The deMAGAfication of the US government needs to be the sole priority of the Democratic Party as soon as it regains any sort of power. In particular, if Democrats take the House, they must refuse ANY funding for the "Department of War" until the Department of Homeland Security is abolished and its agencies returned to their original departments. Except ICE: abolish it and replace it with a new, MAGAt-free organization.
"You can't just stop funding the Pentagon!", I hear you cry? Fine. Just don't pretend you're serious about opposing the Trump Regime.
I like the Jon Stewart line that "Our bombs are smarter than our President", which rivals CharlesWT's comment for sheer truthiness.
But seriously: I wonder what the polls in either country would show if China, say, were to launch decapitation strikes aimed at regime change in the US.
W.r.t. renewables vs. fossil, I urge anyone interested to check out the first YouTube clip in cleek's recent post. If you keep watching past the first, fake sign-off, you'll hear a rousing finale, full of words and music, clarifying the difference between politicis and partisanship.
--TP
bc: The left has occupied college campuses and aligned with terrorists using violence or threats thereof to intimidate Jewish students. Antisemitism has been mainstreamed.
"Jews will not replace us!" is a well-known chant on The Left, now?
Christianist schizophrenia w.r.t. "Jews" is pathological.
Damn. You have my deepest sympathy, cleek. I wish your wife the best, knowing that even the best is still a torment in these situations. Courage to you both.
--TP
When I hear you saying that to any of Noem, Homan, Bovino, Miller, Leavitt, or even some random MAGA congressman, I will accept that you're engaged in something other than Trumpologetics.
While we wait, I ask again: what do you think should be done about ICE? Or do you think nothing needs to be done?
Thank you nous. The NYT "transcript" is a totally unformatted wall of text. You have to figure out from context who is speaking any given sentence.
I've been aware of both Talarico and Crockett for a while now. I like them both, and one reason I'm glad I don't live in Texas is that I don't have to chose between them in the primary.
Talarico's Christian schtick (not disparaging it; just can't think of a better word) may be exactly what's needed to win a general election in Texas -- or just what's needed to raise false hopes again. I repeat what I've often said before: I'm done chasing "electability", and anyway Texas Dems ought to be better judges of it than I am in this case.
I have a couple of reservations about explicit appeals to Christianity as a political strategy. First, it reinforces the lamentably wide-spread view that Christians have some sort of monopoly on decency. Second, I worry that Christ-like impulses like "judge not", and "turn the other cheek", and forgiveness of sins, may be impediments to the deMAGAfication the US sorely needs. But I absolutely accept that a Christian like Talarico is better able to weaken the support that Old Testament Christians have garnered from voters who think of themselves as devotees of Jesus.
Why not let him speak for himself? If by "what happened" CharlesWT meant "Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good in fit of fascist pique", then maybe he was.
Michael Cain: ICE believes they are law enforcement. So far, the courts seem to agree with them. ... I’m slightly amazed that we know who the ICE person behind the mask was.
I say "ICE believes" that they are The Law, but never mind. I'm sincerely curious about the courts. Are there particular cases you're thinking of? (This is not a "cite, please"; I can look things up myself if I have a hint to start with.) It would not surprise me, BTW, if some court somewhere ruled that ICE "agents", do in fact have the authority to write traffic tickets as "LEOs".
CharlesWT: There’s a reason for LEOs to wear body cams. Had he been wearing one, it might be clearer exactly what happened.
"LEOs" and storm troopers are not the same thing.
"LEOs" don't wear masks.
"LEOs" have limits on their authority and their jurisdiction.
"LEOs" who work for ICE don't have the authority to write you so much as a parking ticket, let alone order you out of your car.
"LEOs" do things like execute arrest warrants, not execute civilians.
If it's not clear to you "what happened", seek help. If you think the murderous Jonathan Ross was just trying to do his job, ask your favorite AI what his assigned job was, that day, because I doubt that body cam footage would tell you.
I'm sure there were Americans in the 1930s who would have defined the Gestapo as "Law Enforcement Officers", but I like to think those Americans would not have called themselves Libertarians(TM).
bc: P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
I'm pretty sure I did. I'd be 100% sure if I knew which you'd pick if you were forced to choose between your preferred foreign policy (or tax policy, or immigration policy) and my civil rights. If you believe nobody will ever demand you make that choice at the polls, I worry you're not paying strict attention.
