Those small towns in conservative areas
Sastra said several interesting things in a comment on Leaving Amherst.
I seldom comment, but read Butterflies & Wheels regularly, and I’m terribly grateful that Ophelia is not only as interesting and provocative as she is, but is a ‘she’ as well. I’ve noticed a distinct “gentleman’s agreement” among the women I know that we really should not disagree. What I call “Thanksgiving Table Diplomacy” promoted around the calendar – avoid controversy and pass the potatoes, bringing up all the lovely things we have in common. “It’s more important to be nice than ‘right.'” Women are supposed to be supportive and reassuring. No debate; no disagreement; no honest discussion of contrary views, unless it is to “celebrate our diversity.” That’s a sign of spiritual maturity, evidently. Even in a discussion group.
Yeah – I know the kind of thing. I blame the ‘Women’s Ways of Knowing’ crowd (as well as anyone else I feel like blaming). This is one reason I am so stroppy (or so interesting and provocative as Sastra put it). I have to be stroppy, I have to compensate for all those women who make themselves into marshmallows!
As the only secular humanist among neo-pagans, New Agers, and Spiritual Seekers, it’s hard. They love to jabber about their beliefs, and back them up with heavy combinations of pseudoscience and postmodernist “all paths to truth are valid” — all paths, except, evidently, rational skepticism, which is apparently the egotistical, narrow, mean one.
I know – being the only fan of reason among woolly thinkers is hard. We learned quite a lot about that from the students at the seminar.
I am a bit of a convention junkie, and have gone to a fair amount of Council for Secular Humanism events. I have yet to do one of the CFI summer sessions, though, and when I found out OB and JS were on the program I was ready to bite myself in frustration. I can’t afford it yet! So you have to do it again!!! I have all your books!!!! Please — even if it’s a Boy’s Club (I was there for the grand opening of the new building, impressive as all get out).
A Boys’ Club is certainly not all it is – and it clearly is a lifeline and a source of hope for a lot of people in small conservative towns in the Bible Belt. Maybe we will do it again – if we’re asked.
I don’t work in an occult bookstore. But it seems as if all the liberal adult women in my area who read, think, and enjoy interesting discussions on topics other than their kids and their busy schedules are “spiritual but not religious” — and this is the catalyst for most of the “deeper” discussions…I live in a small town in a conservative area of the Midwest. I take what I can get.
Many of the students were in exactly that situation, if you swap ‘the South’ or ‘Texas’ for ‘the Midwest,’ and that fact produced a shift in Jeremy’s thinking. We have a running disagreement over the whole subject of what he calls ‘religion-bashing’; it always ends up in the same place: he tells me he just can’t empathize because it’s not like that in the UK; he can intellectually grasp why religion seems threatening in the US but he can’t feel it. I tend to find this slightly exasperating, because I don’t quite see why grasping it intellectually isn’t enough; but anyway he is now able to empathize somewhat more because of his experience over the two and a half weeks at CfI. He got friendly with several people from small towns in conservative areas, and he got a much better sense of how terrible it can be. And at the welcoming dinner that opened the second module – the one at which he was supposed to give opening remarks, the one we were so late for because of lingering too long in Seneca Falls – all the participants were asked to stand up and say a little about themselves; there were several new people who gave rather impassioned accounts of conservative small town life. When it was time for JS to say his few words he said he was feeling rather sheepish – about his long-standing inability to empathize. He meant it, too – he found the whole thing quite moving. So did I, so did Julian; I think so did everyone.
Richard Dawkins had the same reaction once when encountering american atheists : he just wasn’t expecting that much anger toward religion and even had a bit of a problem understanding it. (The irony!)
The thing is on YouTube somewhere, I cannot find it right now but I believe somebody here linked to it a few months ago.
“where whether you are “saved” or not is apparently a proper conversational topic for standing in line with strangers at the grocery check-out.”
Ewwwwwwwwwww
That combines so many personal nightmares I can’t even deal with it.
You should have grown up here in Australia. Even with largely Christian family it was not like that.
Please excuse MY past lack of empathy.
I have to be honest I have a lack of empathy for people who seem(to me) to view christianity as a greater threat than radical islam! but then again like J.S I live in a suburb of a huge city not small town U.S.A.
Tingey what do you mean disagree with me? Where have I ever said I don’t think US Christian fundies are a threat? I think they are a threat.
