The End

For weeks if not months now, a troll by the name of Richard Steven Hack has been popping up in comments alleging that I'm dodging his "two questions" about Iran and so on and so forth. In fact, I just didn't know what his questions were! Now I know:

So he's STILL ducking my two questions. What's so hard about answering my two questions, Matt? You either believe (or don't know whether) Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or you don't. You either believe that a military response is appropriate if Iran DOES have such a program, or you don't.

Obviously I have no personal knowledge of Iran's nuclear program, but I accept the judgment of the Intelligence Community that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. And if Iran does restart its nuclear weapons program, I don't think bombing Iran would be an appropriate response. It seems to me that I've written extensively on both of these questions over the years, though not explicitly in response to Mr RSH. I hope this is the last we'll hear of me "ducking" these topics.

Comments

Nice try, Matt, but you still haven't answered my THREE questions. In fact, no lib ever has. Are you afraid of conflict, or in the pay of our enemies?

Posted by Steven Richard Hack | June 18, 2008 6:15 PM

C'mon, Matt, don't you know that you are obligated to answer every stupid question from any two-bit (and, in RSH's case, extremely long-winded) troll who demands an answer? Sheesh.

Posted by Glenn | June 18, 2008 6:17 PM

From the Iranian point of view, the US attacked Iraq only after the UN verified that Iraq lacked any WMDs. Iran naturally is going to be ambiguous about the status of its nuclear weapons program in order to make the US hesistant about attacking.

Posted by H-Bob | June 18, 2008 6:17 PM

Nice try, Matt, but you still haven't answered my THREE questions.

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

Posted by Swopa | June 18, 2008 6:19 PM

Matthew, how come you answered Hack's questions but you won't tell me what I really really really really want to know: what number is bigger than infinity? What's bigger than infinity? C'mon, I HAVE to know!

Uh oh, my mom's calling me...

Posted by lampwick | June 18, 2008 6:19 PM

RSH may be kind of a nutjob (with all his posthumanism nonsense), but he's no more a troll than Petey or Al or Don Williams or any of the other crazy characters that populate this space.

Posted by ben | June 18, 2008 6:20 PM

Steven Richard Hack is probably James Kirchick's sock puppet.

Posted by ndm | June 18, 2008 6:21 PM

i don't know how I feel about this development. i was used to Hack's psychotic screeds. I expected them the way one expects the sun to rise. prey tell, what will he whine about now? is he- like the best trolls- aware of all internet traditions?

Posted by bend | June 18, 2008 6:22 PM

I think part of the persistence in beliefs that Iran has a nuclear weapons program is that it makes sense for them to have one, not only to deter an American attack, but to keep up the balance of power with Israel and probably Pakistan. I also wonder what percentage of Iranians suspect their country is developing nuclear weapons and fully support the idea.

This is not to say, however, that I advocate an attack on Iran, or attempts to destabilize the same.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | June 18, 2008 6:23 PM

Hm, persistently pestering authors of popular websites... Clearly this guy is aware of all internet traditions...

Posted by vg | June 18, 2008 6:24 PM

Mr. Hack's 3rd question is worthy of his chicken-hawk heritage --- he certainly is not afraid of [other people dying in a] conflict.

Posted by H-Bob | June 18, 2008 6:25 PM

I regard him as a pretty wacky commenter, what with the tough-guy prison stories and all. I wouldn't say troll though.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 18, 2008 6:25 PM

Well, well, well. Finally he gets off his ass and answers the questions!

Good work, Matt.

Except it would have taken him two seconds to find my questions if he bothered to read the threads. I've posted them enough - not to mention that I EMAILED them to him when he asked for email comments on his book. So he's being disingenuous again.

Apparently it got to him that I repeatedly called him "ball less" and less a pundit than Bill Kristol for not answering them.

I officially will not ask them again since they've been answered here.

Now I'll think up some questions about Afghanistan - except in the Request thread today, somebody already has - and I second that request.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 18, 2008 6:25 PM

I hope this is the last we'll hear of me "ducking" these topics.

In the unlikely story that is America, there's never been anything false about hope. But this is pushing it.

