'Dear Mr. President' letter is a hoax.

November 8, 2002 1:25 PM

'Dear Mr. President' letter is a hoax. You may remember the story of President Bush writing an author and telling him that his book was "unpatriotic and ridiculous and just plain bad writing"... [more inside]
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood (64 comments total)

The author now admits that "I never sent my book, `Dear Mr. President,' to the president, and I never received a letter from him. My claims that I received a letter from the president were meant as satire, and were intended to be perceived as such." Mr. Hudson, the author, was caught when the White House learned of his story and called The Courant, the first newspaper to report the letter, and other newspapers that ran the story to deny it.

The author not only made up a slanderous lie to sell his book, but is yet to remove the lie from his website selling the book.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:26 PM on November 8, 2002

Mr. Hudson sounds like an ideal candidate to replace Harvey Pitt.
posted by machaus at 1:29 PM on November 8, 2002

Well a few people stated in the old thread they thought it was a hoax, it certainly seemed outlandish at the time to me and I can't say I'm surprised to hear it was fake.

It also kinda reminds me of the cover of Neal Pollack's book, the copy I got had a cover graphic that stated "future prize winning compliation" in a way that looked legit when I first picked it up (as if the book at won a real book award already).
posted by mathowie at 1:32 PM on November 8, 2002

Of course it was a hoax, Bush's response would have called the author "unpatriotistic"
posted by Pollomacho at 1:39 PM on November 8, 2002

Steve, how exactly is this not a political post? Just askin'...

(Sounds like great marketing to me. Of course it did when I read the original thread and thought "hoax" too.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:41 PM on November 8, 2002

Damn, looks like I was too hasty in awarding the Annoying Author award for the month...

Wulfgar!: Come on, play fair. Steve didn't say he wouldn't post about politics, he said he wouldn't add his already well-known views to existing threads. And this isn't a political post, it's news about an author's misbehavior. Personally, I was glad to know about it.
posted by languagehat at 1:45 PM on November 8, 2002

Well, Wulfgar, It's not political, because there is no argument to be had about it. The guy lied, he got caught. No two ways about it. I thought it was an appropriated update since many people, like yourself, had questioned weather it was real or not...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:47 PM on November 8, 2002

Thank you languagehat.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:48 PM on November 8, 2002

Steve, how exactly is this not a political post?

While I've read some of the threads on MeTa re: Matt's frustrations with how MeFi handles with political issues, I haven't seen anything explicitly forbidding political threads.

Has there been an explicit edict on this? Just curious...
posted by nobody_knose at 1:49 PM on November 8, 2002

Oh, I see now, the comment was directed at somthing steve said, not some Mefi-wide rule. Nevermind.
posted by nobody_knose at 1:51 PM on November 8, 2002

I agree. This is about lies made up to sell books, not about politics. Kinda like what Ann Coulter did.

Wait a second...
posted by ptermit at 1:58 PM on November 8, 2002

I thought it was an appropriated update since many people, like yourself, had questioned w(h)ether it was real or not...

Ahem? No, I didn't. And what makes it political (which somehow equals argumentative in what you've responded) is your assessment that this was a "slanderous lie". I don't see at any point that it wasn't the exact satire that Hudson claims it to be. Again, I claim that its just good marketing. If you wish to portray it as "slanderous", perhaps you can provide the links to criminal charges or lawsuits being filed? Is this form of marketing, perhaps, unpatriotic?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:00 PM on November 8, 2002

I think its the spin that makes it political "made up a slanderous lie" not so much the post itself. That, said, it is pretty sleazy of the author, but I suppose referring to it as slanderous would be a matter for the courts.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:01 PM on November 8, 2002

Oh Jesus God, now we get to argue over whether or not every post is "political"...

wait, was that statement political?
posted by Ty Webb at 2:01 PM on November 8, 2002

Wow, I think wulfgar and I must be on the same wavelength, scary.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:02 PM on November 8, 2002

Wulfgar: It *was* a slanderous lie.

Lie? No question.

