Comments on: Sarah Palin: The Last Word

By: Frances

Frances — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:04:27 +0000

TN, I was just trying to be considerate to others by not continuing to engage you in an unimportant discussion about an unimportant (to me) book that was only the topic because it was hilariously lampooned by one of my favorite comedians.

I’ve explained in great detail on other occasions why I don’t want to buy or waste time reading the book. I will leave that up to the critics. If the author were someone I respected and wanted to read, I would not let a bad review convince me not to read it. So you go ahead and enjoy Going Rogue. If that’s your thing, it’s nobody’s business but your own. I do not like Sarah Palin’s politics. I have nothing against her as a person other than the fact that she can’t be bothered to verify her own fuzzy recollections. If she was a friend of mine, we just wouldn’t talk about politics.

Also, I have no idea what the first sentence of your last paragraph means. I’m serious. Please clarify. Or not.

By: Tennessean

Tennessean — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:19:49 +0000

Frances, Fair enough. But a couple of final thoughts. First, I simply sought to make the point that you have not read the book. So why say the things you have said? If I were to do the same, all of you would be piling on me hysterically. Simply put, how can you so completely trash a book, a movie, anything, without first educating yourself about the subject? And your comments like, “If you get close enough, you can smell it.” do you little service intellectually.

Next, I’d like to preface my final remark with this observation. I have always found people that cry about being annoyed when emails appear in their in box they ASKED for….well….annoying. First, it is such a simple task to simply delete those they have no interest in. It seems to me when you ask for “email updates” from a site such as this, you have to understand not all of them may rise to YOUR level of interest.

Finally, I had not thought of it in that context of “annoying” people because they get email updates they requested. Mostly because of my personal thoughts on the matter. I have responded to (sorry) idiotic comments here simply for the personal entertainment factor. Many of them, even as I have sat here chuckling to myself preparing a response at the behest of the devil on one shoulder, the angel on the other was whispering in my ear that I should just ignore stupidity. That I would be the better person in so doing.

An example being the whole Chester string of comments on another post. (I’m not going to go through the effort of digging out exactly which one.) Her initial comment very lightly touched on the subject at hand and the balance of her comments were simply sophomoric comments aimed at digging on me. They were irrelevant and served no purpose. But the devil on my shoulder insisted over the protestations of the angel to expose her ignorance. And I was weak. Forgive me.

I will endeavor in the future to avoid responding to idiotic insults and attacks that have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand. Not because I feel they are right, but out of respect for those who have expressed “annoyance” over the burdensome task of receiving and deleting emails they requested.

In return, I would appreciate it if people like Chester and, yes Frances, You, refrain from commenting on “me” and comment on the subject at hand.

Now allow me to ask one last thing of “you guys”. I need no lectures from any of you about you didn’t ask for this or that and it’s not right you should have to receive something in your mailbox you asked for. I understand your position though I do not entirely agree with you. And I will endeavor to refrain from perpetuating an ignorant string of comments, even though I am rarely ever the one to initiate them.

So please, don’t initiate what I am offering to cease with commentary on how wrong I am. I recognize it may be an issue with some. I don’t necessarily agree it SHOULD be an issue. But I will respect Mario’s Blog and do my best to refrain from responding in kind to stupidity.

By: Frances

Frances — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:30:38 +0000

TN, on behalf of those subscribed to email updates of this thread who are rightfully annoyed by it, I will not continue it.

By: Tennessean

Tennessean — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:20:54 +0000

Frances, is that a “No”? And are you Chester’s mother?

By: Frances

Frances — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:15:57 +0000

“Tennesseean says: Frances, You’ve already read it?”

If you get close enough, you can smell it.

And I see that when you have little tantrums, you take them out on innocent bystanders. If you want no credibility, just keep saying that others don’t have it. That’s sure to work.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:42:07 +0000

@FruitCake: Fine, I didn’t think you could handle a simple question without talking points anyway. You think I have no credibility & you think President Obama doesn’t either?

I’m in good company then! Mwhaaa! ;-)

By: Tennessean

Tennessean — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:31:28 +0000

Chester, actually, I do mind. I see no reason in affording you any measure of credibility.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:14:38 +0000

@NutCase: Only when I change the cat box. I like animals more than Republicans. One has a conscience & the other votes. ;-)

I’d like to ask you a serious question. Do you mind?

By: Tennesseean

Tennesseean — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:58:55 +0000

Chester, I’ll let you “handle” the mastery of poopie. Sounds like something you might excel at. And you sound like someone who has hands on experience! :-)

By: Tennesseean

Tennesseean — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:53:20 +0000

Frances, You’ve already read it?