Posted by southpaw | June 18, 2008 6:31 PM

Whoever would sit by me, must answer my questions three!

Posted by Chet | June 18, 2008 6:31 PM

Richard,
Didn't you rob a bank or something? You're an absolute legend where I come from!!

Posted by Tony | June 18, 2008 6:31 PM

I should write an exegesis on Matt's regular commenters. It'd be entertaining.

Posted by Freddie | June 18, 2008 6:33 PM

I know Matt is not trying to duck your questions, I just think you are trying to make a point about something not even the US government has answers of.

I believe Iran is not trying to start a nuclear program with the objective of building a bomb. The smartest thing to do is to let Iran continue with their nuclear proliferation but with the participation and control of international agencies and bylaws of the way this relationships will be handled.

If we continue to harass countries in a region of the world where it seems their economies, and relationships are becoming stronger, we will continue to lose allies and space for future diplomacy.

We have to stop the ridiculous conflict approach we have of every single foreign affair, and we have to start working as moderators and experts on topics such as nuclear energy and proliferation. Leaving nations to keep their sovereignty and creating strong blocks of international participants to control and mediate regimes that do not align with the western ways of governing.

Posted by Luis | June 18, 2008 6:34 PM

I know Matt is not trying to duck your questions, I just think you are trying to make a point about something not even the US government has answers of.

I believe Iran is not trying to start a nuclear program with the objective of building a bomb. The smartest thing to do is to let Iran continue with their nuclear proliferation but with the participation and control of international agencies and bylaws of the way this relationships will be handled.

If we continue to harass countries in a region of the world where it seems their economies, and relationships are becoming stronger, we will continue to lose allies and space for future diplomacy.

We have to stop the ridiculous conflict approach we have of every single foreign affair, and we have to start working as moderators and experts on topics such as nuclear energy and proliferation. Leaving nations to keep their sovereignty and creating strong blocks of international participants to control and mediate regimes that do not align with the western ways of governing.

Posted by Luis | June 18, 2008 6:34 PM

I know Matt is not trying to duck your questions, I just think you are trying to make a point about something not even the US government has answers of.

I believe Iran is not trying to start a nuclear program with the objective of building a bomb. The smartest thing to do is to let Iran continue with their nuclear proliferation but with the participation and control of international agencies and bylaws of the way this relationships will be handled.

If we continue to harass countries in a region of the world where it seems their economies, and relationships are becoming stronger, we will continue to lose allies and space for future diplomacy.

We have to stop the ridiculous conflict approach we have of every single foreign affair, and we have to start working as moderators and experts on topics such as nuclear energy and proliferation. Leaving nations to keep their sovereignty and creating strong blocks of international participants to control and mediate regimes that do not align with the western ways of governing.

Posted by Luis | June 18, 2008 6:35 PM

I know Matt is not trying to duck your questions, I just think you are trying to make a point about something not even the US government has answers of.

I believe Iran is not trying to start a nuclear program with the objective of building a bomb. The smartest thing to do is to let Iran continue with their nuclear proliferation but with the participation and control of international agencies and bylaws of the way this relationships will be handled.

If we continue to harass countries in a region of the world where it seems their economies, and relationships are becoming stronger, we will continue to lose allies and space for future diplomacy.

We have to stop the ridiculous conflict approach we have of every single foreign affair, and we have to start working as moderators and experts on topics such as nuclear energy and proliferation. Leaving nations to keep their sovereignty and creating strong blocks of international participants to control and mediate regimes that do not align with the western ways of governing.

Posted by Luis | June 18, 2008 6:38 PM

By the way, Matt, fuck you for calling me a troll.

I've never been a "troll" - i.e., deliberately posting on a board to cause trouble. Jokes, yes. Trouble, no. You can criticize my humor - I couldn't care less.

Comparing me to idiots like Chris Ford, Al, SLC (who posts Zionist bullshit in threads where it's irrelevant), Robert Powell - now THOSE are TROLLs - deliberately posting the same bullshit every day when they know it's not welcome on a liberal site and has been repeatedly discredited, not only by me but everybody else here.

