11/05/24
August 01, 2006
You dare sully the good name of Jefferson Davis?!?: An outraged North Carolinian tore Hurricanes jerseys off state monuments during Carolina's run to the Stanley Cup. A charge of injuring the personal property of the state against Davis Jones, 49, was dropped after the team chose not to pursue the case.
A charge of damaging personal STATE property was dropped after the TEAM decided not to pursue charges? Who is running that State?
posted by wljranch at 11:21 PM on August 01, 2006
Wow, Spitzengle, I was surprised to see in the comment section how the people of your good Country got worked up about this, I am glad that National Pride, and Pride in serving one's country, is alive and well in Canada. This, however, is a horse of a different color, and, I am pretty sure I am being baited here, but what the hell, here goes: Jefferson Davis was the President of The Confederate States of America, and there are a great many people in this country who believe that those of us with Southern roots should forget about whatever sense of pride that we as people feel about our ancestors that served for the Confederacy, to pretend that the millions of Southern men, women, blacks, whites, Indians, Mexicans, and Europeans, never existed, much less died for a cause that they believed in. To airbrush them, and their battle flag out of existance, much like the Soviets under Stalin did to the people they assassinated. I realize that there are zealots (on both sides of this argument, mind you) who take this to the extreme, but there are those in every facet of politics, religion, and life. I make no apologies for Davis Jones, nor any others so inclined to do similar acts, it is not as simple as just saying "You lost the war, it was 140 years ago, get over it!" I wish it was. But the truth is, that many people in the South still feel the same way about the Jefferson Davis Monument being cheapened, or used to promote a sports franchise, if you will, as your veterans in Canada do about your National War Memorial being vandalized.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:07 AM on August 02, 2006
Respectfully, I think that these two cases are completely different. The jersey on the monument was not meant to disrespect the names or memories of the people depicted in the statues, but to promote team spirit. The urination on a national monument, however, is deplorable and the offenders should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
posted by wingnut4life at 12:16 AM on August 02, 2006
If I may make a joke here wingnut, I reckon there are a lot of Southerners who don't think ol' Jefferson was much of a penalty killer.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:24 AM on August 02, 2006
As a Saints fan, I can personally attest to dedication in something with a past that is/was shrouded in failure, foibles, and complete futility.
posted by igottheblues at 04:32 AM on August 02, 2006
to pretend that the millions of Southern men, women, blacks, whites, Indians, Mexicans, and Europeans, never existed, much less died for a cause that they believed in Do you feel baited when people suggest some of those folks mentioned may not have had their heart in the fight?
posted by yerfatma at 06:09 AM on August 02, 2006
No comparison here. Hockey jerseys on statues means nothing next to a true desecration of a monument that signifies the service of millions of soldiers, sailors and airmen to their country. Besides that, the Confederate forces were an illegal army born of secession. My knowledge of Canadian military history is absolutely nil, but I don't think they compare to the Army of the Confederacy.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:56 AM on August 02, 2006
That the issue of slavery was wrong, I do not pretend to deny. That the war was the most costly in the history of this country, with more lives lost than all the other wars we have fought COMBINED, with brother fighting brother, and a terrible price paid for by the nation, you cannot deny. I do not condone vandalism, but I guess Davis Jones' definition of vandalism is different than yours and mine. I was only attempting to make someone else understand why Mr. Jonesand others would be so vehemnt about the placing of hockey jerseys on the monuments.
posted by mjkredliner at 07:34 AM on August 02, 2006
Suhs and/or Madams, I respectfully concede that I lack the benefit of a northern public school education, but it is my recollection that the Andrew Jackson mentioned in the article was the seventh president of the United States and passed away some years before the Civil War was fought. But I am happy to see that we all appear to agree that prejudice, whether racial or regional, is truly born of ignorance. I have generally found the people of the south to be warm-hearted and friendly, although they are capable of sarcasm. Perhaps you will consider a historic tour of the region during your next vacation. We will even let you see the Stanley Cup. Thanks, y’all.
