that every comment Pistol Pete had said to me hadn't been deleted after he was banned

we had some real light hearted fun in print

i know he was a bad actor..and had some very questionable attitudes

he definitely loved to stir the pot

i guess it worries me some that he could be so abruptly banned...and censored right out of the READER

was he like Josh Board a HATE MONGER???

maybe he was

conflicting opinions r often good when they r treated like two stones rubbing against and smoothing eachother into resolution or at least a respectful space of non similar diversity

i'll miss Pete tho

because he loved to play

because he gave me new songs to listen to

because inside that tortured pessimism was a optimistic person waiting to be reclaimed

but i'm old u see...and 98% non-judgmental... not willing to lose a new found maybe didn't matter to me that we didn't think alike...and i could see that "lets p*ssem off " snicker in his comments...and most of the time it just made me smile a little

he had a tough row to hoe as a sexually abused child and jailbird adult

maybe those things weren't good enuff excuses..maybe they made my heart too tender and accomidating to a wanker who didn't deserve some extra understanding

maybe he deserved what he got..being banned i mean...socially disclaimed...he often rolled in the barbed wire of his own discontentment with society...u could hear the skin shredding and bleedin in his remarks

the anger pouring out in foul mouthed verbage

maybe i'll miss him anyway

More like this:


CuddleFish March 10, 2010 @ 10:28 p.m.

nan, ultimately it was Reader Admin's decision, and I seriously doubt they took it lightly.

Actually, ultimately it was Pistol Pete's own conduct that got him banned, just like Josh Board.


Jay Allen Sanford March 10, 2010 @ 10:33 p.m.

Interesting - has the Reader made any kind of announcement about him supposedly being "banned"? I may have missed a related post or comment, but has he contacted anyone offsite with an account of what happened? The way Pete was always bragging about his omnipotent control over computers, and his ability to hack message boards, how do we know the vanishing act wasn't his own doing?

Perhaps something potentially litigious or damaging was said or revealed, and Pete decided to erase all trace?

I don't know how it works on the administration side of this website RE comment removal, banning, etc, but I'd always caution against jumping to conclusions. May be much more going on than hitherto has met our eyes --

BTW, Nan, your lament above was heartfelt and beautiful indeed - "bad actor" and all! I always look forward to your blog posts -


CuddleFish March 10, 2010 @ 10:37 p.m.

Pete came back as PistolPete2 to say that he had been banned. About a minute later, that screenname vanished as well.


MsGrant March 10, 2010 @ 10:46 p.m.

Okay, something weird is going on. Jayallen is sounding a lot like refriedgringo, who disappeared last week. Does anyone else notice the similarity in the prose? Jayallen was a writer for the Reader that suddenly took an interest in commenting on the blogs. I smell a rat.

And WTF is with all the question marks in his comments that any person with half a brain would see as bait in an effort to generate more hits?

I get the irony of me commenting in response to this BS.


David Dodd March 10, 2010 @ 11:20 p.m.

No, actually, I'm Barbarella. Notice the similarity in our gray beards, not to mention the Saint's cap?

I am refriedgringo. The only other name attributed to me on this website or in the hard copy of this publication is my given, legal name, which is David Alton Dodd. I'll make it a point to scan and post my birth certificate if required. Smell all of the rats you wish, they aren't coming from my neck of the woods. I think that Jay is an excellent writer, and even though my knowledge of him is mostly limited to this site and the hard copy of the Reader, it's pretty obvious that he's written a lot more than some pop column in a throw-away weekly. While I am quite flattered, I need to tell you that, no, this is not so. I do not work for the San Diego Reader and I am not Jay Allen Sanford.

I have no other alias. Sorry to dissappoint.

And nan, I'm sorry about Pete's departure as well. Mine preceded his (even though you see me back - I'm a ghost!), and I was dissappointed that he bailed. Yes, he was way too rough, loved to walk the line of stupid-racist-hating-bastard, but there was a likeable person in there somewhere.

I'm going back to being invisible, lest my computer and router and personal social interface websites get hacked into again, but Ms. Grant, I felt the extreme need to clear up your misconception. I'm a little butt-hurt, if you want to know the truth. You could have messaged me. After all, I've been nothing but honest with you all along.