I have sincerely wanted to get an answer from you on these two questions because you were seriously ambiguous about them in your Iran posts. So the idea that you've "written extensively on both of these questions" is neither true nor relevant. You NEVER specified what I asked you to specify - and which a "pundit" would be expected to specify if they want to claim some expertise in foreign policy and national security.

You better hope I don't try to nail you down on the Palestinian question as well as the questions asked about US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. AIPAC will really be on your ass then.

Hmmmm...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 18, 2008 6:39 PM

Don't feel bad, Luis, we've all had to learn the hard way.

Posted by Debbie | June 18, 2008 6:39 PM

A troll is someone who repeatedly posts to provoke a reaction. Not someone who lives under a bridge, but a fisherman out trolling with bait.

Posted by dbt | June 18, 2008 6:49 PM

Re Tony

Mr. Hack indeed robbed a bank, was captured, convicted and spent 9 fun filled years in the federal birdcage in Leavenworth getting his asshole reamed on a regular basis, and probably becomming HIV positive. In addition, on past threads on this blog, he has among other things, advocated the assassination of police officers, and made threats against fascist radio talk show host Michael Savage. Anyone who has read his rants is well aware that he has considerably less then 52 cards in his deck. What is most amusing is that Mr. Hack claims that his bank robbing activities were in pursuit of the overthrow of the US government, when actually, they were for the purpose of obtaining the wherewithal to feed his smack habit.

Posted by SLC | June 18, 2008 6:51 PM

Prison rape = not funny

Posted by Tom Parmenter | June 18, 2008 6:57 PM

What is this "troll" phenomenon you speak of?

Posted by Al | June 18, 2008 6:57 PM

SLC of course is wrong on all particulars except the basic fact that I was a guest of the state as a result of some armed bank robbery.

If I were to make up an equal list of SLC's faults, it would probably include stuff like eating his own snot, engaging in coprophagia. and being a pedophile.

All of which one would expect from a Zionist freak.

Not to mention intellectual dishonesty and intellectual cowardice, as SLC demonstrates here almost daily.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 18, 2008 7:10 PM

We kid because we love, Richard.

Posted by Freddie | June 18, 2008 7:13 PM

Prison rape = not funny

Posted by Tom Parmenter | June 18, 2008 7:17 PM

Prison rape = not funny

And, yes, because I am aware of all internet traditions, I know that it was supposed to be a joke.

Prison rape is still not funny, all internet traditions aside.

And I think the Intel community is wrong on this one - any country that can enrich uranium to any level has a potential nuclear weapons program.

And yes, in some cases, it would be appropriate to neutralize those programs. The question is when it is appropriate.

Glad I dont have to make those decisions.

Posted by calipygian | June 18, 2008 7:22 PM

Maybe you do, Freddie, but SLC sure doesn't love me. And I return the sentiment.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 18, 2008 7:23 PM

Prison rape = not funny

And, yes, because I am aware of all internet traditions, I know that it was supposed to be a joke.

Prison rape is still not funny, all internet traditions aside.

And I think the Intel community is wrong on this one - any country that can enrich uranium to any level has a potential nuclear weapons program.

And yes, in some cases, it would be appropriate to neutralize those programs. The question is when it is appropriate.

Glad I dont have to make those decisions.

Posted by calipygian | June 18, 2008 7:28 PM

Congrats on getting your questions answered Richard. Now I have a question to you: How are those predictions of yours about Hillary coming along? She's dropped out, she's endorsed, she's supporting. I believe that particular crow is cooked so I'll just slide it onto your plate here. Bon apetite.

But on the bright side for ya, we still have almost half a year to see if Dubya invades Iran. Considering that he barely has enough capital to get his shoes shines in Washington I'm feeling pretty secure on this one too but that crow is still kicking.

Posted by Minnesota | June 18, 2008 7:32 PM

Matthew should read his own comments more. He has the most entertaining commenters in all the internet.

Posted by mad6798j | June 18, 2008 7:51 PM

Well, Matt, you still haven't answered MY two questions! And you never will, because unlike this foolish Hack character, I'll never tell you what mine are! Muahahahahahahahahahaha....

