Nick Spencer is boasting a new blog template.  Spencer is really excited about the change.  But he may not be excited to see what his former campaign employee, Andrew Warner, has been writing about him at his personal blog, AndrewWarner.org.

Here is the totality of Andrew Warner’s post:

And in rolls the hate speech

Cincinnati made the national news with gun shots that were aimed at rapper T.I. and that ended the life of Philant Johnson.

And boom goes the dynamite.

Nick Spencer on his anti-black person/Ritz Patron tirade:

I love going to IHOP after we close up the bar, and the place has a big post-Ritz crowd there around the same time. I see these idiots start fights over the smallest shit… who was in line first, who pays the check, blah, blah, blah… and every time, you’d think the goddamn world was gonna end over it. I see stray dogs act with more survival instinct than some of the Ritz clientele.

He also went on to blame WIZ owner, Ross Love:

Lots of blame to throw around here. Let’s try this one: Ross Love. To hell with that guy. He owns the WIZ, then tries to walk around town like he’s such an upstanding citizen. Wow, you’re on the CAN Commission? Hey, maybe you should look into that shit you’ve got on heavy rotation over at your station. You know, like “Ridin’ Dirty” a song about drug dealers trying not to get caught by the cops while they’ve got crack in the car. Maybe, just maybe, that’s not helping the situation much.

Assigning blame to a radio station owner because you don’t like the music selection? That’s genius logic in action. Why not blame the artist? Or perhaps the rich, presumably white, label owner who puts this music in the disc jockey’s hand?

How can you call for a bar to close because a gun fight happened somewhere other than the bar? Does it matter that they were at Club Ritz before they started shooting and not during? Apparently Nick wants the club owners to follow all their patrons home to make sure they behave.

Would we shut down Alchemize if one of their patrons shot someone on Liberty after they had completed their evening bumping and grinding to some unknown indy rock at “Boys and Girls” night? Or even better… We could shut down Woxy.com.

These questions apparently didn’t enter into the mind of Spencer when he wrote his angry post, mockingly called “What you know about that?” Either that, or the answers don’t really matter to him.

As the old saying goes, it’s easy to be hard and hard to be smart. On his blog Spencer certainly came off sounding like a tough guy, but he didn’t utter anything that could be construed as intelligent.

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!

1. says:
   07 May 2006  at  12:30 pm | #

   I think you should go on making excuses for bad behavior. It has done wonders for the murder rate in Cincinnati!

2. Blue Genius says:
   07 May 2006  at  01:25 pm | #

   So have the policies you support?

3. Jacqueline Henretta says:
   07 May 2006  at  03:14 pm | #

   One blazer, 63 dollars. One election lost, 8 thousand dollars. One camera with black and white film, 300 dollars. Nick Spencer caught crying, pricless.

4. says:
   07 May 2006  at  04:26 pm | #

   The War on Drugs is the elephant in Nick’s--and many others’--room.
   Said elephant has gone so far as to relieve itself on his head… still it remains unnoticed.

5. Anon says:
   07 May 2006  at  04:28 pm | #

   Rude, rude, rude.  What is the obsession with slamming this guy publicly?  Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

   Calling people out for bad behavior doesn’t make someone a rasist.  If you don’t like the content on his blog, why the hell do you go there?

   Andrew, I’m sorry to see the Dean’s childishness and negativity has sucked you in to behaving just like he does.

6. Andrew Warner says:
   07 May 2006  at  04:51 pm | #

   Anon,
   There is nothing rude nor childish about this post. I merely looked at what was said, posed questions, and interpreted the writing.

   Holding a bar owner accountable for a shooting that occurred on I-75, assaulting a man’s reputation and community service over taste in lyrics (not to mention defeating the spirit of the 1st amendment), and calling to run two black business owners out of town are weighty claims that need to be discussed in the community. .

   Rest assured anon, if a community activist one day calls to remove you from town for something you had nothing to do with, I will point out the absurdity (and if applicable, the hidden agenda motivating it) of that request as well.

   Why go to his blog? Because I like reading blogs, epsecially perspectives different than my own. I read as many blogs as possible because people put them up there to be read and to be part of the community discoure.

   Why did you read what I just wrote if you disagree with it? Why leave a comment? By your rationale, isn’t it childish and negative that you disagree with me and posted it here for everyone to see?

