Vagina Blogging
John Hawkins has an excellent piece today about some of the issues that women bloggers face - from men, and from other women. Truth be told, most of Pamela Gellar’s (Atlas Shrugs) detractors are other women (I know even I’ve gotten my hits in from time to time).
And Malkin… whoa. She hears about death threats to other female bloggers and can’t help but shrug. She gets them almost daily. She’s had to move ferkrissakes!
(We had) people posting photos of our past house…people urging their minions to come and stake out my house. ….I had tons of people email me and tell me they were going to come to my home. They posted my private phone number and I had dozens of people calling and leaving crude messages.
Although she’s not interviewed for this piece, my pal Kathy Shaidle is often subjected to rape threats… “If you just got properly laid… I’ll take one for the team…” that sort of rubbush.
As much as I am loath to admit that there has to be a difference between men and women bloggers posting about the very same subjects (in this case politics), sadly there is. Take liberal Canadian blogger Canadian Cynic. He used to have a whole category labeled “Cunt”, where he viciously maligned females in the news, and female bloggers. He has since removed categories from his blog, probably because of the flack he was taking, though really, he never seemed to mind. Believe me, it hasn’t stopped him from using the word, or maligning females. Former blogger Ian Scott of Ianisms (now defunct) had been banned from more than one blog for being downright creepy in a way that he certainly wouldn’t behave toward other men. Chances are he wouldn’t send a male blogger a pornographic description of what he would like to do to him!!
Does it bug me, personally? No, not really. I find it sad, but I have a “that’s just the way it is” attitude about it. When a male blogger/reader threatens a female blogger, he does it in a personal - often vulgar - way. When he threatens a male (if he has the balls to do so at all), he will usually do it by threatening his family, specifically his children. People who make internet threats are cowardly. They hide behind pseudonyms, don’t disclose email address or use fake ones, have cloaked IPs… they are pussies. Believe me, if they show up at your door and are greeted by your handgun, you’ll be scrubbing urine stains out of your Welcome mat.
Basically, we can’t let it get to us. Women have been silenced by men before, and we’ve ceased to allow it. We shouldn’t pay it any mind on the internet. There’s room for everyone here.
Update: Instead of adding anything worthwhile to the above subject, like a word from his female co-bloggers about any flack or threats or even support they may receive, Canadian Cynic instead chose to call me a cunt. Hmm…
I had to suffer through some of those things as well. Whatever. I have multiple handguns in my possession. Bring it.
Comment by Stacy — March 4, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Fewer legal issues with a shotgun. They also make a more dramatic statemant.
Comment by Bazoo — March 4, 2008 @ 11:48 am
“He used to have a whole category labeled “Cunt ”
He did? Where was he hiding it? I bin readin’ him for a long time, and I never saw it.
“…if he has the balls to do so…”; “…they are pussies.”; “…he does it in a personal - often vulgar - way.”
Pot? Kettle? Which is which?
Comment by Chimera — March 4, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Honey, no one wants to read about you and the cooter in the same post.
Comment by Nauseated — March 4, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
GotR lies like the despicable douche that she is:
“Update: Instead of adding anything worthwhile to the above subject, like a word from his female co-bloggers about any flack or threats or even support they may receive, Canadian Cynic instead chose to call me a cunt. Hmm…”
But, GotR, sweetie, I *did* add something worthwhile to the discussion — I pointed out that you’re a pathological and despicable liar:
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/03/theyre-amusing-only-because-theyre-so.html
Doesn’t that count?
Comment by CC — March 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
It really is no wonder why a loser like cc can’t get a date with a woman(assuming of course he “likes” women). Perhaps he’s happy with the fact that he will only have “Rosie” to keep him company on those cold lonesome nights. To each their own I suppose. I posted a similar comment at his shit locker of a blog but he deleted it. Must have offended his sensibilities or perhaps I hit a little too close to home.
[He deleted it because he doesn't like being called names. Notice I haven't deleted any from him and his readers? He doesn't bother me. - RG]
Comment by Frank — March 4, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
By the way, GotR, it’s the absolute height of hypocrisy to whine about how right-wing screech harpy Michelle Malkin was forced to move, given her positively thuggish behaviour in terrorizing a number of students at UC Santa Cruz:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/18/111035/859
Yes, GotR, read that slowly and carefully — how Malkin sicced her entire readership on a group of students, who received *death threats* because of it. And when those students begged Malkin to remove their personal info from her web site, she posted it *again*. So how about you knock off the sanctimonious moralizing and pearl clutching? It *so* doesn’t become you.
