What I am more upset about is that Macleans would descend to employing one of Conrad Black's sloppy seconds to fill up white space in an increasingly crappy magazine. Once a Canadian institution, old Mac under has now joined the Free Dominions and Paul Fromms of this world, and it isn't surprising that when you resort to printing the kind of low quality spew which Mr. Steyn so proudly emits, you're going to attract human rights complaints. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Macleans needs to decide whether it wishes to remain a mainstream publication, or an organ for Canada's far right.
As for the piece in question, well I suppose if you're a conservative and every war you've supported recently has gone down the crapper, it serves as a kind of ideological stroke book to get it up for the never-ending struggle against veiled voters and other menaces to society.
If Macleans plans to dabble in political pornography, though, why don't they go straight to torture pics from Abu Ghraib?
59 comments:
What surprises me if that anybody actually reads that leftwing communist rag.
Silence Steyn!
Silence him!!!!!
Your's truly,
today's tolerant, open minded progressive left
From Today's New York Times editorial:
"Muslims who wonder why non-Muslims are often baffled, angered, even frightened by some governments’ interpretation of Islamic law need only look to the cases of two women in Saudi Arabia and Sudan threatened with barbaric lashings."
Response:
Silence the New York Times!
Silence that "pornographic" thought!
Your's truly,
today's still tolerant, open minded progressive left
Again, none of the big-mouthed trolls can be bothered to make distinctions between fellow Canadians living under a specific legal order versus conditions that obtain elsewhere. But of course, they expect everyone else to extend to them that understanding.
Mark Steyn is a fabulist, and on that basis alone, is not worthy of occupying media space that better, more honest writers should be given a chance to fill. Why did MacLean's have to be the last publication to provide a make-work project for the cretinous and unemployable Mark Steyn?
What I find interesting is the trolls' definition of censorship.
I guess they never give consideration to the fact their partisan attacks on liberal blogs, their concentrated efforts to change the channel on these blogs, their continuous efforts to silence liberal blogs by posting their insulting nonsense over and over again, is also censorship. Over at RT's retired blog there is some idiot named Johnathon taking credit for shutting him down (not that it is true, but the fact he would suggest it is tells us the true motivation behind the biff's of the world).
In an ideal world, I'd like to join the trolls in denouncing censorship, but their cavalier approach to, not just truth, but responsible discourse just belies how the accusation of censorship is nothing but a dodge to try and convince others to give up challenging their ignorance, their lies and their hate.
tarring reputations, vicious ad hominem attacks,
acusations of racism and or attempting to cast legitimate concerns in a light of bigotry,
legal suits filed against "offending" comments,
declaring entire subject areas "off limits" via the above means.
Yes, Gayle, I'm well aware of your subtle distinction between the above and government imposed censureship.
Meanwhile, a popular children's author yesterday had to change the name of a longstanding character in a book named "Mohammad", the most common Muslim name, for fear he was "offending".
No government ordered him to do that. He did it all on his own, out of fear of all of the above.
Steyn doesn't cow that easily, and so he's target number one.
BTW, instead of the broad drive by smear, how bout quoting one paragraph of Steyn's article that you think is worthy of being hauled before the Human Right's commission.
Just one will do.
Should be easy, given how overwhelming the case against him is, right?
Just one.
And another question:
was there a single line of outrage,
just a single line,
from any recognized member of the progressive left, lib blogger, or even you blogging friends,
with the "art work" depicting the Virgin Mary covered in feces?
How 'bout the "jesus in urine" display?
And if not, why not?
Honest answer's to those questions may put you more in line with Steyn than you care to admit.
The righty trolls always try to claim that their detractors agree on the substance of a human rights complaint before the tribunal has even taken place. What an odd understanding of jurisprudence.
Conservatives would be far less open to these kinds of legal challenges if they permitted or engaged in a greater degree of self-criticism and tolerated challenges (even of the trollish type progressives put up with all the time), but it's clear they don't, can't and won't.
Try to troll a Blogging Tory blog; a lot of them moderate comments or you get banned, and your comments get deleted.
So, tough luck if no one else rises to defend your right to absolute freedom of expression, which is really nothing more than demanding the right to spew the most ridiculous fabrications while avoiding any challenges to them. Why should anyone else defend their right to something (expression) they treat like garbage anyway?
