fact, I’m very much looking forward to meeting you both tomorrow night (by the time you read this we will probably have met). I’m sure we will all have a grand time (should we make fondue?). I’ve actually had some correspondence with David and have a high opinion of him and respect him.
    One quibble: you said, He’s not so egotistical or narcissistic that he poses for pictures by himself.
    This is a really funny thing to say and I’m not exactly sure what to think of it. I mean, does this mean that when my wife takes a picture of me while I’m making dinner that I’m egotistical or narcissistic? To suggest you don’t have ANY pictures of him by himself because he loves his family is hilarious. We don’t need an explanation of why he’s with his child, it’s none of our business. We never doubted his love for you or them, that was never the issue.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 24, 2005 at 10:54 PM

    Rusty, gst and everyone else who finds feebleminded comparisons to Hitler acceptable or amusing should simply plead guilty to being soft-headed morons. Absurd comparisons to Hitler are the last refuge of scoundrels, dimwits, miscreants and the morally stunted.
    Hitler was responsible for the death of 12 million people. Their crimes included: being Jewish, being foreigners, speaking with foreigners, and refusing the sexual advances of government bureaucrats.
    As I understand it, DKL is guilty of at worst offending some uptight blog readers. Then some newspaper article publishes a picture of DKL with one of his children and gst thinks he’s funny and insightful by making a mindless comparison to Hitler. Rusty defends it as a joke and excuses himself saying that he never doubted DKL’s love for his kids. And many other bloggers jumped on board this pile of rotting garbage.
    To all of you, I say, “You are pathetic and embarrassing — mentally, morally, emotionally, and intellectually.” If you had any sense, you would be shamed, but you are clearly so pathetic you don’t even get how loathsome you are. You have no understanding of history, no ability to think serious or deep thoughts, no capability to make reasonable or even simple comparisons, and no competence in moral dilemmas. Moreover, you’re not even funny — just pathetic and shameful.
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 25, 2005 at 02:06 AM
    What’s up with all the Hitler bashing, people? DKL is one thing, but Hitler isn’t even here to defend himself. Mocking him behind his back doesn’t seem very nice. I think we should all just cut the man some slack.
    Posted by: Eric Russell | November 25, 2005 at 02:32 AM

    “Everyone… who finds feebleminded comparisons to Hitler acceptible or amusing should simply plead guilty to being soft-headed morons. Absurd comparisons to Hitler are the last refuge of scoundrels, dimwits, miscreants, and the morally stunted.”
    I agree with this wholeheartedly. In fact, this statement is the perfect non-satirical exposition of the entire point of the original post.
    Posted by: | November 25, 2005 at 09:44 AM

    Sorry, that last comment is mine but I forgot to sign it.
    Posted by: gst | November 25, 2005 at 09:46 AM

    C’mon folks, by comparing DKL to Hitler gst is actually highlighting that DKL is good. The reason this joke can be made is scale. Imagine if gst were to compare DKL to the worst person in your ward. That’s much closer to reality so first of all you might think gst is making a serious comparison (which was never his intention) and secondly it’s very unfunny. The sheer scale of this joke, comparing a sometimes-obnoxious online entity to the man responsible for killing 12-million people… it’s absurd! Therefore when gst found a commonality (holding a child), he made the comparison and said how “perfectly reasonable” it was to make the comparison. When the irony alert rings this loud in your ears it’s an indicator of good joke construction!
    But alas, if you’re still unwilling to see it for what it is, let me issue a DKL-style apology: I’m sorry that you didn’t get the joke. However, we will still continue to make jokes here at Nine Moons and will continue to have high expectations of our readers to understand when something is ironic. And thank you to those readers who got the joke and laughed… this post was for you.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 25, 2005 at 11:46 AM

    Rusty and gst, the attempt at humor didn’t work because it wasn’t funny and quite frankly it is dishonest to assert that it was all just a joke or simply irony. The original post was an intellectually weak and morally lame personal attack — nothing more and nothing less. The fact that you continue to defend it and pretend that you and others who “got the joke” have a more acute sense of humor or a better understanding of irony, only further condemns you. Some advice my grandfather once shared seems to apply, “When you find yourself in a deep hole, it is best to stop digging.”
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 25, 2005 at 12:55 PM

    Arnold,
Is there any room for you to admit that you didn’t like the joke rather than that “it wasn’t funny”? The fact that a handful of people on this thread have admitted its humor suggests this is a matter of opinion. And if anyone is going to convince me that this is not funny it’s definitely not going to be someone who has never participated in a conversation on this blog, finds a convenient time to jump in and call me and my friends pathetic and embarrassing. I can’t think of many things that are more intellectually weak and morally lame.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 25, 2005 at 02:29 PM

    Rusty, I will generously take your incoherent and lame responses as a tacit addmission that you are an idiot. Adieu.
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 25, 2005 at 04:16 PM