Are we done here? Yeah, I think we’re done here.
Comment by CC — March 4, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Well if that’s the case RG then he’s a bigger wimp than I imagined. No wonder he can’t get a date!!!
Comment by Frank — March 4, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Just a pathetic little creature attempting foreplay with dirty talk. Or…..simply so weak in the real world that trash talking a woman actually empowers him.
Comment by Ownshook — March 4, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Canadian Cynic is the absolute definition of a coward in every sense.
Threatening women and children is his specialty. Wow, what a winner.
Comment by Real Canuck — March 4, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
I seem to have upset them over at CC, oops.
Comment by dailybayonet — March 4, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
GotR, anybody who puts “…an unarmed (but reality based) Canadian…” up at the top of his/her/its blog, well, that’s as far as I got. Does the elephant worry about what the dung beetles think?
Nice of CC to come here and prove the point though, eh? What a maroon.
Comment by The Phantom — March 4, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
He used to have a whole category labeled “Cuntâ€,
Liar.
Comment by Robert McClelland — March 4, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
As someone who has experienced abuse via the internet, you’d think Malkin would be kinder to other people. Not only has she published contact info from college students, she has also:
Published the contact information of Chancellor Denice Denton, which may have caused Denton to commit suicide.
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i44/44a00101.htm
Malkin has also stalked a 12-year-old boy who spoke in favour of a national health care system.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/08/graeme-frost-and-the-perils-of-democrat-poster-child-abuse/
There’s something deeply wrong with Malkin.
Comment by sharonapple — March 4, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
The contents on Canadian Cynic’s blog are too often completely disgusting and juvenile in the extreme. CC must have a ridiculously inflated idea of his own prowess and can only juice up his arguments by very extensive use of abusive profane language. He must have been bullied in grade school and laughed at by all the girls. Most likely we still would laugh at him if he showed his little potty mouth in public. And I’m not talking about the derelict local peeler bar he drowns his misogynist sorrows in.
Comment by Olive — March 4, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Oh Bob! Did you have to remove CC’s sausage from your mouth long enough to type that? Such a sad, sad souless wanker.
Comment by dave — March 4, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Robert McClelland:
I believe what you meant to say was…
With all do respect, I think you’re mistaken. I’ve never seen CC’s blog have a category by that name, or any other name for that matter.
See how easy that was? Now you try it.
Comment by rabbit — March 4, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
rabbit, your kidding right?
Comment by Frank — March 4, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
It only took 16 comments over at CC before Ti-Guy referenced Hitler with regard to my posts. So I claim a win under Godwin’s Law.
My kung-fu is strong this evening.
Comment by dailybayonet — March 4, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
Frank:
Well, I’m not optimistic that RM is going to rephrase his disagreement with RG in such words, but it could happen. Odds are a bit long I admit…
Or are you referring to whether CC has such categories? I’ve never seen any categories in CC’s blogs. I’ve seen him use the hard-C word lots - usually in the immediate vicinity of Kate McMillan’s name - but no categories.
Comment by rabbit — March 4, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
BTW, Lulu from CanadianCynic can’t comment on the subject because she’s away this week. Her silence doesn’t really mean anything.
Comment by sharonapple — March 4, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
rabbit:
I was referring to Robert. As far as cc is concerned it’s quite obvious he’s lacking the company of another but as a typical leftie it’s always someone elses fault hence the constant use of the c word when describing women.
Comment by Frank — March 4, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
I call lots of men cunts too fwank, you stupid cunt.
Comment by Robert McClelland — March 4, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Wewll Wobert, fwankly speaking cwawl back in your hole you stunned cwunt and answer your phone, it’s your buddy Wawwen K., he wants to talk to you about this joooo/hamas issue…wanker.
Comment by E. Fudd — March 4, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
Well I cunt top that so I’m outta here.
Comment by Robert McClelland — March 4, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Pure class that CC crowd.
If they had Mothers, they would surely be proud.
Comment by Bryan — March 4, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
“With all do respect, I think you’re mistaken. I’ve never seen CC’s blog have a category by that name, or any other name for that matter”
That was easy.
And truthful.
So how about some retractions there, RG
Any minute now…
Comment by Sparky — March 4, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
I think it was awfully kind of CC and his pimply-faced friends to stop by and prove RG’s point.
Awfully kind, indeed.