All of this could be avoided if people who are ignorant, hate-filled or dishonest simply accepted that what they have to say is objectively of little value. It's the equivalent of industrial pollution and should be treated as such.
Once upon a time, Maclean's was a thin, insipid, empty magazine on the verge of collapse. Then they turfed guys like Fotheringham and brought in some columnists with opinions and attitude. That one of them is on the right doesn't make Maclean's a right-wing publication - in fact it makes it more interesting.
Free speech and everything.
Jeez, sorry BCL if some people actually take the topic of free speech seriously.
The thing you've gotta ask yourself is this - how many times have you defended the right of someone to speak whose views you strongly disagreed with?
If the answer is never, then
you should rethink what you're doing.
Rabbit,
I take free speech seriously for serious speech. Steyn's diatribes against Muslims--ie. if we don't breed/embrace our whiteness they'll invade and make us all grows beards--is not serious speech. Its the ravings of a far-right loon, and IT IS ALSO clearly a racist diatribe. If Macleans wants to go to the wall for this kind of crap, then let 'em.
And it is hardly just one coumnist. Since Kenneht Whyte took over Macleans has become a kind of weekly version of the National Post.
That one of them is on the right doesn't make Maclean's a right-wing publication - in fact it makes it more interesting.
Rabbit: Why do you think fabricated controversy is interesting? Don't you think real life has enough genuine controversy, and don't you think it deserves to be observed and written about by people other than ethically-challenged hacks like Mark Steyn?
I wish I could find that article about Steyn that Canadian Cynic linked to in which it was reported how he lavishly and slavishly quoted Ann Coulter, whose assertions were later proved to be outright fabrications.
Although I'm all too happy to let Steyn and MacLean's twist in the wind, the bigger issue here should be...why are rightwingers and 'fwee speach!!!1!' zealots so tolerant and supportive of mediocrity and dishonesty? What benefit to they see in supporting that?
Can you answer that, Rabbit?
Ti-Guy:
why are rightwingers and 'fwee speach!!!1!' zealots so tolerant and supportive of mediocrity and dishonesty?
Counting myself amongst the
"fwee speach zeolots", I "tolerate" mediocrity and dishonesty (short of clear defamation) - or at least support it's right to exist - because it is necessary for true free speech.
What are you suggesting, Ti-Guy, that free speech shouldn't extend to mediocrity? That would wipe out the entire blogosphere.
"Whiteness",
once again, conveniently equating one's skin color,
which has nothing to do with human behavior (as a racist thinks it does),
and
opposing belief systems,
which have everything to do with human behavior and how it affects us.
Go to "the Corner" at the NRO online and you know what you'll see going on right now:
a real "debate" going on about the problems of radical islam. Between Steyn and others.
You know what else you'll see. A real concern about the more radical element of Islam (with which Steyn objects to) over taking the moderate Islam.
You'll actually read how Steyn (the racist monster) laments how you would never see such radical actions (teddy bear inprisonment) by muslims in the 60's and 70's but how its become more and more prevalent with the increasing Wahabbist brand being financed by the Saudis.
Lamenting, the undermining of moderate muslims. Imagine that.
Right now, you'd read that.
That's a real debate about ideas (radical islam, bad, moderate islam good - to be succinct, and what we can do to stop the spread of more radical Islam).
They're talking about when or if Islam will have a reformation stage as Christianity did to get it out of its barbaric form (remember the inquisition?).
How on earth is being against a radical, backward interpretation of a religious belief, and its obvious spread,
"racist"???
The best part of it is, they're actually
DEBATING
these very important ideas.
You on the other hand have taken yourself out of the debate, with a one handed brush accompanied by the "racist" label.
Now for all those who actually have an open mind, I encourage you to go to the Corner right now and scroll,
and think,
and question.
Or,
you could shut your minds.
It's up to you.
Heh,
To say Steyn "opposes a belief system" is to grant his position a subtlety I don't think it has. If anything, the "opposing Islamists" stuff is a candy coating to hide the fact he's basically bashing dark skinned immigrants.
I "tolerate" mediocrity and dishonesty (short of clear defamation) - or at least support it's right to exist - because it is necessary for true free speech.
In fact, it's so necessary that you have to encourage the manufacture of mediocre or dishonest expression, because, otherwise you won't be able to recognise free expression, right? I suppose we have to make sure we create pollution, otherwise we wouldn't know what a clean environment is.