    Arnold: Some of my best friends aren’t Hitler! Really!
    Posted by: gst | November 25, 2005 at 07:32 PM

    Another phony blog character comes and goes. Yawn.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 26, 2005 at 01:43 AM

    “won’t anybody stand up for Hitler?” Now that’s funny. It made me laugh out loud.
    I got a totally abject apology from DKL over Banner of Heaven. Not really necessary after I took a few minutes to think about it, but I thought he was apologetic.
    I posted somewhere about the comparisons I had to DKL, but they were all smart funny women. I don’t know what’s up with that.
    GST, it’s really sad that we’ve spent so much time talking about someone else on your guest posting. I will look forward to your next one. Or when I get back on line after giving up blogging so my husband can read the Book of Mormon. He’s on a roll and I’m going to disconnect the cable.
    Hey, anybody seen The Producers? The funniest part was that play within a play, “Springtime for Hitler.” I just cracked up over that. I saw it on Broadway when Buttgold and I went to New York.
    Posted by: | November 27, 2005 at 12:46 PM

    Rusty, you should be blushing with embarrassment, not yawning. This guest post which you invited is embarrassing enough, but that you defend it vociferously is an embarrassment you will carry for years. If you had half a brain, you’d distance yourself from it, rather than trying to convince me (or yourself) that it was all a big joke. It was a personal attack. The fact that the attack made an attempt to be clever does not transform the attack into a harmless joke. It was still a personal attack. And you know it, but apparently lack the decency or courage to admit the mistake and move on. Stop embarrassing yourself, swallow your pride, and admit what is plain and obvious. You only make a fool of yourself defending the indefensible.
    I find it interesting that you dismiss the substance of my posts on two mindless and frivolous grounds — (1) that I have not posted at your blog before and (2) that I am a “phony blog character.” While it is true that until gst’s Hitler post, I’ve not commented on your blog, I cannot see what that has to do with the substance of my argument. How many times must I post at nine moons before you’ll address the substance of my comments? As to your second reason for ignoring the substance of my posts, I am most assuredly not a fake. It is more likely that you are a fake blogger than that I am a fake commenter. I am very real. Moreover, I have not come and gone. I will come back whenever it comes to my attention that mindless comparisons to Hitler are used to attack good people. Adieu.
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 28, 2005 at 11:22 AM

    “Adieu” was somewhat less dramatic the second time.
    Posted by: gst | November 28, 2005 at 12:22 PM

    I must admit, though, that Arnold does raise some good and disquieting points, Rusty. How do I know that you’re real? I’ve never met you, and no one that I know has ever vouched for your realness.
    And the name “Rusty Clifton” reeks of fiction. It’s an amalgamation of Dale Gribble’s alias “Rusty Shackleford,” and Kaufman’s “Tony Clifton.”
    I’m on to you.
    Posted by: gst | November 28, 2005 at 12:29 PM

    Very clever, gst. “A” for effort. “F” for substance and effect – just like your original post. Adieu.
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 28, 2005 at 12:47 PM

    I can vouch that Rusty is real, and also that he kicks ass on DDR.
    But, I agree with Arnold about this post. It’s not very nice.
    Posted by: Elisabeth | November 28, 2005 at 12:52 PM

    What is DDR?
    Posted by: gst | November 28, 2005 at 12:57 PM

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Dance_Revolution:_Mario_Mix
    Posted by: Elisabeth | November 28, 2005 at 12:58 PM

    Oh my word.
    Posted by: gst | November 28, 2005 at 01:03 PM

    I don’t know or care if Rusty is real, but I agree 100% with Arnold on this post. GST and Rusty are embarassing themselves. Funny how they have never responded to Arnold substantively. Their silence ends the debate — and not well for them.
    Posted by: Bill Yancey | November 28, 2005 at 01:20 PM

    Rusty is real. He was my over-bearing, heavy-handed zone leader on my mission.
    BTW, Arnold Layne is the title of a Pink Floyd song about a transvestite. So either he’s using an alias, or his parents were probably high during his conception and/or birth.
    Posted by: Tim J. | November 28, 2005 at 01:43 PM

    Well, Bill, I did respond above to those who didn’t like my joke, before Arnold Layne made his comment. I also pointed out that Arnold and I share the same premise (Hitler comparisons are not good rhetoric), which was the satirical point of the joke. I grant that I didn’t persuade you or Arnold, or several others, but I wasn’t silent. Nor was Rusty.
    Also, I broke one of my own rules of debate in making these points, which is that I don’t engage people who preface statements with “To all of you, I say, …” and then put their own words in quotation marks.
    Posted by: gst | November 28, 2005 at 01:47 PM

