YAAAAAAAWWWWNNNNNN!!!!!
Yes, I'm alive.
No, I haven't abandoned my blog.
No, it isn't defunct (though I know there's at least one person out there desperately hoping it is).
I'm just doing my part to keep the state from upending the republic - along with all sorts of fun things on the personal front (it was a busy Christmas season).
Watch this space for an important post from Andrew Kessler, the Leftist Southpaw.
In the meantime, here I am:
Oh, and to that person who is praying that my blog is defunct, I have the following thing to say: don't think that you can operate with impunity. As I've said to you before, you might consider finally heeding your own promises and simply leave me alone.
- Andrew Langer
posted by Andrew Langer at 6:23 PM
10 Comments:
This is about the lamest blog I've ever seen, talk about self indulgence from someone who cannot even get elected dog catcher!
January 28, 2007 11:31 AM
That's the lamest insult I've ever read.
February 02, 2007 11:43 AM
That's big talk coming from someone who posts anonymously. Tell you what, when you get some cajones and start making comments using your real name, then maybe, just maybe, they might rise to a level where they might be considered remotely insulting.
But until that distant time, we'll just accord them with the respect that they (and you) generate.
Thanks for stopping by!
February 02, 2007 9:54 PM
All I can say about this blog is that if the author were a TRUE libertarian, he would condemn REASON magazine for the role it played in the demise of Loompanics. I did business with Loompanics for years. I don't even read REASON when I find a free copy at an airport.
February 06, 2007 9:49 PM
More unverified, unverifiable claptrap from an anonymous malcontent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loompanics
You did business with Loompanics, eh? In what guise?
February 07, 2007 6:40 AM
Since you asked, I was a book buyer for Tower Records. Loompanics' books were very good sellers at Tower, and Loompanics was a great company to do business with.
You posted a link to Wiki-Reason's refusal to accept Loompanics' ads is well documented, as is their subsequent plea for money and Michael Hoy's response.
Let me anticipate your next question. I'm with Best Buy now, working to offer a broader selection of books and music.
February 07, 2007 10:02 AM
No, I didn't ask either where you worked, and I wasn't going to ask where you work.
I said that your statements regarding Reason and Loompanics were unverified and unverifiable. The Wikipedia article contains no footnoted references to verify the statements regarding Reason's justifications for turning down an ad Loompanics, and there are several different versions of the relationship online.
Michael Hoy's explanation as to why the ads were turned down are his own conjecture - there is no statement form anyone from Reason Magazine on the subject.
Besides, and let's pick apart your beef for a moment: your claim is that Reason had a role in Loompanics' demise. Yet you also claim that Reason is a magazine so meritless that they have to give it away at airports, and even then _you_ don't read it.
And then you turn around and say that Tower Records (where you supposedly worked - another unverifiable claim) carried Loompanics' books, and that they were good sellers.
If they were such good sellers, then why did Loompanics go out of business?
Oh, wait, let me guess: was part of the reason (assuming for a moment, that these parts of your stories are correct: that Tower carried these books and that they sold well) the fact that _TOWER RECORDS WENT OUT OF BUSINESS_??!!!
I mean, let's be serious - if you're going to blame Reason Magazine, which has _EVERY_ right to refuse ads, then why aren't you blaming Tower Records, which went under, and the management of Tower Records, which drove it under?
And let me underscore that editorial point: among the most basic tenets of libertarianism is the right to exercise free choices. Hoy is free to put a naked breast in his ads if he wants to. Reason is free to refuse them if they want to. The magazine is their property, they can do with it what they want.
It's like this, friend. I'm a libertarian, and let's assume for a moment that you are. Just because we're both libertarians doesn't mean that I have to allow you to come on my property and paint the shutters of my house some garish color of yellow, simply because you see that as an exercise of your right to free expression. And I'm not engaging in hypocrisy if I constrain you from entering my property and doing so.
I'm defending my property rights.
Now, coming full circle, the fact is, the most recent discussion of Loompanics pretty much anywhere was on the Reason Magazine website. Jesse Walker wrote a very friendly piece about them in January:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/112288.html
Now, are you going to continue this anonymous diatribe? Are you going to continue to spread your vitriol against me, Reason, CEI, John Berlau, Brooke Oberwetter, etc, across the web?
Or can we put an end to this finally?
What the hell is your beef with Reason, etc, anyway? And I mean this really, and seriously. No forays into idiocy about hookers and sting operations, which you and I both know are complete fabrications.
February 07, 2007 11:37 PM
Christmas? I thought you supported Hanukkah?
March 12, 2007 6:14 PM
I "support" Hanukkah?
I'm not even sure what that means. I celebrate Hanukkah. I also celebrate Christmas.
I call the season the "Christmas" season, because that's what it is, though I suppose if I were being historically accurate, I'd call it the "Saturnalia" (which I sometimes do informally, anyway).
And your concern is what, exactly?
March 13, 2007 12:23 AM
Don't know how you can celebrate X-mas and Hanukkah. Are you Messianic? Confused?
March 13, 2007 12:42 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home