Comment by J. Williamson — March 4, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Dear right-wing commenters:
Now that you have all that infantile playground snark and sarcasm out of your systems, I would ask you — ever so politely, all of you being the delicate wallflowers that you are — to address the claim I made way back there in comment 5: that GotR is a bald-faced liar for accusing me of having an entire blog category labelled “cunt” when I have never had any such thing.
Do you think you can do that? Hmmmmmmm? Seriously, here’s your chance to demonstrate that vaunted intellectual prowess that you seem so pathologically reluctant to drag out of its holster.
Not only have I pointed out that GotR is a liar, but I and others have linked to irrefutable evidence that right-wing heroines like Michelle Malkin take absolute pride in savaging innocent people and wrecking their lives. And yet, in the midst of all that grist for actual conversation, what we on the Left are getting here is childish invective. Is it any wonder that we have next to no interest in engaging any of you intellectually?
So go ahead … break with tradition and actually try to address what was written above. Really, just put aside the fact that GotR is a lying hack and see what you can come up with. And I’d say I was cautiously optimistic but, seriously, that would be a lie. Call it experience.
Comment by CC — March 5, 2008 @ 3:36 am
Everyone stop being so mean to CC or else he’ll run crying to Stephen Taylor again.
Comment by James — March 5, 2008 @ 7:15 am
Cyntie’s a nite owl or suffering from insomnia.
Comment by hairy ape — March 5, 2008 @ 7:33 am
Cyntie extolls…”So go ahead”
hey! that’s my saying…punk.
Comment by dirty harry — March 5, 2008 @ 7:36 am
Really?
I must have missed that one.
I’ll waste no time in reviewing the entire archives!
Comment by CaptDMO — March 5, 2008 @ 7:38 am
1.Apparently, you’ve been served on that claim. Response?
2.And…your point is?
Well, which is it? “Women”, or “females in the news, and female bloggers”? No one in the latter group get’s “special immunity”
from strong criticism.
Don’t like the playing field?
Consider applying for membership in a medium with standards deemed
more suitable.
Comment by CaptDMO — March 5, 2008 @ 7:50 am
After judicious consideration my dear CC, and taking into account the fact that since you control the blog in question, there’s no way short of a screen shot to prove the allegation.
That being said it certainly sounds like something you would do seeing as how you’re a Left leaning social reject with but a single functioning synapse on the one lonely brain cell in your giant vacuous cranium.
Therefore I believe Girl on the Right, just to piss you off.
Enjoy!
Comment by The Phantom — March 5, 2008 @ 7:51 am
Cytnie whines…”what we on the Left are getting here is childish invective.”
yeh you dopey neocons, c’mon over to the Canadian Cynic Round Table where we’ll tell you dopes all about fucktarddouchebagneoconcunts and then some. Seriously, you neocon Big Daddy kool-aide drinkers, bring your prowness over and maybe pencil and paper to take notes…and as a special feature of the Round Table maybe, just maybe if you’ve all been good in class Cyntie (the man himself) will make a special appearance and give you meatheads a special edition on “how to” write about Wanda Watkins…now that’s special, trust me.
Are we done here?…nah, not by a long shot.
Comment by clutch my pearls — March 5, 2008 @ 7:56 am
Phantom, you’re such a cunt.
Comment by Nauseated — March 5, 2008 @ 8:03 am
Now, now, Nauseated … I managed to remain civil long enough to propose an actual discussion issue to see who among the right-wing whiners and infants here is actually capable of engaging in intellectual discourse. What we’ve discovered thus far is that “The Phantom” isn’t one of them. So let’s be patient and see if anyone else steps up to the plate.
In short, give them time — actual intelligent conversation is undoubtedly unfamiliar to them so it’ll take them a while to warm up to it. Patience. Perhaps they’ll surprise us. Strangers things have happened. Like that time in 4th-century Burgundy when it rained herring …
Comment by CC — March 5, 2008 @ 8:47 am
Jeepers, Wendy! Don’t you have Raid at your house?
They’re all just upset that as conservatives, us poor, weak girls aren’t grateful enough for their efforts to sheild and protect us from the hassle of thinking and making our own choices.
Comment by Wonder Woman — March 5, 2008 @ 9:01 am
I’m a regular visitor to CC’s blog and I’ve never seen ‘cunt’ as a blog category.
Let the accusers come forth with proof, please. And Phantom, try adding to the discourse with some facts.
Thanks
Comment by Sparky — March 5, 2008 @ 9:02 am
My clarification:
It’s not a category, but it might as well be…
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/search?q=cunt
…I thought it was, since it’s so plentiful.
