I'm totally siding with Michael on this one, sorry, Joey, you fing csucker (reference to the movie _Chalk_ and go see it now if you haven't done so already). -By the way, I think 'PA removed' is a bad idea: they're going to accuse us of wanting to dismantle the Palestinian Authority all over again.Joey, you say that ideas should be freely aired. Sure, but they need to be ideas, right? Not blind expressions void of any meaning, evidence, etc.They also need to insert themselves in the debate -but they rarely do in the case of the anonymice you're mentioning, since they hardly ever take the pains to read what the rest of the world -their enemies, apparently- has written. Case in point: I was accused of many things in the comments thread from the Iran post, and a lot of it rested on my supposed approval of the 'bomb Iran now' policy. But in fact, I had never expressed my opinion on this particular subject.Regarding the comment to my post mentionned by Michael, it is doubly wrong and anti-Semitic, which is why I didn't even bother to reply: not only did Kouchner oppose the war, but neither Kouchner nor Sarkozy are Jewish by Jewish standards, and neither of them is in any case remotely observant.Now obviously I have the highest IQ, so let's give me this prize right away.

To me, sociopathic drivel and personal attacks are the delicious froth of the comment forum latte. I don't mind it and often find it a hilarious, if brief, respite from earnest conversation. I would have never continued to read HP's comments if it hadn't been for sonic.

I can't believe that the rotund, four-eyed Francois and the creepily veg-obsessed Portnoy are the only losers to have replied to what I think is a crucial post. So I'll be loser#3.

It would be a huge mistake to eliminate personal invective from the site. To my mind, literary feuds are better reading than literature itself-you get to indulge your sick and filthy taste for gossipy carnage while maintaining an aura of high-mindedness.

Look, the world would be poorer if it lacked Wittgenstein/Popper, McCarthy/Hellman and numberless other instances of theoretical dispute framed in personal invective. I say let this great tradition live!

What I could do without is the truly sociopathic, Little Green Footballs sort of stuff that somehow slithers into Jewcy from time to time. You know, "The Arabs are not human, let's kill them" sort of thing. These posts are despicable not only for the content, which is of course creepy and depraved, but because of their literary and philosophical emptiness.

So I guess I'm calling for letting a thousand flowers bloom, just not the carnations, i.e., the boring, empty ones. This makes the job of the Jewcy gatekeeper much harder, of course, since it requires judgement of a highly subjective sort.

I'd rather read and engage with a wrong-headed, distasteful post which personally attacked a contributor but which actually argued a point with flair than a piece of feelgood, inoffensive boilerplate.

So come on, you snivelling little scumbags. Join the conversation!

I'm conflicted. You say that we should remove comments that demonstrate "literary and philosophical emptiness," and immediately I start feeling bitchy, and I want to call you a crypto-fascist assclown. Who will we appoint to the Jewcy mutaween, who will run around in their shalom motherfucker shirts smacking deviants with their little administrator sticks and removing comments that fail to meet public standards of philosophical merit? Do we go with the Potter Stewart "I know sociopathic drivel when I see it" approach (Jewcers will disagree endlessly)?

And yet...my head says no, but my heart says yes. In the convo with Michael I focused on policing tone (insulting), rather than content, because it seems simpler to address, and I've gathered that bile is what grates on most users. But personally, I giggle like tinkerbell when someone concludes a considered comment by confiding "hope you get a brain tumor and die while spasming and foaming at the mouth uncontrollably." If that's sociopathic spittle, I'll have a pint. And when someone responded to a recent article with the two word comment "simply kaka"? I admit it: it got modest lolz from me.

But what does irk me is this shit. It's instructive to poke around in that kind of crap occasionally, but the comment is so tired and vacuous and slobbering and idiotic in the way it characterizes the relevant post. If the only concern here was my own user experience, I'd delete that one before I deleted "simply kaka." Eddy, what do you think of that Jewnited States comment? Is it frothy goodness, or stinky sputum? What about our anonymous friend? I assume Francois and Weiss would disappear it, correct me if wrong.

Crypto-fascist, OK. But an assclown?

Regarding your conflictedness, I feel your pain. No one said this was gonna be easy.

Regarding the "Jewnited States" guy, my inclination is to give him the boot, not for the wrongness of his opinion, but because his post lacks insight, style, wit, incisiveness, novelty, personal disclosure.....anything distinctive. That is to say, someone could make a similar point in an engaging way.

Imagine that most of the US media sported a disproportionately large Arab presence among their ownership and staff. Mastheads and bylines overflowing with Abu this and Mohammad that. One might forgive a Jewish subscriber for being a little vigilant about overall reporting from the Mideast. This is not to say that he or she insists that an Arab name guarantees bias. Just that it'd be noticeable and probably a matter of some concern to that Jewish reader that a conflict that bears some deep tribal resonances for both sides would be reported, for the most part, by the other guys. Of course, the actual situation is the reverse of what I just described.

So I could imagine a useful conversation about the presence of Jews in the US media insofar as Israel/Palestine are concerned. Note that this has nothing to do with conspiracies or protocols or child-blood matzoh. Just sociology and psychology. That conversation could look, superficially, akin to "JS" guy's rant. But it's not.

Or look at your conversation with Derbyshire. Some would see it as a more refined version of "JS" guy's ravings. But it's not.

JS guy's comments don't stimulate, they foreclose; they're definitive, boring, rehearsed. Both the tone and content signal that here's a guy who's totally immune to curiosity. Fuck 'im.