    Elizabeth is right, this post is highly objectionable! Nothing funny here except that gst thinks comparing people to the mass-murderer Hitler is funny, but that using the word “dyke” is outrageous and in poor taste. What a mixed-up clown! Rusty’s active defense of this crap is pretty pathetic too. Then add in Ned Flander’s defense and you have the Three Stooges. Actually, that is an outrageous and unfair comparison because Moe, Larry and Curly really were funny, but these three clowns (gsl, Rusty and Ned) are not.
    Posted by: Theodore Bloomquist | November 28, 2005 at 01:48 PM

    What are you talking about I didn’t respond substantively? That’s what we’ve been doing this entire time! Almost every one of my comments is explaining why this is an acceptable joke.
    And I’m wondering, do you guys think this is unacceptable because it hurts the feelings of DKL? Because it SHOULD hurt the feelings of DKL? Because it hurts YOUR feelings? Becuase it’s offensive to Jews? Because it’s offensive to Hitler? What about it is wrong?
    Because I’ll tell you, DKL admitted in a private email to me that he wasn’t hurt or offended by the post (exactly as gst knew he wouldn’t). So what’s the problem now?
    Posted by: Rusty | November 28, 2005 at 01:53 PM

    Wow! I can’t believe how many people are taking this so seriously. Hitler comparisons have used countless times for humorous reasons in TV and cinema. I can recall Seinfeld, The Simpsons (numerous times), Rat Race (which was hilariously innappropriate), the aforementioned “The Producers”, etc, etc. Is it ever acceptable to make a joke where Hitler, Nazis, etc. are mentioned? I never realized such a rule existed.
    Posted by: Tim J. | November 28, 2005 at 01:58 PM

    Oh man, at least gst’s insult was funny folks! What’s delicious about this thread is you have Arnold Layne calling me and gst “soft-headed morons, scoundrels, dimwits, miscreants and the morally stunted.” and Theo Bloomquist comparing us with the unfunny trio of the Three Stooges, yet nobody is calling them on their insults.
    I guess it’s okay to make a real attack on someone because that someone was making a fake attack on someone else.
    Good one guys.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 28, 2005 at 02:02 PM

    I am appalled, etc., that someone would bring the 3 stooges into a serious thread about the holocaust.
    Posted by: Mark IV | November 28, 2005 at 02:28 PM

    comparing us with the unfunny trio of the Three Stooges
    Rusty, seriously, do you not think the stooges are funny? If you don’t appreciate The Yolk’s on You you are not appreciating life to its fullest extent.
    Posted by: Mark IV | November 28, 2005 at 02:34 PM

    Just so that it’s clear what I said to Rusty, he told me that “if you really were hurt by the joke I want you to tell me.” In response, I said the following:
    After posting an “Admin Note” (presumably to create the appearance of objectivity, so that it didn’t look like you were simply posting your opinion) making up reasons for why I was banned from T&S, misrepresenting the fact that I apologized to readers over BoH, and falsely claiming that I mocked BoH readers, it’s pretty evident that you don’t know a lot about my past behavior or track record….
    At any rate, I’m not offended or hurt or put down by your Hitler post. I’m anxious for it to stay up, because it’s gratifying to see you give so much expression to your frustrated animosity.
    At least Eric Russell had enough balls to put in a good word for Hitler.

    I’ve stated above the problem that I have with this thread. gst’s statement that he stands by his objection to the use of the term dyke pretty much sums it up. People also freaked out over my use of the term chick, but most regular participants in the bloggernacle react rather blandly to my being compared to Hitler. I’m sure that contributors to style manuals are flattered that you think that their work has so much moral import, but you’ve got a defective moral compass if you put their usage notes for terms like dyke or chick on a level with comparisons to Hitler. In the end, I’m quite happy for this post to remain up, because it says so much more about you than it does about me.
    As much as I’ve enjoyed the general thrust taken up lately by many of the commenters on this thread, I propose we talk about something else: Would it still be funny or clever if the photos that Rosalynde Welch or Kristine Haglund Harris or Matt Evans or Adam Greenwood have published with their children were expressly compared to Nazi propaganda? (after all, this is just a joke about how bad it is to compare anyone to Hitler and nothing personal and not an attack, right?) I certainly don’t think so. In fact, I think “fake attacks” (as Rusty would refer to them) such as these would be distasteful enough to merit real attacks on their authors.
    I’ve been asked by a lot of people behind the scenes if I’ve commented using pseudonyms in this thread, so let me just clarify that I have not.
    Posted by: DKL | November 28, 2005 at 02:36 PM

    Mark,
    “I am appalled, etc., that someone would bring the 3 stooges into a serious thread about the holocaust.”
    I’m assuming this is because they were jewish. They did, of course, have several skits which involved Hitler. Seems fair game to me.
    Posted by: Tim J. | November 28, 2005 at 02:41 PM

    As long as Rusty and GST are the other two, I am proud to be one of the three stooges. As long as I’m not Shemp. Or Curly Joe.
    Posted by: NFlanders | November 28, 2005 at 02:56 PM