posted by jesFunnin at 07:44 AM on August 02, 2006
True, I was going to mention that, but I noticed in the Article that other statues were mentioned as well, so I assumed that a statue of Mr. Jefferson was included, due to the wording of the front page post, I did not have time to research that. And I agree that prejudice has no place in this country. Nor, shall I bother you with the virtues of Old Hickory.
posted by mjkredliner at 07:55 AM on August 02, 2006
"I feel much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General Jackson President. He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws or constitutions, and is, in fact, an able military chief. His passions are terrible. When I was President of the Senate he was a Senator; and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage. His passions are no doubt cooler now; he has been much tried since I knew him, but he is a dangerous man." - Thomas Jefferson Though I gotta say, Jackson did a good thing when he finally banned spitting, drinking whiskey, and discharging firearms on the Senate practice rink ice; the Senators saved it for the game and won the first seven Congressional Cups (the trophy, like the Stanley cup, was a giant silver spittoon). Until Martin Van Buren combined a rudimentary slapshot with the "road agent drop," Jackson and his "Hickory Hat Trick" ruled the game, and the young nation.
posted by Hugh Janus at 08:01 AM on August 02, 2006
On the opposite end of the spectrum... The NCAA looking at expanding post season bans on South Carolina schools because of the confederate flag on State House grounds. One case where the State House grounds are changed to promote sports. The other a case where sport is used to change State House grounds.
posted by SummersEve at 08:13 AM on August 02, 2006
Ha ha , Hugh Janus, very clever! My favorite Andrew Jackson quote: "It is a damn poor mind that can think of but one way to spell a word." Lol. Gets me every time.
posted by mjkredliner at 08:22 AM on August 02, 2006
I think the vandal in this situation is Mr. Jones. His actions best fit the definition. And its a real shame he is getting away with it.
posted by garfield at 08:36 AM on August 02, 2006
Who gave the Hurricanes the right to place the jerseys on the statues? If no state or local authority did, then I feel Mr. Jones was well within his rights as a taxpayer to remove them. His tax dollars are just as meaningful as those generated by The Hurricanes, in fact maybe more so, I doubt that he is being subsidized as many Professional Sports entities are. At most, he is guilty of vandalizing the jerseys, make him pay for them, I bet he would have no problem with that.
posted by mjkredliner at 08:50 AM on August 02, 2006
As for President Jackson and his statue, I'm sure there's a group of folks out in the western part of North Carolina that can think of much worse things to do to it than to put a jersey on it. And all this time with no mention of Ozzy pissing on the Alamo? For shame! As for this Davis Jones feller, 99% of Raleigh is saying, "Well, bless his heart, he has an interest in history." And I can't think of a more damning thing to say about this situation.
posted by NoMich at 08:51 AM on August 02, 2006
Get off your high horse.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:24 AM on August 02, 2006
the Confederate forces were an illegal army born of secession. Sounds a lot like the Colonial Army in the American Revolution. The winners get to write the history.
posted by BlueCarp at 09:50 AM on August 02, 2006
mjk, Do you understand the difference between personal property of an individual and personal property of the state? I'm no attorney, but I would assume an individual citizen does not have the right to monitor, judge, and enforce (basically become the enitre legal system) what he considers to be vandalism. And its just a guess, but if he was cited for "injuring the personal property of the state" then the placement of the jersey was most likely sanctioned by the state. And there is nothing sacred about a statue of a political and historical figure. Unfortunately, the Commission that Mr.Jones reprimanded is as deluded as he is. Next time Mr.Jones is offended by a public display, he should contact the authorities and make his feelings known, and not take it upon himself to impose his opinion.
posted by garfield at 10:43 AM on August 02, 2006
That's a pretty damn good point, Blue Carp.
