Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Spencerblog Announcement IV

The comment section is turning back into an insult fest. Spencerblog moderator is cracking down. Either comment substantively or your post will be rejected.

The management.


Blogger David Diano said...

What do you expect? You've got a fan base of racists, bigots and zealots and a non-fan base of people that believe in civil rights, equality and modern science. You post inflammatory topics to add to the mix.
It's like making a batch of C4.

January 13, 2009 at 11:01 AM 
Anonymous a Lib dope said...

Unilaterally expanding the executive privilege of censorship, eh. What’s next, imprisonment of offenders at Gitmo? Torture? I’m gonna have to check my copy of the Blog Board Constitution to see if you’re in violation and warrant impeachment under the Blog Board War Crimes Code. We shall overcome!
And come to think of it, there isn’t a whole lotta diversity on the Spencerblog executive board… Hmm… ‘Hello, EEOC…’

January 13, 2009 at 11:03 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

we're up to four announcements? I've gotta catch up on things. Diano's right (Non anon-iano? What's going on here?) - shame on the rest of us for not being UBER-LIBERALS - clearly the rest of us don't get it.

I recommend a sharp protest over the Israeli attacks to be held at Swarthmore College followed by 'shrooms at my place.

January 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

Of course the ridiculous thing about these "SpencerBlog Announcements" is that since the first announcement, Spencer's been "moderating" ALL the comments, so he's the one that has allowed all the insults through, especially the ones he makes (which we can't moderate).

He's allowed the postings of R and Carter which contain not only personal insults, but their very arguments are an insult to the various minorities in our society (including people of intelligence).

I predict Spencer will continue to ignore this "announcement" as he has the others he has previously made.

January 13, 2009 at 12:50 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I'm going to go a step further on this one - why the hell do we need an announcement warning us to tone down our posts if comment moderation is already in effect and has been since, what, last summer? Seriously, if posts are getting offensive, REJECT THEM. We posters, seeing fewer of our posts make it will learn to lick our wonds and tone down in that fashion.

January 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - First you rip Carter for his "Bible told me so" stand on the gay issue, then you change direction on the death penalty. Now you're going after increased Regulation of your blog. I'm liking the new Gil.

Steve - Im there. What time?

January 13, 2009 at 2:19 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

OK, Diano, I'm not going to argue, both have said things that are offensive. But what are you thoughts about randal's convinctions about society's double standards when it comes to race? Are you of the "sweep it under the carpet" delegation?

January 13, 2009 at 3:21 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...


Yeah, we let things get a little too loose. The annoucement was just to let posters know we are tightening things up a bit.

Diano's prediction might come true. But he can't be against such inconsistency. After all, he vowed not to post here anymore and removed all his previous posts.

Now, he's back. And even posting under his own name for a change.

Play nice, kids.

January 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


None of my posts have ever targeted any minority, that is any real minority. If you are talking about my stance on homosexuals and homosexual marriage, you are the one who is not tolerant of my opinion. Moreover, your most recent post here suggets that homosexuals are a minority which leads me to another thought. How great is it that you can be a homosexual one day and be a minority, and the next day you can opt out of that minority class and be something else? I bet Al Sharpton likes that idea, and we know that Michael Jackson appears as though he tried to get out of being a minority. I digress, but Diano, I for one like you being on this board cause you are so out of the mainstream.

Lastly, Diano, I thought hell would freeze over before Gil would seriously censor anyone's thoughts and ideas. I was wrong as Pravda has recently published an article, citing a "top" scientist, that the earth is about to enter a new ice age that could last a really long time. I am not so sure that Al Gore read the article but since you have the bat phone to his "The Earth has a Fever" headquarters, you may want to talk to him and help him through these tough times.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

January 13, 2009 at 4:08 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

Randal is his own double-standard. He waves the flag about getting soldiers killed to defend American-style freedom/democracy, then he fights against those very freedoms for anyone that isn't a white, Christian, right-wing, hawkish neocon.

Spencer's double-standard is his phony shock about the tone of the blog (like Claude Raines being "shocked" about gambling at Rick's casino). He encourages Randal and Carter so they can more extremely express views with which Spencer clearly agrees. If he could pat Randal on the head and give him a cookie, I'm sure he would.