    Mark,
No, I have no problem with the 3 Stooges. They were funny at times. Different humor than what I usually enjoy, but I can appreciate them for their contribution and influence.
    As I responded in the email to DKL, I said that I don’t have nor ever have had animosity towards him and that I’m sorry he’s interpreted my defense of this joke that way.
    I think I’m done. I will continue to maintain that this was a throw-away joke that was supposed to be chuckled at, that it was funny, and that many people are taking it way too seriously. If you have problems with Hitler references please complain to the writers of mass-media comedy (not a blog that a dozen people read), because like Tim said, this joke has been done many times before. Heaven knows we need to stop watching shows like Simpsons, Seinfeld and Arrested Development.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 28, 2005 at 03:03 PM

    DKL, you keep making the inapposite comparison of your “dyke” comment to my Hitler joke. I would agree that calling someone Hitler is at least as bad as calling a person a dyke. I think its pretty clear from the context, however, that I was not actually making a serious comparison between you and Hitler. If you weren’t actually calling people dykes, well then, I withdraw my objection.
    This all goes to show that talking about what’s funny is not funny at all, or even fun. Another case in point: the Terri Gross interview with Stephen Colbert.
    Posted by: gst | November 28, 2005 at 03:13 PM

    Actually, I need to clarify that. I would withdraw my objection if I could be persuaded that in using the term “dyke” you were actually making fun of people who use that word sincerely (as I was making fun of people who make facile Hitler comparisons).
    Posted by: gst | November 28, 2005 at 03:15 PM

    Rusty, you really aren’t very smart are you? Despite your earlier post, you never once responded substantively. Not once! You simply insisted it was funny or a matter of taste or that lots of people joke about Hitler. Now you tell me that the subject of the attack was not offended — which may be true. But you never, not even once, addressed the real issue — that the post was a mean spirited personal attack. You have avoided that issue like the plague. I have raised this issue in virtually every one of my posts, but you never once addressed it in any meaningful or serious way. You purposely avoided it because you knew you could not openly or honestly address it. So instead, you spent days talking about humor, offense, taste, personal likes and dislikes, etc. — everything but the real issue.
    The unpleasant truth, Rusty, is that this post was a vicious personal attack on dkl and you have spent and wasted your credibility and moral standing defending it. It may have been a personal attack with an element of humor behind it, but it was a personal attack first and foremost. It was not a joke. And it was not funny. And it is not simply a matter of taste. You KNOW that. And I KNOW you KNOW that! So give it up!
    You are simply too proud or lack the moral courage to back down off your high horse and offer an apology as you should. You would rather look absurd and stupid defending the indefensible than simply admit you were wrong and apologize. While it was not your post, you have vigorously defended it. Thus, it has effectively become your post.
    Whether dkl, or Jews or anyone else is offended is not the issue. Whether Hitler jokes are all the rage is not the issue. The issue is whether you are in the business of vicious personal attacks. And make no mistake – this was a personal attack. (Calling people Hitler is obviously a personal attack. Moreover subsequent posts show that it was understood as an attack on someone they wanted to attack.) There are a ton of people on the bloggernacle who have their picture with their kids. Is each of them to be compared to Hitler? Why don’t you post another 15 or 20 such posts so we can have some more good laughs? Come on, Rusty, show the courage of your humor convictions and post 20 or so similar threads with other parents and their children and compare them to Hitler! This reveals your argument for the lie that it is!
    You are a moral coward.
    You may not be embarrassed, but you should be. If you had half a brain or an ounce of decency or any moral clarity, you would be embarrassed. But you’re all caught up in being a smart, witty blogger and feeding your limp ego. It simply isn’t an option to face the truth. So you try to confuse the issue by muddying the waters and pretending that the issue is one of taste or humor or who is offended or that others tell such jokes. But all of this muddling is simply an attempt to avoid the truth. Rusty, you’re not as smart or as clever as you think.
    The problem is, Rusty, when you behave like a moron in public over the course of several days, you have to unequivocally apologize in public. Until you do, the problem simply does not go away. And no amount of obfuscation will solve the problem. Do you understand?
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 28, 2005 at 04:23 PM