As for the ‘more ridicule’ idea – no, especially not as delivered by you. You’re not good at it. You think you are but you’re not. Your brand of ridicule is entirely counterproductive. If you’re busy ridiculing some Christian at the Telegraph you can be quite sure your efforts are systematically backfiring.
Potters House dangerous? Man, you are smoking something. They are strong fundamentalists, but have zero mass appeal.
Dangers of Islam or Islamism?
There are of course differences between what passes for “moderate” Islam and radical political Islam, i.e. Islamism… But that doesn’t mean that Islam itself is not dangerous. Ditto for Christianity and the Fundamentalist theocratic types.
Religious moderates are still dangerous for at least three reasons I can come up with off the top of my head:
(1) Faith itself is bad for the brain. Adopting any belief whatsoever as a matter of faith amounts to choosing what to believe rather than justifying one’s beliefs. That’s a monumentally bad idea on the face of it, and everyone who defends it just ends up redefining “faith” to mean doing something other than the justification-shucking I’m worried about, even though believing-without-justification is in fact what the overwhelming majority of the faithful do on a daily basis… Which leads to danger number two.
(2) Religious moderates are enablers: They provide social and political cover for the religious nutters, making it more difficult to criticize and oppose the extremists. Some Christian so-called moderates may say that the fundagelical nutters “go too far” politically, but actually agree with the nutters in principle on social causes like opposing gay rights and promoting monumentally stupid policies relating to human reproduction. (Forget the abortion debate and just look at abstinence education and Dubya’s stem cell research policies.) Even the most politically progressive religious believers still provide cover for their co-religionists, insofar as their very reasonableness serves to conceal the grotesque flaws in particular faith beliefs and faith as a way of arriving at beliefs in general. The often-ignored truth is that religious moderates actually use reason and evidence to arrive at a lot of their beliefs, then turn around and declare those (justified and justifiable) beliefs to be consonant with their faith – or even a product of their faith! Many moderate religious belivers use empathy, reasoning and basic principles about fairness and universal human worth to arrive at a moral position and then pluck a passage matching that moral position out of their preferred holy book (ignoring the other passages that contradict it) and say “This is what I believe, what The Book says right here. My faith provides sound moral guidance!” In doing so, the public face of their faith beliefs looks exactly the same as the beliefs of religious nutters who pick out entirely different passages from the same holy book to suit their ill-considered prejudices and petty hatreds.
(3) I’m suspicious of all this talk about religious moderates and attempt to divide believers up into “ordinary Muslims/Christians” and “fundamentalist extremists.” It turns out that an overwhelming majority of “ordinary Muslims” support and endorse suicide bombing (albeit a slightly less overwhelming majority than last year according to a recent poll). If the so-called moderates endorse fellow religious travelers blowing up random bus riders, I’m a bit suspicious that the distinction being made between Islam and Islamism is carrying water for an ill-considered political agenda and needs some holes poked in it. It’s a real distinction, but the USE of it in this context is very, very suspect.
In what way is under 40% everywhere except Palestine an “overwhelming majority” of Muslims? Last time I looked there were about 5 million Palestinians, vs. 1.5 billion Muslims.
How can one not distinguish between Islam and Islamism? One is a 1500-year-old religious tradition, which may be as nutty as a fruitcake, but has still been the basis of culture for a significant percentage of the world’s population; the other is an entirely contemporary cranky product of collision between dissatisfied half-modernised Arab middle classes and American imperial power. They are different, it is the attempt by people on both sides of the ‘Islamist’ conflict to make them the same which feeds the fire [along with all the other stuff that does likewise.]
“One is a 1500-year-old religious tradition, which may be as nutty as a fruitcake, but has still been the basis of culture for a significant percentage of the world’s population”
Hmm. A worse basis of culture than that percentage might have otherwise had, possibly. It’s not just ‘nutty as a fruitcake,’ it’s also violent and oppressive and tyrannical (don’t forget, you’re not allowed to leave; the penalty is death). All the monotheisms are crap, and Islam is the crappiest of the three.
missing word:
…its theocratic, Bible-based “morality” and politics are not a whole lot different from that which the medieval Roman Catholic hegemony of Europe or Calvinist Geneva enforced…
Anal retentively,
G
To get back to the original topic [:-)],
I just love the implicit assumptions underlying OB’s header:
“Those SMALL towns in CONSERVATIVE areas” (my crappy use of caps, obviously)
Think we’re perhaps forgetting that there is no such thing as a “bible belt” any more, hmm?