Let's not kid ourselves: the brutality of ICE, the invasion of
Venezuela, the threats to Greenland, and tax cuts for billionaires are
inseparable components of the Cult of He, Trump -- which proclaims opposition is treason. It's not a Chinese menu, it's a cable bundle.
Of course I know you know that my civil rights are your civil rights too, so that eases my mind a bit.
I don’t think bc actually supports the Nazi Party. Unless he voted for Donald, JD, Lindsey, et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
One of them is: can He, Trump pay for Greenland out of His own pocket? Or get His soon-to-be-trillionaire frenemy to buy it and present it to Him gift-wrapped?
If bc wants the United States to buy Greenland, he must be advocating for Congress to pass an appropriations bill for the money. Good luck with that.
The perennial MAGAt line that NATO countries owe it to "us" to spend more on "defense" would make some sense if the implication was that "we" could spend less as a result. But the MAGAt-in-Chief wants a $600B increase (to $1.5T) next year. NYT gift link.
Having contributed money to all sorts of Dems over the years, I am bombarded with fundraising emails, texts, and the occasional phone call even. I'm sure many of you are in the same boat. So I'm asking for advice here:
Is there an effective way to communicate to candidates begging for "help to meet our goal before the FCC deadline tomorrow" and similar pitches? Specifically, to say something like "Publicly and loudly declare that deMAGAfication is your first priority, and then you get my support"?
I know campaigns need money to "get their message out" but if it's a namby-pamby let's-not-offend-anybody consultant-generated message, they can kiss my ass.
I don't know whether it's utter spinelessness or extreme political correctness on the part of those 4 NYT reporters that prevented any of them from asking: "Mr. President, are you saying l'etat c'est moi?" Not that I think He, Trump would understand that question, of course.
The US press corps seems to be composed exclusively of invertebrates. My impression is that British reporters, once upon a time at least, might have asked "Mr. President, are you nuts, or what?" But for all I know even they are too politically correct, nowadays.
Whether it's "sanewashing" or "Trumpologetics", bc's lawyerly brief argues that the interests of the United States require some sort of action on Greenland. In context, his brief implies that He, Trump's motivation for the bluster and the threats is to serve the interests of the United States. I refer him to Pro Bono's diagnosis of He, Trump's motivations for ... well, everything ... and beg leave to doubt that implication.
Alternatively, bc may be simply pointing out that He, Trump's sinister buffoonery might have the unintended consequence of promoting the interests of the United States, as bc perceives them. He, Trump as useful idiot, IOW. Whether more serious, more diplomatic, more discreet efforts, by a saner and less bombastic president would better serve whatever actual interests the United States has w.r.t. Greenland is a question only an anti-MAGAt would bother with.
Lawyers gonna lawyer, so watch this space when He, Trump actually declares Himself eligible for a 3rd term. Meanwhile, a non-lawyer like me can't resist pointing out that by His own proclamations He, Trump has already been elected president 3 times, so the 22nd Amendment is already moot.
That's a perfect diagnosis of He, Trump. What I'd like to hear in addition is a diagnosis of those Americans who suffer from Trump Worship Syndrome.
For all I know, TWS sufferers may not actually disagree with Pro Bono's list. They might merely not care about it because they have a list of things that their Orange Jesus is doing for them. It would be interesting to know what's on that list.
Alternatively, TWS sufferers might in fact dispute Pro Bono's diagnosis. It would be fun to hear one of them do so, if we had one commenting here.
To say "It's always about what happens next" comes very close to saying "The ends justify the means". Don't get me wrong: I am not an absolutist about ends and means; I freely confess to inconsistency on that proposition.
Hairshirt's practical question ("Why to a lesser extent?") is one I would have asked, myself. But I also have to wonder about about a couple of other things.
For one, is there a difference between intended ends and the actual ones? If your intent is criminal but the unintended consequences of your action turn out to be "good", maybe that mitigates your criminality?
For another, what is the intended end here? I have a hard time believing that the end He, Trump and his cabal intend is a free and sovereign Venezuelan democracy. And I seriously doubt that, intended or unintended, this "good" consequence is a likely outcome of the Maduro snatch.
bc:I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think.