Jay Allen Sanford March 10, 2010 @ 11:48 p.m.

Haha, but has anybody ever seen refriedgringo and me in the same room, at the same time??

I only use the one screen name on this website. I've posted more comments lately because I genuinely enjoy the discourse and the commentators. Doesn't (nearly) everyone? I use question marks to pose queries - doesn't (nearly) everyone?

And of course I post comments in hopes of seeing other commentators chime in - again, with another question mark, doesn't (nearly) everyone?

If the happy and incidental result result of much commentary is this thriving and growing website community (which by definition would inevitably "generate more hits"), I'm baffled as to why that would displease one of this community's most valued contributors.

The apparent banning of PistolPete certainly has me wondering too - sorry I have no inside insight to offer, I'm not plugged into that side of site administration. I agree with Nan about it being a pity, and I'll miss his input, however incendiary he often tried to be ---


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 12:07 a.m.

Pete, message me when you get another alias (and don't post here before that, dummy, you'll be banned again!), I'll pass along my email addy. Wouldn't bother me at all to pass along a note now and again. And man, you know, pressing the limits of this place - you have a lead (rhymes with "ned") foot (very inside joke, Jay will laugh). At the very least, if you run into an uncomfortable social situation and need advice, I won't give any but I'll hopefully make you laugh.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 12:36 a.m.

Somebody wake me up when the drama queens leave.




David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 12:53 a.m.

Someone put me to sleep, the resident troll has arrived.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 12:55 a.m.

^ That was meant for CF, by the way, the resident man-hater, not Pete, who I often disagree with but respect.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 1:26 a.m.

Got it, Pete, thanks, I sent mine as well. Much love and respect, my friend. You went over the top here, you know that. And, you probably made a lot of people think. Good job. They should think, on their own, and you certainly helped that. But you know, these women (referring to SD, AG, and Ms. G.) are concerned about you.

And the three are awesome in my opinion. I respect them a lot. But it isn't you that they're after. I'll probably be beaten down for this opinion, but it isn't you, Pete. It's what you're not afraid to say and what they hate to hear. That's what they attack.

It isn't about cats or people of color or ideology. It's about fear. It's about not wanting to possibly imagine that people could hate cats or Mexicans or Christians. I don't think that you hate those things, Pete. I think that you simply wanted to remind us that some people do hate those things. People seem to be very afraid of that notion.

Take care, Pete. You'll be missed, and I'll shoot you an email now and again.

P.S. And, it's a little about all of the crap you've been through. You made a stellar effort to try and relate here. It isn't lost on me. You have large testicles, and no one can take that away from you. You admitted more about yourself in a few thousand words than most would admit in a novel. For that alone, you have my admiration and respect.

And CF can go pound sand up her ass - don't like it, then don't comment.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 1:26 a.m.



David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 1:33 a.m.

And CF can go pound sand up her ass - don't like it, then don't comment.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 1:43 a.m.

Pete, if you come back (and again, I'll catch hell for this), try and be nice. You can have edge and be nice at the same time. Consider it a challenge. I have to do a border run on Friday, so I'll catch you Saturday if not tomorrow. Be YOU, but holy crap, don't get yourself banned. Controversy is awesome, but the limits of it are bannation ;)


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 1:49 a.m.


nan is awesome. I'd add her to my facebook anytime :)

Can't blame nan for the anti-spam stuff. I'm running a little experiment this evening myself. I'd love to catch the bastarrd from the other evening. Nets are open, but no fish :(

Oh, hell, that was funny...


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 1:50 a.m.

And CF can go pound sand up her ass - don't like it, then don't comment.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 2:01 a.m.

Pete, I promise you I can take care of this. CF isn't smart enough to pull this off, hell she cant even HTML basic images when she wants. This is either a crush on her from afar, someone with skills (but yet, no bites tonight!), or a holy crap coincidence. (So far, she has no lovers ;)

I'm up until six, tequila and coffee. You know, not mixed ;)


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 2:26 a.m.

Thanks, Pete. But actually, I am pretty good at this internet stuff. At some point, I would love to relate a story about the early days, I worked in this office as an engineer and we figured out a way for me to get the company website on my old PC (via an unknown and untested nethod of linking stuff, Al Gore would have been proud). There was no real internet back then. We ripped an old Sun program and ran it and it was awesome.