I think it's more of an issue that people like you and your buddies don't have anything useful to say except to say that you have a right to say whatever you want to say, no matter how counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive.
*yawn*...As I said above, I'd be motivated to defend free expression on principle if I thought the people who complain about it ad nauseam were more willing to encourage responsible expression and dialogue. Since they're not, then why should I bother?
ti-guy:
I get it. You're just not inspired enough to support free speech, and it's all those tories' fault.
Might I suggest that you never were never all that inspired about free speech in the first place. Except, maybe, for people whose politics you agreed with.
I get it. You're just not inspired enough to support free speech, and it's all those tories' fault.
See? You don't understand responsible discussion. You don't have any real regard for quality expression. You just want to score your political points. For what reasons I can only speculate, but I suspect it's because you don't really have anything else to say.
Might I suggest that you never were never all that inspired about free speech in the first place. Except, maybe, for people whose politics you agreed with.
Why would you suggest that? On what basis have you come to this understanding?
Interesting:
you brush off all of the legitimate concerns about radical Islam,
the intolarance towards gays, free speech, women, especially women (like getting sentenced to 200 lashes for allowing oneself to be raped),
the fact that right now there are tens of thousands, if not millions willing to die/kill in the name of allah,
because they're "brown".
So because they're mostly "brown" as you say, those concerns cease to exhist, and the issue must really be about their "browness".
How extraordinary.
Funny I don't see alot of other material from Steyn dealing with the billions of other "brown" people on the planet, that don't happen to be radical Muslim.
Funny also that those same non-violent moderate muslims, that Steyn laments are losing power, (or the moderate Iraqi's and Afghans that Steyn often writes about and cheers on) are also "brown".
It seems their "brownness" is given relevance by you, and those like you.
It seems that you choose to not to enter the debate by virtue of the Mulsim's "browness", wouldn't you say?
Oh, BTW, the West killed a lot of "whites" in the past century. They happened to be German (and Austrian, Hungarian and Italian), though once again it wasn't "German Whites" we were concerned about, but that Nazi Ideology that gripped those in power.
I guess THAT time, it was about ideology (and the past half century with the USSR - also white). Whoops, maybe the west really thought they were "brown".
Quick Question:
How does one challenge a virulent ideology that preaches violence and subjugation,
where it is practiced primarily by "brown people" as you say,
without being labelled a racist?
Or is that sort of the point?
How does one challenge a virulent ideology that preaches violence and subjugation
By voting the Conservatives out of office?
Yay! What do I win?
Why would you suggest that? On what basis have you come to this understanding?
On the basis that as soon as you see people whose politics you don't like supporting free expression, your support for it folds like a lawn chair. In your own words "why bother?"
You seem to associate support for freedom of speech with conservatives. Historically it was a profoundly liberal ideal. Where did liberalism lose it way? Or are today's liberals liberal in name only?
How DARE Steyn try to speak against the known liberal bias in all of mainstream media! Who does he think he is - a free citizen? He's demented.
You just know that ti-guy's posts will always contain
ignorance, lies and hate.
He never disappoints.
On the basis that as soon as you see people whose politics you don't like supporting free expression, your support for it folds like a lawn chair. In your own words "why bother?"
It's not their politics I don't like; it's that I consider what they're saying to be "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive."
Why should I support that, Rabbit? What benefit is there for me to be doing that?
You seem to associate support for freedom of speech with conservatives.
No. I associate freedom to spew hate and freedom to lie unchallenged with conservatives.
Historically it was a profoundly liberal ideal.
I don't think being "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive" was ever a liberal ideal.
Ti-Guy:
It's not their politics I don't like; it's that I consider what they're saying to be "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive."
Why should I support that, Rabbit? What benefit is there for me to be doing that?
Cause...
1. Many of the things you say could be construed as "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive.", particularly by those in authority.
2. Many ideas we now all (or mostly all) accept as true were once considered "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive."
That's two reasons. I'm sure, with a little thought, one could come up with many more.
Heh wrote:
"you brush off all of the legitimate concerns about radical Islam"
I do, for the most part. In the "West", and in Canada more particularly, radical Islam is a side-show.
"the intolarance towards gays, free speech, women, especially women (like getting sentenced to 200 lashes for allowing oneself to be raped)"
Terrible stuff. Hardly going to bring down the Canadian, or the UK, or the French government though ,is it?