Slanderous? It was a lie, it was malicious, and it was attempting to cast Bush in a poor light. Sounds like slander to me.
posted by ptermit at 2:03 PM on November 8, 2002

What a nutsack the author is. Just goes to show that time and time again, Bush is smarter than the vast majority of his critics who call him an idiot.
posted by cell divide at 2:04 PM on November 8, 2002

Wulfgar: And the lack of a lawsuit does not mean that there's been no crime.
posted by ptermit at 2:07 PM on November 8, 2002

ptermit: satire is protected free speech.
posted by jpoulos at 2:07 PM on November 8, 2002

How exactly does this prove that Bush is smarter than anyone? Does this have anything to do with Bush other than as a passive victim of someone's marketing scheme? Sounds like it was a pretty smart idea if it sold books. I don't necessarily agree with his methods, but intelligence and morality are two vastly different issues and no one has made any stabs at Bush's on this one.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:08 PM on November 8, 2002

also, slander is not a "crime". it is a civil infraction. also, bush's status as the most famous man in the world pretty much makes him fair game for any "attack". Otherwise, guys like trent lott would be disgraced and penniless after the lies they told during the clinton impeachment.
posted by jpoulos at 2:11 PM on November 8, 2002

What a nutsack the author is.

Yeah, makin' money just sucks, doesn't it?

it was malicious

That would be for a court to decide.

Ty Webb, calm down please. I wasn't challenging MeFi, I was challenging its resident "Devil's advocate" to practice what he preaches. This post had an agenda; I just believe we ought to be honest about it.

Wulfgar: And the lack of a lawsuit does not mean that there's been no crime.

Actually, yes it does.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:17 PM on November 8, 2002

Wow, the Courant is having a really bad week.
posted by turbodog at 2:19 PM on November 8, 2002

jpoulos: True, but is this really satire? Can I go around in public claiming that, say, Bill Clinton sent me a love note and tried to seduce me and then, *days* after it's in all the papers, say "just kidding?"

And statements like "I was in shock. Very surprised," Hudson said Tuesday. "I didn't think it was real at first. I mean, who would? But once you hold the thing and read it, there's no doubt in your mind. I mean, nobody could fake the authority of that letter." make it sound like active deception rather than satire.

And the fact that he stood to gain financially from the hoax?

Still smells like slander to me.
posted by ptermit at 2:20 PM on November 8, 2002

Is this form of marketing, perhaps, unpatriotic?

And, since this is the real heart of the issue before us, I reiterate the question. What did Hudson do wrong? Lie to sell books? Dupe the foolish? Make fun of the President? What is heinous here?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:22 PM on November 8, 2002

Wulfgar: Then I guess statements like "60 percent of crimes go unreported" is an inherent contradiction. And I guess that the world disappears when I close my eyes, too.
posted by ptermit at 2:24 PM on November 8, 2002

IF the letter Bush had supposedly written had been funny, over the top, or interesting any way other than the fact that it was a letter from the president, I would have a different opinion. But since the letter traded only on the idea that Bush would have had the inclination (or time) to castigate an author, it was a failure.
posted by cell divide at 2:25 PM on November 8, 2002

Another hoax, from the same anthill: Dave Eggers registered mcsweeneys.com, .net and .org, with .net being the official site for his literary mag McSweeney's. mcsweeneys.com, meanwhile, was dressed up to look like your prototypical obnoxious family site, giving the impression that some McSweeney family simply got there first. Then Eggers made some fuss about not being able to pay to maintain the website, and they were going to shut it down, but then announced that the McSweeney family, who had found the .net site because a lot of people looking for Eggers & co tried .com first and left messages, would serve the .net's content on their .com site. It went on and on, as was reported as true by gullible media types. Eggers did well as a hoaxster by maintaining the illusion of the .com site for many, many months before the "merger."

I know this is old news to most MeFiers, but I thought I'd recap it for those who didn't know.
posted by blueshammer at 2:25 PM on November 8, 2002

Sorry when I read "I read the original thread and thought 'hoax' too." I mistakenly assumed that you had posted said thoughts in the old thread. My mistake.

slanderous lie.

Lie: An untrue declaration

Slander: The expression of injurious, malicious statements about someone.

It meets both qualifications. And if it is a crime or not, is besides the point. Yes Bush maybe fair game, but it does not make it any less incorrect. This shows poorly on the author.

How exactly does this prove that Bush is smarter than anyone?
It doesn't, as far as I know. All it proves is that Hudson is a liar.

This post only has an agenda, if you want it to Wulfgar, and you seem to desire that.

But I regress...