I'm not sure if I'm addressing the point adequately-or maybe I'm just unsure where I stand. I'd far prefer more opinion than less. Let a hundred holocaust deniers speak, let the zombies of Meir Kahane and Irv what's-his-name from the JDL endorse all the Arabs-are-beasts viewpoints they want. Hateful all, but better than having proscriptions against holocaust denial or anti-Arab opinions.

On the other hand (I think it's the other hand), I hate boring, lazy expression of a thought-regardless of that thought's truth value.

I shudder to think that this makes me some kind of form queen, indifferent to the rich nutritional value of content, happy to gorge on the Twinkie of style. Shit. Not what I planned. Don't tell my mom.

Bottom line, I'm glad it's your problem, not mine. Personally, I struggle hourly with my inner Stalin, who knows-KNOWS!-just what's right and what's wrong. In my efforts to shut the little fucker up, I overcompensate and recoil at censorship. But for boring drivel, I'll make an exception.

Wish I were wise enough to give you guidance, grasshopper.

Aah, fuck it. Cut the kid in half and you each get a piece. Case closed.

Anon, did you ever see the movie The Princess Bride?

Yeah, years ago. All I remember is the slightly creepy giant guy and Billy Crystal bickering with....Laraine Newman?

So I'm gonna have to claim ignorance and ask why the reference?

Do you remember the part where Inigo Montoya is fencing around with Wesley and then suddenly stops and says "who are you?" and Wesley says "no one of consequence," and Inigo says "Please, I must know," and then Wesley says "get used to disappointment"?

Now I just had a phone call and I forget where I was going with that. I had a plan to deploy that story to persuade you to create an ID on the site, even a pseudonymous one. But I forget how it worked.

Thanks for the invitation.

Let's see, you could want me to create an ID because you're liking the conversation, or because you want to track me down and kill me. I think I'll be enough of a narcissist to assume the flattering interpretation.

I'm actually kind of touched by your suggestion. Weiss has been sneering at me for months for remaining anonymous. The inevitable result is a hardening of both our positions, he going on about trolls and standing up for one's beliefs, me wondering why my identity is more important than my argument. Your method is better-"hey, come on in".

So OK, I'll create an ID.

You don't want to track me down and kill me, right?

I didn't know you were one of Michael's nemeses, but in any case, no, even if I were so disposed, I'm way too lazy and flighty for premeditated murder.

Plus, no one is obligated to use their real name for their Jewcy handles.  You can be EtzioniWasRight or ProudYank07 or NoSexOnSundays. The possibilities are endless!

Michael Weiss and the neo-con French guy are both liars. Kouchner did support the Iraq war. Read the June 3rd op-ed by Ian Buruma about Kouchner and his beliefs about using American power for military intervention. Though Ian is being generous when he says that Jewish hawks like Wolfowitz and Kouchner are "probably" not motivated by their love for Israel, it makes perfect sense for people who wonder why so many people of the Jewsh persuasion are such hawks, as exemplified by the "Bomb Iran" thread.

Well, since I'm a "liar," I won't see any point in trying to convince you. You obviously don't read or don't read honestly what other people might write, but I'm sure that anybody with a decent mind will google for themselves and look at what Bernard Kouchner actually said was his position regarding the Iraq war. Just for fun, though, the same Buruma you quote (I wasn't able to find the "op-ed" you refer to, however, since unfortunately I read more than the Pravda and thus generally require the title of a publication in order to be able to locate an article) wrote: "But (Paul Berman's) views are more radical than Kouchner's, whose liberal interventionism is about saving minorities from death and persecution, not about spreading revolution." Obviously, "saving minorities from death and persecution" is another evil product of those twisted minds of the International Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. (quote ref.: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16211)

There you go:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-buruma3jun03,0,2283499.story?c...

The LA Times is yet another Jewish owned neo-con paper, so your comments about the Pravda makes you look even more stupid. Amazing how the new Jewish, Israel-America lovin' President of France has appointed all these neo-con, Jewish officials, and are now primed to support Bush's war on Iran. Did you know that Kouchners "Doctors without Borders" pulled out of Iraq after the invasion? Amazing how he can't put his money where his mouth is.

By the way, "Kouchner's 'Doctors without Borders'" -not since 1979. But I guess that doesn't matter anyway, since the Jews are controlling the world (that's assuming he's a Jew, but I'm sure you've got sources on this too, including pictures of his penis, right?).  http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/volunteer/field/themsfexperience.cfm#7

Apparently, I'm very slow to respond. As it stands, I support the inclusion of the "Jewnited States" comment and others like it. As a sometime collector of antisemitic ephemera, these tidbits never cease to amaze and thrill me. In fact, I would suggest creating an antisemitic hall of fame, where such comments could be listed and judged according to content and quality. The one drawback to retaining said comments is that they have a tendency to stifle discussion. Readers would either learn to ignore the comments or attack them head on. Attacking them typically leads to a never-ending tautological argument, but it can be fun if creative ad hominy is involved.

So you never refuted the lie that Kouchner did not support the Iraq war even after I gave you proof. You and Michael are so pathetic.

As I mentioned, googling is enough: this is even in the Wikipedia article... So there you go: http://www.reunir.asso.fr/article.php?id_article=21  This is Kouchner's article, entitled "Neither War Nor Saddam." FYI, OED gives "not the one nor the other of two people or things; not either" for "neither." Oh, but hang on, this is actually his own published opinion -I'm sure that must be worthless, right? After all, he's just another lying Jewish conspiracist. You should send an article about this to http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com/ to record yet another exploit of the Conspiracy!