. . .since Hank and Bill seem to have lives--lucky so and so's--it seems to fall to me to monitor compliance here. Reviewing:

--no retraction, no apology, and no promise not to bring up the offending matter again;

--no request to have Hank send the email again;

--further posts in defiance of Hank's directive.

See you in thirty days, P.A.

P.S.--I have no objection to posting the email in question, but making it a condition of compliance is unacceptable.

Second, a suggestion of my own. Let it go. Dredging up old slights, etc. produces nothing more than more slights, and warmed-over ones at that. Third, the moderators serve the larger community because we conferred this sometimes dubious honor upon them. They are, to use a familiar term, the deciders. It's not life or death, of course. Just an internets site that we all enjoy. But that's their job and whether or not we agree with them is beside the point. The only way this works is if we allow them the power/position to make judgement calls about civility and the community. Given that, publishing Scott's email is beside the point. Kudos to him, btw, for sending it in the first place. He complained in the past when moderators acted unilaterally, and now he's as good as his word. That's a good thing.

You may disagree with the decision or warning or whatever. If you don't like it? Then vote for someone else next time around.

Fourth? This is how you ran into a banning last time. It's fun having you around. Why do it again?

May I offer a word of advice?

much of it, but didn't know a "me, too" was required. Since you ask, Coulter is by no means a "front-line activist" for the Republican Party, if that's what Capt. Ed meant. How do I know? Well, I am a member of said party and my wife's a party delegate, so I have a bit of insight into the matter.

He is certainly correct in pointing out the mistake CPAC made in inviting Coulter to speak. Even if she hadn't spouted slurs against gays, she is a comedienne commenter, nothing more. Giving someone like that podium time indicates a lack of seriousness and goal orientation.

AFA your first bolded sentence, to be precise it should have read "those Republicans who have issues with homosexuality need to get over them." Otherwise it implies that all Republicans "have issues with homosexuality", which is manifestly not the case.

doesn't speak at present for mainstream conservatives.

I don't understand the second sentence of your post, particularly in the context of our discussion about Cole, so please explain it to me. Is that supposed to be the list of the "many former conservatives have to be classified as "lefties" these days" that I asked you to provide? If so, I really don't understand what you're saying.

I have such a high opinion of myself that no one can dent it.

have said. And here I thought they'd changed political philosophies.

I truly don't care what Cole used to be or not be, or where he formerly hung his hat. He's just not that significant - quoting his words here as if they validate something about the core philosophy of conservatives is as meaningful as quoting Bluto on Popeye's strength of character.

from your cite to the Pew poll. If you don't want to answer them, fine, but don't play these "if you say X you must be a member of Y" games - they've become increasingly tired and transparent around here.

AFA your vague claim that I'm "misreading both the polls and [your] post", here is exactly what you said in the post I was responding to:

here's a cite for "conservatives" being more likely to think there's something wrong with homosexuality.

I said I didn't see how your cite (the Pew poll) stood for that proposition. Want to try again at a response?

How can I cite anything? I'm not the one making the spurious assertions about the majority of conservatives. And the reason I said the FYI is because you cited a poll on gay marriage as evidence, so how is that patronizing?

IOW, what the heck are you upset about?

Shall I repeat myself? Michael Moore was not a guest of honor at the 2004 convention, and the last I checked Carter was not a candidate for President.

Ever seen a picture of Moore and Kerry? Moore and Clinton? Moore and Obama? I haven't.

if they make a "Vestal Virgin" outfit in his size I might have use for him!! :)

Considering the lefty blogs are hundreds of times larger in terms of visits and page views and produce thousands of times more content as a result of having diaries/comments enabled and/or more users (numbers approximate, obviously) I the comparison doesn't prove anything close to what Mr. Krumm thinks. Ditto the stupid "lefty blogs curse more" study (to use the term loosely) upon which the methodology is apparently based. However, having said all that, I think there is a grain of truth here; just as liberals do tend to be more likely to use profanity on blogs, I would agree that Coulter is probably used quite a bit as an example of conservative excess.

OTOH, I rather doubt her book sales are a result of dKos readers looking for diary material. And liberals aren't the ones getting her gigs at CPAC.

nt

...about you and I?"

Surely there's a better way to put that.

First, given that we're talking a lot about comity these days? Your comment sounds an awful lot like the answer is: "Mac is smarter and/or more aware of his surroundings than stillnotking." Why go there?

Second, his point, I believe -- sorry for interpreting -- is that Coulter has greater prominence than any of the lefties you have in mind (I'm begging you in advance not to compare her to Al Franken. Thanks.) She gets the high profile pundit slots (unlike fellow knuckle-draggers like Savage), she addresses the conservative conclaves to giggles and applause. She's singular, I think. And, I also think, about to be thrown under the nearest bus by those fully bored with her routine.

Let Mitt Romney repudiate Coulter's praise otherwise this quote is simply accurate:

"Ann Coulter is welcomed at CPAC with Presidential contenders"

Of course, John McCain and Rudy are annoyed that Saint Ann did not choose them for her blessing.

with Presidential contenders. I'm not sure what you can quarrel with there, I phrased it rather precisely I thought. I didn't say for example that Romney endorsed her statements and I don't think my diary leaves that impression.

With respect to the link, it shows what I submit is a pattern of conservative commentators (such as Coulter or Cameron) mocking liberal politicians (such as Edwards or Kerry) in what I consider to be an anti-gay fashion. You're not required to agree with my argument, of course, but frankly I think it's pretty difficult to examine the data (more examples in 32256) and conclude there isn't a problem here. You cited Captains Quarters below; I think Ed is a pretty rational conservative, let's see what he says:

if they weren't connected to her in the first place, why bother?

Apparently they saw something Timmy doesn't.

and Harley points out above that Romney's denounced her comments. Your response?

(BTW, my own take on it is that this sort of childishness was banned from elementary school years ago, and that CPAC made a bad strategic as well as tactical mistake in inviting Coulter to speak and deserves the flak it gets.)

nt