Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/01/politics/nancy-mace-home-vandalized/index.html

A problem. Or, rather, a continuation of a problem.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/01/us/wilberforce-forgives-debt/index.html

All student debt for 2020 and 2021 graduates at Wilberforce U is forgiven.

[bankshot1]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

Don't Jew me, boz.

The works of Shakespeare or Dickens are public domain so copyright isn't an issue.

The question remains should centuries old demonization of Jews, and arguably the most visible villains in classic English lit, come with a warning of its anti-semitism?

Or should students along with teachers and other adults be able to read what they choose and discuss it in whatever manner best suits them, without a Cliff Notes p-c guide telling them how to feel?


If you prick us...

Jew you? Did I miss something? Yes, what i said would apply to Merchant - and to Shrew, for that matter - as well as Dickens. I can understand not including them, but in a way it is like Huck Finn. We cannot really excise things like Shakespeare or Dickens, Huck or Gatsby from the Canon. They exist, they have an importance that transcends their problematic nature. That does not preclude recognizing the issues and identifying them.

I don't think your two questions are contradictory options. Yes, we can warn readers of potentially problematic content. And yes, they are free to read, discuss and draw conclusions about that content.

Oh - and the copyright comment was a reference to the Dr. Seuss controversy, not for every instance. I mentioned American Names, which is also out of copyright. In those instances, publishers are free ro drop them from omnibusses if they choose.

It was a TIC reference to an answer you seemed to want to negotiate.  We Jews are famous for negotiating better terms, as well as money lending and running gangs of thieves in London. .

I think your answer touches on the problem of what is problematic and what should be flagged to have a a warning. Who makes the call? You seem to sort of be on the waffling on warnings on old classics, written by Dickens Twain etc.

What about new artistic work?

Would it potentially have a censorship effect if for example a writer was told that scene with Atticus talking about a black man raping a white woman will have to carry a warning, and it might effect sales. Might the author rewrite the chapter?

Tricky stuff this woke shit.

[LarryBnDC]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

As an example, there is a Steven Vincent Benet poem called American Names that I recalled enjoying. I was trying to recall the last lines (Roughly, You can bury my body in the Sussex grass, You can bury my tongue at Chalmendly[that is what I needed to look up, some place in France], I shall not be there, I shall rise and pass. Bury my heart at Wounded Knee). It was not in my recent copy of The Oxford Book of American Poetry, so I looked it up in the older edition I had inherited from my grandmother. And was appalled. I think excluding it from published compilations is right. But that does not extend to condemning Dee Brown for using a line as a title.

Or to put it another way, banks, there are legitimate issues with the potential excess in trying to point out racist relics of the past, and it is a legitimate discussion. But as with "political correctness" before it, "cancel culture" (or SJW or "woke") have been used by racists like Uno to try to silence people who point out their racism. Uno uses it to try to bully people into silence about racism. But pointing out racism is not silencing anyone. It is a legitimate part of the dialog. Uno is free to spew his racism; I am free to call him on it.

When thumb typing "l" is highly problematic.

Hamilton/UNO/Utley etc.. practices the age old racial jiu jitsu of dog whistle politics as described by Ian Haney-Lopez

The punch, parry kick technique

(1) punch racism into the conversation through references to culture, behavior, and class;

(2) parry claims of race-baiting by insisting that absent a direct reference to biology or the use of a racial epithet, there can be no racism;

(3) kick up the racial attack by calling any critics the real racists for mentioning race and thereby "playing the race card."

[bankshot1]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

There’s more nuance to the scene in Duck Soup.

In context the song “That’s why darkies were born” was a big hit for Kate Smith in early 30s
On the surface the song sounds racist but is subversively anti racist and satirical

Philly leaped to the racist conclusion when they removed Kates statue from the plaza by the old spectrum.

Paul Robeson recorded the song, too.

It’s one of those slyly subversive songs that sound one way unless one ponders what’s being said by the lyric

Classic example is The Blue Tail Fly

Slave murders massa and gets away with it by putting blame on the blue tail fly
“Jimmy crack corn and I don’t care my masters gone away!”

Thanks Larry I know

And yes context is important.