7. Anon says:
   07 May 2006  at  07:49 pm | #

   It is not childish to disagree in a respectful way. Which I did.  And you, with regards to Spencer, did not.

   I believe that the Dean, and now you, go looking for racism under stones and whatnot.

8. Also says:
   07 May 2006  at  07:51 pm | #

   How would I know in advance of reading your blog that I would disagree?  You reasoning does not make sense.

9. Andrew Warner says:
   07 May 2006  at  07:56 pm | #

   Anon,
   I agree with Nick on a lot of stuff, how was I to know I would disagree with his post?

   I didn’t know he was going to go on a random attack of black business owners and compare the Ritz clientele to stray dogs.

   The post isn’t disrespectful, I don’t know where you pulled that from.

10. Anon says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:07 pm | #

    Come on, Andrew.  You and Nick have had issues lately, and you have discussed your falling out on this blog.

    Granted, no one can know in advance of reading something what their opinion will be...the difference here is that (1) you disagreed and (2) you criticize the guy here on the blog.

    It certainly seems like you and Jason go out of your way to smear him.

11. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:20 pm | #

    Yes yes, Andrew used to work for Nick blah blah blah. What he didn’t know then is that he is craaazy. So end of that.
    He deserves to be criticized for being ignorant.

12. Oh? says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:28 pm | #

    Jacquie:
    Spencer deserves criticism for being ignorant?  Well, ok.  By that line of thinking, I am guessing you clearly deserved the criticism (lots as I remember) for your sham interview when Kabaka was shot.  How did that feel?

13. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:36 pm | #

    Actually, I do remember people saying that Avtar and Tyrone’s opinions didn’t count...that is what you were referring to, am I correct? And anyway, I am clearly not crazy or ignorant. I do not get mad at people who are homeless or have drug addictions. I am not afraid of the dark [Editor’s note:  part of this comment has been edit, per request by a party involved]. I do not judge based on color, or refer to a race of people as...lower than stray dogs I believe it was.

14. Andrew Warner says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:40 pm | #

    anon,
    I wouldn’t say “mine and Nick’s falling out” has really been discussed on this blog. There are some things I agree with him on and other things I disagree with him on. Statements like his post T.I. comments I strongly disagree with him.

    I don’t go out of my way to smear him. I saw a completely asinine post on his blog and thought it needed further discussion.

    Criticism is part of the blogging game. I take a lot of it, Dean takes a lot of it, and Nick takes a lot of it. The nature of a blog is that ideas are put out there and people have the chance to interact with them.

    The questions I posed in this post are pretty civil, especially when compared to a lot of the blogosphere’s noise-making and anonymous slandering. I certainly didn’t go as far as Spencer went in his own post; I didn’t suggest getting a rental van and having us move him out of Cincinnati, nor did I say his blog post showed the kindness of a stray dog.

15. Andrew Warner says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:46 pm | #

    Nor do I find it appropriate to divulge personal information about myself and Nick as Jacquie seems to in her previous comment.

16. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:48 pm | #

    Whatever Andy, all you and Jason’s blogs are about is...who can fuck over Nick next. Don’t pretend to be a saint here.
    That is the last time I take your side, believe that.

17. Andrew Warner says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:55 pm | #

    Whatever Jacqueline… Why don’t you do some more investigative reporting and find one time where I have said something about Nick Spencer that isn’t constructive or on point?

    I can certainly find one from you, a comment you left on my blog:

    “Nick is a racist, a coward and just plain ignorant.”

18. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    07 May 2006  at  08:57 pm | #

    I never pretended that I didn’t like him, and he is a racist… but don’t slam him and then pretend your life doesnt revolve around ruining Nick.

19. Andrew Warner says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:00 pm | #

    You’re right, my life revolves around ruining Nick. That is why I have written one critical post about him in my entire life.

    I guess you’re getting a little too comfortable spreading lies on the blogs.

20. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:18 pm | #

    Oh Andy, you can’t be serious. If what you say is true, only one post, so be it. But within every post you can be sure Nick is brought up and the criticism starts a rollin...I’ll be damned if you can go one day with out mentioning him. I am pretty sure you keep subtly saying I am a bad reporter, when you were all to eager to hand me the recorder when I interviewed Tyrone. Give me a break.