Posted by Noah | June 18, 2008 7:58 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack is a poopy head.

Posted by SLC | June 18, 2008 7:58 PM

Matt, I think RSH has a crush on you.

I had girlfriend who would make me guess what was in her pockets, and would keep tormenting me, but I could never guess. Then I would wrestle with her until I got in her pockets and all she ever had were rancid tootsie rolls.

Which really aren't that bad when you eat them with a friend.

Keep that in my mind the next time RSH says "fuck you".

Posted by jvoe | June 18, 2008 8:16 PM

This thread is Double-Posting-Angry-Regulars Hell.

Posted by mark | June 18, 2008 8:16 PM

This thread is Double-Posting-Angry-Regulars Hell.

:-)

Posted by mark | June 18, 2008 8:16 PM

You people better be careful, because pretty soon RSH will be coming back in his human body 2.0 with his army of cybermen friends, and you meat people better hope you were nice to him when he does.

Posted by El Cid | June 18, 2008 8:24 PM

I'm not sure Mr. Hack's questions fall into the trollery regime; they are quite legitimate, and should not be disparaged. My own feeling is that Iran is pursuing such a program, and that military force of some kind may well be necessary after diplomatic initiatves have been given a chance. Probably Israel will pull the trigger while we dither.

Being an Obama Democrat should not mean that you have a head-in-the-sand attitude about such questions, which are going to afflict Obama right away.

Posted by bob h | June 18, 2008 8:46 PM

> I believe Iran is not trying to start a
> nuclear program with the objective of building a
> bomb.

What have Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and PNAC taught every regional power over the last 7 years? Perhaps that if they don't have nuclear weapons they are toast when PNAC says so, but if they do have nuclear weapons or credible thread thereof that they have actual negotiating leverage? Hmmm...

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 18, 2008 8:50 PM

> I'm not sure Mr. Hack's questions fall into
> the trollery regime; they are quite legitimate,
> and should not be disparaged.

As Duncan Black has repeatedly pointed out, a blogger is under no obligation to write on any specific topic or respond to any demand of his readers. Readers are of course free to go elsewhere if they are dissatisfied. In that light RSH's behavior is clearly trolling.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 18, 2008 8:57 PM

Ricky Hack does bring up one interesting question, although quite accidentally:

If it sounds like a troll, writes like a troll and behaves like a troll, but disclaims troll-status, is it a troll?

I'd look at Hack's personal childishness, his gratuitous aggression and his desperate need for attention, and conclude that he is, effectively a troll.

Posted by zilifant | June 18, 2008 9:18 PM

If a Hack trolls in the woods, but nobody hears the sound..

Posted by morzer | June 18, 2008 9:21 PM

OK then, here's my two questions for you:

1- Did you believe the intelligence community during the runup to the Iraq invasion?

2- Is this what led you to support the Iraq invasion?

People do want to know.

Posted by Ohmmade | June 18, 2008 9:23 PM

Why won't Richard Steven Hack tell us why he murdered those nursing students? Hm?

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 18, 2008 9:31 PM

I won't speculate on what sort of life he leads, but RSH is no troll. For one thing, he usually posts late, well after any thread-hijacking could be done.

Posted by matt | June 18, 2008 9:41 PM

By the way, Matt, fuck you for calling me a troll.

Classic. I nearly fell off my chair.

Posted by Mike | June 18, 2008 10:04 PM

None of you trolls have anything on MLaJ.

Posted by Quietus | June 18, 2008 10:06 PM

Ye must answer me these questions three.

Posted by Kyle | June 18, 2008 10:22 PM

Squeaky, you're thinking of Richard Speck as in: Richard Speck, what the heck? Eight nurses you wrecked.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | June 18, 2008 11:58 PM

Matt,

You are ducking my 2 questions as well:

1) Where do you keep your ATM card?
2) What is your PIN number?

Answer me, or be labeled an intellectual coward forever!

Posted by Doug | June 19, 2008 12:15 AM

Thank you, Matt and commenters. This thread was funnier than John Cole's internet traditions. I needed a laugh.