As for my return, since Spencer accepted the only "apology" he ever got from me (too graphic to post here), I felt that with the coming Obama administration it would be fun to watch the Gil, Randal and Carter squirm in the light of a good president after they praised the atrocities of Bush's reign.

"None of my posts have ever targeted any minority, that is any real minority."
Gays are a real minority. To ask someone to be tolerant of intolerance misses the point (and distorts) the pro-tolerance position which is to wipe out your brand of intolerance because it is based in ignorance rather than reality. It's like asking NASA to tolerate space scientists that think the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Hate to clue you in (only because clues don't seem to stick to you), but you are out of the mainstream of modern thought (though you are in the mainstream of discredited opinions).
Carter, sounds like you watched Hannity w/o Colmes last night (or read the same talking points). One neocon proclaimed "top" scientist doesn't counteract all the real top scientists and the body of evidence.
Read it and weep:
Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics

January 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM 
Anonymous r said...

I find the brand of Dishonest Radical Libism espoused by the Daves and Bobs here to be offensive and insulting and in need of censorship.
Besides, such lying is not protected free speech so neither should it be acceptable speech on blog boards.

January 13, 2009 at 6:55 PM 
Anonymous r said...

OK, Diano, ... But what are you thoughts about randal's convinctions about society's double standards when it comes to race? Are you of the "sweep it under the carpet" delegation?

Why, yes S, as a matter of fact he is. Apologists are like that, they give a pass to black racism while seeing white racism behind every tree. They seem to think the trace remnants of white racism in society is somehow 100 times worse than the much, much more common black varety these days and they go all hypersensive shrill when they think they see its ghost. Which, of course, makes the apologists as much of a problem for race relations as the black racists themselves, if not more so.

January 13, 2009 at 7:17 PM 
Blogger Nicholas said...

more like a non- fan base of narrow minded liberals who can't fathom that anyone would ever disagree with them, and instead of arguing valid points, usually resort to labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a racist, bigot, redneck, homophobes etc.

dave, you really need a life. Idk you personally but you seem to let this stuff consume your life. I really feel sorry for you.

January 13, 2009 at 9:25 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Well, this is the difference (one of many), between me and Randal. Randal said it, and here it is "I find the brand of Dishonest Radical Libism espoused by the Daves and Bobs here to be offensive and insulting and in need of censorship." Thats it in a nut shell. He would eliminate debate, and all opposing opinion. Carter has his own way of saying this, when he calls opposing opinions hate, but his opinion reasonable. They would silence all critics of the right. And then they would call themselves patriots for doing so. I may agree will Gils attempt to censor the trash talk, but unlike Randal,you will never find me calling for the censorship of opinion.

January 14, 2009 at 8:22 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

diano never answered my question.

Anyway, who wants to lay bets on when "SpencerBlog Announcement V" arrives? I'm picking April.

January 14, 2009 at 8:51 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I'm betting March. Any takers?

January 14, 2009 at 9:00 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

ooh, inside information!

January 14, 2009 at 9:53 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Gil, just picked up an Arturo Fuente Anejo over the weekend - hard to get (Out only twice a year) but as I understand its worth the demand. Will let you know how it turns out.

January 14, 2009 at 10:04 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

I thought I answered your question. Randal's claims of a double-standard are bogus. He picks isolated incidents that are out of proportion with the whole and tries to draw sweeping conclusions about "black racism" as though it dominates white racism.
When blacks engage in racial behavior, Randal tries to act like its some inherent trait of black people to be racist, rather than a counter-reaction to the racism they experience in society from whites.
There's nothing to "sweep under the rug", but Randal is incapable of putting his remarks in the proper context and is merely trying to put down black, rather than look for ways to reduce racism.
I predict February.

It's hardly a surprise about Carter for his "opinion" since he apparently believes it comes directly from God. They do have treatments and facilities for people that believe God is speaking to them and telling them what to do.

what is "Idk you personally"
idk?? is that a typo or text messaging shorthand abbreviation?

January 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Steve -

Sounds awesome.