I don't have the time to look through the archive for bc's comments on "Panama, Grenada, and Lybia", and the first two (Panama, 1989, Poppy Bush; Grenada, 1983, Saint Reagan) were too long ago anyway, but surely bc was as supportive of Obama on Libya as he appears to be of He, Trump on Venezuela. Right?
I mean, a consistent attitude toward "norms" for the President of the United States, however wrongheaded, is one thing. A variable definition of "norms" based on who happens to be president at the moment would be a different, and more worrisome, thing.
I hope you all had some joy on Christmas Day yesterday. For me, it was basically a Thursday; my actual celebrating will happen tomorrow, when the clan gathers at my brother's house. Three of my four niblings being married now, with in-laws and all, getting us all together on the actual holiday is becoming a scheduling problem. But who cares? My grand-niece doesn't, I bet, being a happy-go-lucky two-year-old.
Maybe this belongs on a music thread, but I did mark Christmas Day as I usually do, by breaking out an old CD of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing Christmas carols. I may be an out-and-out atheist, but I have always said those Mormons can sing. My favorite piece on that CD has always been I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day. I always thought they did it beautifully -- until this year when I learned the full story behind it and realized I've been listening to an abridged and prettified version of the original poem all these years. To be fair, it seems they're not the only, or even the first, to confine themselves to stanzas 1,2, and 7 for the lyrics.
My other favorite Christmas carol is Tom Lehrer's, of course. Almost as hilarious as Crucified Santa, you must admit.
Let us hope for a happier new year than the one we have just endured.
What this country needs is an antiTrump. That means a Democrat who is as big and boisterous an asshole as He, Trump (for "electability") but who is ruthless about deMAGAfication (a straightforward "policy") instead of milquetoast nuance. Someone who demonizes billionaires (a smaller class than trans people, let alone immigrants) and is not afraid to call MAGAts stupid. Someone who has yet to appear, alas.
I'm not kidding. For many years, I have been pointing out that "electability" is a crock. We nominated Kerry in 2004 because he was more "electable" than Dean. We nominated Obama in 2008, but not because he was The Electable One. We nominated Clinton in 2016 partly because Sanders was "unelectable". Can anybody claim with a straight face that "electability" in any but a post hoc sense was He, Trump's selling point to the GOP?
"Electability. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
“This facility is one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”
Michael's citation of this MAGAt justification for closing NCAR reminds me of the Homer Simpson solution to a Check Engine light: stick a piece of electrical tape over it. Morons rule. Even deMAGAfication may not save us.
Is He, Trump the world's most efficient thumb typist?
I have always assumed that, whatever else may be true, He does not produce his screeds by typing on a cellphone, complete with punctuation and CAPITALIZATION, while sitting on one of his golden toilets. But maybe I'm wrong, being unpracticed in phone typing myself.
It seems to me that every thread on ObWi has been more or less open in the 17 years I've been hanging around. In fact, my general sense is that "open" threads tend to stay on a single topic more than others do. In that spirit, let me say this on the page-layout theme:
Showing 20 Recent Comments would be better than the current 12.
If paging the Comments is really necessary, I'd appreciate more comments per page, at least.
One trouble with too-frequent posts is that conversations in Comments sometimes fizzle out prematurely, as people move on to comment under the latest post.
Please excuse my nitpicking. Carry on.
--TP
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Last Noem Standing”
The deMAGAfication of the US government needs to be the sole priority of the Democratic Party as soon as it regains any sort of power. In particular, if Democrats take the House, they must refuse ANY funding for the "Department of War" until the Department of Homeland Security is abolished and its agencies returned to their original departments. Except ICE: abolish it and replace it with a new, MAGAt-free organization.
"You can't just stop funding the Pentagon!", I hear you cry? Fine. Just don't pretend you're serious about opposing the Trump Regime.
--TP
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
I like the Jon Stewart line that "Our bombs are smarter than our President", which rivals CharlesWT's comment for sheer truthiness.
But seriously: I wonder what the polls in either country would show if China, say, were to launch decapitation strikes aimed at regime change in the US.
--TP
On “Adam Tooze”
W.r.t. renewables vs. fossil, I urge anyone interested to check out the first YouTube clip in cleek's recent post. If you keep watching past the first, fake sign-off, you'll hear a rousing finale, full of words and music, clarifying the difference between politicis and partisanship.