posted by Samsonov14 at 10:57 AM on August 02, 2006
Tearing the jerseys off the statues was a nice example of civil disobedience, and I'm glad he's getting away with it. Putting Hurricanes jerseys on them was cheesy, and if the statues have any meaning at all, the state should honor it by refusing any similar stunts in the future.
posted by rcade at 10:59 AM on August 02, 2006
Um, garfield, your link to sacred pointed me to the definition of desecrate, which, depending upon ones feeling of sacredness (which, my dictionary says:worthy of respect, or venerable) towards the monument in question, may well be what the placing of the jerseys on said monument was. Oh yes, and what rcade said.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:42 AM on August 02, 2006
Those Hurricanes jerseys nearly pulled ol' Jeff Davis out of the hot, dark mire of history and into a golden new era of air-conditioned arenas, all-year ice, and Stanley Cup championships. Alas, until its most fevered sons forget the blood and strife, quit celebrating antebellum mores (including loyalty, bravery and the right to hold slaves), and find inspiration in sports team loyalty, the South shall never rise again.
posted by Hugh Janus at 12:10 PM on August 02, 2006
Oh snap! You got me. Since you've proven you know how to use a dictionary, what are the other definitions of desecrate? You know, the five or six before "worthy of respect" that ALL mention religion in one way or another? But feel free to ignore the religious connotations to meet your end. If you had argued your point as rcade did, from a civil disobedience stand point rather than a right and a different and personal definition of vandalism, I wouldn't be quoting the dictionary at you.
posted by garfield at 12:11 PM on August 02, 2006
Didn't the Flyers put a flag in the hand of the William Penn statue or something? I thought I saw it on TV a few years ago, but I can't find anything about it (but I did find an interesting story). I didn't see anything wrong with putting a jersey on statue, but I'm glad Davis Jones is not going to be prosecuted and the Hurricanes say they probably won't put a jersey on the statues again. All's well that ends well.
posted by MrFrisby at 12:16 PM on August 02, 2006
Philadelphia put a big Flyers jersey on the Billy Penn statue on top of City Hall when they were in the finals. But since our teams can never win a championship, everyone decided it was bad luck and so they don't do it anymore. I thought it was pretty neat.
posted by SummersEve at 12:40 PM on August 02, 2006
garfield, I will ignore the glaring errors in your third and fourth sentences, but I did not list the religious connotations for sacred, because, they obviously do not apply in this circumstance. Civil disobediance is quite allright with you, as long as it does not include interpretations of "rights" nor definitions of "vandalism"? Works for me, and, apparently, for the Raleigh City Fathers. Hugh Janus, the "celebration of antebellum mores" to which you refer, is much more than a celebration of "loyalty, bravery, and the right to hold slaves". Also, the war was not fought purely on the grounds that men were entitled to own another man, it was also fought because of differences in culture, economics, and religion. The_Black_Hand, The Confederate States' secession from the Union, was an act which, under the terms they had ratified the Constitution, they had the right to do. They had, in fact, entered the Union as sovereign states under contract with other sovereign states, and a federal entity known as The United States of America. (Or, a Federal government, if you wish) Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a State may not leave the Union if it so wishes. The right to prohibit secession was not granted to the Federal Government, nor was the right to secede prohibited to the states. At no time did any of the states relinquish their rights of self determination. And, at no time, did the states, by ratifying this Constitution, surrender their rights to a centralized government. The Constitution's sole purpose was to establish a central governing body to "provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare." To insure the principle of States Rights was honored, the 10th Amendment to The Constitution was established, stating "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the People." And that is why, the war is often referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression", and is also why your assertion that the "Confederate forces were an illegal army born of secession" holds no water.
posted by mjkredliner at 03:00 PM on August 02, 2006
By the way, Ulysses Simpson Grant was a slaveholder 'till the day the 13th amendment was passed, whilst Robert E. Lee freed his wives inheritance of slaves.
posted by mjkredliner at 03:10 PM on August 02, 2006
I vote we admit we yankees were wrong and we let the southern states go off on their own now. Who's with me? Kidding. I'm kidding. Sheesh.
