Golden Oxen's First Amendment Forum

Hello GO,

I will reply to your latest passive aggressive swipe here, since I refuse the register for the open sewer operated by you and the bishop whose ring you kiss. It seems that you have taken offense to this:

Again Surly, let me explain.

Yes I did realize you posted the articles on JHK, we have discussed it before. You told me RE did not want them on the Blog because they were not long enough, and that he was having a petty argument with JHK about a cross posting issue, where JHK did not wish to publish RE"S work on his site.  It was my assumption that the unattributed image postings on JHK"S article were probably the work of RE, especially the one with the Zombie whose head was tattoed.

You are mistaken that I take offense at the picture you posted as a preface to the article. My objection is that it is not stated in this posting, or in others, that the image was placed there by you, and not the author whose work is being highlighted for perusal and comment. It has happened repeatedly and I do find it annoying. In my view it distorts the original meaning of the authors, JHK is quite capable of placing an image on his work if desired.

I then voiced my displeasure at the entire admin censoring policies of DD, something I have been known to do for quite a while. I feel that this is just one more instance of many where Admins feel they have the authority to alter postings, in this case, an eminent author of a much higher caliber than the admin crew at DD.

As I also alluded to in my posting. I was sure my declaration of annoyance with the practice would be fluffed away as mere Enhancement, as in merely making this most distinguished author more palatable and interesting to Your presumed audience. I was correct in that regard

My apologies for not being more definitive in my original posting, It was not a personal directive against you or anyone  for that matter, but a disenchantment with the policy of modifying  posts and not saying so in  that was my focus.