--TP
On “Moral insanity”
bc: The left has occupied college campuses and aligned with terrorists using violence or threats thereof to intimidate Jewish students. Antisemitism has been mainstreamed.
"Jews will not replace us!" is a well-known chant on The Left, now?
Christianist schizophrenia w.r.t. "Jews" is pathological.
--TP
On “But tell me what you really mean”
Damn. You have my deepest sympathy, cleek. I wish your wife the best, knowing that even the best is still a torment in these situations. Courage to you both.
--TP
On “Moral insanity”
bc: Dehumanizing either side gets us nowhere.
When I hear you saying that to any of Noem, Homan, Bovino, Miller, Leavitt, or even some random MAGA congressman, I will accept that you're engaged in something other than Trumpologetics.
While we wait, I ask again: what do you think should be done about ICE? Or do you think nothing needs to be done?
--TP
"
bc,
Let's hear your own suggestions. What do you think should be done about ICE, CBP, and the rest of those federal "agents"? And by who?
Or do you think nothing needs to be done?
--TP
On “Talarico”
Thank you nous. The NYT "transcript" is a totally unformatted wall of text. You have to figure out from context who is speaking any given sentence.
I've been aware of both Talarico and Crockett for a while now. I like them both, and one reason I'm glad I don't live in Texas is that I don't have to chose between them in the primary.
Talarico's Christian schtick (not disparaging it; just can't think of a better word) may be exactly what's needed to win a general election in Texas -- or just what's needed to raise false hopes again. I repeat what I've often said before: I'm done chasing "electability", and anyway Texas Dems ought to be better judges of it than I am in this case.
I have a couple of reservations about explicit appeals to Christianity as a political strategy. First, it reinforces the lamentably wide-spread view that Christians have some sort of monopoly on decency. Second, I worry that Christ-like impulses like "judge not", and "turn the other cheek", and forgiveness of sins, may be impediments to the deMAGAfication the US sorely needs. But I absolutely accept that a Christian like Talarico is better able to weaken the support that Old Testament Christians have garnered from voters who think of themselves as devotees of Jesus.
--TP
On “An open thread”
wj: Charles was actually agreeing with you.
Why not let him speak for himself? If by "what happened" CharlesWT meant "Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good in fit of fascist pique", then maybe he was.
Michael Cain: ICE believes they are law enforcement. So far, the courts seem to agree with them. ... I’m slightly amazed that we know who the ICE person behind the mask was.
I say "ICE believes" that they are The Law, but never mind. I'm sincerely curious about the courts. Are there particular cases you're thinking of? (This is not a "cite, please"; I can look things up myself if I have a hint to start with.) It would not surprise me, BTW, if some court somewhere ruled that ICE "agents", do in fact have the authority to write traffic tickets as "LEOs".
As for the outing of Jonathan Ross, it was Kristi Noem that did it. He may be grateful for that, BTW.
On a general note, "LEO" always sounds to my ear like "WMD" -- a conflation of disparate things for propaganda purposes.
--TP
"
CharlesWT: There’s a reason for LEOs to wear body cams. Had he been wearing one, it might be clearer exactly what happened.
"LEOs" and storm troopers are not the same thing.
"LEOs" don't wear masks.
"LEOs" have limits on their authority and their jurisdiction.
"LEOs" who work for ICE don't have the authority to write you so much as a parking ticket, let alone order you out of your car.
"LEOs" do things like execute arrest warrants, not execute civilians.
If it's not clear to you "what happened", seek help. If you think the murderous Jonathan Ross was just trying to do his job, ask your favorite AI what his assigned job was, that day, because I doubt that body cam footage would tell you.
I'm sure there were Americans in the 1930s who would have defined the Gestapo as "Law Enforcement Officers", but I like to think those Americans would not have called themselves Libertarians(TM).
--TP
"
A couple of vignettes from MAGA land:
https://youtube.com/shorts/0mB1sPCI5rA?si=x2aFSBdH76HRJ-m-
Hard to tell whether the ICE thugs are snickering under their masks in that one. And here's what non-murderous ICE "agents" are like:
https://youtube.com/shorts/7Wrl2q_5vP4?si=IzLF_-FoK-bbQXP2
Whether He, Trump enables shitheads, or vice versa, I don't know. What's pretty certain is that shitheads and billionaires are both happy with the MAGA reich.