And that a depressingly large proportion of the American populace would self-identify as socially/religiously “conservative”, irrespective of locale…?
I know, there’s more chance to get away from it in cities like Seattle, San Fran, etc,etc, but still…
:-)
Yeah, but the lack of chance to get away from it is part of the point. That is why such places are so particularly unpleasant for atheists.
G. I must say those two posts were first rate, I agree absoloutly with you about islam,but I am still going to take you to task over christianity! In order for you to make the case that christianity is just as dangerous as islam you resort to the ridiculous notion that the Arch bishop of Canturbury is no better than Fred Phelps,so therefore christianity is no better than islam argument.This argument ignores the very central diferance between the two religions.e.g christianity co exists well with freedom where as islam only ever co exists with slavery and represion.
Also christianity spread for the most part by word of mouth, islam only ever has spread by the sword and flame!
Perhaps the most important distinction between Islam and Islamism is that it is quite possible to envisage the latter passing into history, through various forms of constructive engagement [or, for those who prefer it, extraordinary rendition, torture, and tactical nuclear strikes]. The chances of the former receding into the past are remote, to say the least. We haven’t even managed to get rid of Xianity, which as religions go is a big fat wuss…..
Richard –
The point is that faith is bad full stop. I don’t think G ever did make the point that Islam and Christianity are as dangerous as one another, and he certainly didn’t say anything akin to “Archbishop of Canterbury is just as bad as Fred Phelps”. If you are trying to suggest that that difference is analogous to the difference between Christianity (ABish of Canterbury) and Islam (Phelps) then you are just plain wrong.
IMO Islam is probably the worst of the lot, but I don’t think this is intrinsic to Islam, and I don’t think it will necessarily always be the case. There are various potential reasons for this, for example the existence of codified Sharia which must be appealing to theocracies. Another might be the lack of an ‘Islamic reformation’, perhaps due to the fact that the claim that the Qur’an is the undiluted word of God is less ridiculous on the face of it than any similar claim about the Bible. These tend towards a conservative and inflexible form of Islam, whereas Christianity seems like more of a broad church. But this is not to say that that is the only possible form of Islam – there are genuine Islamic moderates.
The claim that Islam only ever co-exists with slavery and repression whereas Xty goes well with freedom can only be maintained if you are using different usages of those terms for each religion. Xty often doesn’t go well with freedom (e.g. the Catholic church’s constant struggle to stop progress anywhere), and Islam can take moderate forms. You get fundamentalists and moderates of all stripes. I think Islam tends to co-exist with repression more, but I don’t think that has anything to do with it’s core text being worse than the Bible, it’s a bunch of other factors which might change with time.
I don’t know a lot about the history of Islam in particular, but your second point seems unlikely – certainly the point that Islam only ever spread by violence. It not obviously true that Christianity was spread primarily by word of mouth.
I hate to say it, but do you think perhaps this bias against Islam might be being fueled by Sky News? They have a tendency to only bring on the most hysterical and dreadful people as the “face of Islam” whenever there’s some debate. In general the station is nowhere near as bad as Fox News, but there are parallels – a tendency towards clash of civilizations hysteria and “the liberals have stolen Christmas!!” type alliance with Christianity.
Really – Richard – Thomas is right: you said G said something which he absolutely didn’t say. Don’t ever do that again. I’m serious. I know you think I pick on you (I know that because you’ve said it), and I regret that, but really: do not do that. I’m not picking on you: this is not hard to grasp: look at what you said:
“In order for you to make the case that christianity is just as dangerous as islam you resort to the ridiculous notion that the Arch bishop of Canturbury is no better than Fred Phelps”
Look carefully, then reflect on the fact that G doesn’t mention the Archbishop of Canterbury or Fred Phelps. Don’t ever do that again. I’m sorry to be harsh but there’s a principle here. If you can’t see it, then don’t comment.
I also quite clearly never said that Christianity is “just as” dangerous as Islam: I said that they are both dangerous, and said nothing about degree. In fact, my opinion is that at this point in history, Islam poses a much greater danger to the world’s overall peace and well-being. But here in the States, Christianity is a much more pressing problem.
