Adam, you absolutely missed my point! I wholeheartedly approve of you deleting the comment. The purpose of my post was to draw a comparison between this situation and your previous post about the Al-Jazeera controversy. Just as it is your legal right to delete obnoxious comments from a blog, I feel the citizens of Burlington are within their rights to refuse admission to Al-Jazeera if they so choose, for the exact same reason, without being accused of "censorship".

I think you would find it absurd if someone objected to your deletion on the grounds of "hearing all sides"; but that is the specious argument (in my opinion) raised by some defenders of Al-Jazeera. Certainly Al-Jazeera isn't as crude as the individual here, but I consider polished anti-semitism to be no better.

Adam: I like it when blog owners aren't afraid to step into the fray every once in a while and delete a comments that are racist, extraordinarily rude, etc. --But notice I didn't call what you just did "censorship". But why do you rush to delete a relatively mild anti-semitic ethnic joke, but use the very same blog to defend Al-Jazeera, which helps propagate anti-semitic views which are much worse? I don't fault you for "censorship" Adam, because it is your blog. If people choose not to host Al-Jazeera, its not censorship either. "...there are people like that"

Isaacsullivan, I acknowledge that he is talented at constructing puns and other verbal gymnastics, but I like to reserve superlatives like "genius" for art that has a little more depth. Seems like something just a couple of notches above a novelty act.

your hymen? Now that's clever! Its a good thing we don't toss around the word "genius" loosely nowadays, and apply it only to the true masters of the English language.

Wow, I hate to be a downer all the time, but this guy is awful. He has a voice made for writing graduate research papers.

ciumhne:

There's a segment near the hilt of the knife, a crescent-shaped cutout with a spring-loaded plate of metal within the knife body. If you press it down around your arm, the plate retracts. I've seen butcher knifes with this mechanism at magic stores, but this mainly works as a stage effect as you can see the cutout line up close.

inna:

http://www.centerstagestar.com/gofxblknprwe.html

Now I want one of these knives for Halloween

Geekazoid, you say:

"That may be true for you Roger, but my views still stand for the others. "

Others may may be rude, but this is exactly why I don't like the type of political posts Adam favors. They seem to bring out either me-too sycophancy or fire and brimstone anger in people.

"How about posts about the cultures and religions of other countries. Should we leave those out too for fear of upsetting people?"

I don't think the posts about cultures and religions raised many ugly controversies here. Moreover, and this is The Point, they were Neat! Advertisements for Obama, I hate Bush stuff, and cliched anti-war talking points are not.

Also, Adam adds smarmy insults which chill good-natured exchange from the outset. Case in point: the post following this one by Stanhope about Al-Jazeera where he says:

"...claiming that al-Jazeera is anti-American and anti-Israeli and is engaged in “cultural Jihad” against the United States. Yes - people like this really do exist."

So he starts out with a jab in the eye. And he knows not of what he speaks - Al-Jazeera makes no bones about being anti-Israeli; only Stanhope assumes that this is some kooky right-wing allegation. (or take his comment above "..you're really angry at transparency", another either-you-agree-with-me-or-you-are-a-right-wing-nutter statement from him)

So my SUGGESTION for a better way with political posts is a) try to be neat b) get the facts straight c) show respect for the possibility of dissenting views, even though you *know* they are wrong.

"If people don’t like it here they don’t have to come, sounds rude but it’s simple as that" That's true. Neatorama pays for the bandwidth, not I. I'm giving what I consider to be constructive feedback.

Well, Geekazoid, since I am obviously one "bitching" about leaving politics out, I'd be happy to take up your bet. Its simple because I'm not pro Bush to begin with, and as I have made abundantly clear with regard to my complaints about Adam's posting, I'd prefer to see the site either depoliticized altogether, or at least seeing "neato" angles on politics and not run-of-the mill, cliched links that can be found at any number of other political sites.

What I find ultimately sad is that people are so hell bent on political labels and ideology that they can't discuss anything without thinking that their way of thinking is right and everyone else is wrong or "pro war" or whatever else they come up with.