RG
Comment by Right Girl — March 5, 2008 @ 9:22 am
“By the way, GotR, it’s the absolute height of hypocrisy to whine about how right-wing screech harpy Michelle Malkin was forced to move, given her positively thuggish behaviour in terrorizing a number of students at UC Santa Cruz”
Well, my first visit here and what do I find?
A classless, cowardly liar.
Great combo you got going there, bunky.
Comment by N. O'Brain — March 5, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Tell you what cc, we’ll admit to Right Girl made an honest mistake as soon as you admit to the fact that you’re a lonely leftwing wanker who can’t get a date with a woman (if you “like” women that is) and that is one of the many reasons why you must call them names all the time. Your rules cc, just following them is all.
Comment by Frank — March 5, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Jeepers, Wendy! Don’t you have Raid at your house?
How about some Kwellada or some wax over at at your blog?
Comment by Nauseated — March 5, 2008 @ 10:00 am
Hmmmmmm … so I take the time to post an actual intellectual challenge and, in return, I get sophomoric twaddle like this from Frank:
“Tell you what cc, we’ll admit to Right Girl made an honest mistake as soon as you admit to the fact that you’re a lonely leftwing wanker who can’t get a date with a woman (if you “like†women that is) and that is one of the many reasons why you must call them names all the time. Your rules cc, just following them is all.”
OK, then, I can play that game, Frank. If you want to get personal, I’m fairly sure I have a better chance of getting a date than someone who’s an unattractive porker like this:
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006_02_05_archive.html
Anyone there look familiar, hmmmmm? How about it, Wendy? Given that I tried to engage your infantile groupies in actual discourse and what I got in return was intellectual drivel and personal innuendo, am I entitled to similarly make fun of your personal appearance? After all, it would be the height of hypocrisy for you to have allowed all these folks to insult me, only to reject *my* personal attacks.
So how about it, Ms. Sullivan? To paraphrase Frank, they’re your commenters, I’m just following their lead is all.
Comment by CC — March 5, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Oh, dear … suddenly it’s a lot clearer why Ms. Sullivan isn’t keen on taking one Michelle Malkin to task for her perpetual thuggery:
http://www.girlontheright.com/2006/02/more-cpac-swag.html
Whoopsie. I guess it’s a bit awkward to criticize Malkin’s hate-mongering and ruthless vindictiveness when you’re such a big fan.
And, man, doesn’t *that* explain a whole lot?
Comment by CC — March 5, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Perhaps you should reread your 8:47am comment cc and then TRY TRY TRY and figure out why I said “your rules”. Honestly, why are you lefties so thick all the time. Oh and something else, I’d be willing to bet that Right Girl (if she’s single) has a much easier time in the dating scene than you and do you want to know why? She has an engaging personality that goes along with her good looks. In other words people actually want to keep company with her. You on the other hand are a lonely, lonely little LOSER with nothing but a shit locker of a blog. Your looks match your personality I’m sure!!!
Comment by Frank — March 5, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Hey McClelland,
Your wit is worth half as much as your opinion!
Comment by Frank — March 5, 2008 @ 10:32 am
One only has to read liberal blogs and then read conservative blogs, rarely do women get called vile names on Conservative blogs yet on the Liberal Blogs (including liberal females) calling females cunts and other profrane names seems to be the norm.
Frankly the childishness of the liberal bloggers is astounding, I’ve sent links to my Liberal PM expressing my concern that people are allowed to blog as a liberal without having to pass a psyc test or background check.
If I had a whisper of a doubt that left has gone to far left Liberal Blogs blew that assertion to dust. The Liberal Left supporters are now equal to the NDP as a fringe party, who’s supporters appear to dislike women and enjoy calling them profane names and make banel threats.
I also believe that us Conservative Women are more attractive than the leftard bloggers, and this upsets the leftards. I’ve yet to see an attractive Liberal blogger, I could be wrong but I doubt it. The sensible shoe wearing crowd are not the type to don a bikini, pantsuits are more their style.
Comment by Rose — March 5, 2008 @ 11:11 am
So CC, done insulting Canadian soldier’s families and now turned to insulting women in general. Very progressive of you. I know you can’t comprehend complex thoughts but insults and name calling should be below even your low standards.
Comment by Mark — March 5, 2008 @ 11:14 am
“How about some Kwellada or some wax over at at your blog?”
– Oh my. Isn’t that a witty retort? How will I ever recover?
Awfully pussy-obsessed, aren’t we? I notice a lot of CC’s readers seem to be compulsively preoccupied with the amount of “porn” on my site. To much of a reminder that you share the world with girls? Or just glass-like sensibilities?