Posted by glasnost | June 19, 2008 12:26 AM

Maybe one of these days MattY will answer one of the many questions I've posed.

As for lampwick's question:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinite

Posted by TLB | June 19, 2008 1:41 AM

Minnesota: "She's dropped out, she's endorsed, she's supporting."

No - she's just gone underground for a bit - not to mention that she's waiting to see if her supporters can get her the VP nomination. It's a couple more months until the convention. Wait until then and until the general campaign starts in earnest. If she fully supports Obama then, right up to the election, maybe I'll retract.

But I'll still have my suspicions.

Jvoe: No, I definitely do NOT have a crush on Matt. I'd consider crushing Matt (verbally, anyway) as a result of some of his more insipid posts, but I definitely do not have A crush on Matt. (Wow, I almost keyed that wrong and left out the "not"! That would have been embarrassing!)

El Cid: It won't matter if you were nice to me or not - you'll all get the same treatment. It will depend on whether you get in my way or not.

Cranky Observer: I never said a blogger has to answer questions. What I said was if Matt is too fucking LAME to answer them, he isn't shit as a pundit. This apparently motivated him to finally answer the questions, since it was clear I wasn't going to let up. That isn't "trolling", that's seeking accountability - something people here have been bitching about all the other asshole pundits like Kristol.

Everybody asks: "How can these assholes keep writing op-eds when they've been wrong every time?"

Same thing with Matt. I pinned him down. Now he can't reneg because I, if nobody else, will remember.

Zillifant: And who the fuck are you? I don't remember any of your posts here recently. And your comment clearly fits your own definition of a troll.

Ohmmade: Matt already answered those questions. He believed the "Big Dog Democrats", and was too young and ignorant to know better.

Doug: I won't mind the answers to those questions myself.

TLB: Hah! Dream on!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 19, 2008 1:59 AM

I had a feeling this thread would be chock full o' nuts and it really didn't let me down. Hilarious! Really Matt, you should know better than to feed the trolls but I have to admit the the results were amusing.

Posted by Bill Keane | June 19, 2008 2:28 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HbJUE-G9pY

Posted by CRYS | June 19, 2008 2:46 AM

So now Hack gets a thread about him. Who will be next? Trevor? Don Williams? Hector?

Posted by Eric | June 19, 2008 3:57 AM

Yo, I'll stand up for Hack.

He's crazy, and belligerent, and way too repetitive. But he does make a serious attempt to engage on the issues. Even though his opinions are often far beyond the mainstream shade of pale, he expresses them honestly, not as a attempt just to make people mad.

Basically, he's like every motherfucker in San Francisco and Berkeley between the ages of 45-60.

But he's a good guy, at heart, even if he does want to kill 98% of the human population. And I'm not just saying that cause he works down the block from me and I'm totally amped/terrified that I'm gonna run into him at Starbucks one day.

That being said, I think Matt considers him a troll because no one on this blog talks more shit to him than Hack. Even the posters with "MY" in their handles aren't as mean. If someone was on my nuts as much as Hack is on Yg's, I'd definitely call them a troll.

[And BTW I think the armed robbery bid is tres excellent, and gives him crazy street cred. Salt Lake City keeps bringing it up as if it were a diss, which I think says way more about his own limitations than Hack's.]

Posted by scythia | June 19, 2008 4:05 AM

Steve Sailer?

Posted by Quietus | June 19, 2008 4:05 AM

What I learned from this is that SLC eats his snot.

Posted by Eric | June 19, 2008 4:08 AM

I'm not sure that, by this definition of troll, the description fits exactly. He is, however, somewhat verbose, free with the insults, and apparently highly sensitive to the comments of others and given to angry responses.

It also seems to me that, as a long-time reader of Matt's, that the answers to RHS questions were pretty obvious, and had he himself done research into what Matt has written on the topic he would have realized this.

Still, those that keep referring to RSH's criminal record are themselves trolling by the linked definition, as that has no bearing on anything. This is bad form.

All IMHO, of course.

Posted by josephdietrich | June 19, 2008 4:08 AM

"...in the pay of our enemies"?

Most of my enemies are in this country, and they're either politicians or corporate CEOs. I don't think Matt's in the pay of any of them.