    gst, you, too, are an idiot and a dishonest one at that! The point of your post was not to make fun of people making comparisons to Hitler or to make fun of comparisons to Hitler. That is simply a lie. Your post attacked dkl and compared him to Hitler. You may have been hoping to have some fun at dkl’s expense, but that doesn’t make it a joke or change the fact that it was a mean-spirited personal attack. For you to try to recast your attack as a good-natured joke is flatly dishonest.
    The fact is, gst, you have been caught in a web of hypocrisy and double standards. You’ve been made a fool of and now you are making it worse by lying about it and trying to recast the facts and rewrite history. You complain about a post that uses the word “dyke” (not in reference to any particular person), yet you make posts comparing a real person to Hitler on the basis — not of his behavior or his words — but on the basis of a family photo with children. That is pathetic. And that you continue to justify it and defend it after almost a week says a great deal about you and your intelligence and your character and none of it is flattering!
    You may think you’re smart and funny, but you’re neither. Get off your high horse and stop playing the sophist! You’re not even good at it. I’ve graded better in moot courts from 12-year old scouts working on the law merit badge.
    I realize you consider yourself a wiz-bang blogger and fancy yourself a smart and witty fellow — a budding intellectual or humorist. Perhaps both. But you lack the sense to be embarrassed by your bad behavior, weak intellect, and poor skills. With more education, training, and maturity, you may yet grow enough intellectually and morally to feel embarrassment. But pretending to be smart when you’re not is what got you into your current predicament. You’re not as clever as you think. Give up the lies and sophistry.
    When you behave like a idiot in public over the course of several days, you must unequivocally apologize in public. Until you do so, the problem will not go away. And no amount of obfuscation or lame sophistry will solve the problem. Do you get my meaning?
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 28, 2005 at 05:15 PM

    Arnold, I’m starting to think that you didn’t like my post.
    Posted by: gst | November 28, 2005 at 05:29 PM

    gst, you dishonest fool and idiotic sophist, when are you going to PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE to Jimmy Carter and Three Dog Night? Your treatment of them in this thread has been shameless, please stop with the lame obfuscation.
    Posted by: Mark IV | November 28, 2005 at 05:55 PM

    From the gst intro post:
    
I try to avoid making substantive comments, but rather prefer to confine my commentary to points of procedure and etiquette.
    
Well you probably should have stuck to that. I didn’t know that this was the place to dredge up fights in a vain attempt to win them. Not that I wouldn’t mind going over an old post or two with Adam Greenwood, but this strikes me as out of line. At first I thought that you were making a joke about comparisons to Hitler, but now I see that you’re really just attacking DKL. Not that you don’t think the Hitler thing is a joke, but you’re using it to justify attacking him over an old sore spot. This is really unfortunate and completely unfunny.
    Posted by: a random John | November 28, 2005 at 11:29 PM

    I think in a few short days of guest-blogging, I have done that which was thought impossible in the bloggernacle: I have rehabilitated DKL.
    DKL: I’m sure any application for readmission to T&S that you might now submit would be looked upon favorably.
    Posted by: gst | November 29, 2005 at 12:05 AM

    I’m afraid we’ve lost DKL forever. And I will miss him. I think he was tremendously undervalued. All because of the stupid word chick. If anybody called me a chick, I’d be flattered. A few years ago, a janitor, giving instructions to someone, referred to me as “that girl in the pink t-shirt.” I could have kissed him.
    I’m just sick about this DKL bashing.
    On the other hand, you guys, give gst and Rusty a break. We all do stupid things sometimes. We live and learn. They are good people, fallible just like the rest of us.
    It wasn’t funny, it was tacky, get over it. Move on. They’re still my friends. I’ve done more stupid things than that on the blog. Like when I wanted to bitch slap that guy. Which I still do. And I am a grandma, the wife of a high priest. I should have had more dignity. Some days you win, some days you lose.
    Gst, I say again, try again, you’ll get it. I’ll miss it and you, but I’ll be back next month.
    Posted by: annegb | November 29, 2005 at 03:45 AM

    Did I miss something or was that Hitler comparison supposed to be funny? Since when did anything dealing with Hitler become humorous?
    Posted by: Steve Perry | November 29, 2005 at 07:50 AM

    I agree wholeheartedly with annebg. “We all do stupid things sometimes. We live and learn. They (Rusty and gst) are good people, fallible just like the rest of us.” While I don’t know them, I assume this is true nonetheless. But they have created their own problem by continuing to defend the indefensible. It is true that we all make mistakes, but we must address the situation by stopping the repetition of the mistake and by simply acknowledging that we were wrong. That would prove conclusively that they are good people who simply made a mistake. But they have continually (for a week now) and vociferously defended their mistake (and even used dishonesty to try to recast what they did). Thus, I will continue challenge them if they continue defend their mistake. And if they are men enough to admit their mistake, I will drop the matter without any gloating or harsh words because annebg is right, we all mistakes and even good people are fallible. But again, good people acknowledge their mistakes. So it is not up to me or anyone else to take it easy on them, it is up to them do the right thing.
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 09:18 AM

    In gst’s recent posts, he unwittingly reveals and gives conclusive proof of what I and most of you already knew … that gst was, in fact, launching a personal attack on dkl. All that other blather about poking fun at dopy comparisons to Hitler is so much tripe. gst makes it clear that he had a beef with dkl and that he wanted to bring him down a couple of notches – hence his personal attack and his bragging about “rehabilitating” dkl and his earlier explanations of why dkl deserved this cheap shot attack. The truth always comes out – even when you intend to conceal it or deny it.
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 09:30 AM