Adam: you say

"If banging the anti-war drum is my modus operandi, I’m certainly not doing it here, nor is anyone else. I think all of us naturally avoid posting about heavily political topics for this very reason - hence the death of such posts here."

You aren't doing it here?? A good proportion of your posts are either anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-Obama or otherwise political. It is really only you who posts purely political stuff. Alex posted something earlier about Curveball, which is certainly connected to political goings-on but having some sort of human interest at the same time. Was it really the "cleverly presented graphic" aspect that made you want to post this? C'mon now, really??

SoftwareSamurai's post didn't quite seem like "uncontrollable rage" to me. I don't like his vituperative tone, but its no better or worse than the many who have spoken in agreement / defense of you in the past(which didn't seem to be a problem).

"Liberal-hating wrath" is not my modus operandi, and I hope you understand that there are more than two sides to any political issue, but I get the impression that you assume anyone who is not delighted by your posts is a backwards right-wing zealot. I have been very vocal in my criticism (probably wasting my time), but its only a small percentage who take the time to write - usually the most angry. Those who are simply put-off or bored move along, as you have suggested they do. But that's taking the low road. But as always, its your blog, your choice.

glitch44: I have, and do watch it regularly. I also a receive a roundup broadcast of various other Arab media. Al-Jazeera is remarkably consistent. Arabs are always the victim, and the U.S./Israel/Europe is ALWAYS at fault. Groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are regarded as freedom-fighters, in any and all cases. Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are treated as heroic operations, and no presenter may ever, in any way shape or form, defend or even give the appearance of presenting Israeli or US actions in a favorable light. While Fox News is laced with bias and tendentiousness, Al-Jazeera makes Fox News look truly fair and balanced in comparison. I can see many reasons why people would want to include Al-Jazeera in their news-gathering, but to deny that it is a propaganda vehicle is absurd. Don't cut off your noses to spite your faces. Keep your heads about you and don't embrace Al-Jazeera just because you have grievances with the U.S.

I wonder what the reaction would be if a white supremacist cable station attempted to broadcast throughout America. Would the same freedom-lovers rush to their defense? Why not? Would they be afraid of a "different perspective"? What? Can't they change the channel?

Adam, what are your opinions on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Do tell. I receive Al-Jazeera broadcasts here, where I can assure you a very "open discussion" is accessible to all viewers on this and other subjects, like whether Jews are descended from "Pigs and Monkeys", as well as exposes on the "Zionist-controlled media".

If you insist that in favor of the marketplace of ideas, a tax-funded cable service ought not restrict its broadcasts, that's fine. Just be sure not to raise any objections when David Duke requests his slice of the pie.

Dear Adam: as I am only one of the two detracting commenters, I'll respond as if your response was directed at me.

First, I am not angry at you. As I and several others have said before, the problem with your posts is that they dilute the neat-ness that is Neatorama, a blog which I immensely enjoy. The only response I hear from you is "but, I am right about this", which is neither here nor there.

Second, its quite presumptuous of you to assert that anyone who doesn't applaud you is "angry at transparency". That's akin to Bill O'Reilly shouting at a critic of airport security procedures that they are "angry at America".

Saying that "there's nothing inherently political about discussing the cost of the war and exploring what we could, perhaps have purchased for the same amount of money" is at best naive but more likely dishonest. Choices in public spending are by their very essence political, and deep down, you know this. You may be completely right that the war is a financial boondoggle, but be upfront and sincere when you are attempting to influence people. Don't sink to the cheap rhetoric of "I'm only stating the facts" when you are clearly making the argument that the war was a waste of money.

There really is a time and place for everything. Whenever I meet someone who is pushy with their views, and cannot help injecting politics into every moment and situation, every objection to this behavior is met with "but I'm right!! you're wrong!! Don't you see??". There's more to life, Adam, than you being right and others being wrong.

He was also an adept amateur mathematician, who created the magic circle (variation on the magic square):

http://www.pasles.org/circle.html

I'm very impressed with the sound of that bass.