Posted by Kevin Carson | June 19, 2008 4:12 AM

scythia wins the thread, lol

SLC should of course be banned

Posted by novakant | June 19, 2008 4:40 AM

Scythia: "Basically, he's like every motherfucker in San Francisco and Berkeley between the ages of 45-60."

Really? I don't know those guys. Maybe I should.

"But he's a good guy, at heart, even if he does want to kill 98% of the human population."

Well, I'm not "good" - I'm "correct" (which is different from being "right".) What I don't do is stuff that's pointless.

So I don't really want to kill 98% of the population (props for getting the probable percentage of useless humans right, anyway). I'll just do it if they get in my Transhuman way when the time comes. Otherwise I couldn't care less about 98% of the human race.

"And I'm not just saying that cause he works down the block from me and I'm totally amped/terrified that I'm gonna run into him at Starbucks one day."

Never happen. I never go into Starbucks. I don't even have a reason to blow the place up. If I want to piggyback my hacking on their WiFi, I'll do it from outside somewhere or the next building lobby over. Who wants to be caught on their security cameras?

"That being said, I think Matt considers him a troll because no one on this blog talks more shit to him than Hack."

You say that as if it were a bad thing. This is what Matt needs - accountability. Or more precisely, what we need - Matt probably hates it.

"Even the posters with "MY" in their handles aren't as mean. If someone was on my nuts as much as Hack is on Yg's, I'd definitely call them a troll."

He did. He's wrong. A troll comes into a thread to disrupt it for propaganda purposes or just for malicious fun. I never do that. I might joke around, like my "obligatory Corrs posts" in every music thread, but I never go into a thread with the intent of "hijacking" it or disrupting it.

"[And BTW I think the armed robbery bid is tres excellent, and gives him crazy street cred. Salt Lake City keeps bringing it up as if it were a diss, which I think says way more about his own limitations than Hack's.]"

True. SLC is a real troll.

Josephdietrich: "It also seems to me that, as a long-time reader of Matt's, that the answers to RHS questions were pretty obvious, and had he himself done research into what Matt has written on the topic he would have realized this."

No. I mean, how far back do I have to go? I only started reading this blog last year some time. And Matt hasn't said anything definitive on Iran in all that time. Why the hell do you think I raised the issue? My whole point was that he talked AROUND the Iran issue, and never once specified what he thought about the CENTRAL issues of whether Iran has a program and IF Iran HAD a program, would military action be appropriate. If you want to know what someone thinks about Iran, those are the two questions that have to be answered.

And nobody has asked Obama about them, either. We know where Clinton stood because she talked about "obliterating Iran" in a ridiculous hypothetical. We know where McCain stands because he sang about it. But Obama has not answered those two questions that I'm aware of. But what he has said indicates that he would say, "Yes" and "Yes". But he hasn't been specifically asked - and he should be.

"He is, however, somewhat verbose, free with the insults, and apparently highly sensitive to the comments of others and given to angry responses."

I'm not verbose, I'm precise.

Free with the insults, sure, I'll give you that one. But only directed to those who deserve it, like the trolls here.

And I'm not sensitive to their comments - I just don't like giving my enemies a free pass. Matt was the sensitive one. That's why he finally had to answer my questions. I was embarrassing him by demonstrating that he was a poor pundit by not making his position clear.

Now Matt has answered those questions. Fine. Story over.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 19, 2008 6:19 AM

So now Hack gets a thread about him. Who will be next? Trevor? Don Williams? Hector? (Eric)

Include me out. I simply don't think I could bear hearing again from that impudent cad TAS (Trevor Appreciation Society. The scurrilous vitriol, the "Wank On!"s, the anachro-cybergeek self-descriptive epithets (assclown!), ("funny as a fiddlestick!).

Now, personally, I'd love to see poor Stinky (SLC) get a thread. Let's spin the dradel dweeb 666 RPM and see what he shrieks when we're done.