    Arnold, I’m curious about which comment of mine you think contains an “explanation of why dkl deserved this cheap shot attack.” I thought I had pretty clearly disclaimed the notion that DKL seriously deserved to be compared to Hitler, like when Tim. J asked “Who is this DKL and what’s his deal?” and I responded “He’s just a boor, nothing worse.”
    At any rate, I appreciate your offer to stop calling me a dishonest idiot, a lame sophist, lacking in character, unintelligent, ill-behaved, morally stunted, something less than a man, and pathetic, just as soon as I apologize. Gracious of you.
    If I had any dramatic flair in me, I might at this point say “Adieu.”
    Posted by: gst | November 29, 2005 at 10:02 AM

    Arnold,
It would be dishonest of me to say I didn’t/don’t think the joke was/is funny. It’s funny. And contrary to what you may think, humor is a matter of opinion. Just because you don’t think something is funny doesn’t mean it isn’t funny. I mean, somebody is watching Adam Sandler movies…
    That being said, I agree with you that the joke was a personal attack, but we will disagree about the magnitude of the attack. I will maintain that because gst knew that DKL wouldn’t be offended by it (which he was right) that the magnitude is very little… at the level of sarcasm (something DKL understands). It sounds as if you feel that the magnitude of the attack is at the level of a REAL comparison to Hitler. So be it. There is obviously nothing I can do to persuade you from that position.
    As for an apology… DKL would be the only one I would need to apologize to (gst/I wasn’t personally attacking any of you) and I have done that privately. Yes, I do feel bad that this thread has turned out the way that it has. I never expected so many people who had never commented to come to this thread and tell us that we should be ashamed rather than making their first comment on one of my many other threads which aren’t jokes.
    I appreciate those who have respectfully disagreed with my and gst’s position but have refrained from calling us names and using actual personal attacks. That is how I imagined this thread would go.
    Lastly, I’m going to delete any new comments that have personal attacks (like the majority of Arnold’s). I’m just growing weary of a bunch of people personally attacking me in order to convince me I shouldn’t personally attack others.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 29, 2005 at 10:14 AM

    Rusty, I certainly never expected an apology for me. If you’ve privately apologized to dkl, that ends this as far as I’m concerned.
    However, I have not personally attacked you. I have simply responded to your posts, laid bare their poverty and pointed out the obvious implications. But I picked no fight with you that you did not plead for by defending the indefensible. My point is, I did not out of the blue post a picture of you and then call you names or make unfair comparisons. I responded to your words and your arguments. I did so firmly and made certain moral judgments about your arguments and how they reflected on you. You may see things differently, but the comments were fair. Having said that, I freely acknowledge that based on your apology to dkl, those comments no longer apply.
    I consider the matter closed and appreciate that you are man enough to address and resolve errors. I respect that. I’ve had to do it myself and I know it isn’t easy. Thus, I am willing to accept annegb’s assessment that you are “good people.” You’ve demonstratd that here today. Best wishes to you!
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 11:16 AM

    The matter is not closed with respect to rst who persists in the error of his ways.
    Isn’t it odd that a fellow who considers himself an expert on etiquette (gst) is so appallingly wanting of it? He is offended by words like “dyke” and “chick” but comparisons to Hitler arouse not even the slightest concern for a breach of etiquette. To Mr. Etiquette it is simply good fun that everyone can enjoy – provided they share his rather odd views on etiquette.
    What he lacks in etiquette, he makes up for with nerve – asserting that he was only making fun of people who make comparisons to Hitler, but was not making fun of the person whose picture he posted and actually compared to Hitler. So much for etiquette (or honesty for that matter). gst, I suggest you find a new area of expertise – etiquette is clearly not your strong suit. Nor is humor. You need something that does not require good taste, honesty or intellectual rigor. Have you considered becoming a holocaust apologist? Adieu. (I know how you like that.)
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 11:30 AM
    I’m still waiting for a serious response on the issue of Hitler’s attending Primary. Did he or didn’t he?
    And was the Wehrmacht the next best organized force on earth after the Priesthood? Or was it the other way around?
    Posted by: Mark B. | November 29, 2005 at 02:58 PM

    I’ll put my money on the Wehrmacht, Mark. Unlike our home teachers, I’ll bet they didn’t wait till the last day of the month to kill everybody.
    Posted by: NFlanders | November 29, 2005 at 03:03 PM