1. Many of the things you say could be construed as "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive.", particularly by those in authority.
Could be? That's already happened and has been going on for years. Conservatives (who have a disproportionately strong voice in our corporate media) go out of their way to characterise whatever their political adversaries say in precisely that way (and when they do, they're of course lying/defaming, since they rarely back up their assertions with any kind of credible evidence). I maintain that a discourse that permits a high degree of dishonesty, smear and hate is much more a danger to my right to free expression than anything else I've seen so far. But then again, I don't have any need to engage in hate speech (as defined by the law), unlike conservatives, for whom it appears to be as vital as oxygen. Why that is remains a mystery. Do have any ideas about that, Rabbit?
2. Many ideas we now all (or mostly all) accept as true were once considered "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive.
I think there are distinctions to be made here. You can discuss this at an abstract level all you want, but it's of little worth if it doesn't relate to the real world. Many ideas were subject to censorship (and their originators, worse), not because of their nature, but because of the abuses of authoritarians.
I think, in cases like this (hate speech, racism/bigotry) we're talking about the nature of the expression and what it does with regards to the civil rights/safety of fellow citizens.
Do I understand correctly that the complaint is mainly about the Macleans printing low quality spew of the freak Mark Steyn while towering intellectual giants of the big city lib's stature are reduced to publishing their world-class brilliance on a readerless blog?
Ivan wrote:
Yes. I've already suggested to Andrew that he sack Steyn and hire me for substantially less. So far I've recieved no response.
> Again, none of the big-mouthed trolls can be bothered to make distinctions between fellow Canadians living under a specific legal order versus conditions that obtain elsewhere. But of course, they expect everyone else to extend to them that understanding.
The only difference is that we thankfully have relatively few muslims compared to say France.
> Mark Steyn is a fabulist, and on that basis alone, is not worthy of occupying media space that better, more honest writers should be given a chance to fill.
What did Steyn make up?
> Why did MacLean's have to be the last publication to provide a make-work project for the cretinous and unemployable Mark Steyn?
I imagine they were interested in making money and getting more readers unlike the CBC which exists soley to provide left wing propaganda.
> What I find interesting is the trolls' definition of censorship.
> I guess they never give consideration to the fact their partisan attacks on liberal blogs, their concentrated efforts to change the channel on these blogs, their continuous efforts to silence liberal blogs by posting their insulting nonsense over and over again, is also censorship.
Jebus Krike. If you think this is censorship imagine how you would feel being charged by the "BC Human Rights Commission".
Why is an anony-tard asking me questions?
TG:
Many ideas were subject to censorship (and their originators, worse), not because of their nature, but because of the abuses of authoritarians.
Agreed, but the world does not lack for authoritarians, nor I think will it ever. Modern governments of all political stripes are constantly trying to tell people how to live their lives and what to think.
Wow. These posts have been very informative. Many angry words against Mark Steyn, but only in the form of character assasination. I haven't seen a single argument refuting or even discussing his ideas, except perhaps for a misquote in both the letter and concept of his comments on changing demographics. His point has never been a celebration of "whiteness", but rather a raising up of certain cultural ideals against those of another. One may have no problem with the gradual Islamification of Europe, but still mourn the loss of 500 + years of European culture.
Modern governments of all political stripes are constantly trying to tell people how to live their lives and what to think.
Yeah, like with all their laws 'n stuff.
Here's a good place to start with ol' (Shit)Steyn by the way. Make sure you read all the links and remember that this reflects his work during a period when which he wasn't as universally reviled as he is now.
One may have no problem with the gradual Islamification of Europe, but still mourn the loss of 500 + years of European culture.
European culture...you mean like ballet, opera, French/Italian cuisine, art, philosophy, science...
Frankly, I can picture no greater disrespect for European culture than a cohort of rightwingers who know absolutely nothing about the things mentioned above.
Unless squirrel-shooting and Jack Daniels-funneling are part of European culture, you can't mourn the loss of something you never had.
Or does European culture just mean "white?"
> Ti-Guy said...
> In an ideal world, I'd like to join the trolls in denouncing censorship, but their cavalier approach to, not just truth, but responsible discourse just belies how the accusation of censorship is nothing but a dodge to try and convince others to give up challenging their ignorance, their lies and their hate.