--TP
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
GftNC: Tony P, I love you. You do make me laugh.
(blush)
bc: P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
I'm pretty sure I did. I'd be 100% sure if I knew which you'd pick if you were forced to choose between your preferred foreign policy (or tax policy, or immigration policy) and my civil rights. If you believe nobody will ever demand you make that choice at the polls, I worry you're not paying strict attention.
Let's not kid ourselves: the brutality of ICE, the invasion of
Venezuela, the threats to Greenland, and tax cuts for billionaires are
inseparable components of the Cult of He, Trump -- which proclaims opposition is treason. It's not a Chinese menu, it's a cable bundle.
Of course I know you know that my civil rights are your civil rights too, so that eases my mind a bit.
--TP
"
I don’t think bc actually supports the Nazi Party. Unless he voted for Donald, JD, Lindsey, et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
One of them is: can He, Trump pay for Greenland out of His own pocket? Or get His soon-to-be-trillionaire frenemy to buy it and present it to Him gift-wrapped?
If bc wants the United States to buy Greenland, he must be advocating for Congress to pass an appropriations bill for the money. Good luck with that.
The perennial MAGAt line that NATO countries owe it to "us" to spend more on "defense" would make some sense if the implication was that "we" could spend less as a result. But the MAGAt-in-Chief wants a $600B increase (to $1.5T) next year. NYT gift link.
--TP
On “An open thread”
Having contributed money to all sorts of Dems over the years, I am bombarded with fundraising emails, texts, and the occasional phone call even. I'm sure many of you are in the same boat. So I'm asking for advice here:
Is there an effective way to communicate to candidates begging for "help to meet our goal before the FCC deadline tomorrow" and similar pitches? Specifically, to say something like "Publicly and loudly declare that deMAGAfication is your first priority, and then you get my support"?
I know campaigns need money to "get their message out" but if it's a namby-pamby let's-not-offend-anybody consultant-generated message, they can kiss my ass.
So: any suggestions?
--TP
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
I don't know whether it's utter spinelessness or extreme political correctness on the part of those 4 NYT reporters that prevented any of them from asking: "Mr. President, are you saying l'etat c'est moi?" Not that I think He, Trump would understand that question, of course.
The US press corps seems to be composed exclusively of invertebrates. My impression is that British reporters, once upon a time at least, might have asked "Mr. President, are you nuts, or what?" But for all I know even they are too politically correct, nowadays.
--TP
"
Whether it's "sanewashing" or "Trumpologetics", bc's lawyerly brief argues that the interests of the United States require some sort of action on Greenland. In context, his brief implies that He, Trump's motivation for the bluster and the threats is to serve the interests of the United States. I refer him to Pro Bono's diagnosis of He, Trump's motivations for ... well, everything ... and beg leave to doubt that implication.
Alternatively, bc may be simply pointing out that He, Trump's sinister buffoonery might have the unintended consequence of promoting the interests of the United States, as bc perceives them. He, Trump as useful idiot, IOW. Whether more serious, more diplomatic, more discreet efforts, by a saner and less bombastic president would better serve whatever actual interests the United States has w.r.t. Greenland is a question only an anti-MAGAt would bother with.
Lawyers gonna lawyer, so watch this space when He, Trump actually declares Himself eligible for a 3rd term. Meanwhile, a non-lawyer like me can't resist pointing out that by His own proclamations He, Trump has already been elected president 3 times, so the 22nd Amendment is already moot.
--TP
"
ICE "agents" are all thugs. Their MAGAt apologists are all scumbags. That is all.
--TP
"
Pro Bono:
Trump wants four things:
That's a perfect diagnosis of He, Trump. What I'd like to hear in addition is a diagnosis of those Americans who suffer from Trump Worship Syndrome.
For all I know, TWS sufferers may not actually disagree with Pro Bono's list. They might merely not care about it because they have a list of things that their Orange Jesus is doing for them. It would be interesting to know what's on that list.
Alternatively, TWS sufferers might in fact dispute Pro Bono's diagnosis. It would be fun to hear one of them do so, if we had one commenting here.