    I am not stepping in here to defend DKL. Instead, I felt the need to respond to what I would consider to be the most contemptible blog posting I have seen on this blog site: Permalink’s Hitler comparison.
    When I see these types of comparisons, I always feel a deep sense of frustration over the fact that so many people these days seem to have no problem pinning Hitler’s name on ordinary folks that they happen to dislike or disagree with. The obvious intent of these cheap comparisons is clearly to damage or further sully the reputation of their intended target. Unfortunately, they also serve to cheapen one of the darkest chapters in world history: The Holocaust.
    Anyone who would take this type of comparison seriously would also have to conclude that Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy and that the holocaust isn’t worth mentioning. After all, if the worst crime that Hitler ever committed consisted of logging onto LDS blog sites and making provocative comments or offending the politically-correct sensibilities of other bloggers, Hitler would have vanished into obscurity instead of becoming a major figure in history.
    Of course, most people don’t take these comparisons seriously. And not only is this type of behavior unforgivable in my opinion, but those who choose to use this tactic are simply setting themselves up for embarrassment. Again, most people don’t take your comparisons seriously. Nor are you considered to be insightful or clever when you use them. Instead, you are viewed as being someone who is incapable of original thought or serious dialogue and who has to resort to a cheap and frequently recycled tactic that has become too trite to have any real meaning.
    Posted by: John Gaarsoe | November 29, 2005 at 04:59 PM

    Where are these people coming from????????? Why can’t they ever comment on other threads???????
    John Gaarsoe,
Dude, you’re late. We covered the “Hitler-is-Satan-which-means-this-isn’t-funny” a loooooooooong time ago. Please direct your self-righteous indignance elsewhere.
    Posted by: Rusty | November 29, 2005 at 05:22 PM

    I hope all those that are upset here also wrote to Larry David and the other Seinfeld creators to complain after the “Soup Nazi” episode. HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!
    When was there a moratorium placed on Hitler/Nazi jokes. They’ve been taking place forever, and I haven’t heard one complaint. The Jews complain more about a movie about Christ than they do about one of Hitler. It’s no big deal!
    Posted by: Tim J. | November 29, 2005 at 05:30 PM

    I have admittedly been pretty hard on gst. Quite frankly, he deserved it. He launched, perpetuated and defended an outrageous personal attack on dkl. He was called on it by a number of commenters. Rather than admitting his error in judgment, he vigorously defended and dissembled. Even a full week later, gst is still at it. He still refuses to acknowledge the difference between dumb generic Hitler jokes and trying to get a laugh at someone’s expense by comparing them to a man who murdered 12 million people. He knows the difference but just can’t bring himself to acknowledge it. That is why I’ve not let up on gst and he has merited every bit of the heat.
    To those who maintain that it was funny and thus acceptable, I only say it is not funny if any sixth grader could have come up with such “cleverness.” I enjoy a good joke as much as the next guy, but comparing people to Hitler is simply a cheap stunt that any lame brained school-aged cut up could have done. If any kid can paint it, it ain’t art. If any kid can play it on the piano, it ain’t music. To be good art or good music or even good humor, it must be something that the average joe could not have come up with. The fact that others find it humorous is not evidence that it is funny. If a hundred people think that a child banging on a piano is good music, that doesn’t make it so. It just means one hundred people have poor taste.
    Moreover, I challenged those who think it is just a funny joke to post pictures of people with their kids and then compare them to Hitler to post another 15 or 20 such posts so we all can have some more good laughs. Interestingly, no one took up the challenge. Why? Because everyone (even gst) knows deep down it was an attack and not a joke. So let’s put the absurd “it’s funny or it’s just a joke” argument to rest once and for all.
    gst’s original post and follow-up comments remind me of a common school bully attempting to embarrass and push around another classmate that he senses the others will give him a pass on. Often school bullies are not the strongest and most able, but rather the most insecure and weak. But their own flaws cause them to lash out in hopes of making themselves feel better.
    There are generally three types of people in such circumstances (besides the bully and the bullied) – those that cheer the bully, those that defend the bullied classmate, and those that walk right by and pretend not to notice the injustice because they don’t want to get involved. The bully relies on the mindless rabble to cheer them and the fearful masses to walk away in disinterested silence. In this sad episode, we had all three groups and not nearly enough of them were the defenders. There were far too many cheering or simply walking away. I would have expected better. It’s not been a good week on the bloggernacle!
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 05:36 PM

    For the record I think John Gaarsoe is right. Good sense is never too late and I do not agree that the issue is now moot. Simply because other commenters cheering the bully would like to discuss something else or avoid the unpleasant truth doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t deal with real issues.
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 05:42 PM

    Rusty: Where are these people coming from????
    Ummm… It’s probably all the same person, Rusty. Look at the writing style — very similar. Plus full male old-guy-sounding names every time (Theodore Bloomquist, Arnold Layne, John Gaarsoe). Plus we’ve never heard from any of these “people” before. I’ve seen this weasely trick before on blogs.
    You’ve checked the IP address right? Even if this person has masked the IP, rest assured that it is probably one person that feels it is his/her duty and/or right to punish you for this post.
    Posted by: Geoff J | November 29, 2005 at 05:44 PM

