I just found a web site that will likely waste weeks of my time. It's Planet Feedback, a collection of complaints, compliments, and suggestions people have sent to almost any company you can think of.
It's a perfect mix of light voyuerism and comedy. Some of the letters are hilarious. Here's a collection of some of the best ones about movies: (links open in new windows; you can also hold shift while clicking to open a link in another browser window.)
"You have done our Country a great favor."
Fahrenheit 911--another opinion.
Make this man a movie mogul.
The funniest one of them all.
"Superman or Gooberman?" Comic Book Guy speaks.
Showing posts with label comments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comments. Show all posts
December 02, 2004
October 14, 2004
One more thing...
Tom Shales's post-debate commentaries have been entertaining and interesting to read, and this one is no exception.
May 18, 2004
Comments
I switched back to Haloscan for comments. The faceless messages from "Anonymous" disturbed me. None of the messages on HaloScan are faceless, because if I don't know what you look like, I will compensate by using the image of a like-named celebrity in your place ("Dan" = Dan Cortez, "Kate" = Kate Winslet, "Chad" = The country Chad). Unless your name is anonymous, in which case I use the image of a black hole.
May 11, 2004
Comments...
I just realized the comments feature was set to "Registered Users" only. That must be why no one is commenting. Yup. That's it. Why didn't anyone let me know the comments feature was set this way? (It's now changed.) Would it have killed anyone to leave a comment and give me a heads up?
May 04, 2004
X-Rated Oprah
April 21, 2004
Best Comment Ever
I risk jail time to show this to you, but it is worth it. I just saw this exchange of comments about a post I wrote last week about Bush's press conference. I don't know who wrote the second and fourth comments, but thank you for being the oil on the comedy wheel.
And Mr. Fitzgerald, my Republican friend who threatened to sue me over the horrid crime committed against him, you're going to love this. Ready? Here it is:
Bring. It. On.
(In Mr. Fitzgerald's defense, I will say this: he has impeccable grammar.)
And Mr. Fitzgerald, my Republican friend who threatened to sue me over the horrid crime committed against him, you're going to love this. Ready? Here it is:
Bring. It. On.
(In Mr. Fitzgerald's defense, I will say this: he has impeccable grammar.)
April 07, 2004
A Tale for the Times
Many years ago, Lynne Cheney wrote "Sisters," a novel of "a strong and beautiful woman who broke all the rules of the American frontier."
I didn't know the American frontier had rules. I thought not having rules was the whole point of the frontier. Who wants to travel 500 miles west and have to deal with a homeowner's association? But that's besides the point.
The book has received attention recently because it has some naughty bits, at least for a prim conservative in the public spot light. Naughty bits such as lesbian relationships, feminism ideals, and an overbearing, misogynistic man who can only express his sexuality in the crudest forms, such as demanding people call him by the name of his wiener. (Okay, I'm making the last one up.) The publisher was going to re-release the book but canceled plans a few weeks ago at the request of Ms. Cheney.
Some of the reviews of it on Amazon.com are quite funny.
I didn't know the American frontier had rules. I thought not having rules was the whole point of the frontier. Who wants to travel 500 miles west and have to deal with a homeowner's association? But that's besides the point.
The book has received attention recently because it has some naughty bits, at least for a prim conservative in the public spot light. Naughty bits such as lesbian relationships, feminism ideals, and an overbearing, misogynistic man who can only express his sexuality in the crudest forms, such as demanding people call him by the name of his wiener. (Okay, I'm making the last one up.) The publisher was going to re-release the book but canceled plans a few weeks ago at the request of Ms. Cheney.
Some of the reviews of it on Amazon.com are quite funny.
March 29, 2004
Dear Mr. Chumbucket
Most of you will want to skip this. It's my response to a comment someone left about my post on Clarke that is way, way too long to fit in the comments section (1000 character limit).
[original comment]
Clarke is a liar pal. Here's a link to an interview transcript from 2002.... [Jason here: I suggest reading the interview so you can understand the poster's position. He has a reasonable point. ]
I especially like the part where Clarke says the Bush administration did NOT stop anything put in place by the Clinton administration to fight Al Qaeda, and in fact increased the funding to covert ops for that function by 5 times. He said that. What do you say to this?
ChumBucket | Email | Homepage | 03.28.04 - 10:18 pm | #
[my response]
James R. Thompson, one of the members of the 9-11 commission and no friend of Clarke, asked him about this 2002 interview. I included the exchange below. You can decide for yourself whether Clarke adequately addresses the purported discrepancies between his comments now and his comments in the background interview for the press.
Before I get to that though, a few comments.
Let's say someone accuses you of not having a chum bucket. He is lying, but even the suggestion that you don't have a chum bucket is so damaging that you have to prove this guy is lying. Do you:
a) Call him a liar.
b) Show people your chum bucket.
c) Both a and b.
I would argue that either b or c is the strongest way to refute this person's claims. If all you did is call him a liar, it would be your word against his, and people would wonder, "Why doesn't he just end this issue by showing people his chum bucket?"
Even if you think Clarke's claims are untrue, one would have to admit that the Bush administration's response has been almost all option 'a'. The evidence refuting his claims have been scanty and weak (e.g. this press briefing, in my opinion). Which is unusual, because Clarke's main claims are very easy to disprove, if the evidence exists. And there should be a lot of it, in the form of meeting minutes, policy papers, and classified material that can safely be declassified for the good of the country (e.g. Clarke's formerly classified press briefing).
Clarke may be wrong and Bush may have nothing to hide. But considering that Bush originally opposed the formation of the 9-11 commission, then opposed giving the commission a two-month extension, the administration is attacking Clarke's character instead of the meat of his argument, Condolezza Rice still refuses to testify under oath, and Clarke wants all his private testimony and e-mail exchanges with his former boss made public, Bush is at least creating the appearance of trying to cover up something.