Just googled it and came up with this review.

How much did you pay for it?

January 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Will Spencerblog be singing the praises of Obama, when he can get Cohiba's or Montecristo's?
I can see it now. Gil with a grisly beard, dressed in olive green, puffing on a Cuban.

January 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

A couple friend and I have a relationship with a guy who owns a shop in Huntingdon Valley, PA (Montco - near my old stomping grounds). We were put on a waiting list back in October and my one friend picked them up in mid to late december. We paid about $10 a piece, which I would think is below the standard price. I'm saving it for the appropriate occasion, although a win this Sunday afternoon would serve as proper justification in my opinion.

Diano, shall we go into archives and pull out examples to reiterate this one? From your eventual response (Not just changing the subject and attacking randal like you did the first time) it sounds like you're clearly in the "sweep it under the rug" delegation. P.S. If I call race card on each subject we debate, does that mean I win 'em all?

January 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Some places charge $35 for that cigar.

As for smoking it after an Eagles win this Sunday - perfect.

Bob -

Cuban cigars are overrated. No consistency since Casto took over. I like the Dominicans best. Ashton Cabinets especially.

January 14, 2009 at 11:08 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

bob, my prediction on Cuban cigars:

1) Embargo is lifted after the Castros are finally gone - Cuban Cigars go wild in the United States AND at a Premium price

2)The Cuban "Pop" will last between 2-3 years, until the market realizes that over the lifetime of the embargo, non-Cuban cigars have caught up their counterpart and in some cases, exceeded them. Hey - most premium cigars are constructed with fillers and binders from plants grown from Cuban seeds!

3) The Cuban-advantage disappears as dominican based cigars take the lead.

My suggestion? Enjoy your Arturo Fuentes', your Ashtons (Made by fuente) and your Rocky PAtels - those brands are excellent - worthy of comparisons to pure Cuban brands

January 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

$35 sounds right - I guess I can say I got lucky with my pickup. It's not a Churchill size, but at about 4 3/4" and a 50-gage ring, it's not a short smoke, either.

I think State Street is calling me to open a Cigar Shop.

January 14, 2009 at 11:11 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gil, how about a richard joseph/trudie bennett update?

January 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

that website you liked yesterday is incredible, I'm hooked! They LOVE the Ashton Cabinet, by the way. I advise you not to check it out - you may be there all day!

January 15, 2009 at 8:32 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Cuban cigars are indeed overrated and overpriced. And they are misunderstood. In fact, only a small percentage of them are exceptionally yummy, as compared to others, even though “Cuban” as a brand has enjoyed undeserved hype across the board. See, not all Cubans are created equal. For it’s not the plants, per say; the secret is all in the soil. And not all Cuba dirt is the same. In Cuba there is a relatively small area where for whatever scientific reason the soil produces the best tobacco for the best cigars. It’s just exactly like Kennett Square –“the Mushroom Capital of the World”- soil being the best for growing a certain type of mushroom while being only a small area, relatively. And certainly not all of America or even all of Pennsylvania for that matter has this same soil. But get a good Cuban and it really cannot be beat! If one were to want to attempt to recreate a fine Cuban cigar, they would do best to not just get Cuban seeds but to get their hands on some of that exclusive Cuban soil.

(Cue the Bobs to attempt to assuage their own treasonous un-Americanism guilt by pointing their disingenuous hypocritical fingers at others as being “un-American” for merely smoking silly cigars from a Commie land. Lol… Hardly comparable.)

January 18, 2009 at 2:39 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I have no problem smoking a Cuban cigar if I get the opportunity.

Feel free to keep that one in your archives and bring it back against me if you need to, I won't deny it. And while I'm sure that the soil is key, I believe it's the seed of the cuban tobacco plant that also has a lot to do with the quality of the cigar. That's why a lot of manufacturers have gone with production in the dominican republic utilizing Cuban seeds.

For the record, I apologize for turning an important spencerblog announcement about conduct into a discussion about cigars. Speaking of Cigars - Holt's still has Arturo Fuente Anejo #47's available at $9.50 a pop (Limit is 3). I'll be sure to grab a couple this week!

January 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home