On another note, I love the notion that there are two standards of conduct in the World-O-Cashuric: 

1. The one that applies at DD, whereby Glenn provides "private" guidance to Joe whenever he (Pilchesky) crosses a major line of conduct...you know, like calling Stacy Brown a "n___er"
2. The one that applies here, whereby Glenn provides open, public criticism whenever someone might cross the slightest of lines.
   

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Now wait just a gosh darned minute here. pilcheski points a finger, uses names, mentions addresses, phone numbers and job descriptions; follows people around and blatantly disparages anyone (and their families) who might have looked sideways at him ten years ago. You have no problem with that, Glenn? It's his civil right is it? Well, f^ck his civil right! Civil PRIVILEGE is more like it.

I happen to post that a certain blonde someone (whose name I don't even utter) makes my skin crawl. I use innuendo to voice an opinion and you've got a problem with that??? For all you know, the 'c' could stand for 'c'uddly, or 'c'ute, or 'c'harming. Now we all KNOW what word I meant and that is a word that I don't EVER use and let's be honest here, we all KNOW to whom I was directing that comment. I have a civil right too, Glenn; but I treat it as the PRIVILEGE it is. I don't like the woman or anything she stands for. I voiced an opinion, but masked it in innuendo.

So don't come in here all hepped up on your PD high horse and defend that SOB (son of a bitch) and act as though what I previously posted is in ANY way in the same category as ANYthing that DB (douche bag) may have ever posted. So stick that in your smoke and pipe it, counselor.

Jesus H. It's six oclock on a Saturday morning and I'm saying things like 'douche bag'. Thanks alot, Glenn.

Oh and by the way, I happen to LOVE Brian's posts about Konsil. Because of him I know what happened at the meedins without my having to sit through the Janet Evans Variety Show featuring her band of zany and mad-cap zealots.

Jesus H. It's six oclock on a Saturday morning and I'm saying things like 'douche bag'. Thanks alot, Glenn.

Yeah, I seem to have that effect on people.  My grandmother used to tell me the same thing.

GC

Forgive me for saying this Mr. Cashuric but the Doomers are just as guilty as the kids across the hall of slamming on peoples private lives and you know it. Les Spindler and Fay Franus do it on a regular basis ... and several others ... what about the behavior of Mary Ann Wardell right after the primary election ... that was nice. So don't say that they are above reproach ... because they certainly are not. Their behavior is what brings people like Brian out to do what he does. He is fed up ... tired of it and he's going to put it out there for what it really is.

You condone the behavior of them ... and well we and Brian are the evil ones ... well if what we are is evil and what they are is righteous .... then I'm a hell of a lot happier being evil.

Get over yourself Glenn!

If picking on bullies is considered "making fun", then so be it.  Now, would I "target" all of the people that Brian does in his updates?  No, but then again many of Brian's characterizations are not what I would consider "picking on" either. For example, making an observation about someone appearing disoriented is not "picking on", it's simply an observation.

As for actually "picking on", consider this case in point:  Brian's characterizations of Ozzie Quinn and Fay Franus.  Both are bullies, coming to konsil meetings obstensively to bash people who are guilty of the high crime of not being liked (by them).  Franus just loves to come and speak for me (with her "for the people" rant...she should be saying "for the person"...namely herself only instead), and for Joe Pilchesky...for whom she will apparently gladly read a script any day; Ozzie, the man who single handedly fiscally drove Habitat for Humanity into the ground loves to lecture konsil on, you guessed it, fiscal matters.  Based on that, I'd say that Franus and Ozzie are fair game for lampooning.

What Glenn is trying to do is to create some kind of moral equivalency between what Brian writes and what is written at DD.  That logic is flawed, to say the least.  To the best of my knowledge, Brian has never...

...used a grandchild of Janet Evans as a posting cannon-ball

...accused anyone of working to keep someone in prison

...accused anyone of causing a death (of a fireman, of children, of a city hall employee)

...has never race-baited ("Imported Jews" ring a bell Glenn????)

...encouraged stalking

...as never accused anyone of retal theft

...has never "accused" someone of being homosexual

...and I could go on, but the point is made.

What Brian writes is a lampoon of konsil meetings...I suggest treated it as such.

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Again.....Your making fun of people...call it what you want....so because he is "down playing" the bashing it is ok?? Please... Don't get me wrong these people don't speak for me...but com'on

doomers wrote:

---

Again.....Your making fun of people...call it what you want....so because he is "down playing" the bashing it is ok?? Please... Don't get me wrong these people don't speak for me...but com'on

---

Humor is subjective...my point has been that there is a big difference between a sometimes bad attempt at being funny (Brian) and the stuff that passes for serious discourse at DD and at council meetings.

Put another way, I don't think that Brian is attempting to harm anyone...that is not the case for many council speakers.  In fact, I'll say that Fay Franus speaks at council for the stated purpose of trying to harm Judy Gatelli & others.  For this she should be out bounds when it comes to someone trying to write a satirical review of Scranton City Council meetings?  I think not. 

If Fay and others want to play to the cameras at council meetings...which they do...then they need to be prepared for the reviews. 

 

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Let's try it this way since Doomers is having a difficult time assimilating.

EXAMPLE ONE: Doomers, I'm looking at you and I am chuckling because your hair is mussed, you have bird doo on your shoulder, your zipper is down and you have a mustard stain on your tie.

-- or --

EXAMPLE TWO: Doomers, get off your knees you (insert varied homosexual reference here). Your sister is a (insert promiscuous female slur here) and your father is cavorting about with his secretary (on company time no less), while your mother is doing the same thing with his best friend. Oh Yeah, you're fat, ugly AND stupid.

Now, the first is an example of what I (or Brian) might do. Point a finger and chuckle behind my hand at your misfortune. And eventually I'll tell you about it, so you'll not be the butt of someone else's joke(s).

The second example is all but quoting from across the hall. Which is the more malicious comment? Which is the more offensive comment? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your family is not like that. That they are good people who are kind and caring of one another's feelings. Think you'll get that same consideration at dd? Think again.