21. Chris Feldhaus says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:25 pm | #

    Nothing makes me enjoy blogs more than a good old throwdown between two people who seemed like they were on the same side.  They keep urging each other on, and then one goes too far, and the other person finally realizes how crazy it all sounds, and then they go at each other’s throats. 

    Whatever Andy, all you and Jason?s blogs are about is...who can fuck over Nick next. Don?t pretend to be a saint here.
    That is the last time I take your side, believe that.

    It’s very rare that you get to see that kind of hilarious anger and honesty.  Good times. 

    Criticism is part of the blogging game. I take a lot of it, Dean takes a lot of it, and Nick takes a lot of it. The nature of a blog is that ideas are put out there and people have the chance to interact with them.

    By interact do you mean curse at and call names and come up with protests of music festivals?  Because that seems like the majority of “interaction” between this blog and Nick’s.

    I usually respect both the Beacon and Nick’s blog.  I like the alternative reporting of the Beacon, and I like a lot of the topics Nick discusses, and his confusingly named msuci festivals.  But is it really alternative reporting to report on a blog entry about another blog entry?  Maybe just report on (aka insult) Nick when he does something in reality, instead of on the interweb.  Just a thought

22. says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:27 pm | #

    A bucket of cold water on the two of you…

23. Andrew Warner says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:29 pm | #

    Every post? Do you intentionally lie or can you not read? Your past few comments might be the most nonsensical comments I have ever read.

    I have another post on the front page of the Beacon right now, does it mention Nick? I have over 140 posts on andrewwarner.org, 7 of them have the words Nick Spencer in them. One, the one above your garbage comments, speaks negatively about him. Another is called “Nick Spencer has a great idea,” one covers his discussion of publicly funded elections (positively), one mentions his idea for 4AM liquor licenses (positively), etc.

    So I have actually complemented him more than I have criticized him, how can you say I speak negatively about him in every post?

    I don’t know what you are trying to accomplish with your libel.

24. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:34 pm | #

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure you can’t read. No matter what the topic of the post is he is brought up somehow in the comments or some other way.
    Everyone and their mom hears your whines about Nick. Anyway I am done talking about it, shouldn’t you be working on your latest I hate nick post?

25. Chris Feldhaus says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:37 pm | #

    To be fair Jacqueline, it is usually the Dean who brings up Nick Spencer.  I think that’s why he was so excited about linking to a blog post about another blog post: his apprentice was joining in his favorite activity.

26. Andrew Warner says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:50 pm | #

    Again, since you really seem to have hard time grasping simple facts: I have written one post criticizing Nick. There’s much more I’ve said positive about him than I’ve said negative—comments or otherwise.

    Don’t even pretend like the Beacon and the Dean bring him up that much either. There have been 514 posts on this website, only 31 have mentioned Nick Spencer (again, use a simple search engine to substantiate a claim for once).

    Even Chris was wise enough to know that, and he’s not a contributor to this site like you are. As he is smart enough to notice, I didn’t even put it on this website, nor did I want to.

    You need to stop with this unfounded gossip and worry about facts.

27. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    07 May 2006  at  09:59 pm | #

    Chris you are probably right…
    AW-Yes yes, I can do the search as well. But if you think about it 30 out of 500 is quite a substantial percentage for something so insignificant..while our Mayor only has about twice as many. Don’t worry though, take a valume and calm down. I am done with this ridiculous convo.

28. Chris Feldhaus says:
    07 May 2006  at  10:01 pm | #

    Don?t even pretend like the Beacon and the Dean bring him up that much either. There have been 514 posts on this website, only 31 have mentioned Nick Spencer (again, use a simple search engine to substantiate a claim for once).

    6% of posts mentioning Nick Spencer is pretty high for a bar owner who lost his bid for political office.  I’m guessing Spencer is mentioned in more posts than some people who actually won council seats!

    Nick’s post was a little over the top, but what about Nate Livingston’s post about the shooting?  I guess Spacetropic already took on that post though (http://www.spacetropic.com/2006/05/modest-props.htm), so it would be tough for you to top that.

29. Andrew Warner says:
    07 May 2006  at  10:12 pm | #

    "Take a valume and calm down”—with mature comments like that, mixed with your unfounded/idiotic claims, no wonder it’s a ridiculous conversation. Don’t point the finger at the people who make sense when you are spouting off blatant lies.

