Charming fellow (follow the link):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amorrow

Good to know Sloan's "fans" are literally fascists.

Nothing to be seen. User AMorrow has been blocked indefinitely.

click thru to link [1] for the reason

wrote:
Charming fellow (follow the link):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amorrow

Good to know Sloan's "fans" are literally fascists.

Bill, what leads you to that conclusion?

click thru to link [1] for this charming passage:

The German High Command knew how to maintain order and discipline.
You screw up, I take a real, live bystander and shoot him in the head.
[[Michael Sylvester]]. It is that simple and it is your fault. Please
notify me before you add any more vfd's to pages that I have created.
We negotiate first from now on, buddy.

wrote:
click thru to link [1] for this charming passage:

The German High Command knew how to maintain order and discipline.
You screw up, I take a real, live bystander and shoot him in the head.
[[Michael Sylvester]]. It is that simple and it is your fault. Please
notify me before you add any more vfd's to pages that I have created.
We negotiate first from now on, buddy.

Yes, I read that. It's obviously intended metaphorically. I think
it's quite a stretch to conclude anything about the writer's politics
from it, much less anything about Sloan.
I may be on a fool's errand, trying to give Parr and Sloan any
benefit of the doubt, but there are so many genuine grounds for
criticizing them that I hardly think we need bother with the sort of
contrived or weak attempts seen here recently.

wrote:
click thru to link [1] for the reason

Cripes, do you really expect me to READ the back-and-forth comments of
moderators whose frame of reference I don't share?

David Ames

OK, by "fascist" I did not mean "state capitalist," but rather someone
who is sympathetic to "an autocratic system [...] often accompanied by
[...] forcible suppression of all criticism or opposition." Note the
internal wiki link (now inactive) in the cited passage.

NPOV is a good thing: the article still needs work....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...did=2000 8931

Uh, yeah.

I may be on a fool's errand, trying to give Parr and Sloan any
benefit of the doubt, but there are so many genuine grounds for
criticizing them that I hardly think we need bother with the sort of
contrived or weak attempts seen here recently.

I grant your larger point that this is merely slung mud and not a
genuine ground for attacking Sloan (who is about to out persons as yet
unnnamed, and whose identity I really don't know, as homosexuals).

Hey, it's clean mud.