posted by SummersEve at 03:24 PM on August 02, 2006
the war is often referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" seems odd, since it was the Confederates that fired the first shot at Fort Sumter which began the "War Between the States".
posted by irunfromclones at 03:27 PM on August 02, 2006
SummersEve, there are those that say the South need not rise again, that if we just stand pat, the rest of America will fall down around us. I'm just kidding, too.
posted by mjkredliner at 03:28 PM on August 02, 2006
irunfromclones, if you believe that that is what started the war, I think you should read up on the subject a little bit more... Ft. Sumter was more or less inevitable, given the posturing between the two sides.
posted by mjkredliner at 03:37 PM on August 02, 2006
Okay, I'll amend my list of mores to include loyalty, bravery, the right to hold slaves, and the rights of free and sovereign states to plot their own course without the meddling of a powerful federal government, then, mjkredliner. Let's face it, the war was fought over Bloody Kansas: over Jayhawkers and abolitionists entering a new state en masse to change Kansas' destiny (to establish it as a free state, not a slaveholding state). States rights are trumpeted by reasonable, proud Southern historians and wacko racist apologists alike as the real reason for war, but what right are they all blaring on about? The right economic self-sufficiency based on a kind of large-scale farming unsustainable without free (slave) labor. "The War of Northern Aggression" is a phrase like "the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." Used seriously, it betrays at best a wilful ignorance in an effort to find pride in the actions of undeniably brave and committed men in service of a dubious cause, at worst an ingrained belief in the social and political constructs, racism and slavery among them, that gave rise to the War Between the States. Culture, economics, and religion: Culture -- a hierarchical society with landed gentry and a peasantry, much like England, but unlike in England, saddled with an unpaid underclass of farm workers, almost all African or of African descent, brutally enslaved from birth to death. Economics -- a system of farms, large and small, made economically viable only because of a huge unpaid work force of brutalized African slaves. Religion -- a deeply held belief in an Old Testament god, wrathful and active, who legitimized for everyone the necessity and nobility of slaveholding (as opposed to the abolitionist Christ of the Northerners, ready to lift up the land and the man with it). So yes, by throwing that mincing little word "purely" into lines like "the war was not fought purely on the grounds that men were entitled to own another man," apologists give the South an out -- the blame lies at least as much or more with the saber-rattling North. But the roots of the war are deep, and all the main ones are entwined around slavery. "States rights" have long been demagogued by Southern secessionists and racists to excuse the basest of behavior by themselves and their ancestors. But this nation was conceived and dedicated to propositions stronger and more meaningful than the arguments of its worst detractors; it has long endured tests from South and North and East and West alike, and will yet endure a little longer, god willing.
posted by Hugh Janus at 03:58 PM on August 02, 2006
Yep. You got, what, 25-35 years, if you guys would just stop trying to reduce that number.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:06 PM on August 02, 2006
Posturing? Errant nonsense. I can just as easily say that the Confederates were looking for any opening to start the war. All that aside, it's still a historical fact that the South fired the first shot that started the American Civil War. As far as the original purpose of the post, the vandals were the ones that put the jersies on those public monuments. As a citizen, I have the right, even the obligation, to stop or remove that vandalism. It's not just the law of the land, but your own moral code should be to respect any property, public or private.