You idiot, it is almost always the "truth" that is censored. There is no need to censor "lies", lies can be shown to be wrong. It is the "truth" that needs to be censored because the truth cannot be proven false.
As for ignorance and "hate", you seem to be the most hateful person on this blog.
> bigcitylib said...
> I take free speech seriously for serious speech. Steyn's diatribes against Muslims--ie. if we don't breed/embrace our whiteness they'll invade and make us all grows beards--is not serious speech. Its the ravings of a far-right loon, and IT IS ALSO clearly a racist diatribe. If Macleans wants to go to the wall for this kind of crap, then let 'em.
It is simple demographics and mathematics. If natvie French people are shrinking in numbers and leaving France and colonizing immigrants are coming in and exploding in numbers it is inevitable that the colonizing immigrants will eventually become a huge majority of the population.
What's more, it doesn't take a long time in historical terms to happen.
Anon,
your missing the big picture,
the only evil in the world worth concerning onself with is the eeeeevil George Bush/"neocons".
What's more, if the eeeeevil neocons are against it, its best to be reflexively for it, regardless of what the "it" may be (in this case the "it" is the rise of radical Islamism).
The useful idiots on the left couldn't be better partners for the radical Imams (which idiots [infidels] the Imams would gladly have stoned to death.
The rise of radical Islam occured at no faster pace than during Clinton's two terms in office. But the left is content to re create history and ignore reality to accord with their simple left vs. right world view.
Mention that the worst offenders of the Islamic terrorists aren't impoverished down trodden victims of evil imperialism, but are well to do professionals or wealthy millionares (Atta was a engineer from a well to do family and Osama is richer than rich as to prominent examples) and they close their eyes and stamp their feet.
Opening their eyes would mean recognizing that a corrosive ideology is growing in this world, which would mean Bush (evil neocon) was right. It would also mean that their left vs right, impoverished vs. wealthy imperialist world view didn't provide all the answers.
So BCL contorts basic logic and responsible concern by those such as Steyn into a "its all about the dark colored skin man" kind of debate, in which those who dare write about the rise of radical Islam are "racists."
You idiot, it is almost always the "truth" that is censored. There is no need to censor "lies", lies can be shown to be wrong. It is the "truth" that needs to be censored because the truth cannot be proven false.
You cretin: That might be true if we were talking about true censorship, not this rightwing whining and moaning and wailing and flailing about their inability to be "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive" with impunity.
As for ignorance and "hate", you seem to be the most hateful person on this blog.
Thank you, but since you're a righty/anony-tard, I doubt you have any appreciation for standards of excellence.
By the way...a lot of these anonymii sound like KKKate minions. Same old "clash of civilisation" hysterics from people who are barely part of the civilised world.
It is to laugh.
> You cretin: That might be true if we were talking about true censorship, not this rightwing whining and moaning and wailing and flailing about their inability to be "counter-factual, stupid, irritating, hate-filled or disruptive" with impunity.
Isn't it true that "Truth is no defence" in our Canadian Star Chambers?
Remember, "hate speech" is simply speech liberals hate.
I've established two things:
1. There is a consistent anony-tard here; the one who uses ">" when citing someone.
2. He's a complete hysteric:
"Remember, "hate speech" is simply speech liberals hate."
No it isn't. What body of knowledge can you reference to substantiate that assertion?
I find it funny how so many liberals now defend the religious fundamentalists.
For pretty much their entire existence, up to now, all liberals have prided themselves on their defence of reason in the face of religious dogma.
Now (say, past 20 years about) the ranks of fundamentalists have grown exponentially in the West, with their ridiculous and unfounded belief that an angel came down from the sky to Arabia in the 7th century, and recited a text that has existed since the dawn of time (which, miraculously no doubt, happened to be in Arabic as well) to an illiterate trader who, inspired by this text, later has sex with a nine year old and ethnically-cleanses all the Jews from the city of Medina. And, this text is perfectly true, and must be followed or you burn in hell forever!
One might imagine that every liberal would bemoan the startling growth of these superstitions (128.9% growth in adherents from 1991 to 2001 in Canada), but, actually, they don't. And when anyone dares to voice worries about it, like Mark Steyn, they bark them down: "Don't say anything, you racist! Don't say anything!"
Where's Voltaire nowadays? Probably not in the liberal camp.
I find it funny how so many liberals now defend the religious fundamentalists.