Comment by Wonder Woman — March 5, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Sparky said: “…Phantom, try adding to the discourse with some facts.”
Ok Sparky, I admit it. I made up the part about the one functioning synapse. What I should have said is that CC writes -as if- he had one synapse that works. Fact is, I’d take the opposite side of pretty much anything from CC because I think he’s ill mannered to women. I don’t like that.
Since you requested facts, here’s one to match your blog post today: It is STUPID and DANGEROUS to feed the wild animals. The same thing happens to them as to welfare recipients. Meaning they hang around all the time looking for a hand out, they eat the landscaping, crap on the lawn and they get real pushy.
A pushy wild turkey isn’t much of a problem (except for the turkey shit on the picnic table ) but a pushy buck deer? They have these big frickin’ horns, y’know. They aren’t shy of using them on you, either. I’d prefer a deerskin rug and a freezer full of venison to a horn in the guts, but then I’m a right wing fascist.
Go thank your neighbor for shooting the damn turkey, he may have saved you a nasty bout of intestinal parasites, a flea infestation or maybe West Nile virus.
Facts, Sparky. Inconvenient at times, but always true.
Comment by The Phantom — March 5, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Oh darn, CC just removed my post over on his bog… I mean blog. Some people just don’t believe in free speech, do they?
Say! I think that means CC isn’t having fun anymore. Poor CC, exposed as a humorless Leftist. Let’s all cry for poor CC.
Ok, that’s enough crying.
Comment by The Phantom — March 5, 2008 @ 11:48 am
CC said-
By the way, GotR, it’s the absolute height of hypocrisy to whine about how right-wing screech harpy Michelle Malkin was forced to move, given her positively thuggish behaviour in terrorizing a number of students at UC Santa Cruz:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/18/111035/859
Yes, GotR, read that slowly and carefully — how Malkin sicced her entire readership on a group of students, who received *death threats* because of it. And when those students begged Malkin to remove their personal info from her web site, she posted it *again*. So how about you knock off the sanctimonious moralizing and pearl clutching? It *so* doesn’t become you.
Are we done here? Yeah, I think we’re done here.
No We’re not.
The students, by definition of their actions, were terrorists. And as typical ‘progressives’, meaning stupid publicity hunting liberals, released a PRESS RELEASE INCLUDING THEIR NAMES AND PHONE NUMBERS! Malkin just linked to their own press release.
What you are hoping the sheeple don’t figure out, is that there is no difference at all between islamists and progressives. Look at the parallels- Imams preach hate, Professors preach hate. Islamists hate women, progressives hate women. Islamists preach overthrow of freedom, progressives preach the overthrow of government. Islamists blow up buildings and hummers, progressives burn hummers and buildings.
Seem similar somehow?
Comment by Ian — March 5, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Did us a favour? Shooting a gun within city limits? What happened to that civil law abiding stuff that righties are all so famous for?
Yeah, and feeding dem dar birdies is all dangerous and stuff. Sure.
As for the rest–how would you put it?
“After judicious consideration my dear Phantom…it certainly sounds like something you would do seeing as how you’re a right leaning, gun toting, truth denying reject with what appears to be a single functioning synapse on the one lonely brain cell in your giant vacuous cranium.
Therefore I believe the naturalists I speak with, the outdoor shows I attend, and decades of experience in the great outdoors over anything that may come from your written word.”
Sorry to RG for hijacking.
Bringing it back, it was nice of her to offer the clarification in the comments–how about updating the post to reflect same?
Comment by Sparky — March 5, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
To much of a reminder that you share the world with girls? Or just glass-like sensibilities?
No…it’s just a lot of porn, you stupid twat.
Comment by Nauseated — March 5, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
“By the way, GotR, it’s the absolute height of hypocrisy to whine about how right-wing screech harpy Michelle Malkin was forced to move, given her positively thuggish behaviour in terrorizing a number of students at UC Santa Cruz:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/18/111035/859
Yes, GotR, read that slowly and carefully — how Malkin sicced her entire readership on a group of students, who received *death threats* because of it. And when those students begged Malkin to remove their personal info from her web site, she posted it *again*. So how about you knock off the sanctimonious moralizing and pearl clutching? It *so* doesn’t become you.
Are we done here? Yeah, I think we’re done here.”
Their contact information was obtained from a press release. Was Malkins? I don’t know about you but, I don’t give my address to Radio Shack so it’s not going into a press release. Your comparison doesn’t work unless Malkin’s contact info was gathered in a similar fashion, and if it was then fair is fair.
