... there's an entry on you in dickipedia.
« Okay. Here's the Obama I've been talking about | Main | My take on Twitter now on Ragan.com »
You haven't arrived until ...
Search
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 20, 2008 7:40 AM.
The previous post in this blog was Okay. Here's the Obama I've been talking about.
The next post in this blog is My take on Twitter now on Ragan.com.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33
Movable Type 3.33
Comments (27)
LOL! Not sure why Santa is on there, though.
Posted by Susan | March 20, 2008 8:52 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 08:52
David - where's your name?
Posted by Eileen | March 20, 2008 10:10 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 10:10
Hillary Clinton must be proud to be the only woman on the list so far. She's such a trailblazer.
Posted by Rueben | March 20, 2008 10:17 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 10:17
The fact that you haven't responded is making me nervous, David. It means you're either:
(1) Mad as hell at me.
(2) Busy starting up a Bitchipedia site with yours truly at the top of the list.
(3) Busy on another project and not checking the postings.
I'm banking on 3, but will be watching for 2.
Posted by Eileen | March 20, 2008 11:00 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 11:00
I am an official Heartless Bitch. (You can look it up.) Not the same as Bitchipedia, but still.
Posted by Diane | March 20, 2008 11:32 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 11:32
Eileen - either you and I are friends because we think alike, or we think alike because we are friends.
I thought exactly the same as you when I read this post: "Surely if David is highlighting this he must be mentioned. After all, we KNOW David Murray has arrived."
And if we're going the "Bitchipedia" route, I'm sure my name would immediately follow Eileen's.
This does renew my faith in the existence of senses of humour in people though! Some days when I read comments and posts on MyRagan and Ragan.com or the news sites, I start to wonder if people now have to undergo a "humour-ectomy" before they can graduate.
Posted by Kristen | March 20, 2008 11:59 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 11:59
I note with interest that there is no such site as bitchipedia.com, although bitchipedia.net and bitchipedia.info are both registered domain names. An opportunity for someone to be the Jimmy Wales of griping?
Posted by Ron Shewchuk | March 20, 2008 12:45 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 12:45
Ron - it's simply because it doesn't rhyme with WICK, as in wickipedia. Phew! Score one for linguistics on the girls' side.
Posted by Eileen | March 20, 2008 12:56 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 12:56
I'm not so sure you should chalk one up on that, Eilee. Last time I looked bitchy rhymes with wicki ;)
Posted by Ron Shewchuk | March 20, 2008 1:12 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 13:12
This is hilarious. Thanks for that laugh, I really needed that. Now I'm going to enter some folks around here...later.
Posted by Vic Morales | March 20, 2008 2:14 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 14:14
I take a day off and come back to a riot! This blog needs a bouncer!
Posted by David Murray | March 20, 2008 5:54 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 17:54
No bouncers, please. But a dash of Jane Greer might be nice.
Posted by Amy | March 20, 2008 7:05 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 19:05
I second the Jane Greer request! Jane - did you take the day off too? Surely you have some rapier-wit comment to offer?
David - Everyone knows that you aren't anyone and certainly haven't "arrived" until you've been bounced off "Shades of Gray!"
I nominate either Steve C. or Sweet Bill to be the bouncer - neither of them take any nonsense!
Posted by Kristen | March 20, 2008 8:54 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 20:54
Dickipedia must be a relatively new phenomenon. Otherwise there'd be a lot more entries.
Posted by Greg Marsh | March 20, 2008 9:25 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 21:25
Jane's been earning a living!
I especially liked the Pilgrims as dicks:. "Many have asked, what kind of dick would find the Netherlands too intolerant or too constraining? The answer is the Pilgrims."
Posted by Jane Greer | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 21:55
Jane, I think I can speak for all of us when I say we've been waiting to see what our resident anti-b.s. conservative has to say about the Obama speech.
Posted by David Murray | March 21, 2008 7:01 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 07:01
Would someone please put Rosie O'Donnel on that list? Thanks.
Will
Posted by Will Daniel | March 21, 2008 7:12 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 07:12
The Dr. Phil entry is hilarious. I'm still laughing. Check it out.
Will
Posted by Will Daniel | March 21, 2008 7:21 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 07:21
Yes, Will, that was my favorite. Not sure how accurate, but it sure rings true.