    Why do you cheapen Nick’s accomplishments Chris? We’re an alternative news source, the biggest guys (like the mayor) get enough coverage from the media giants. Aside from that, Nick takes the time to be a fellow blogger. That fact alone makes it natural that blogs should include him more in the conversation, the good and the bad.

30. Chris Feldhaus says:
    07 May 2006  at  10:22 pm | #

    Like I said, I enjoy Nick’s blog and I think he does a lot of good things.  He has some good ideas, and I want him to succeed in his bids to make Cincinnati better.  I suppose reporting on his music festival (however hilariously), is valid.  But when I think of alternative news, I don’t think about reporting on blog posts, or reporting on Nick’s new blog format (most pathetic news ever!).  That is at best second hand news, and at worst it is pure navel gazing.

    The blog is a powerful new format.  But unless Nick Spencer brought some news or gossip to the story, it seems like posting a link to a blog post about his blog post is not so much alternative news.  That kinda cheapens what you do here at the Beacon.  Do you think Nick’s new blog format is news?  I like the fact that blogs bring new voices to the table, but blogging about blogging about is a little bit too much navel gazing for me

31. says:
    08 May 2006  at  12:07 am | #

    Wow, I wonder if Matt Lauer and Katie Courick really fight like Andrew and Jacquie behind the scenes.  Who knew that even those people who have mastered loving all humaniny and respecting everone’s human rights can be downright petty, too?

32. Chuck says:
    08 May 2006  at  12:16 am | #

    I do think the Beacon is at it’s best covering news and important topics, but I think the Dean likes to keep a little bit of the tabloid Spencer thing because it usually gets a lot of post.

33. says:
    08 May 2006  at  02:03 am | #

    good god.  i came here looking to be more informed, but certainly not just about one man.  after less than 10 minutes of poking about, i found likely a dozen threads about this particular person, and a freaking song recorded for him!  dean and andrew, could you perhaps find something better to do with your time/lives than to have childish pissing contests with nick spencer?  i’m with chris, who cares about the layout of someone’s blog - was it really that big of a stink that you needed to start a new topic?  oh wait, you just wanted to talk more smack, i get it.  so slick - nice job not being so transparent.  and here i thought grown men were too mature for playground bully things like this… then i come to find that andrew is only 22 years old and likes blink 182 and dashboard confessional.  and he’s arrogant.  it all makes sense now.  maybe i’ll just start obsessing over your every move in my blog.  don’t change your blog layout just yet, ok?  let me get ready first…

    every day i grow to be more and more disappointed with humanity.  it’s so sad.

34. Anon says:
    08 May 2006  at  02:28 am | #

    City Girl

    If you read the article, you would see that Andrew did not criticize Nick’s blog layout. He responed to some pretty controversial remarks that Spencer made publicly. In doing so he opens these remarks up to be challenged. I fail to see where Warner’s age and musical choices are a factor in his assessment of these remarks. I do agree that a change in a blog layout does not necessarily deserve to be filed in the “editorial” category, but again Andrew did not ask for that either.

35. says:
    08 May 2006  at  05:03 am | #

    Also, not all posts with the word “Spencer” are actually about him.  That could also be something from the comments, too.

    I just looked over the search results, and I’d say there are about ten Spencer posts.  Two are not written by me.

    So that’s about 2% of my blogging time.

    Not very much at all.

    Get some perspective, folks.

    For better or worse, Spencer is more than a two time failed Council candidate.  He is a local business owner, an event organizer, a blogger, and he is outspoken on a number of issues.

    I think he deserves 2% of my time.

36. Andrew Warner says:
    08 May 2006  at  08:53 am | #

    City Girl,

    Want to know what’s so sad? You’re worried more about a 22 year old who listens to Blink 182 and Dashboard Confessional pointing out how odd it is that Nick wants to run a few people out of town for no reason then you are about Nick actually wanting to run a few upstanding citizens out of town for no apparent reason.

    And do I need to point out the irony of your statement about childish dicourse when you go on to make no coherent argument about the statements in question, choosing rather to read my blogger profile and point out a couple of bands you’re too cool to add to your My Space page?

    Feel free to critique my blog all you want. However, with the amount of sense you made with your last comment, you may want to consider just sticking to the alt-rock discussion boards where they consider your brand of pretentious enlightened.