posted by irunfromclones at 04:13 PM on August 02, 2006
That desecration, and thus the 'sacred' implication, link zipped past your noggin, I see. Commission Chairman Jerry Cashion said..."I share the outrage over the desecration of the monuments" Civil disobedience is an act of protest, and when recognized as such, can be considered a justification, though usually it is a last resort after other avenues have been exhausted. Civil disobedience isn't "well within the rights" of any citizen. It is illegal, by definition, but it is always an option. I make no apologies for Davis Jones...But the truth is...many people in the South still feel the same way about the Jefferson Davis Monument being cheapened, or used to promote a sports franchise, if you will, as your veterans in Canada do about your National War Memorial being vandalized....I do not condone vandalism, but I guess Davis Jones' definition of vandalism is different...I was only attempting to make someone else understand why Mr. Jones...If no state or local authority did, then I feel Mr. Jones was well within his rights as a taxpayer to remove them...he is guilty of vandalizing the jerseys. your words. "The statues also were adorned in jerseys in 2002. But the commission was not contacted either time for permission as statutes require. Jones said state Administration Secretary Britt Cobb gave the team permission to put up the jerseys." So the Canes had permission, albeit from the wrong authority, but the more relevant one.
posted by garfield at 04:30 PM on August 02, 2006
So the Canes had permission, albeit from the wrong authority, but the more relevant one. Actually, I thought the article was ambiguous re: who actually owns the statues and thus has the authority to grant permission to do anything to them. (btw, someone needs to look up the meaning of the word "redress'. wtf???)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:41 PM on August 02, 2006
Detroit never had a problem with the jersey thing... 
posted by wingnut4life at 05:05 PM on August 02, 2006
Hugh, you are well educated on the subject, but let me remind that you that antebellum does not strictly refer to the South before the war, it may, and has, been used to describe the entire country before the war. While it is true that the "Kansas-Nebraska Act" pointed the country towards war, the war certainly was not "fought over Bloody Kansas." I would remind you that slavery as an institution was never limited to the Southern States. Every state in the Union had the institution of slavery within it's borders under Constitutional law. Even the so-called border States, which were States loyal to the Union, and thus were Union States, kept slavery as an institution. These Union States, and, The Confederate State of Tennessee,(which was somehow carefully excluded from The Emancipation Proclamation) remained slave states under Federal Law for eight months after the South surrendered and slavery ceased to exist there. One irony is that in the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky, Lincoln occupied them with Federal troops to prevent them from seceding, but did not interfere with slavery in those states in his lifetime. Slavery was a very profitable industry backed by Northern finances. The very first colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts. During the mid to late 1700's tens of thousands of slave ships landed in Massachusetts. Rhode Island and New York later became leaders in the slave industry, until Wall Street became the biggest slave market of it's time! So, don't tell me that "the rights that they are blaring on about" is "the right to economic self-sufficiency based on a kind of large scale farming unsustainable without free labor." England did indeed have a "an under paid class of farm workers", though not of African descent. The "brutalized " slaves that you refer to were brutalized just as much by Northerners as Southerners, your attempt to put that exclusively on Southern slaveowners does not wash at all. In fact, southern slaves "freed" by the advancing Union Army were quite frequently put to work as servants, unpaid, for a cause many did not believe in. Your religous example is somewhat correct, I remind you that The Society For The Relief Of Negroes Unlawfully Held In Bondage was the first American Abolition Society, formed April 14,1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by The Quakers. And your last paragraph, don't you mean that this nation "was conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the propostion that all men are created equal." and that "this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." ? Some things die hard, and not just the Absolutely Wrong part, there were, and are, unique differences to the South that some people just don't understand. And realize that Southerners were not the only slaveholders walking the face of the earth, and that 99.9% of us denounce our forefathers acts of keeping slaves.
posted by mjkredliner at 07:52 PM on August 02, 2006
Just curious... Do you have a MeFi account? Can I buy one for you?
posted by jerseygirl at 08:11 PM on August 02, 2006
I'll kick in.
posted by yerfatma at 08:20 PM on August 02, 2006
Musta touched a nerve....