I’m not so much angry as puzzled by your bizarre Phelps/Archbishop argument. Yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury does oppose equal rights for homosexuals. But he’s not batshit crazy and full-to-overflowing with hate, as Fred Phelps clearly is. But they both base their immoral, anti-human rights position on their Christian faith – so even though they are not equally bad, they are both bad for the same basic reason. If I had actually compared them in any way, the comparison would have been exactly the same as the comparison I made between Christianity and Islam: Both dangerous and wrong for the same basic reason, with no claim being made that the dangers are equivalent in any way.
I protest G. did say that moderate christians were the enablers of fundamentalist christians and he said pretty much the same again in his post answering me,all I did was choose an example of a moderate christian and a crazy one.
Thomas, my bias against moslems is fueled by the actions of individual moslems not sky news.
G. how can you make the claim that the Arch bishop has an anti human rights position?
Richard, all you did was claim G said something he didn’t say; you don’t get to protest, because you don’t get to put words in people’s mouths. That’s not negotiable.
No very great improvement since first appearance – goading accusations of Jew-hatred prompted by criticism of Israeli government policy.
_
Richard, for some person or group to “enable” others means that they give them help doing something bad. It doesn’t mean that the enablers are “just as bad as” the person they enable. It does mean that the enabler is part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
To give the classic example, someone who enables an alcoholic is someone who gives the alcoholic help and support in ways that that make it easier for the alcoholic to keep drinking, rather than helping the alcoholic stop drinking. That does not make the enabler an alcoholic, obviously. Nor does it make them responsible for the alcoholic’s drinking: The alcoholic is and must be responsible for his or her own actions. But it still matters that the enabler makes the problem worse instead of better: The enabler is morally responsible for contributing to the problem, even if the primary responsibility for the problem itself (alcoholism) lies elsewhere (with the alcoholic).
Similarly, moderate religious believers speak and act in ways which make it more difficult for everyone else to oppose the agenda of religious extremists – and they sometimes even directly support agendas they are supposedly too “moderate” to advocate themselves – rather than making any positive contribution to the fight against fundamentalism. That is why I call them “enablers.” Saying that moderate religious adherents “enable” fundamentalists does not make them fundamentalists, and it does not make them responsible for the crimes and depredations of religious fanatics. But the moderate believers do deserve criticism for giving aid and comfort to their more radical fellow believers, which they often do in various ways.
Stop and actually think about this before reacting any further: When a moderate, respectable chap like the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks out publicly and repeatedly against equal rights for gays, do you think he is helping oppose the agenda of a lunatic like Fred Phelps, or helping advance that agenda? Clearly the latter.
That isn’t to say that the Archbishop thinks he’s helping Phelps or wants to advance Phelps’ agenda. Nevertheless, his actions do in fact support and advance bigotry against gays. When a respected person like the Archbishop opposes gay rights, it makes the extremist position of someone like Phelps seem just a little bit less extreme, less obviously just wrong – at least in the eyes of those who think of the Archbishop as a person whose opinion deserves respect (which doesn’t include me, but probably does include millions of “moderate” religious believers).
I never said or implied that the AB of C & Phelps were morally equivalent, and so OB is right that you are just making stuff up and attributing it to me. But when stripped of the false moral equivalence (which I never implied), your made-up example turns out to be a good one to illustrate my argument, not to oppose it.
To put this back on topic, small-town America isn’t necessarily chock-full of Christian fundamentalist and extreme religious nutters – although careful observers should note (and worry) that the more fundamentalist sects of Christianity are the fastest-growing, here and abroad. But even where new fundamentalist/evangelical churches aren’t popping up like weeds, the U.S. is full of so-called “moderate” Christians who either implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) endorse or give cover to the agendas of the religious extremists. In terms of American politics and the power of the Christian right, they are definitely a huge part of the problem rather than being any part of the solution.
And in terms of personal experience living among them, the so-called moderate Christians are only marginally more comfortable neighbors than the nutters: They’re just as likely blindly presume you share their religious delusions, and just as likely to treat you like you’re infected with something nasty and contagious when you let them know that you’re a non-believer.
Richard –
What actions precisely would you be talking about?
I don’t think looking at the actions of individual Muslims can give you a solid base for a bias against Islam per se, because any religion are going to have a level of internal variation. Lots of individual Muslims do horrific violent things which are incompatible with freedom, but then again so do Christians – and some Muslims and some Christians (and Sikhs, Jews, Hindus) are perfectly peaceful and tend to let other people be. And there are a lot of people in some kind of middle position.