37. Brendan says:
    08 May 2006  at  08:58 am | #

    The original post can be summarized like this:

    Nick Spencer has a new template for his blog AND OH YEAH ... in case you missed it, Andrew slammed him recently for supposedly racist remarks.

    What other plausible reason behind this obvious non-sequitur than to amplify Andrew’s criticism and wring more drama from it.

    A baby sparrow fell from his nest today and died.  AND OH YEAH ... those horrible Republicans are still destroying American society and beating up elderly people.

    ... any excuse to grind your favorite axe, gentlemen.

38. Brendan says:
    08 May 2006  at  09:15 am | #

    ... speaking of which, it’s been several minutes since the last Heimlich post.

    What’s wrong? Are you guys falling down on the job?

39. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    08 May 2006  at  09:26 am | #

    I hate Andrew right now, but I have to say, he totally schooled that City Girl.

40. Louis says:
    08 May 2006  at  10:47 am | #

    When does the Beacon’s badgering Spencer cross the line into harrassment?

    I used to be embarrassed for you guys, with your schoolgirl obessession, but now it’s extremely creepy and borderline pathological.

41. f says:
    08 May 2006  at  12:54 pm | #

    … speaking of which, it’s been several minutes since the last Heimlich post.

    What’s wrong? Are you guys falling down on the job?

    that is the first time i have ever laughed out loud at a comment

42. Hmmm says:
    08 May 2006  at  01:54 pm | #

    Me thinks that the bitterness between Andrew and Jacqueline stems from much more than the current situation on the blog.

    Break up recently, perhaps?

43. Henry says:
    08 May 2006  at  02:07 pm | #

    I hate Andrew right now, but I have to say, he totally schooled that City Girl.

    Jacqueline,

    Are you 10?  Grow up, everytime there is a little animated discussion you jump in.
    Not every thought in that vacuous head of yours needs to be expressed

44. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    08 May 2006  at  02:18 pm | #

    HMM you thinks wrong, and that is none of your business… and if you spent every waking hour with someone you would disagree with them too.
    Oh Henry, I just see fit to give my opinion whenever I feel it is needed. Apparently to you, that is too much. But deal with it. I am not going away. (And wouldnt vacuous mean it was empty...devoid of thought? So how could I have so many thoughts if it were empty? )

45. Henry says:
    08 May 2006  at  02:28 pm | #

    No, I meant vacuous in the sense of lacking intelligence: stupid

46. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    08 May 2006  at  02:33 pm | #

    Ohh you are so hateful today Henry, but that last one did get a laugh...only because I knew it was coming. But do me a favor, go to the bathroom… take a midol and then go to bed. Maybe tomorrow you will wake up on the right side of the bed, no?

47. Henry says:
    08 May 2006  at  02:40 pm | #

    fair enough.  what, valium for me?

48. Meat Whistle says:
    08 May 2006  at  04:27 pm | #

    Jacqueline needs a real man.

49. Anon says:
    08 May 2006  at  06:55 pm | #

    A real man?  She has Andrew.  And we all know that he is a real man.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

50. says:
    08 May 2006  at  07:27 pm | #

    Interesting coming from two people who are not man enough to sign their names.

51. Anon says:
    08 May 2006  at  10:45 pm | #

    Good point, Maureen.  Everyone knows who Maureen is, right?

52. Anonymous says:
    09 May 2006  at  07:47 am | #

    Maureen is a MAN, baby!

53. Matt says:
    09 May 2006  at  07:49 am | #

    Jacqueline,

    where is your article on native american mascots?  I was referring someone to it and it disappeared.  I think it should have stayed up longer, it was generating alot of interest.  It certainly should replace the stump speeches which are still on the front page. One day I will learn to archive this site.

54. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    09 May 2006  at  08:53 am | #

    It was bumped, but it is at the top of the web page under “featured headlines”.
    Yes I thought it should have stayed up longer too.
    You can always click on my name when I leave this comment and it will go right to it
    or just http://theodessafiles.blogspot.com
    Thanks Matt!

55. says:
    09 May 2006  at  09:49 am | #

    I’m very sorry.  The story was on the front page for well over a day.  Right now, it is a featured headline at the top of the front page, and it is still listed in the “Spotlight” section right underneath the current one.

    I had to choose between bumping that one, or the smoking one—as those sections make most sense for this type of press release.

    I thought the comments may have run their course on the Native American post.  But like I said, I placed it as a featured headline to keep it prominent.