Why must everything turn in to a fight?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:26 PM on November 8, 2002

I think you mean libel, smells like libel, this was a written statement defaming someone's character, that's libel. Anyway, saying that his statement was malicious and slanderous, is slander.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:27 PM on November 8, 2002

Or not depending on your point of view...
posted by Pollomacho at 2:29 PM on November 8, 2002

how lame.
posted by delmoi at 2:32 PM on November 8, 2002

Wulfgar: Fraud is intentional deception or misrepresentation that could result in some benefit to the perpetrator. Slander is the deliberate statement of falsehoods with an intent to defame somebody. You can make a strong case for either charge. That's what's so heinous.

And Pollomacho, I think the statement was spoken to a reporter so it's slander, though I guess that you could go for libel on the website, too.
posted by ptermit at 2:33 PM on November 8, 2002

Wulfgar: Then I guess statements like "60 percent of crimes go unreported" is an inherent contradiction.

ptermit, yes it is. Anyone can claim that someone has broken the law, but until its been shown in a court of law, it isn't true. Until its been reported to an authority (the police) it isn't true. I actually assisted in collating data for a rape study where women claimed that every time they had slept with a man it had been rape, whether they'd consented or not. The statistic you proffer is pure FUD. Please don't throw out a hackneyed innuendo as if its supposed to prove that the most powerful man in the free world can't find recourse against the author of a book. That's foolish, and I think you know it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:41 PM on November 8, 2002

fwiw, it would be consistent if there were no crimes.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:45 PM on November 8, 2002

I think we need to be easy on Dear Mr. Hudson. I saw him read in Minneapolis, and I think he's a sweet and gentle and funny guy -- he's not a war writer, but a short story writer with a droll sense of humor and a better sort of MFA-program cleverness.

I knew he was pushing the McSweeney's gag envelope a bit too hard at his reading (and by extension, w/the President letter -- how'd that get by Knopf, btw?) when he held up a surplus eastern european gas mask and said the best overall letter to the president would earn this gas mask, which he had worn "much of the time (he) wrote these stories." Having worn a gas mask (in the Gulf War), I can tell you that you wouldn't want to wear one for very long under any circumstances, and especially not for hours -- the sweat would be built up so much that fish could swim past your eyeballs.

Chalk it up to experience -- and let's hope Gabe Hudson's sense of irony extends to himself; and his sense of injustice to those who may feel hurt by his hoax.
posted by minnesotaj at 2:47 PM on November 8, 2002

This is unquestionably a hoax.

But is it satire?

1. A composition, generally poetical, holding up vice or folly to reprobation; a keen or severe exposure of what in public or private morals deserves rebuke; an invective poem; as, the Satires of Juvenal.

2. Keeness and severity of remark; caustic exposure to reprobation; trenchant wit; sarcasm.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Let's face it-- I can't imagine The President suing anyone for slander or libel under such frivolous conditions. It did absolutely no harm to President Bush and I am guessing that is exactly what the author was banking on.

The question is how much harm--or good-- did it do to the author? We'll never now how many more books he sold, if any, due to his lie. And what damage this may do to his future, both private and public future. For example, imagine if he ever has to testify in court about anything!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:02 PM on November 8, 2002

OT: How odd. The on-line dictionary apparently misspelled "keenness".
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:04 PM on November 8, 2002

*sigh*

First, for what it's worth, Hudson's whole book is, in substantial part, satire. The book's title story ran in the The New Yorker; it's about a Gulf War vet who starts to develop a third ear. The entire story is in the form of a letter to George H.W. Bush from the vet. So it's not like the themes of absurdity and Bush presidents weren't already intertwined here. [Plus, given that context, a dour reply from W. would actuall be less overboard. After all, it's his dad being mocked in the story.]

Second, the multiple-McSweeney's-site affair was only allegedly collusive. Nic Musolino -- the McSweeneys-dot-org guy -- certainly seems like a real person, distinct from Dave Eggers and co., and perhaps even funnier. Gerry McSweeney and his family are tougher to figure out, but you don't need to get to the level of "hoax" to explain everything; you need only posit Eggers feeling goofy and talking them into trying out an experiment of combining the sites.

You have to remember also that this took place during and shortly after his book tour, when the Dave Eggers craze was just about hitting its real stride. This is before the publishing empire, before the movie deal. Stories of financial distress at the journal aren't entirely implausible.

I wrote up a chronology of the whole saga in June of 2000. It's hard to tell for certain from this distance, but the word that comes to mind is "lark," not "hoax."
posted by grimmelm at 3:04 PM on November 8, 2002

It's not political, because there is no argument to be had about it. The guy lied, he got caught. No two ways about it.