Posted by Trevor | June 19, 2008 7:03 AM

Re scythia

Apparently, Ms/Mr scythia thinks that Mr. Hacks' bank robbing activity is somehow an object of amusement. I suspect that if Ms/Mr scythia had been the teller at the bank that Mr. Hack robbed and had been at the wrong end of his gun, she/he would not think it amusing at all.

Re josephdeitrich

Mr. Hacks' criminal record is very much apropos here, given his advocation of the assassination of police officers and his demonstrated lack of remorse for his crimes.

Re novakant

Mr. novakant is cordially invited to stick his comment where the sun don't shine.

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack is afflicted with pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis.

Posted by SLC | June 19, 2008 8:23 AM

At the risk of introducing anything serious into this thread:

And I think the Intel community is wrong on this one - any country that can enrich uranium to any level has a potential nuclear weapons program.

Any country that has anyone who knows physics has a potential nuclear weapons program. The question is if they're moving forward on the weapons end of things, and it appears that they've decided to hold off on that. It makes a certain amount of sense-- they've got plenty of other shit to deal with, what with their neighbor-rival nation imploding right next door.

Posted by Persia | June 19, 2008 9:29 AM

As far as I can tell, Yglesias calls anyone a "troll" who consistently criticizes him. Richard Steven Hack isn't a troll; he's just someone who happens to criticize Yglesias from the left.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | June 19, 2008 9:29 AM

It seems to me that I've written extensively on both of these questions over the years

Indeed.

I'm surprised you didn't realize that responding to being called a "coward" over and over will yield similar results to responding to be called a "trust fund scumbag" repeatedly - in other words, none.

All you've done now is made the world a more dangerous place for Andrea Corr - who I hope has tons of security. Now that one of his fetishes has been satiated, his focus might be narrowed.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 19, 2008 10:04 AM

If you truncated Richard Steven Sack's name, you'd get Dick Sack...which seems to be quite appropriate. Anyway - as per Matt's answer: the NIE says "no nuclear program in Iran" - and if they did start one up, we don't exactly have a surplus of money, troops, and gung-ho war fans left after this Iraq War debacle, so as per Matt's inference, I lucid administration would attempt to stop the program through other means. Seems pretty simply to me.

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | June 19, 2008 10:10 AM

Maybe one of these days MattY will answer one of the many questions I've posed.
Posted by TLB

God, no. Please don't Matt. I don't know how much you read your comment threads, but when this guy calls himself "the lone wacko," he's not kidding.

Posted by Cyrus | June 19, 2008 10:22 AM

"And I'm not sensitive to their comments - I just don't like giving my enemies a free pass."

I am now proposing a new Official Internet Definition of troll - anyone who refers to other posters in a comment thread as "enemies".

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 19, 2008 10:23 AM

Don't feed the trolls! It only encourages them.

Posted by Peter K. | June 19, 2008 10:45 AM

So he's STILL ducking my two questions.

Standard rightwing tactic: pretend that the length of time it takes for you to obey is itself some kind of outrage.

Complex question fallacy meets clock applet. No wonder they can't think.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 19, 2008 10:58 AM

As far as I can tell, Yglesias calls anyone a "troll" who consistently criticizes him.

Um, that is the definition of a troll - these days, at least.

Posted by Al | June 19, 2008 11:22 AM

By the way, Matt, fuck you for calling me a troll... I've never been a "troll" - i.e., deliberately posting on a board to cause trouble.

Oh, I hope that was deliberate self-satire. But I suspect it was not.

Posted by James F. Elliott | June 19, 2008 11:43 AM

@RSH: By any chance, were you the guy at Matt's Nixon Library talk extolling the virtues of St. John's Wort? If so: dude, you be crazy.

Posted by Mike Mc. | June 19, 2008 11:47 AM

While Matt tolerates SLCunt, Popeye the Sailer and Chris Ford -- we'll take a pass on Al, because it's his day-job, and BLT is just a sad obsessive shut-in -- singling out RSH as a troll somewhat misses the mark.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 19, 2008 11:49 AM

By the way, Matt, fuck you for calling me a troll... I've never been a "troll" - i.e., deliberately posting on a board to cause trouble.

Oh, I hope that was deliberate self-satire. But I suspect it was not.