posted by mjkredliner at 08:36 PM on August 02, 2006
Sounds a lot like the Colonial Army in the American Revolution. Except that the Confederate Army was created following the seccession of states from an already established Federal structure. The southern states had ample representation in said government. At the time the Colonial Army was raised, the colonies were just that: colonies, which were considered property of the British Empire, not part of a governmental federation. The Colonists had no representation within the Empire. The Confederate Army and the Colonial Army, while on their faces similar, aren't, given the political situations that birthed them. Despite the protestations of historical revisionists, who, to this day will use any rationale to justify the Civil War, it was wrong. The seccession was wrong, not some romantic political gambit instituted by noble old southern gentlemen who were being persecuted because of their religious beliefs, as the Colonists were. Constitutional loopholes be damned, it was still wrong. The situations were different, and to attempt to paint the Confederate States of America with the same nobility as the original American colonies is, at best, wrongheaded. The southern states showed their hubris by entering a war that any sensible person knew they couldn't win, and they reaped the whirlwind. The American Civil War lasted from 1861 - 1865. That's well over 100 years ago. It is now the 21st century, and no matter how you look at it, the south lost. If you've still got a seccessionist itch to scratch, by all means, raise up your own army and go for it. You'll suffer the same fate.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:55 AM on August 03, 2006
Musta touched a nerve.... Hard to say, mjk. I didn't read any of it, actually. You just seem to have a lot of very formed opinions about not-sports-related stuff and it seemed Metafiltery.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:56 AM on August 03, 2006
Wingnut, that thing is creepy.
posted by SummersEve at 06:24 AM on August 03, 2006
I don't mind being misread or misunderstood, but I don't like being misquoted. It's not tough to pull me away from sports talk on a thread that's only tangentially sports-related to begin with. See you on some other thread.
posted by Hugh Janus at 08:05 AM on August 03, 2006
Mjk's spirited defense of the South gives me the willies.
posted by bperk at 08:23 AM on August 03, 2006
Remember when Hugh started talking about "tangerines"? That was weird.
posted by yerfatma at 08:52 AM on August 03, 2006
I post this only in hopes of maybe offering some insight, not taking taking sides, and I apologize for the length: I'm from Pennsylvania and went to the Univ. of South Carolina (where the unofficial state motto was "First to seceded, last to fly the flag"). I thought I'd learned about the civil war. I had no idea. My first class someone called me a yankee. Kinda like the story in "Moneyball", I responded by saying, "No, I'm from PA not New York." Again, I had no idea. But I learned what it meant to people, the history and yes, even the tradition, through friends who had stroies passed down about family members that fought in the war. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, and Daughters of the Confederacy. It really is a cultural thing that i don't think many outsiders can understand. The main things I learned (this argument's been on here before in different circumstances) is sometimes it's unfair to criticize someone for their history. And you can't rewrite history. Feel as you may about the war, but remember people died. For us up north those people died for the satus quo so we may not recgonize it as much. Down south, those people died for what they believed in. And just because we don't agree with it, doesn't mean we should erase it and forget about it. I tend to agree with folks who say the north was right and the south were just a bunch of rebels and it's time to let it go. But I'm from the north. And no one in my family fought for a losing cause. Have your vies and opinions but keep an open mind. Try to see the other side. And i'm not talking about the slavery issue. i don't know many folks that would defend that. mjk points out some other issues. Maybe, on a small level, it can be related to sports. I think Notre Dame is over-rated and you can argue with me, but you'll never change my opinion. That's how I was brought up. On a larger (and probably more important) scale, that how southerners feel about the war. I guess my simple point is: try to see the two sides before making personal attacks. Again, sorry for the length.
posted by SummersEve at 09:16 AM on August 03, 2006
Well said. Thanks. But you're 100% wrong about Notre Dame.