Then if we follow your logic Iran Contra is not political, too
No two ways about it

btw, Steve, don't comment on this -- I don't want to make you break your self-imposed political threads embargo -- but please do read it, (I'm sure you agree that failure to obey the law by reporting insider stock sales is almost as bad as concocting a dumb and easily found out hoax)

It is one of the enduring mysteries of President Bush's business career: Who bought his stock in a struggling energy company 12 years ago when Bush needed the cash - and just before the Harken Energy shares began to drop in value?
answer: Quest Advisory, a New York City investment firm run by a major Republican contributor

(btw there's also a real peach: "The company did in fact rebound in 1991 briefly, as a result of an oil price increase during the Gulf War, but then continued to founder".)
posted by matteo at 3:08 PM on November 8, 2002

Wulfgar: It seems that you know little of the law. A crime is an act punishable by law, the absence of a trial does not remove the crime. If your view was correct, then in a homicide followed by the suicide of the perpetrator no crime would have been committed !
posted by daveg at 3:12 PM on November 8, 2002

You know matteo, this has nothing to do with Iran Contra, or some Republican contributor and sorted dealing with Bush, no matter how much you want it to be.

Your comments have no place in this thread, other than to deflect attention from the topic at hand. I mean tell me, what the fuck does some possible shady businesses deal that Bush, may or may not be involved in, have to do with an author creating a hoax to sell a book? NOTHING! But you will never get that through your thick skull. Comments like that, and that alone, are what make discussion here impossible. You can not deny that the author lied, he admitted it, so you attempt to turn the discussion to something that you would rather harp about. If you do not have anything constructive to say about the topic of the thread: DON'T FUCKING REPLY!

I swear to God, I could post "The sky is blue, the grass is green, and pigs can't fly" and you and your cohort would find some way to disagree.

You make me sick...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:39 PM on November 8, 2002

I swear to God, I could post "The sky is blue, the grass is green, and pigs can't fly" and you and your cohort would find some way to disagree.


Chill out. I've actually agreed with your point if not your method. If you let Mefi get emotional, it will kick your ass. Trust me, this isn't about you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:54 PM on November 8, 2002

Yeah, daveg is right. Under Wulfgar!'s definition, the Kennedy assassination wasn't a crime, since Oswald (or anyone else, for that matter) was never tried.

Actually, Wulfgar! seems to be proposing two independent standards for determining if a crime has occurred. Apparently, a crime occurs if:
A. Someone is convicted of a crime in a court of law. ("...until its been shown in a court of law, it isn't true.")
OR
B. Someone reports a crime. ("Until its been reported to an authority (the police) it isn't true.")

At least these seem to be proposed as independent criteria, even though A usually implies B (there's a report before a trial). Then, however, Wulfgar! goes on the explain that women reporting to be raped in a study (s)he helped perform weren't in fact raped at all--that is, no crime was committed, even though a crime was reported. So maybe standard B doesn't count after all.

For the sake of simplicity, then, let's just ignore B and take a closer look at standard A. Let's imagine the situation of man wrongly convicted of a crime (rape, for instance), who is later exonerated (say, when his accuser recants and admits consent). Keeping to standard A, the crime was "true" following the conviction, but ceased to be "true", according to the will of the court, upon the exoneration. This is an absurd situation! Our imaginary convict is Schroedinger's Defendent, simultaneously guilty and innocent until the court reaches a decision and the wavefunction of his guilt collapses. Then, the court changes its mind, and the wavefunction collapses in the other direction. This standard does away with objective reality and leans "truth" upon the whims of a judge. To alleviate this difficulty, I propose a third standard:
C. A crime is committed when someone breaks the law.

A trivial inspection will reveal that standard C is a necessary and sufficient condition for the commission of a crime, allowing us to do away with standards A and B altogether.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:29 PM on November 8, 2002

*sigh*

Steve, when you've calmed down, taken a deep breath, please be so kind as to read my comment in the original thread:
I wrote that it looked like a prank. Didn't I?

Then, why do you lose your shit and claim that I "can not deny that the author lied, he admitted it, so you attempt to turn the discussion to something that you would rather harp about". Why Steve?

you and your cohort
Who's my "cohort"?
If political threads make you this mad, avoid them , really.