I sort of kept up, and I'm trolling for the troll. So far, no luck, but the night is young. We'll see what happens. I wasn't ready for it the night that it happened, it scared the hell out of me, actually. If it proves to be the suck (catch-wise), then that's a good thing in a way, because I'll probably return here. Well, good except for CF, because I have a weenie, and as a male I am suckage in her eyes, but LIKE I CARE?

And, I'll program this into a function key, because it can't be said enough:

And CF can go pound sand up her ass - don't like it, then don't comment.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 2:35 a.m.



SDaniels March 11, 2010 @ 2:45 a.m.

"Notice how SD always has to make everything about race?'s said that those bitches who bark the loudest always have something to hide...guess it's true..."

Guess what, Pete? I'm only running after you to try and mop up the spills of hate everywhere, with some reason and understanding. You know that.

refried/ghost wrote:

"It's what you're not afraid to say and what they hate to hear. That's what they attack.

It isn't about cats or people of color or ideology. It's about fear. It's about not wanting to possibly imagine that people could hate cats or Mexicans or Christians. I don't think that you hate those things, Pete. I think that you simply wanted to remind us that some people do hate those things. People seem to be very afraid of that notion."

Talk about "butt-hurt" and messaging, and...putting words in people's mouths, something you don't like very well, my friend. I am not spending hard-earned time running after Pete to try and mop up the hate-spills because I "fear" something. Let's get that straight. Fear gives rise to anger and hate. Not patient moppings-up. If I just ejaculatd hate the way he does, sure, I could take that interpretation. But that is not it at all.

It is because I love! You are a fool if you can't see it either. Look at what I write, for a change. READ what I write in response. Yeah, I call Pete out, then I explain. Do you think I am just writing to edify Pete? I know he is only reading with a minuscule fraction of attention, impatiently, because he'd rather be telling us things rather than listening. No, I do it for anyone who might be reading, and thinking hey, how cool. Young impressionables looking for a world-view, perhaps--I'm a teacher, so that's natural, eh? I am pretty disappointed in refried-the-ghost. Let's bring back the real one, what say?


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 2:50 a.m.

Oh, hell, CF, are you that affected by this? Is this your life, here, commenting on the Reader every time I have something to say? (Apparently, you deleted your blogs for no apparent reason - why? Did they suck that bad?). You really need to get a different hobby.

Or else, my mantra: And CF can go pound sand up her ass - don't like it, then don't comment.


SDaniels March 11, 2010 @ 2:55 a.m.

And this injunction to "be nice." Do you think that that is my platform, D? To "be nice?" Disappointing-- belittling. It isn't "niceness" we are after here. It is a wider understanding of people and why they do what they do, and how you cannot blame society's ills upon groups marking by ethnicity or race. You have tried yourself to impress and instill upon Pete some more complex cultural understanding, and I hope that he does try to understand and respect Mexican culture more than he did coming on this site spewing off about "Mexican'ts" and "w)))bks" etc. But when I see it, I try my best to explain why that position is ignorant and full of hate, and give an alternative.

And in return, I get called a "cat lady," and I am well aware of the stereotype contained therein. It doesn't bother me personally, because my life is nothing like that stereotype. But it is frustrating. I just don't let the frustration take me over--or I'd have to leave, too.

I'm curious, D. What is so freaking "awesome" about the "controversy" you've seen here? What is it that Pete reveals that is so incredibly "honest" that you must bow to it? What makes the rest of us not as visibly "honest" to you? I use my own name and a recent photo, and I stand behind what I write, and I write to the best of my knowledge. So, what is so freaking not-honest here? Do I have to write about wearing adult diapers to get that special gold star?


SDaniels March 11, 2010 @ 3:01 a.m.

Do you REALLY want to know? Because I have already patiently laid it out, Pete. If you really want to know, you'll give my carpal tunnel a rest, and go read all of the posts I've ever written to you. It's the same thing, over and over. You demand to "know," but you really don't want to know.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 3:02 a.m.

No, SD, I don't attach strings that want you to like Pete in order to validate our friendship. Why would you do the opposite to me?


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 3:05 a.m.

Oh, nevermind, you've launched a grenade, have fun with that, kthankspeaceout.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 3:36 a.m.