Comment by DFCtomm — March 5, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
The students, by definition of their actions, were terrorists.
Gee, I guess they don’t have police in Malkin-land anymore. What a disturbing development.
Stop lying please.
Comment by Nauseated — March 5, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Gosh, I must have hit a little too close to home because cc just deleted my last comment as well. I just don’t get it because what I said was I’m sorry that I said he can’t get a date because he’s a social retard and that the only reason I said that was because my cat died an I was a little upset. I figured if anyone would understand that situation it would be him afterall that was his excuse concerning the whole Wanda Watkins thing. I didn’t even make one comment about his weight or the greasy pony tail that’s soooo out of fashion. Speaking of fashion cc (because I know your reading this) you really should buy pants that fit. May I suggest a tall and portly store.
Comment by Frank — March 5, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Talking about Malkin and her horrible behaviour to other people — what about Denice Denton or Graeme Frost, the 12-year-old boy she stalked. I guess they were terrorists too. I don’t approve of some of the behaviour towards her, but she lacks a certain decency towards people.
Anyway, if you want to read the libertarian response, check out this blog:
“It’s worth remembering that Denton didn’t actually do anything to anger Malkin and her readers. She simply failed to expel students who had sent the Malkinites into a fury.”
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/114571.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/114545.html
Comment by sharonapple — March 5, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
To be honest, I’d rather Malkin throw around the C-word and insults than people’s e-mail addresses and telephone numbers.
Comment by sharonapple — March 5, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Sparky, Sparky, Sparky. If you want to take comments meant for CC upon yourself, well there’s not much I can do about that.
I assumed you lived in the country, based on that picture you posted. Nice view for the city. I live in the city too. I have deer coming into my backyard because they’ve eaten everything in the woods. They’ve eaten the woods clean already this year because there are too many of them for the available food and they are fucking starving. Starvation is what it would take to make a deer walk all the way to my house from the woods in the daytime.
Shooting a few would seem to be indicated. Shooting them in my backyard might be somewhat unsafe, maybe hunting them in the woods…?
Aaaany way, if you do live in the city it would seem highly unlikely that some meanie/right winger/liar/thug person like myself shot the nice turkey. This is Canada, people go to jail for doing shit like that. (Well, except in Toronto but only if they’re shooting at a person.)
Maybe it got run over by a car. That happens when morons in suburbia feed wild animals. It isn’t just bad for you Sparky, its bad for them too.
Now be a good bunny hugger, run back to CC’s and tell him I said he was a humorless Communist who fights with girls because he lacks the guts to fight with boys.
Comment by The Phantom — March 5, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
CC : Those students released their own private information including their phone numbers in their own press release. Michelle merely quoted it.
Lessons to be learned there. First of all don’t reveal information you don’t want on the front page of a newspaper on the internet. Secondly, if you do, and it does end up on the front page of a newspaper, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Thus endeth the lesson….and this stupid debate.
Comment by Kevin — March 5, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Oooh, CC put up a whole post all about ME, Right Girl! Isn’t that exciting?!!!!
I think you’ve struck his one functioning nerve with this post. He’s really having no fun today.
Comment by The Phantom — March 5, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
I have a question, why does anybody even acknowledge the vile filth, otherwise known as ‘canadian cynic?’
This morons biggest response to a post is 11 comments, with 7 coming from bi-guy. It appears his overall average is 2 comments per post. People don’t read or react to his feelings. And little wonder with posts like this:
“Kate McMillan: Lying piece of shit. And the CC “Small Dead Animals” challenge.”
“Really, I had wanted to raise the level of discourse around here but when you’re dealing with a hideously dishonest, putrid, steaming turd like Kate McMillan, well, civility just has to take a back seat.”
Like McClelland, Kinsella, et al. This bottom feeder leftard blogger stands as another example of the best online recruiting tool Conservatives have going.
Comment by irwin daisy — March 5, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
[...] I mentioned that women bloggers tend to get insulted on the basis of their looks and gender, and a bunch of mysogynists called me a fat c*nt, thereby proving my [...]
Pingback by Girl On The Right » Blog Archive » Vagina Blogging II: Five More Women Speak Out — March 18, 2008 @ 9:14 am
[...] an insight into the phenomenon, check out the comments at Right Girl. (Language [...]
Pingback by Ed Driscoll » “Scratch A Progressive, And You’ll Find A Misogynist” — October 28, 2009 @ 1:38 am