Le Guin would never run, and if she did, she would never win. But man oh man, I’d quit my job to work for her campaign. She’d probably run on the “cranky old anarchist” ticket, which suits me just fine.
Daniel
She’d get my vote.
Well, I’m a fan of direct plain speaking myself but I’ve learned that lots of people can’t handle it so I’ve tried to be direct but subtle. Sometimes sarcasm is just good humor. Other times it seems it seems like a snarky insult when a more direct “you’re a jackass” might be plainer language. I’ve had some problems telling the difference when useing sarcasm. Ah well, live and learn,.
Beautiful.
Any political writings of hers you’d recommend?
Me too–for example, I can’t tell whether you were replying in kind to my flippant sarcastic comment :). I love me some good sarcasm.
As for Le Guin’s political writings, I love her primarily as a novelist. My favorite novel of hers is The Dispossessed: an Ambiguous Utopia. Her book Left Hand of Darkness ain’t half-bad either. Most of her novels are quite good.
featherlou, thanks! I was worried my silly pun would die an unsung death.
Daniel
To get off the subject a little, I’ve also been a fan of John McCain. I was very disappointed when he supported Bush but he still seems to be supporting good causes in opposition to the administration. How do you feel about Senator McCain?
I will add those to my reading list.
Oh, it was appreciated, all right. I just didn’t happen to be drinking anything when I read it. 
That’s an example of a terse opening salvo.
I think the example is less-than-perfect though, since it relates to a Pit thread. Also, I suspect that if Lib could retract that post, he would.
I Pit Many of The Participants In This Thread
It’s true that Lib has been pitted many times. However, IMHO, about 99% of the verbiage hasn’t been especially helpful.
A good critique says, “Look if you want to argue this say it in that way, rather than in the way you expressed it.”
FTR, I haven’t had a problem with the bulk of all bannings on the SDMB. Yet I would prefer that the mods continue to extend posting privileges to Lib; I disagree with binarydrone, Left Hand et al. I’m not sure why.
I respectfully request that Lib read post 81 of mine in this thread and reflect upon more skillful methods of fighting ignorance.
He didn’t trash his book-he challenged some of the arguments made in said book. Which is pretty much what he should have expected from Stewart, unless he’s been living in a cave for the past year or so. It’s pretty much SOP on The Daily Show. If he gets pissy about defending his views, then perhaps he should keep quiet about them.
All in all, I found Stewart VERY fair, very polite, even when he disagreed with Goldberg. He was funny, charming, and friendly. If Goldberg gets worked up over that argument, then he needs to get a thicker skin.
Well, of course that would be the ideal solution. The problem is, with a board of this size, there will always be someone who responds to his baiting. If nothing else, there’s always the chance that a brand new member who doesn’t know better will happen along and fall for it.
Perhaps we should start posting “Do not feed the Liberal” after an attempted hijack.
I’m a fan of JS and the DS. I thought his point with Goldberg was right on the money. He got applause and Jon said he’d go on another show so that Goldberg could be getting the applause which was funny too. In most interviews with authors Jon asks about the book and my ask some pointed and specific questions. In this case he basically said
“with all thats wrong in this country this book is a waste of time and effort.” He was polite buts thats the nut of what he said. No author is going to be happy with that. They go on talk shows to discuss their book without being challenged. It’s called promotion.
I’m not saying he was wrong or rude, but I’ve never seen him dismiss an authors work that way before. I loved it but if I was a author that favored the right, {ooo that made me shudder} I might avoid that show as part of my book promotion tour.
Good point, and one I’d thought of earlier but didn’t mention because there didn’t appear any alternatives to helping out the situation. However, in light of this idea…
and the fact that many, many here are aware and used to these tactics, perhaps the very next post along (when his MO is apparent) should simply question whether his reply is truly relevant to the topic at hand or a hijack? Cementing that would allow the discussion to stay on course, wouldn’t it?
Just a thought.
The people who respond are sometimes newbies, but sometimes people who just love to argue with** Lib** and later complain later how he hijacked the thread when they themselves aided him in doing so. I can’t understand why some allow themselves to get so insulted and worked up over an obvious bait. It’s only and an internet message board after all. A really cool one but still…
It is really not that difficult. From where I sit, it would seem to me that the rules that apply to the rest of us do not apply to Liberal. That, as a poster, Liberal is a little more equal (al la Animal farm) than the rest of us. This offends my sense of fair play. I don’t think that it is out of line or an outrageous request to want to know why. Is it because he has sponsored other posters, and thus generated income that we little people have not? Does he have compromising photos of moderators involving purple jell double headed dildos? What the hell is the deal?
Oh, they give those out to the new members. You not got yours?
Perhaps** Lib** is just really good at walking the line. The only people I’ve seen banned were raving jackasses. I’ve had a few things pointed out to me that Lib has done that opened my eyes but I haven’t witnessed anything that made me think “Why doesn’t someone ban that jerk?”
Link?
You know he suckered me in and derailed my thread, but there will be another good Jon Stewart soon I’m sure and I will just start a new thread on that show.
Hopefully he won’t try to derail it as he has already been warned on the exact subject.