    I would agree with Geoff. Rarely do brand new posters come on without an announcement that this is their first post or something similar. And rarely do you see a new poster using their full name. Plus, as I noted above, Arnold Layne was the name of a Pink Floyd song about a transvestite, and later we have Steve Perry of Journey.
    Posted by: Tim J. | November 29, 2005 at 05:57 PM

    Geoff J, you’ve got to be kidding me, right?!!! Is that your best response??!! To complain about bogus names or old names??!! Deal with the issues. You’re position either has merit or it does not. But surely who I am or who those other guys are (and they are not me for the record) is not a real issue. You people must be feeble minded morons if you think this passes for a serious argument! If that’s the best you’ve got wave the white flag now and be done with it!
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 05:58 PM

    Rusty, you continue to misrepresent our communications in order to put yourself in a better light. What you’ve falsely reported as an apology was contingent upon whether your post here was the reason why I’ll be quitting the bloggernacle. I quote: “I hope your decision to retire from the nacle has nothing to do with this post. If it has I sincerely apologize.” This is pretty weak stuff, and you don’t deserve to be patting yourself on the back over it.
    Moreover, your recent comments appear to render any purported apology meaningless. There is a fundamental difference between the kind of Hitler humor that scorns or ridicules Hitler (as seen in the mass media) and the outright comparison of average people (e.g., people who aren’t Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao) to Hitler or Naziism based on alleged unsavory behavior. You continue to maintain that the existence and acceptance of the former justifies your and gst’s foray into the latter.
    The basic issue is that your use of a photo of myself and my daughter in connection with Nazi propaganda is distasteful no matter how many Hitler jokes they made on Seinfeld.
    Posted by: DKL | November 29, 2005 at 06:11 PM

    Rusty, you should tell Geoff J and Tim J that they are essentially conceding defeat and embarassing your cause. That their comments pass for serious argument proves that those cheering and defending the bully have no case and no argument. They are left to complain about names and newcomers. I hope a million other bozos lodge the same complaint. You people are pathetic! I’ve gotten better arguments from children. By the way, Tim, I can assure you that I am no cross dresser.
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 06:21 PM

    Arnold,
    I don’t know what you’re looking for. You want an apology and have everyone admit they’re wrong? I think it’s pretty evident that that is not going to happen, and certainly not because you ask for them. I suppose if more people like annegb (whose simple response resonated far more than any of yours) protested, it could happen. But since you have appeared so suddenly and so brashly without any credibility, it’s hard to take you seriously.
    Posted by: Tim J. | November 29, 2005 at 06:36 PM

    If we are all the same people, we are obviously very creative when it comes to making up names. Who could come up with a name like Gaarsoe.
    Let me help you with your IP test. Give this a try from your DOS prompt:
    ping bgaarsoe.com
    Feel free to compare this to other bloggers’ IP addresses. You will quickly see that we could not be the same person since we are certain to be on different networks.
    I think the real answer here is that your Hitler comparison resonated with a lot of us who generally choose to simply read the blogs rather than actively participate in them.
    Posted by: John Gaarsoe | November 29, 2005 at 07:07 PM

    Tim, that’s what makes you so funny. You think credibility is established by having posted mindlessly for a long period of time. I think credibility is established by making good arguments, being right, and stating your points well. However, if like you, I had no argument to make and could not state it well if I did, I suppose I, too, would focus on status rather than merit. Keep it up, Tim, attitudes like yours made Europe the appalling mess that it is today. For the record, merit always trumps status!
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 07:07 PM

    Dear “Arnold Layne”,
    I have expressed no opinion on this argument you are engaged in. (I will just say that I like DKL and always have. I also am friends with Rusty and like and respect him very much.)
    My primary point was that I think you are also playing “Theodore Bloomquist” and “John Gaarsoe”.
    I will add (as an impassionate observer) that I think commenting under multiple fake names weakens your position rather than strengthens it. Why do you need to fabricate false support for in this jihad you are engaged in? If you are right (and you may be) then why not let the truth stand for itself?
    DKL,
    Dude, what’s this about you “retiring from the bloggernacle”? I guess if you need a break then “retiring” is a good word choice because it leaves open the option of your “coming out of retirement” if you get bored and feel like hangin’ with us again…
    Posted by: Geoff J | November 29, 2005 at 07:09 PM

    Tim, I am sorry that my “sudden” posts have alarmed you. Next time, I’ll give you more warning before I post so that it doesn’t seem so sudden. Seriously, Tim, how is anyone to take you and your cohort’s blather seriously! Read your arguments. They’re embarassing! They’re not even real arguments. Come on guys! First you’re wrong and then you’re stupid about it!
    Posted by: Arnold Layne | November 29, 2005 at 07:16 PM

    Comment by Rusty — March 4, 2008 @ 6:19 pm