But to most people, hearing that line, from the late 60s to pre-Google, it sounds pure racist.

Hey didn't you leave in a huff?

If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff.

Again

At the time the song was a huge hit for Kate Smith.

Again I know

you're missing the point.





Groucho's Headstrong/Armstrong construct was the offensive set-up to a popular reference.

People today aren't going to readily know the 1930s song, which may or may not have been satirical.

BTW, "Hymie the shifty Jew" in London in the 1830s. It was the rage in the London West-End.

[Holly Martins]

Well if I was teaching Henry Miller in a lit class,  I would probably point out that cunt is offensive but also that some literary tropes involve deliberate offense.   It's my hope that students,  at the college level anyway and maybe HS,  can get to where they are sorting out their personal discomfort and not taking offense at the study of literature.  Or language that,  for the sake of art,  goes off the rails.   

Banks,  I agree the possibility of censorship looms over all artistic expression where an ethos says characters or images  cannot transgress in certain ways, and cause discomfort.   A lot of great artists have aimed to make audiences uncomfortable.  What I often can't tell is where a benign warning turns into censorship.   When I was a teenager,  any warnings on books were more like eyeball magnets.   :-)

[bankshot1]

Banks,  I agree the possibility of censorship looms over all artistic expression where an ethos says characters or images  cannot transgress in certain ways, and cause discomfort.   A lot of great artists have aimed to make audiences uncomfortable.  What I often can't tell is where a benign warning turns into censorship.   When I was a teenager,  any warnings on books were more like eyeball magnets.   :-)

Yup.

WBW "Banned in Boston" carried a certain cache among the prurient crowd and probably boosted sales.

But the cure may be worse than the disease.

Good art should provoke and challenge the audience in some manner.

The idea of warnings makes me uncomfortable and in general I'd trade off hurt feelings for frank discussion with parents,  teachers, friends etc to talk about themes and content. IMO greater truths and learning emerges.

[Hairy Lime]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

Don't Jew me, boz.

The works of Shakespeare or Dickens are public domain so copyright isn't an issue.

The question remains should centuries old demonization of Jews, and arguably the most visible villains in classic English lit, come with a warning of its anti-semitism?

Or should students along with teachers and other adults be able to read what they choose and discuss it in whatever manner best suits them, without a Cliff Notes p-c guide telling them how to feel?


If you prick us...

Jew you? Did I miss something? Yes, what i said would apply to Merchant - and to Shrew, for that matter - as well as Dickens. I can understand not including them, but in a way it is like Huck Finn. We cannot really excise things like Shakespeare or Dickens, Huck or Gatsby from the Canon. They exist, they have an importance that transcends their problematic nature. That does not preclude recognizing the issues and identifying them.

I don't think your two questions are contradictory options. Yes, we can warn readers of potentially problematic content. And yes, they are free to read, discuss and draw conclusions about that content.

Oh - and the copyright comment was a reference to the Dr. Seuss controversy, not for every instance. I mentioned American Names, which is also out of copyright. In those instances, publishers are free ro drop them from omnibusses if they choose.

It was a TIC reference to an answer you seemed to want to negotiate.  We Jews are famous for negotiating better terms, as well as money lending and running gangs of thieves in London. .

I think your answer touches on the problem of what is problematic and what should be flagged to have a a warning. Who makes the call? You seem to sort of be on the waffling on warnings on old classics, written by Dickens Twain etc.

What about new artistic work?

Would it potentially have a censorship effect if for example a writer was told that scene with Atticus talking about a black man raping a white woman will have to carry a warning, and it might effect sales. Might the author rewrite the chapter?

Tricky stuff this woke shit.

TIC? Tender Incoming Care? Take Imelda's Chowdah? Tomasz Ivanovich Czrchinskl? Help.

[bankshot1]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

Don't Jew me, boz.

The works of Shakespeare or Dickens are public domain so copyright isn't an issue.

The question remains should centuries old demonization of Jews, and arguably the most visible villains in classic English lit, come with a warning of its anti-semitism?

Or should students along with teachers and other adults be able to read what they choose and discuss it in whatever manner best suits them, without a Cliff Notes p-c guide telling them how to feel?