You make me sick...
Now you're flattering me...
Anyway, cheers, you're the constructive one in this discussions, right, like when you said "fuck you" to that user a few weeks ago? Really constructive. Thank God you signed in and taught the community a few lessons about good manners
posted by matteo at 4:46 PM on November 8, 2002

Well if you wrote that it was a prank then, why come and shit all over this thread. A simple "I guess I was correct when I guessed it to be a prank" would have been sufficient.


Grow up...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:00 PM on November 8, 2002

would you guys just get it over with and sleep together?
posted by Ty Webb at 5:11 PM on November 8, 2002

Damn, have to eat my words again. When I said that "Spelling errors are thought errors" was the silliest thing I'd ever seen on MeFi, I had no way of knowing somebody was going to say that there are no crimes without lawsuits. Remember that maxim, Wulfgar!, next time somebody grabs your wallet and disappears.

Steve_at: You're slipping off the wagon. Take a deep breath and back away, repeating "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but the attacks of rabid MeFites can never hurt me." We at Political Commenters Anonymous understand these slips, and I'm here if you need backup...
posted by languagehat at 5:37 PM on November 8, 2002

This should have been a pretty generic update-type post. It's interesting how it devolved into the post with the second highest number of comments (so far).

Claiming that this is satire is just after-the-fact spin. Had he posted a goofy letter written in crayon to his website it might have been satire. There was no wink-wink nudge-nudge quality to this, nothing over the top, no signal that it was anything other than the truth.

Except, perhaps, this from his webiste:

2. Please also know that several high-profile journalists as well as one well-known attorney are aware of the current circumstances, so that should Gabe suddenly be "detained," or disappear, immediate and very public action will follow.

Of course, this probably only seemed over-the-top to me. :) I actually thought about posting that quote to the original post but I just figured it would be accected as a legitimate concern of the author.
posted by probablysteve at 6:17 PM on November 8, 2002

The author not only made up a slanderous lie to sell his book, but is yet to remove the lie from his website selling the book.


I'm only going to say this once. In media law, slander is something said, such as yelling "Hey you jerk at someone." Libel is the printed (or broadcast) equivalent to slander.

Why are broadcast statements considered libel- instead of slander? The best explanation I've heard is because most broadcast programs are written before they air (ie. have scripts- including news shows).

Which- by the way- means that Ann Coulter should buy a copy of the AP stylebook the next time she tries thinking up a title.
posted by drezdn at 6:20 PM on November 8, 2002

Why must everything turn in to a fight?

You are preachy, holier than thou, you spin your own comments--and you absolutely have to have the last word when people call you on your spin even if it takes twenty comments a thread. On occasion, like here, you throw tantrums full of a lot of fucks and fuckings in all caps. Maybe you could practice more than preach from now on? In the meantime, switch to Sanka tonight.

This is a political thread, by the way. Which is why people called you on it after the way you went on and on in MetaTalk.
posted by y2karl at 6:27 PM on November 8, 2002

This is a political thread, by the way. Which is why people called you on it after the way you went on and on in MetaTalk.

excuse me. i know steve's political viewpoints, and of course everyone has thier own beliefs but i didn't see this post as necessarily pushing anything politcal until certain people began making accusations that it allegedly was. i was at first excited about this thread but once again its turned into another messy glob of yuk. imo, no fault of steves. attacks began immediately and steve defended himself.

I wasn't challenging MeFi, I was challenging its resident "Devil's advocate" to practice what he preaches. This post had an agenda; I just believe we ought to be honest about it.

once again, calling someone out because they post something that doesn't quite fit in with their own concept of right and wrong. and please, if anyone here can tell me that they truly practice what they preach (and be honest now) i would love to see a show of hands.

btw steve, i don't subscribe to much of your ideology, but i believe you offer something refreshing and needed here. kudos.
posted by poopy at 7:18 PM on November 8, 2002

The author not only made up a slanderous lie to sell his book, but is yet to remove the lie from his website selling the book.

What is being argued here is that very sentence, which torpedoed the whole post from the git go. The language is emotionally loaded and amounts to the very definition of fighting words. Without that sentence, the post was perfectly fine, would have made his point and garnered no call outs. And it should have been has yet, too. ;)
posted by y2karl at 7:37 PM on November 8, 2002

I'm with poopy.

drezdn, this could be slander, since it appears that he may have first said this while he was being interviewed. It's libel if he prints it or puts it on the air himself; if other parties publish it or put it on the air, then it's slander. If you yell a lie and someone else writes about it in the newspaper the next day, it doesn't change from slander to libel. If you say something false and defamatory in a press conference, it's still slander, even though you have reasonable foreknowledge that it will be put into print or on air. Also, "hey you jerk" isn't slander -- it's opinion. Slander has to be something verifiably false.