Oh, SD, great shot across the bow!

I sort of didn't realize that at the moment, I've been busy prowling, and guess what? No bites (or bytes, and that's funny, I promise). It's cool. CF will be your best pal now. I can't believe that you wrote that. But you're going to be the champion of the Pete-haters. That must be important to you.

Obviously, in the immortal words of Elvis (Cosetello, for those of you who are nosey), you were not impressed.

Hasta luego.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 3:53 a.m.

Oh, and no problem, Daniels, should we relate private emails and messages? Just curious. You need to keep 'em separated. I don't think I have to tell you how pissed off you've made me tonight.

(And I thank so many of you for the PM's, awesome, but I will no longer be responding to them. It isn't you, likely. It's a trust issue.)


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 8:29 a.m.

Hmmm, the third has disappeared. How long before another slime trail is detected across one of these threads. I do note that, in common with all slugs, it only comes out at night when there is no one around to dispose of it. So much for courage.


MsGrant March 11, 2010 @ 12:12 p.m.

Am I getting this straight? We are supposed to champion for this self-professed tax-evading, Dr. Pepper and Whopper pounding, alcohol-addled, racist, sexist, computer-hacking, hatred-spouting moron because he plucked a cord in someone's heartstrings and he happens to be somewhat eloquent is his spewing of vitriol?

And then getting admonished to "be nice"? When has that courtesy been extended to any one of the women here who dare to express an opinion that differs from the almighty male opinions? I notice that the blogs written by females get highjacked by the men and then we are given a thorough dressing-down about our motives when we defend our positions. Attention seeking. Cat ladies.

Resorting to stereotype is weak.


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 2:12 p.m.

er um because it's MY blog i will now (like Don Baum) answer each comment in kind starting with the censored

Comment removed by website administrator.

PETE u wily SOB!!!

(son of a female dawg u wanker)

i go to bed early and didn't get to see them

that was a very sneaky way to get out of a wedding purposefully getting banned and all!!!

some of the ladies here say u don't like women...should i grow a mustache???


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 2:16 p.m.

Jay Allen

"nobisse oblige" kind sir..."nobisse oblige"


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 2:21 p.m.

Nan, sorry this happened in your blog entry, but it would have been cowardly of me to leave Jay by himself to defend our seperate identities. I apologize, I probably should have sent her a private message. But, some good came out of it, I exchanged email addresses with Pete, I would like to keep in touch with him. I realize that the misandrists in here frown on my hopes and wishes for Pete's good health and well-being, and that wanting the best for a male in this species is probably something I should be ashamed of; but as a stupid male, I just couldn't help myself.

I hope you can forgive me, nan, you don't deserve to be a part of this stupid drama, you're nothing but completely wonderful toward everyone in here.


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 2:24 p.m.


of course it was his own behavior that got him banned

(now remember i haven't read everything that homey has ever written here ...and now no one will be able to read any of it)

but ya got to remember...the man wanted to marry my age that's quite a um...i think it discombobulated me

i actually more then anything else just hated to lose his comments on my blog i wish i'd had the chance to read them


i'd hate it if i lost all ur tasty comments fishykins

nuff said


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 2:26 p.m.



nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 2:35 p.m.

and Refried...good wishes carry a great deal more weight then the pessimistic attitude of non-redemption

women need that support too...that "i wish u well and want only happiness for u in the future"

i'm not a Christian Refried..but as much i think St Paul was full of s*** about his attitudes about women...however i honor his explanation about "GOD'S GRACE"



i wish this for will do him more good then anything any of us can give in opinion...sanction...or judgement


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 2:56 p.m.


when anyone reveals what a complete screw up he/she is

when they reveal the pain and anger that has made them feel

when they can still be funny in spite of it

when they spew out that vitriolic garbage that Ms Grant speaks of...that garbage perhaps they need more then anything else to rid themselves of...and consider this as a safe place to do it

shoud they be allowed to do it...should we try to be patient with them

we aren't phychocounselors here

we can't all be expected to receive a person like Pete well

we can walk away from the garbage has no apparent redeeming qualities

but if a somewhat ugly human pops up and waves or shakes his dirty fist at we need to throw rocks and prove his assumption that everyone is to be suspected of further foul treatment

i won't be that kind of person

i know u aren't that kind of person

believe it or not ur words to Pete have had good effects...even if they aren't visible now

i love ya beautiful lady...and i love ur beautiful cats too

DARSHAN...the Japanese form of NAMASTE



David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 2:58 p.m.