If you prick us...

Jew you? Did I miss something? Yes, what i said would apply to Merchant - and to Shrew, for that matter - as well as Dickens. I can understand not including them, but in a way it is like Huck Finn. We cannot really excise things like Shakespeare or Dickens, Huck or Gatsby from the Canon. They exist, they have an importance that transcends their problematic nature. That does not preclude recognizing the issues and identifying them.

I don't think your two questions are contradictory options. Yes, we can warn readers of potentially problematic content. And yes, they are free to read, discuss and draw conclusions about that content.

Oh - and the copyright comment was a reference to the Dr. Seuss controversy, not for every instance. I mentioned American Names, which is also out of copyright. In those instances, publishers are free ro drop them from omnibusses if they choose.

It was a TIC reference to an answer you seemed to want to negotiate.  We Jews are famous for negotiating better terms, as well as money lending and running gangs of thieves in London. .

I think your answer touches on the problem of what is problematic and what should be flagged to have a a warning. Who makes the call? You seem to sort of be on the waffling on warnings on old classics, written by Dickens Twain etc.

What about new artistic work?

Would it potentially have a censorship effect if for example a writer was told that scene with Atticus talking about a black man raping a white woman will have to carry a warning, and it might effect sales. Might the author rewrite the chapter?

Tricky stuff this woke shit.

TIC? Tender Incoming Care? Take Imelda's Chowdah? Tomasz Ivanovich Czrchinskl? Help.

Tongue in cheek, been using it for a gazillion years. I think I invented the use of TIC on the internet.

[LarryBnDC]

Josh,  why do I have to keep answering verification questions?   And why does the New York Times question require newbies to figure out it has to have a "The" in front of it?   For that matter,  why is this a question people need to know the answer to?   Are all newcomers required to know our site history before they join?   And the verification letter code is extremely hard to read.   

Hi,  Banks.   Newton says hello.   Heh.

Hi Bart-I was pretty certain Molly wasn't one of Hammy's or Red's alter-egos.

Really there's a history entrance exam to gain entry to Elba?

It sounds like we're designed to keep people out and not be inclusive!

This should be thoroughly discussed by the Island's Council of Extremely Woke

LMAO


 

HA!

The agenda is already quite crowded. Maybe they'll get to that by next Tuesday.

I doubt a request to have new members find their way in (without having to know what happened sixteen years ago) makes anyone woke.  I remain an Independent, fiscal conservative, and iconoclast beholden to no party or platform. 

Since "woke" seems to now be a vague slur that has no real agreed meaning, I will only say that I think skewing Left in states like Iowa probably is counterproductive if the Democratic Party is seeking to expand its influence there.  That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them.  Those are real issues that deserve genuine discussion on their logic and evidence, and not on single-word smears like "woke," which seem to be the easy recourse of lazy minds.  Like "social justice warrior," rather than just post wiki entries, it might be more fruitful to state in clear terms where you believe the pursuit of social justice is mistaken or wrong.  As the hard-to-find HAIRY LIME has pointed out, what is wrong with fighting for social justice? 

Did I just see a cat run into the shadowed doorway?

Being woke is fine, if it is restricted to attempting to address injustice and equality in a fair and just manner.

One might ask, also, who among us has always been treated fairly?

The problem with the woke crowd has become its penchant for shutting down real debate, for creating a hidden tightrope of closed-mindedness that one must walk. The end game is to go after anyone who does not align perfectly with the woke values, values that seem often to reflect the opposite of the original intent of the woke.

One can not preach tolerance and inclusion, without practicing it, and that is what is happening here.

“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly. The world is messy; there are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you.”---President Obama, in a 2019 interview for the Obama Foundation on youth activism.

Take Little Stevie, the Committed Catholic of AZ. His commentary to almost anyone with whom he disagrees is a perfect example of doing the exact opposite of what Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." 

Too many folks here run around labeling everyone they disagree with a "racist"; they're more likely to create a racist than they are to stop someone from being one.

If you want others to be "woke", live what you preach.

Name one of the SJWs here who has shown they do that.