--TP
"
bc,
To say "It's always about what happens next" comes very close to saying "The ends justify the means". Don't get me wrong: I am not an absolutist about ends and means; I freely confess to inconsistency on that proposition.
Hairshirt's practical question ("Why to a lesser extent?") is one I would have asked, myself. But I also have to wonder about about a couple of other things.
For one, is there a difference between intended ends and the actual ones? If your intent is criminal but the unintended consequences of your action turn out to be "good", maybe that mitigates your criminality?
For another, what is the intended end here? I have a hard time believing that the end He, Trump and his cabal intend is a free and sovereign Venezuelan democracy. And I seriously doubt that, intended or unintended, this "good" consequence is a likely outcome of the Maduro snatch.
--TP
"
bc: I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think.
I don't have the time to look through the archive for bc's comments on "Panama, Grenada, and Lybia", and the first two (Panama, 1989, Poppy Bush; Grenada, 1983, Saint Reagan) were too long ago anyway, but surely bc was as supportive of Obama on Libya as he appears to be of He, Trump on Venezuela. Right?
I mean, a consistent attitude toward "norms" for the President of the United States, however wrongheaded, is one thing. A variable definition of "norms" based on who happens to be president at the moment would be a different, and more worrisome, thing.
--TP
On “An inscrutable Merry Christmas”
I hope you all had some joy on Christmas Day yesterday. For me, it was basically a Thursday; my actual celebrating will happen tomorrow, when the clan gathers at my brother's house. Three of my four niblings being married now, with in-laws and all, getting us all together on the actual holiday is becoming a scheduling problem. But who cares? My grand-niece doesn't, I bet, being a happy-go-lucky two-year-old.
Maybe this belongs on a music thread, but I did mark Christmas Day as I usually do, by breaking out an old CD of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing Christmas carols. I may be an out-and-out atheist, but I have always said those Mormons can sing. My favorite piece on that CD has always been I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day. I always thought they did it beautifully -- until this year when I learned the full story behind it and realized I've been listening to an abridged and prettified version of the original poem all these years. To be fair, it seems they're not the only, or even the first, to confine themselves to stanzas 1,2, and 7 for the lyrics.
My other favorite Christmas carol is Tom Lehrer's, of course. Almost as hilarious as Crucified Santa, you must admit.
Let us hope for a happier new year than the one we have just endured.
--TP
On “The Wiles Interview”
What this country needs is an antiTrump. That means a Democrat who is as big and boisterous an asshole as He, Trump (for "electability") but who is ruthless about deMAGAfication (a straightforward "policy") instead of milquetoast nuance. Someone who demonizes billionaires (a smaller class than trans people, let alone immigrants) and is not afraid to call MAGAts stupid. Someone who has yet to appear, alas.
I'm not kidding. For many years, I have been pointing out that "electability" is a crock. We nominated Kerry in 2004 because he was more "electable" than Dean. We nominated Obama in 2008, but not because he was The Electable One. We nominated Clinton in 2016 partly because Sanders was "unelectable". Can anybody claim with a straight face that "electability" in any but a post hoc sense was He, Trump's selling point to the GOP?
"Electability. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
--TP
On “Author, author?”
“This facility is one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”
Michael's citation of this MAGAt justification for closing NCAR reminds me of the Homer Simpson solution to a Check Engine light: stick a piece of electrical tape over it. Morons rule. Even deMAGAfication may not save us.
--TP
"
Is He, Trump the world's most efficient thumb typist?
I have always assumed that, whatever else may be true, He does not produce his screeds by typing on a cellphone, complete with punctuation and CAPITALIZATION, while sitting on one of his golden toilets. But maybe I'm wrong, being unpracticed in phone typing myself.
--TP
On “Open Thread”
It seems to me that every thread on ObWi has been more or less open in the 17 years I've been hanging around. In fact, my general sense is that "open" threads tend to stay on a single topic more than others do. In that spirit, let me say this on the page-layout theme:
Showing 20 Recent Comments would be better than the current 12.
If paging the Comments is really necessary, I'd appreciate more comments per page, at least.
One trouble with too-frequent posts is that conversations in Comments sometimes fizzle out prematurely, as people move on to comment under the latest post.
Please excuse my nitpicking. Carry on.
--TP
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.