Great words, nan. It's funny, I attend no church and pretend no allegiance with a God, but sometimes people presume that I'm a Christian. I secretly feel pretty good about that when it happens, because it reminds me that whatever I do that's good isn't being done for some reward, but because the right thing is only the right thing and it really shouldn't be tied to something else, like a carrot to a stick.

And I defend religion simply because some people need that carrot in front of them. And I will honor their God because I honor them.

But I do not need that carrot. I guess the only reward is that I can screw up sometimes and not be held accountable for it by anyone other than myself. Then, when I say, "Hey, sorry for screwing up your blog comments," really, you know I'm not just blowing smoke up your ass out of guilt or worrying if I'll go to hell for it. It's the coolest thing ever that you understand that, I wish that more people did.


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 3:02 p.m.

now for u Ms Grant

ya got the same kind of balls Pete has

to speak ur mind without guile and with a straight focus on the verbiage

and for 16 years i was referred to as "the dog woman" in that little town in Oregon i loved so much

people dropped by to call me out front with dogs and puppies to pet and oooooo and aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh over

don't listen to those detractors...cats and dogs are wonderful and improve our lives in so many way...they r proof of our humanity


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 3:08 p.m.

and oh...btb...extreme courtesy was always extended to me by Pistol Pete

but..he kinda had a case on maybe that doesn't count


MsGrant March 11, 2010 @ 4:09 p.m.

Refried, actually that was intended to be a joke! Remember when all the mistaken identity intrigue was going on back in the JB days when some were swearing he was posting under another identity? I was just capping on that. Apparently it went over like a fart in church!

I tried with Pete. Really, I did. If you go back and read my comments, there were times when I tried to banter and keep it light. But he would come out of left field suddenly and just unleash. Like I said before, it became exhausting. Even when I would write a nice blog about finding a kitten, there he'd come, accusing me of ignoring the plight of the homeless in order to rescue a cat. This was accompanied by considerable name-calling. This was SD's dilemma. When she so skillfully presented her rational viewpoints and then tried to open up intellegent dialogue, he would just come along and ruin the whole thing. It's like he sat there all day and waited for someone to write something so he could come rip it to pieces, and then reiterate his constant freedom of speech tirade. That's abusive, not clever or mind-opening. And certainly no fun.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 4:33 p.m.

Ms. Grant, I'd be lying to you if I told you that the comment didn't piss me off last night, I didn't see the humor in it. I'll blame myself for that short-sightedness and trust that your intent was humorous. No worries.

And a lot of people tried with Pete, I understand why he was banned and why people lost patience with him. Nobody has to try and understand why I am going to be Pete's friend, even if it can't be on this website. I promise not to ask anyone which church they attend and which God they worship, and would only expect in return that I'm not judged by the company I keep.

Jesus washed the feet of a prostitute, and man, that's some good stuff. And imagine this: I'm not buying into any of that crap! I think that at our best, we're good toward each other because we are, and we get nasty when we're cornered. Three scribes wrote five books of a bible that turned the world upside-down. And a few people in here also change the world. If it wasn't for you, Ms. Grant, and SD and Magics and AG, Pete's world would've been what it was when he found this place. It isn't. It changed. He changed. And yes, he got banned, but don't think for a minute that you didn't change the way he views the world. And, conversely, don't think for a minute that he didn't change you.


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 4:56 p.m.

he did deserve an ass whoppin' Ms Grant...he could be the devil incarnate with his verbiage and opinions as well

but i still wish i still had his comments on my blog

quite truthfully i don't understand how anyone other than myself should have the right to remove comments on my blog

they already tell us not to use bad language when we comment and won't publish it

i don't need BIG BROTHER

see what i mean...if i didn't like his or anyones comments i could remove them myself


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 4:59 p.m.

unfortunately there's no REMOVE IT on

Comment removed by website administrator.

or i'd REMOVE them


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 5:09 p.m.

nan, I was on a forum where we were allowed to remove comments, and/or posters on our threads. People just ended up removing comments from people they didn't like, removing people they didn't like, it got very segregated and there were a ton of cliques, was really really horrible.