I know of no one here who labels everyone they disagree with racist. I describe YOU as a racist because you post things that indicate YOU are a racist, Buckwheat. You are judged by what you post.

You don't read very well or have poor recollection.

Some here do in fact see any and all here who are Republican as racist.

Republican policies are racist.

Why do you support racist policies?

[LarryBnDC]

Joe Biden’s speech in Tulsa is going BIG and BOLD!

[Hairy Lime]

Well if I was teaching Henry Miller in a lit class,  I would probably point out that cunt is offensive but also that some literary tropes involve deliberate offense.   It's my hope that students,  at the college level anyway and maybe HS,  can get to where they are sorting out their personal discomfort and not taking offense at the study of literature.  Or language that,  for the sake of art,  goes off the rails.   

Banks,  I agree the possibility of censorship looms over all artistic expression where an ethos says characters or images  cannot transgress in certain ways, and cause discomfort.   A lot of great artists have aimed to make audiences uncomfortable.  What I often can't tell is where a benign warning turns into censorship.   When I was a teenager,  any warnings on books were more like eyeball magnets.   :-)

I think:

First, the level of offensiveness of that word depends on context. There is a world of difference between "Melania has a..." and Melania is a..."

Second, if you taught that gob of spit in a lit class, even with a warning, a lot of the people who think a warning label on GWtW is canceling it would want your ass on a platter. Even if you blacked out that word.

[facilitatorn]

You don't read very well or have poor recollection.

Some here do in fact see any and all here who are Republican as racist.

Only those still willing to support republican candidates and or work for the consolidation or expansion of republican power at the expense of freedom and opportunity through actual or stochastic terrorism.

That wouldn’t be you though. You should be better than that by now.

[Hairy Lime]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

Don't Jew me, boz.

The works of Shakespeare or Dickens are public domain so copyright isn't an issue.

The question remains should centuries old demonization of Jews, and arguably the most visible villains in classic English lit, come with a warning of its anti-semitism?

Or should students along with teachers and other adults be able to read what they choose and discuss it in whatever manner best suits them, without a Cliff Notes p-c guide telling them how to feel?


If you prick us...

Jew you? Did I miss something? Yes, what i said would apply to Merchant - and to Shrew, for that matter - as well as Dickens. I can understand not including them, but in a way it is like Huck Finn. We cannot really excise things like Shakespeare or Dickens, Huck or Gatsby from the Canon. They exist, they have an importance that transcends their problematic nature. That does not preclude recognizing the issues and identifying them.

I don't think your two questions are contradictory options. Yes, we can warn readers of potentially problematic content. And yes, they are free to read, discuss and draw conclusions about that content.

Oh - and the copyright comment was a reference to the Dr. Seuss controversy, not for every instance. I mentioned American Names, which is also out of copyright. In those instances, publishers are free ro drop them from omnibusses if they choose.

It was a TIC reference to an answer you seemed to want to negotiate.  We Jews are famous for negotiating better terms, as well as money lending and running gangs of thieves in London. .

I think your answer touches on the problem of what is problematic and what should be flagged to have a a warning. Who makes the call? You seem to sort of be on the waffling on warnings on old classics, written by Dickens Twain etc.

What about new artistic work?

Would it potentially have a censorship effect if for example a writer was told that scene with Atticus talking about a black man raping a white woman will have to carry a warning, and it might effect sales. Might the author rewrite the chapter?

Tricky stuff this woke shit.

TIC? Tender Incoming Care? Take Imelda's Chowdah? Tomasz Ivanovich Czrchinskl? Help.

Tongue in cheek, been using it for a gazillion years. I think I invented the use of TIC on the internet.

Well, that makes it your second most useful coinage, right after Our Lady of the Perpetual Tie.

The conversations on this forum remind me of the time, over in the College Football forum, I goaded Cap into a prolonged argument for the dual purposes of: a. Seeing how many times I could get him to say, "I'll let you have the last word" before he let me have the last word (apparently, infinite) and, under the dire influence of The Third Policeman, to see how many interior boxes inside interior boxes inside interior boxes the forum software could support before it went kablooey. (Also, apparently, infinite)

[facilitatorn]

Joe Biden’s speech in Tulsa is going BIG and BOLD!