On the other hand, you're totally right about Ann Coulter.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 7:50 PM on November 8, 2002

Good find, Steve_at_Linwood. Unfortunately, this 'revelation' is just more publicity for this ethically-challenged fellow.
posted by sir walsingham at 7:55 PM on November 8, 2002

to repeat languagehat:

Come on, play fair. Steve didn't say he wouldn't post about politics, he said he wouldn't add his already well-known views to existing threads. And this isn't a political post, it's news about an author's misbehavior. Personally, I was glad to know about it.

yes, the post does involve a political figure and maybe steve had some devious plan behind all this, hoping to convert all the bush-bashers into born-again conservatives, but i seriously don't care. everyone who posts something here has certain principles that they feel strongly about (be it politics, religion, music, technology, whatever) and that will influence their choice of subject matter.

this particular post isn't inflammatory imo, even knowing steve's political viewpoints. it was simply an update on a previous [interesting] thread. and i was saddened to see so many of the comments focusing on the motive rather than the content.
posted by poopy at 7:57 PM on November 8, 2002

and i must admit, even through all the yelling and screaming, i actually learned something about slander vs. libel, a subject in which i am all so ignorant.
posted by poopy at 8:00 PM on November 8, 2002

A trivial inspection will reveal that standard C is a necessary and sufficient condition for the commission of a crime, allowing us to do away with standards A and B altogether.

mr roboto, you assume altogether too much. My comment was in response to the idea that 60% of all crimes go unreported. How, on Earth, is that provable? If its unreported, then its a crime only in someone's opinion. The rule of law dictates that a crime is commited when a law is broken. We agree. In an assasination, it is evidently true that a law has been broken. Can any show evidence of that in this case? No. Further more, you disregard that whole pesky business of innocent until proven guilty. I'm not saying that crimes don't occur without being reported. I am saying that calling someone a criminal without any proof but opinion is foolish. And finally, as has been pointed out, libel/slander aren't crimes at all, but rather civil violations.

My issue was, and remains, the rhetoric of Hudson's wrong doing with no proof of such. Did he lie? Of course. Was it PR? Obviously, yup. Was it henious and deserving of the revulsion of Metafistos everywhere? I'd like to see the case instead of the self-rightious assumptions. Wouldn't you?
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:19 PM on November 8, 2002

Yeah, but American Justice System aside, someone can be guilty without having been proven guilty in a court of law. If I murdered the milkman and buried him in my cellar, I'd be guilty of murder, even if I was never suspected of the crime. And I would know it. The concepts of "guilt" and "crime" can stand outside of the strict definitions provided to us by jurisprudence. It's a matter of perspective and, in the end I guess, semantics.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:59 PM on November 8, 2002

So, um, as noted above, we are debating a semantically loaded phrase from one self-sabotaging sentence, that without which, the post would have made its point sans all the subsequent rancor. See also Overdramatization. But some here, like the goddess Venus, step forth from the sea each monring a virgin renewed, conceptually and ear-wise--A man hears what he wants to hear/And disregards the rest... C'mon, this whole over-the-top, totally unnecessary slanderous lie crapola defeated what might have been a much more powerful point without it. What is so hard to get about that?

*sigh*
posted by y2karl at 2:45 AM on November 9, 2002

The overparsing of Steve's sentence with the intent of proving that his comment was political in nature amounts to high hilarity.

I find the post, the sentence, and the use of the word "slanderous" to be quite OK. Is it really worth roasting the poster and the post because you find the use of one out of 142 words in the post questionable? Ridiculous.

Contrary to one poster's assurances that, "this isn't about you (Steve)," I'd argue that that's exactly what it's about. The post was innocuous, one word was used to which some would object -- one word out of 142. If this wasn't a post by Steve, no one would have expended the energy they did to crucify it.
posted by syzygy at 5:06 AM on November 9, 2002

Oh, the hypocrisy!
posted by y2karl at 6:58 AM on November 9, 2002

hypocrisy
posted by poopy at 7:52 AM on November 9, 2002

Notice that Steve_at hasn't commented since this. Perhaps if we all imitate his self-restraint, this thread can either right itself or die in peace.
posted by languagehat at 9:10 AM on November 9, 2002