It seems to me that the reasons that violence seems more prevalent in Muslim countries is probably to do with the situation most Muslims find themselves in (that is an explanation, not an excuse btw). I would suggest that more Muslims than Christians live in warzones that the media pays attention to, so violence is bound to seem more prevalent. Islam might have a role to play in the violence, but to make it a main causal factor would probably be a mistake.
Some of the most horrific practices attributed to Islam don’t necessarily have anything to do with the core texts and are cultural practices – FGM and a some of the “honour killings” for example. The Qur’an and Hadith sanction some of awful, evil things, but sexual abuse, rape, torture and murder of your daughter because you don’t like her boyfriend/husband are not among them. This would suggest to me that a situational/social explanation is at least partly appropriate (although religion may play a part).
Thomas the reason that moslems live in war zones is because moslems start wars with their neibours!
G. if you enable a criminal are you not as bad as the criminal?
Are you saying that gay mariage is a human right G.because other than that I cant recall the Arch bishop speaking out on the isue of gay rights.
The Arch I haven’t followed much, but I understand he is likely to find his church split soon. His part, the part willing to ordain gay bishops, is much the smaller. The larger African and international parts are much more traditional.
My own favourite teaching of his is that civil disobedience is acceptable in fighting injustice – so my obedience to laws I find unjust is optional. Thanks Arch!
Of course, he said that in the context of protesting against the invasion of Iraq.
Richard wrote this:
Also christianity spread for the most part by word of mouth, islam only ever has spread by the sword and flame!
| Richard. | 2007-07-28 – 08:11:21 |
and he might want to read up on the spread of Islam into South East Asia. G raised an interesting point about Islam being the basis of cultures. In theses threads Islam tends to be equated with the middle eastern practice, very little commentary or understanding of the SEA versions.
Chris you said in a much more eloquent way what I was trying to say to G.thank you, I disagree that the person who enables a criminal is not responsible for the crime,if someone keeps quiet about a rapist or child molester they are just as culpable as the perpetrator in my opinion!
O.B. A while ago I said you always jump on me,that was unfair I should have said that you sometimes jump on me because for the most part you have been very fair to me.
Chris I think what the Arch bishop had in mind was the sort of civil disobedience of the Martin Luther King variety, that has a long and proud history of fighting injustice.
Although the Iraq war was not an injustice!
Richard –
“Thomas the reason that moslems live in war zones is because moslems start wars with their neibours!”
It’s almost certainly futile to try and talk to you about this if you already have already convinced yourself of such a strong causal connection, regardless of the massive number of other plausible causes, but I think it’s fair to say that you have some kind of prejudice on this front. But I will anyway. From the way you are going on about Islam it would seem that they should have some kind of monopoly on warmongering, but there’s the unfortunate anomaly of the Xtn George “God told me to” Bush. I think you are perhaps, dare I say it, being a bit reductionist what with assuming that wars involving Muslims must have been started because of Islam – I’m not especially well acquainted with foreign affairs, but it would seem to me that neither of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan were started by Muslims. Not that that gives Muslims carte blanche to do whatever they want, and not that that means I will side with them necessarily. But it seems obvious that some Muslims in those countries will have engaged in no warmongering until their country was attacked, and then may have become engaged in violence – this may be connected to their religion, but it seems counterintuitive to the point of absurdity to say that they became involved solely because of the nature of Islam (which I think is what your argument implies, correct me if I’m wrong please), in a way that an Xtn resident wouldn’t have (had I or A been Xtn countries).
“G. if you enable a criminal are you not as bad as the criminal?”
This seems to be straightforwardly not the case, particularly where there is no intention to enable the criminal (as in the case under discussion).
DFG –
Focus on monotheisms from my POV is that I know a lot more about them and have a more worked out view of them. I still expect that polytheistic and Eastern religions would have bad effects, and I can think of a couple off the top of my head, but I’m not as confident having an argument about them.
So Thomas it is just a coincidence that aprox 90% of the wars going on at the present involve moslems fighting with their neibours? Afganistan was atacked for the fact that the islamic goverment of that country alowed the training and harbouring of the murderous thugs who carried out 9/11,after 9/11 they were given the chance to hand over Bin Laden ect but they chose not to do so,The alies had no choice but to then atack them! I thought George Bush went to war in Iraq because of Haliburton,the neo cons,Israel and oil not because God told him to. I dont mean to be ofensive but it kind of frightens me that there are people who will go to almost any lengths to explain away the obvious conection between islam and the extreme violence that it spawns, rather than risk being thought a bigot.