The exchange with Thompson and Clarke:
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)
THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.
[original comment]
Clarke is a liar pal. Here's a link to an interview transcript from 2002.... [Jason here: I suggest reading the interview so you can understand the poster's position. He has a reasonable point. ]
I especially like the part where Clarke says the Bush administration did NOT stop anything put in place by the Clinton administration to fight Al Qaeda, and in fact increased the funding to covert ops for that function by 5 times. He said that. What do you say to this?
ChumBucket | Email | Homepage | 03.28.04 - 10:18 pm | #
[my response]
James R. Thompson, one of the members of the 9-11 commission and no friend of Clarke, asked him about this 2002 interview. I included the exchange below. You can decide for yourself whether Clarke adequately addresses the purported discrepancies between his comments now and his comments in the background interview for the press.
Before I get to that though, a few comments.
Let's say someone accuses you of not having a chum bucket. He is lying, but even the suggestion that you don't have a chum bucket is so damaging that you have to prove this guy is lying. Do you:
a) Call him a liar.
b) Show people your chum bucket.
c) Both a and b.
I would argue that either b or c is the strongest way to refute this person's claims. If all you did is call him a liar, it would be your word against his, and people would wonder, "Why doesn't he just end this issue by showing people his chum bucket?"
Even if you think Clarke's claims are untrue, one would have to admit that the Bush administration's response has been almost all option 'a'. The evidence refuting his claims have been scanty and weak (e.g. this press briefing, in my opinion). Which is unusual, because Clarke's main claims are very easy to disprove, if the evidence exists. And there should be a lot of it, in the form of meeting minutes, policy papers, and classified material that can safely be declassified for the good of the country (e.g. Clarke's formerly classified press briefing).
Clarke may be wrong and Bush may have nothing to hide. But considering that Bush originally opposed the formation of the 9-11 commission, then opposed giving the commission a two-month extension, the administration is attacking Clarke's character instead of the meat of his argument, Condolezza Rice still refuses to testify under oath, and Clarke wants all his private testimony and e-mail exchanges with his former boss made public, Bush is at least creating the appearance of trying to cover up something.
The exchange with Thompson and Clarke:
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)
THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.
November 25, 2003
Joe Millionaire 2
A story on Joe Millionaire 2's low ratings led me to the show's message boards, where tens of people analyzed the shocking ending:
(courtesy of JOHNNYF10)
It was amazing how happy David was when the butler gave him his own house.
He is a simple man, a cowboy who just want's to be left alone on his ranch.
But he really wanted a girlfriend because, as much as he loves his horse and dog, he could not develop a deep enough relationship with them to find happiness.
Now he has Linda to ride on the horse with him.
It's like a fairytale.
The end.
(courtesy of JOHNNYF10)
It was amazing how happy David was when the butler gave him his own house.
He is a simple man, a cowboy who just want's to be left alone on his ranch.
But he really wanted a girlfriend because, as much as he loves his horse and dog, he could not develop a deep enough relationship with them to find happiness.
Now he has Linda to ride on the horse with him.
It's like a fairytale.
The end.
September 25, 2003
September 19, 2003
Have an Amazing Hurricane Isabel Photo?
"washingtonpost.com wants to see your Hurricane Isabel photos. Attach a jpeg, no larger than 1MB and/or 600 pixels (8 inches) wide, in an e-mail to submitphoto@washingtonpost.com. Please include your name, phone number and a caption. Photos become the property of washingtonpost.com."
Pancake City Legal Notice
All comments made and emails sent to me become property of Pancake City. This includes emails from my Mom asking when I will show up for dinner. Pancake City also owns all subjects mentioned in said comments and emails, including related concepts, like lunch and dessert.
Are you writing a book? Could it fit in the comments section of one of the posts? Property of Pancake City. The monitor you're viewing this page with? Property of Pancake City.
What did you have for breakfast? Pancakes? No? Perhaps something with flour in it? Property of Pancake City.
Bake a cake? Subsidiary of Pancake City. Bake a cake in a pan? Welcome to the Pancake City LLC family.
Attention readers of this sentence: readers of that sentence ("Attention readers of this sentence") grant full and unconditional lifetime agreement of said notice. Plus rights to second child or Playstation 3, whichever comes first.
Thank you.
Pancake City Legal Notice
All comments made and emails sent to me become property of Pancake City. This includes emails from my Mom asking when I will show up for dinner. Pancake City also owns all subjects mentioned in said comments and emails, including related concepts, like lunch and dessert.
Are you writing a book? Could it fit in the comments section of one of the posts? Property of Pancake City. The monitor you're viewing this page with? Property of Pancake City.
What did you have for breakfast? Pancakes? No? Perhaps something with flour in it? Property of Pancake City.
Bake a cake? Subsidiary of Pancake City. Bake a cake in a pan? Welcome to the Pancake City LLC family.
Attention readers of this sentence: readers of that sentence ("Attention readers of this sentence") grant full and unconditional lifetime agreement of said notice. Plus rights to second child or Playstation 3, whichever comes first.
Thank you.
August 05, 2003
Comments
I added a comments feature. Now, instead of screaming and angrily shaking your fist at the monitor, you can write comments like "This post is so funny that it made me do the Maori Happy Shake Fist Dance." Or: "I love Captain Piccard too. Set phasers to love." What fun! I use this feature to leave obnoxious comments on my friends' web sites. (Read comment, then read next day's comment.)
July 31, 2003
Sigh
I just lost a friend. You can read about it on her web page. Chat link here.
P.S. The message to Greg Proops--it's all true.
P.S. The message to Greg Proops--it's all true.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)