Posted by James F. Elliott | June 19, 2008 11:52 AM

Re pseudonymous in nc

Mr. Hack is far less of a troll then is fucktard pseudonymous. Mr. Hack at least tries to bring some intelligent commentary to the blog. Fuckface pseudonymous only calls names. I have yet to see any even unintelligent commentary from shithead pseudonymous.

Posted by SLC | June 19, 2008 12:24 PM

Agree about pseudonymous in nc. If anyone who posts here regularly qualifies as a troll it's him.

Posted by jmo | June 19, 2008 3:17 PM

"I lucid administration would attempt to stop the program through other means. Seems pretty simply to me."

What part of "Dick Cheney" don't you understand?

Elliot: When somebody insults me, I say "fuck you". What, you don't?

Being a troll has nothing to do with language (unless that's the troll's technique of disruption) - it has to do with intention.

Grand Moff: 1) I think waiting months for Matt to answer two simple questions is a bit excessive; 2) there is nothing "right wing" about me as you'd know if you've ever read ANY of my posts.

That makes you a troll.

MBunge: "anyone who refers to other posters in a comment thread as "enemies"."

So you think Chris Ford, Al, SLC, Robert Powell and the other right wing and Zionist freaks on this board are your "friends"? Interesting.

Somebody who insults me is not just "another poster in a comment thread". Of course, objectively, they're insignificant. But since we're all on the same comment thread, if they insult me, they get insulted back.

You gotta problem with that? Every comment you've ever made here - including this last one - is somehow free from intention to be a troll?

SoCalJustice: Fuck you, too. Happy now?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 19, 2008 5:42 PM

Fields of fire that passed the train
The sky is victorious but here comes the rain
Friday is taking me home again,
And I've nothing but you on my mind.

Grass is greener without the pain,
I think that I'm changing but I'm just the same
My sun is a ascending again
And I've nothing but you on my mind

Sometimes I feel like I'm glad to be free,
Sometimes I still want your arms around me
Sometimes I'm glad to have left you behind,
The Crazy English Summer has put you back on my mind.
Life's a riot a lover a friend,
Pity the day that it has to end
Friday comes speed me home again,
I've nothing but you on my Mind.

Sometimes I feel like i'm fine on my own,
Fifty Thousand miles from home.
Sometimes I'm weak and the past is my guide,
Summer returns and puts you back on my mind

Posted by M | June 19, 2008 7:09 PM

I'm not sure I share in everyone's hatred here of Mr. Hack.

While I don't endorse his style or rhetoric and do not share his sentiments at times, he presents substantive points and counterarguments at times, albeit in a vituperative manner. Does this mean I agree with him all the time, no. But I think everyone here is so quick to dismiss someone who does not adhere to the usual liberal dogma.

Further, he is certainly no more of a troll than any other characters here (SLC anyone). If he says things that are of no substance and abusive, ignore him.

But if he says substantive things that you don't like, refute them.

Posted by jeff | June 19, 2008 7:09 PM

Not really Dick.

But given your history, I'd be happier if you kept your lurid fantasies concerning female celebrities to yourself.

But just like your repetitive insults towards Matt, I don't expect you to stop. And Ms. Corr has a reason to be worried.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 19, 2008 8:22 PM

SoCal: Your fantasies that I'm some sort of "stalker" are a figment of your own imagination, not mine.

Jeff: Thanks. That's all I ever ask for - substantive responses with some facts and logic behind them. Being logically correct and in accordance with the facts of reality is my prime motivation for any comment of mine (other than jokes or insults in return for insults, of course.) I value intellectual integrity and intellectual honesty above most other characteristics and always have.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 20, 2008 12:01 AM

Whatever you say, Richard. I enjoyed your unintentionally ironic use of quotation marks, though.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 20, 2008 10:18 AM

In support of Mr. Hack, he gave an elloquent defense of Thomas Jefferson, whom many attached here in an irrational fashion in my opinion. So while I don't agree with him on many issues, I feel he makes a far more interesting and substantive contribution than most and disagree with attacking him as a nut case or a troll.

Posted by tom A | June 20, 2008 11:53 AM