    Don’t understand the controversy.

56. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    09 May 2006  at  10:01 am | #

    there is no controversy?

57. says:
    09 May 2006  at  10:29 am | #

    By “controversy” I meant what seemed implied by updating the site and moving the Native American headline to the top of the front page.

58. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    09 May 2006  at  10:35 am | #

    Yes, I know. I don’t think anyone thinks it is a big deal.

59. says:
    09 May 2006  at  10:00 pm | #

    andrew.

    though i think it’s rather charming that you got so defensive in your retort to me, i also think it was a bit presumptuous of you to assume that i have a myspace account or post on alt-rock forums.  pretentious?  right, since you know me and all… i guess this is what is meant when they speak of the follies of youth. 

    the critique i initially had was a thread that starts of with “Nick Spencer is boasting a new blog template.  Spencer is really excited about the change.” are you serious?  i don’t care, frankly, nor do i care that you have some personal love/hate thing with him and you have sticks and stones to throw at this guy.  i’m sure you’re without failure too, as a mere man, right?  i would also appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, because i never said anything about supporting the ‘running a few upstanding citizens out of town for no reason’.  never.  that’s just outrageous, and i would never stand behind anything of the sort.  just because i didn’t comment on your slams on spencer doesn’t mean that i’m not making sense.  i didn’t comment because i wanted to research it myself, and not just take what i read on a blog as truth.  you can get behind that, right?  i was also too wordy to say clearly what louis said about the schoolgirl obsession becoming a tad creepy.  sorry i didn’t make myself clearer.

    i just think you may have a man-crush, my dear.  and too much time on your hands.

    next time i see you out somewhere, i’ll buy you a pint and we can talk like grown-ups about this.  you can ‘school’ me on nick spencer, his evil ways and his blog updates, and i’ll teach you about what’s not smart about blink 182s music.  deal?  now leave the poor guy alone, for the love of pete.  i hope no one is doing this same thing to you.

60. Citytart says:
    09 May 2006  at  10:10 pm | #

    You’re not smart.
    It would take 10 pints to talk to you.
    ...what was your myspace page again?
    god that band smoggy london shrew is so hot right now....yeah i just made that up.

61. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    09 May 2006  at  10:20 pm | #

    haha yeah, I just got their new demo. They went old school ..8 track I believe it was...cause that is so retro chic. But at the same time it is old, and not cool...and selling out…

62. Andrew Warner says:
    09 May 2006  at  10:22 pm | #

    City Girl,

    As you may notice, I didn’t mention his template, nor did I post this article to this site.

    I didn’t put words in your mouth. I just pointed out the fact that instead of focusing on the strange and bizarre comments made by Spencer, you decided to comment on my musical taste.

    Now I personally understand that the Spencer thing is considered “over done” on the Beacon, and any honest criticism, like the criticism I have above, is lumped into the “man-crush” or obsessive category that many commenters associate with the Dean’s criticisms.

    I hope if I start trying to run people out of town that someone will do what I have done above and at least stop to question whether I am right or wrong. And if they do, I hope you don’t say it’s because they have a man crush.

    Strangely, you call me defensive and accuse me of claiming to “know you”, but did you not suddenly assert your authority over me because of my age and the fact that I don’t complain about Blink 182 “selling out?” You saw my age and the music I enjoyed and suddenly you were relieved because you lumped me into some category. Then you go on to talk about the follies of youth, like the fact you’re getting on in years makes you smarter than me.

    If you follow the thread, you can even see other readers (and the facts that I provided) acknowledge the fact that I don’t write about Spencer. The truth, as anyone who isn’t making excuses for Spencer can see, is that Spencer said some weighty comments and I would have pointed them out if any community leader or activist had said them.

63. Matt says:
    10 May 2006  at  07:35 am | #

    This has been an interesting thread.  But I must say- what I enjoyed most was the term “man-crush” Excellent!

    Who the hell is blink 182?

64. White Power says:
    11 May 2006  at  01:53 am | #

    I think City Girl made little Andrew cry. He is such a pussy. His unrequited man-love for Spencer grows with every day.

    Anyone who likes Blink Whatever is worse than the ‘gers.

65. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    11 May 2006  at  09:09 am | #

    White Power? You’re not dead yet? God, and all of us were so hoping you were.