We’re quickly approaching 90,000 comments
We’ll probably hit this milestone in less than a week, folks.
Thank you again for your participation, including all the newcomers who have joined the discussion over the past week on the Sheriff Ewell Hunt thread. It now has the highest number of comments of any thread on this blog.
As in the past, the poster of the 90,000th comment will get his or her choice of a volume from Dan’s Bookshelf.
Good luck to everyone!
June 8, 2011 - 6:00 AM
It’s amazing to see what kind of stories generate the most comments. Congrats Dan!!
Shouldn’t be long, if Suzie stays wound up to high gear in her All-Insult-No-Substance mode, as she has been for the last for the last few hours.
Yup. Her string of big losses on content have moved her into attack mode with insults — and that always runs up your comment count.
OK, Dan, assuming we accept that Suzie is not a creation of your fertile creative mind to make the right look bad, are you sure she is real?
Could she be someone else’s satirical caricature or comic parody to ridiculed and emphasizes the weakness of the extreme right-wing?
“Could she be someone else’s satirical caricature or comic parody to ridiculed and emphasizes the weakness of the extreme right-wing?”
DaveH,
I can’t rule that out. But if this is the case, she did it all by herself. I don’t know who it is; I didn’t put anyone up to it.
All-Insult-No-Substance mode
Isn’t that exactly what your post #2 is, Dave H?
Dave H. has become the new Gdad.
Isn’t interesting, people say how often I post, 20% or something like yet I never seem to win one of these things. Not that I care, mind you. I may have won once back when there were fewer posters.
Suzie,
You’ve won at least once before, at the 20,000th comment milestone. You turned down the prize. So it went instead to Blue John.
Re: #4
Why Suzie, the Op for this thread was about “comment count.”
So I was commenting on the “Substance” of this thread.
Why so sensitive? I have congratulated about being right — a couple of times.
.
.
2 out of 7 Suzie…you’re clearly bucking for the 90K spot.
#6 I think suzie’s won at least twice but the second time you knew she wouldn’t take it and so gave it to the person before and after her. Or was that somebody else?
BTW, suzie, no one here alleges that you post 20 percent of the TOTAL comments, since there are some topics, like guns and the contests, that you pretty much avoid. And there are other threads, like the original Hunt one, that you are simply unable to hijack due to the sheer volume of comments.
But once you decide to attempt to hijack a thread, your posts are almost without exception about 20 percent, give or take a little. You can bank on it.
I think suzie’s won
Thanks for the admission, Gdad. I knew even the leftwingers believed it
You won a prize for commenting so often Suzie, and for a caption contest maybe, not for anything else. Then you wouldn’t accept the prizes because you’re scared to death that someone might find out who you are. Despite the fact that Dan never publishes anyone’s address, you don’t want him knowing yours.
#11 Dan’s scary.
Hey Dan, if I am the 90,000th poster, may I donate a book instead?
Enjoy the milestone as it passes, my most honorable adversary. =)
#12 He must be.
Re: #10
You failed again Suzie.
A contextomy is a quote that has been taken out of context in such a way as to create a misleading impression of its meaning.
“Text, without context, is pretext.” — Jesse Jackson, quoted in Sheldon R. Gawiser & G. Evans Witt, A Journalist’s Guide to Public Opinion Polls (1994).
At the rate you commit contextomy, you might find your name in textbook as a shorthand a recognized alias for it.
Ed of H,
Yes, you may donate a book. But you have to give me the donee organization’s name, address, zip code.
@ Dan – I was literally just going to drop it off at the Roanoke Times attn: Dan Casey.
The title I had in mind is “Who Killed the Constitution – the Fate of American Liberty from WW1 to G.W. Bush” by Woods/Gutzman.
(Recognizing a minority of your readers would enjoy, but there are a couple who I think might.)
Ed of H,
If you would like to donate a volume to Dan’s Bookshelf, that would be great and I would immediately add it to the list.
I would do the same if Suzie donated “Wealth of Nations,” which she has threatened to do — but never delivered on. Selah.
@ Dan – I will try to finish it while on vacation next week. In support of a delightful argument over on BRC this week, Sandi Saunders got me re-reading Men in Black (Mark R. Levin) so I’d sorta laid it aside. Plenty of time to read next week.
ps – to all those out there fond of our indigenous music, the 18th Annual Maury River Fiddler’s Convention is happening next week, at Glen Maury Park in Buena Vista.
Sounds like a good read to me.
Ed of H,
No matter what Sandi says, “Men n Black,” isn’t worth reading, much less re-reading. My God! I’d rather have a prostatectomy plus three root canals than read that book the first time, based on its first chapter.
Mark Levin is a loudmouth and that’s all. He’s probably the stupidest law school grad in the history of the United States, after Michele Bachmann.
I remind you dear Gonzo-in-Cheif, you are a self-professed loudmouth.
And that’s a pretty big group to declare as stupid, particularly when you have the credentials he doth possess. I’ll give you this much, Levin is extremely sarcastic to dissenting callers, but I find his legal opinions consistently confirm what I have long believed. The book itself is just a history of the Supreme Court, and analysis of the decisions of the various men and women who have served on it. You must have read the newer paper-back release of it with Rush Limbaugh’s forward and got too flustered to go on.
In Sandi’s defense, she DID NOT suggest I read it; I started re-reading it, that I might better articulate an argument on the so-called “Wall of Separation between church and State.”
@#21 “He’s probably the stupidest law school grad in the history of the United States…”
You think so? Even in comparison to the new blogger-with-a-law-degree on the Sheriff Ewell Hunt thread?
How about in comparison to our so called “Constitutional Law” expert in the White House?
How about in comparison to our so called Va. Attorney General.