typical LRC flake

a “reader” asks bozo anthony gregory about a perceived “pro-Islam bias”. gregory reads this, but who remains “reader”? the lowly fuck not in lew’s dugout.

I wrote to the reader:

are you preening retards truly unaware of this subtle attempt to outline a hierarchy? surely even with your limited cognizance you could find a neutral way of referring to each side of a discussion. here’s one way i got around it.

the “reader” shtick might be semi-tenable if hack anthony gregory wrote worth a fuck. know how hard it is to become an LRC writer? not very (obvious). you lesser pukes should stow your down-from-the-mountain air, however slight.

any surprise that look-at-me douche boy splattered his four+ paragraph precious gem on the main blog page in full without continuation? typical move from the LRC psycho brigade despite longstanding proscription by lew in the blog guidelines. some of the dullards appear to think of themselves as rothbardian one-draft wunderkinds, obviously not even reading their entries after hitting “post”.

Tags: , , ,

Reply form

comments are enabled solely to discourage off-topic blather when i'm writing elsewhere. my wish is that no one comment here.

off topic? say it here or it'll be deleted. no spam. full censorship policy here.

update 20100729: generally, dunce comments from anonymous pussies no longer replied to. comments routed to spam queue may take weeks to publish, and sometimes be deleted accidentally from overlooking during review.

You must be logged in to post a comment.