posted by yerfatma at 09:25 AM on August 03, 2006
To those of you who did not notice that the words in quotation marks in my second to last paragraph were actually part of The Gettysburg Address, I feel sorry for you. Sorry, Hugh, you can't get away with paraphrasing what is probably the greatest speech ever delivered. I didn't read any of it, actually. Hypocritical of you at best, jerseygirl, practice what you preach, ie: why comment if you have nothing relevant to the conversation, etc. You just seem to have a lot of very formed opinions Most of what I wrote was fact, not opinion. Read some "revisionist history", you'll see. Mjk's spirited defense of the South gives me the willies. Much the same response the Union Army had when they first heard the "Rebel Yell" at Manassas. ("Bull Run" to y'all.) But, actually, I suspect that your feelings of uneasiness are caused by seeing that The Union was just as culpable as the South in regard to issues of Slavery, and that the blood of slaves is on your lily white hands as well. See if these quotes are revisionist, do your own research, spend some time in the library, or on the web, take the time if you really believe that it is revisionist, but don't be afraid of the truth. "I am not in favor of making voters or jurors out of negroes, nor of qualifying them for office." Abraham Lincoln 9/15/1858 campaign speech "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."Abraham Lincoln 3/14/1861 First Inaugural Speech "I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District {of Columbia}..." Abraham Lincoln 3/24/1862 letter to Horace Greely, New York Tribune editor This is not a "spirited defense". I just hope to open some eyes, and maybe make some one realize that this was the most difficult struggle our country has endured, and we are fortunate, I think we all agree, that Righteousness prevailed.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:23 AM on August 03, 2006
Hypocritical of you at best, jerseygirl, practice what you preach, ie: why comment if you have nothing relevant to the conversation, etc. Jesus H. Christ. I was being serious and honest about the MeFi account offer, I wasn't bashing you. Fuck it, forget it.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:25 AM on August 03, 2006
Sorry jg, I really have no idea what "MeFi" is, as such, maybe you can see how I thought it was a jab.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:38 AM on August 03, 2006
Sorry, Hugh, you can't get away with paraphrasing what is probably the greatest speech ever delivered. And who's going to stop me? You can't even quote me right, and it was just upthread for you to copy and paste if you wanted. Instead, you wrote this: England did indeed have "an under paid class of farm workers", though not of African descent. You quoted me, and then changed my words within the quotation marks to suit your soft-soaping of the slavery issue. For you to turn around and get indignant about my paraphrasing Lincoln for historical, rhetorical, and literary reasons is disingenuous at best, smarmy at worst. You haven't written anything in this thread I haven't read before, but you've managed to insult my intelligence and turn what was about history into something about yourself and others. Bad form. I'm sure you're more informed, interesting, and polite on threads about sports. Can't wait to read you there.
posted by Hugh Janus at 11:43 AM on August 03, 2006
mjk, you are certainly on top of your Lost Cause of the Confederacy arguments - Jubal Early would be proud - but it's difficult to read this thread and conclude that you haven't hijacked it for your own politico-historical purposes. Yes, Jeff Davis was namechecked in the FPP, but the issue at hand is not North vs. South, but whether or not historical monuments are sacrosanct (anywhere). You opened up this argument knowing it would be contentious and likely realizing that it has nothing to do with sports whatsoever. Considering that this falls right on the heels of your "nature vs. nurture of gays" battle on the Faith Day thread, some have concluded that this kind of thing is your MO. I'm not sure if that's true, but this is the perception. (Personally, I am still laughing about the farts forum line.) MetaFilter (MeFi) is a website where these types of discussions occur regularly. Here, the idea is to stick to sports. Naturally, sports debates often veer off topic into larger issues, but that's a bit different than repeatedly fighting large-scale battles over topics that have nothing to do with sports and are inherently, vehemently, contentious. Don't you think?
posted by Venicemenace at 01:05 PM on August 03, 2006
We're getting carried away with non-sports talk in this thread. Any further comments that have nothing to do with sports will be abolished.
posted by rcade at 01:06 PM on August 03, 2006
Sorry jg, I really have no idea what "MeFi" is, as such, maybe you can see how I thought it was a jab. MeFi=Metafilter.com I understand quite a few of the old timer SpoFites came from there.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:14 PM on August 03, 2006
lol brilliant
posted by insomnyuk at 03:02 PM on August 03, 2006
SummersEve, thank you for the kind words.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:01 AM on August 04, 2006
I don't know what's worse???