Well, we can't send the Evangelicals to concentration camps now, can we?
> "Remember, "hate speech" is simply speech liberals hate."
> No it isn't. What body of knowledge can you reference to substantiate that assertion?
Think of some "hate speech" that you as a liberal don't hate then.
Oh, can I assume you concede the point that "the truth is no defence" in various Canadian Kangaroo Courts?
Oh, can I assume you concede the point that "the truth is no defence" in various Canadian Kangaroo Courts?
No. It was a such a stupid point, I ignored it. I still don't quite understand what you mean.
Think of some "hate speech" that you as a liberal don't hate then.
That doesn't answer my question. What body of knowledge can you reference to substantiate your assertion that hate speech is just speech liberals hate? I know there's a legal definition of hate speech, and it doesn't even mention "liberals."
ti-guy:
Maybe it does answer your question?
If every instance of hate speech is speech that liberals hate, then would you not agree that hate speech is speech that liberals hate?
Analogy:
If every instance of snow is white, then...snow is white? There's probably a scientific definition of snow that doesn't mention "white", yet, snow could still be white even if it doesn't occur in this definition.
> Oh, can I assume you concede the point that "the truth is no defence" in various Canadian Kangaroo Courts?
> No. It was a such a stupid point, I ignored it. I still don't quite understand what you mean.
It means if you say white people cause most of the gun crime in Toronto you would be punished by the thought police even if it was true. Of course, you would have to say some other group than white and you would have be white yourself to be prosecuted.
IIRC, every single defendent on the CHRC has been white and every single one of them was found guilty.
Even the Salem Witch Trials didn't have such a high conviction rate.
> That doesn't answer my question. What body of knowledge can you reference to substantiate your assertion that hate speech is just speech liberals hate? I know there's a legal definition of hate speech, and it doesn't even mention "liberals."
It's just a fun little thing to say that has the ring of truth to it. If if was up to people like you, denying global warming would be hate speech.
BTW, I thought we were supposed to be entering a new ice age by now. That's what all the same people were saying 30 years ago.
Macleans was a very dull magazine before Whyte got his hands on it. Say what you will about Steyn, but Steyn and writers like Wells are a significant improvement over the likes of "Dr. Foth".
So, does anyone have an actual, you know, *substantive criticism* of anything Steyn has written? Or do all you bright lights consider ad hominem smears sufficient in and of themselves to dismiss everything the man has written. BTW BCL, as far as Steyn's predictions are concerned, I'd say he has a better track record than you; the surge is working and the insurgency in Iraq has been for all intents and purposes defeated - former insurgents are now going on patrol with the US marines. You may want to catch up on the news from Anbar province. Even John Murtha now admits the surge is working.
Johnny Boy,
Steyn has been making the same predictions for three or four years now. As for the surge,I sense another "mission accomplished" moment any time now.
how many infidels beheaded, how many women gang-raped, whipped, honour-killed, how many homosexuals stoned or stabbed to death in the name of their religion the Evangelicals recently?
Thousands upon thousands. Too many to count.
How many times are you righty fucks going to trot out that rationalisation everytime someone mentions Islam?
Plunk down those Christian fundies in the middle-east and give them authority and they'd be beheading, stoning and be-burqa'ing within the hour, guaranteed.
By the way, Ivan, I don't think a Christian/Western tradition of holocausts and immoral/illegal invasions (Vietnam and Iraq, among many others) which have resulted in deaths and misery of tens of millions of innocents occupies any moral high ground when it comes to atrocities.
Frankly, when I think of the Islamic world, it's looking positively virtuous in comparison.
As for the recent beheadings, gang-rapes and stoning by the Evangelicals in the name of their faith - how about a few examples?
Btw - I notice that you chose to ignore my questions about the specifically Evangelical danger and the Muslim "race".
I notice that you chose to ignore my questions about the specifically Evangelical danger and the Muslim "race".
I didn't "choose to ignore." I'm just not reading your hysterical ranting all that closely.
Admirably calm and persuasively reasoned reply.
Thank you for the rare pleasure of a sophisticated conversation with such an exquisitely cultured gentleman.
Blow me...
Oh my, you little devil! - You have to be a little bit more patient and not rush things too hastily. Wouldn't it be a shame to pass up on the sparkles and titilation of a more delicate and elaborate courtship?
Post a Comment