Allow me to summarize:

Our current administration does not inspire in me feelings of trust or confidence, but rather profanity-inducing ill-humor.

Said profanity and ill-humor does not mesh with my editorial goals. My apologies to any readers with blistered eyeballs. I’ll think once, think twice, think chicken soup with rice before I pop off so colorfully next time.

8 thoughts on “Post edited to reduce antisocial content

  1. Well, when I reread it this morning I was kind of taken aback by my own venom.

    I sometimes hear from others that I am capable of suprisingly disruptive behavior. Usually I’m unaware of it.

  2. hey what’s all the controversy?? what? mike whybark
    censoring himself?? wtf???? this is a new one. I didn’t see the original article. so I don’t know what your talkin about. but let me say this…we may not agree on everything and I think that your are quite a bit to the “left” –(I hate those terms) of me. but I will say something…I do have a take on Bush’s comments this week about Members of the senate (I think he meant “liberal democrats”) putting special interests (“e.g. poor people”) in front of national security. This guy needs to shove it. neither he nor “tin man” cheney fought in vietnam although were both in the right age slot. so fuck you guys. talk the talk…but if you didn’t walk the walk?? several of those democratic senators (self serving and cynical though they may be) actually picked up a GUN and DID what you guys TALK about sending other people’s kids to do. so go screw yourself. P.S. your dad and his friend RONALD got us into much of this mess anyhoo.

  3. Hm, OK.

    This is interesting.

    Ken, I appreciate your perspective. Not that I’m going to act on it. But I appreciate it.

    Now, for the rest of you who missed the shoutin’:

    The original post was fairly brief but it contained about ten uses, in varying conjugations, of an ancient gothic word for sexual intercourse, and one graphic threat of personal violence offered to those who would call me a certain name, phantoms of my disordered agitation when I wrote the post.

    I understood the threat to be metaphorical when I wrote it. When I read it again, it did not seem so, and so it’s gone.

    The trigger for my rage was the appearance of Henry Kissinger in front of the hearings on our proposed war with Iraq.

  4. The fact that you choose to keep most of that stuff off of your weblog is your business, but the flashes of pique need not be censored. I occasionally go off my disinterested persona to talk about my own, er, prejudices as well. When I stop by, it’s to experienced the Mike Whybark-ness of it all, even those parts I disagree with, and letting your anger (or sadness) vent is just one of the purposes of a weblog, no? You certainly haven’t chased me off. Ken’s right.

    And Mike, understand that I can say this because Ken tells me you live very very far away:

    Liberal! :.)

Comments are now closed.