Posted by David Murray | March 21, 2008 7:29 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 07:29
Ask and ye shall receive.
The Obama speech, as a speech, will go into speech textbooks. It was brilliant in timing (although events forced him into it), content, and delivery. Dude can write and talk, man! Still....
1. It's impossible to believe that after so many years in Wright's church and as Wright's friend, Obama hadn't heard LOTS of hateful rhetoric from the man. He's simply gone along with it. I like my pastor a lot, but if he suddenly started doing something like that I'd first raise my voice to protest and if that didn't work I'd be so out of there! Obama's eloquent speech is a bit disingenuous.
2. The guy can think, write, and speak eloquently. So what? If I were looking for a president solely to take race relations to a nicer place than they've ever been, he'd be my guy. But I also want to be safe from terrorists. I want the government to keep its hands off functions that work better in a free market. I want our health care system improved but not destroyed and then rebuilt. I want a government committed to doing things that are kind to our earth without jumping on the bandwagon of scientists who have a vested interest in maintaining the fear of manmade "global warming"--or, conversely, are in the pay of petroleum companies. I want a government that protects the Constitutional right to life of all its citizens, that, in fact, has READ the Constitution and follows its letter and spirit. And I see evidence in Obama's history and in the things he's saying in this race that tell me it's questionable whether he'll help anyh of these things happen.
Posted by Jane Greer | March 21, 2008 9:36 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 09:36
Hey, Jane, I appreciate that very much. Though I do hope this speech appeals to some conservatives who happen to care more about what he cares about than you do, I meant what I said: This speech is successful because it states his position and lets people decide: Do I like these ideas, this way of thinking, this proportional importance of these issues .... or do I not?
That is the FIRST job of any communication: To get ideas across.
Good communicators may be good people, but we are very bad wizards. And we don't all agree.
Onward,
David
Posted by David Murray | March 21, 2008 10:01 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 10:01
Jane, you're never going to be safe from terrorists. It has never happened, it is not happening, and it is never, ever going to happen. Never. If anything, we are less safe from them than ever under the current mindset.
If elected, Obama is unlikely to antagonize a goodly number of the allies who could help us and themselves make the world safer (underscore "er") from terrorists through co-operation than through bloated agencies with ill-defined and much-abused power like TSA. (The same could be said for one or two other candidates, I'm sure.)
David, I don't agree that we all don't agree.
Posted by Diane | March 21, 2008 12:24 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 12:24
Diane, let's say Obama gets to be president. And let's say we go 6.5 years under his presidency with no terrorist attacks against Americans, on or off American soil. I think most people are going to say, "Hey, that Barack Obama, he's doing a good job keeping us safe." I think YOU will say that. So why not say it about George Bush? I don't get it. We could all be toast right now, given Muslim extremists' focus, drive, and death-wishes--but we aren't. If the Bush administration's measures aren't responsible for that, what is?
Posted by Jane Greer | March 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 13:33
Carrying what Jane wrote one tiny bit further and undoubtedly adding fuel to the fire: If we go a full EIGHT years of an Obama presidency and we never get attacked during those eight years, will ANYBODY give the Bush administration credit for laying the homeland security groundwork?
I don't have the answer -- just the question.
Will
Posted by Will Daniel | March 21, 2008 2:19 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 14:19
Politics. So scary
Hot air, faux sincerity
No one gets my vote
That's for those of you who have been reading BOTH Shades and Steve C's blog.
Posted by Amy | March 21, 2008 2:19 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 14:19
No, Jane, I wouldn't give him (or anyone else) credit. I would assume that it wasn't the chosen time by whoever the terrorists du jour are (and they do choose their timing). Terrorists represent many causes, not the one or two Americans have been encouraged to focus on.
Terrorism has existed since mankind began, and it will as long as mankind muddles on. Don't matter who's in charge, and it don't matter what they do or claim to do.'
Amy, I am almost with you, but I think that the pitifully large number of eligible voters who don't bother to vote are why we end up with what we do, a veritable oligarchy rather than the democracy we think.
Now you all know why I am a proud Heartless Bitch.
Posted by Diane | March 21, 2008 2:56 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 14:56
Come a long way from Dickipedia, haven't we? Although the entire current crop of would-be presidents IS included there, so maybe not so far after all.
Posted by Greg Marsh | March 21, 2008 3:17 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 15:17