Why haven’t you all learned by now that it’s a total waste of time? Notice the persistent misspelling despite your presenting perfect models in your responses – in large or in little things, stubbornly unwilling to learn anything at all. Well, I suppose, not a total waste – an exercise for the responders and an education for us all.
_
At least I comment not just pop in every few weeks to sneer!
‘ aprox 90% of the wars going on at the present involve moslems fighting with their neibours?’
Link? It depends on how you define a war, of course, but I would be astonished if your figures are accurate. What source are you using?
I hope you didn’t just make the number up.
I never said there was no connection at all (in fact I have gone to great lengths to posit that there might be), I just don’t think that *in itself*, Islam is the root of the violence. That is to say that firstly, the type of Islam which is predominant atm is not necessarily the only form of Islam which can exist – there could be more moderate forms which are as damaging or less damaging than Xty. I might be wrong, but you seemed to be suggesting that this wasn’t the case, that Islam was innately worse. If America does get taken over by hard right Xtn theocrats (which I severely doubt will happen), I’m sure the weakness of your pro Xtn position will become clearer.
My second point was to say that Islam may have some causal factor in the wars that Muslims are involved in, but that it seems counterintuitive to say that it is the main reason or the only reason. There will be a complex web of situational factors involved in the causation of the war. I can’t bring myself to assume that given the same situation, except that both parties in a given conflict were non-Islamic, that the war wouldn’t have gone ahead. So I don’t think it’s an entire coincidence, but it might be something to do with both the predominance of Islam and the likelihood of war to have some kind of common cause? I just don’t see the evidence for your strong causal claim. If you can provide it then fine, as it stands, I’m not giving you any significant rival in terms of the evidence provided.
But now I’m just repeating myself. Also, what Don said.
Sigh.
Richard, if you weren’t a friend of Jeremy’s I would just unceremoniously delete most of your comments. These arguments are a waste of space and of TPM’s money. I’m glad you like B&W (seriously), but again, you really need to slow down, think before you type, look for evidence, think some more. You should also use a spell checking program – I know, you don’t know how to copy and paste; well learn! You’re a plumber, obviously you know how to do technical things; just learn how to copy and paste, it’s dead easy. You told Adam “At least I comment not just pop in every few weeks to sneer!” – but that’s not automatically a virtue. I would much rather you commented less and did it much more carefully.
Still deleting my posts in your school-marmish way – “Don’t ever do that again. I’m serious. I know you think I pick on you”. Yes, yes, that was to Richard.
I stand by – and am forced to repeat – the point that you expect standards of others (eg. Richard) that you do not impose on yourself.
DFG to Richard. “and he might want to read up on the spread of Islam into South East Asia”. Kettle calling the pot black?
OK then, Scralletan.
Explain my sooty covering.
Do you get your information from the strange polemics (or more accurately rants) on Islam-watch?
Or do you agree with Richard’s point re: the spread of Islam?
Do you mean the ‘sooty covering’ you relentlessly have from all the white-flies, black-flies, mealy-bugs and other insects, that all over you are crawling? Suffice, it to say, to you DFG, it really needs from me no B&W rationalization.
Or, do you mean the blackness on the steaming black “kettle” of your Black Sabbath soul?
“Do you get your information from the strange polemics”
No, from the eeeeeerie poltergeist – Polemarchus.
What *are* you ranting about, Scrallettan?
Unless this is your idea of Polmarchian justice. Very forceful it is, too. Oh yes.
Care to engage the question re: Spread of Islam into SEAsia, or is it back to your bottle of cheap whisky?
Listen to me, read my lips, schoolmammmmmmmmmsterish, DFG. Point your school-rod in the direction of your Blaaaaack Saaaaaabbath sqeaaaaamish scraaaaaawly school board. Then afterward go take a rage-boy dip in the blaaaaaaaaaack seaaaaaaaaa. Mind tho’you don’t go spreadin’ any of them ere blaaaaaaaaaaack germs. Or, we’ll all be at sea sipping cheap plonk.
Thought not.
But your posts obviously make you happy, so more power to you.
“More power to you.” You too, TM. Keep ranting on in your schoolmaster-ish way. It obviously makes you happy. Did you behave in the same way towards your students in the classroom? Who in their right mind would want to join you in a sane blog communication? I for one wouldn’t.
You bore the pants off me.