People should control their mouths (fingers), and not expect others to clean up their messes. I think Reader admin here acted because they had to, and I support their decision.


SurfPuppy619 March 11, 2010 @ 5:31 p.m.

Pete came back as PistolPete2 to say that he had been banned. About a minute later, that screenname vanished as well.

Wow, didn't know PP was banned.

PP was pretty funny.

I would have banned myself, since I'm a complete butt kisser.


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 5:33 p.m.

i was also on a site...MY SPACE where when a person deleted their blog every comment written by them everywhere was deleted Cuddles

that was sad for me too...the Readers decision to ban him is not in question with me...only the deletion of every comment he ever made to me is in question in my mind

don't u think many peoples fingers r acting up here and there on stories and blogs r concerned here in THE READER right now

it's like a minefield out there

i just came back from the new Party Crashers blog and my head was spinning about some of the things being said there


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 5:37 p.m.

hey SurfPuppy619...i liked PP too...and i know nothing of russl's sniffing habits..but i wouldn't say such things about him even if i did

but that's JMO...hahahahahaha....welcome in Puppy


antigeekess March 11, 2010 @ 6:12 p.m.

Gringo the Ghost made a huge assumption:

"It's about fear. It's about not wanting to possibly imagine that people could hate cats or Mexicans or Christians. I don't think that you hate those things, Pete. I think that you simply wanted to remind us that some people do hate those things. People seem to be very afraid of that notion."

Um, I'm from the SOUTH, dude. I didn't grow up in a bed of thorn-free roses or a bowl of pitless cherries. And I certainly don't need to be REMINDED of crap that that's been right in front of my face for most of my life.

I'm not under any illusion that it's a big bright wonderful world we live in, or that all strangers are just friends we haven't met yet. I got so much ugly in my head that I can't get rid of, I just don't need any more shoved in there by people like Board, Pete, or the body-count evening "news."

It's a downer, a drag on positive energy that's already hard enough to maintain. F*** 'em both. They can go jump right into the negativity cesspool of their choice and swim around in it together, congratulating each other on their "reality." Just don't crawl back out of there and try to spread some of it my direction. Keep it to yourselves.

Pete would be worth his weight in gold if he'd do some work on himself. He could become quite an inspirational figure, given his past. He's got all kinds of street cred, and he's smart enough and writes well enough to bring it to the masses. He could be a very positive force. But, he won't do any of that.

Hopefully, I'm not included in the "Pete haters" comment. I don't hate Pete. I'm disappointed in him.


MsGrant March 11, 2010 @ 6:21 p.m.

Word, anti.

S***, Pete's weight in gold would inspire me to invest in him if he was willing to bring it to market.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 6:46 p.m.

"Um, I'm from the SOUTH, dude. I didn't grow up in a bed of thorn-free roses or a bowl of pitless cherries. And I certainly don't need to be REMINDED of crap that that's been right in front of my face for most of my life."

Okay, that's pretty fair. But you know, I'm not out to sell anyone on the notion that all sinners are God's children, either, nor that there's a special place in hell for mostly everyone. I'm from the WEST, dudess, and I haven't let that affect my sensibilities one bit.

I'm just saying that a big, heaping plate of "people suck sometimes" is going to be served, regardless. What's left of my ass here is still being spanked for being Pete's pal. But he was never charged with being an inspiration, people were a little too busy telling himn that he sucked. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have, I'm simply saying that everyone decided he was too much of an ass to see what could have happened. And I'm not blaming anyone. Pete did himself in. This is what happens.


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 7:29 p.m.

hey would have been great to cheer Pete on

man the improved behavior of the underdog is an American's special pastime

would he have done that if he'd not been banned...we'll never know as Refried said

he didn't meet some folks expectations...we each and every one have the right to NOT welcome the likes of a character who seems as disruptive as Pete sometimes was

he wasn't showing an effort

sometimes ya got to remove all the s*** that's filling up ur life before u can have space for the "betterness"

i guess that was what i thought Pete was doing...vomiting it all up to have an empty stomach for a worthy meal

so much of what's being brought forth here is JUDGEMENT...i at my advanced age don't feel i should a judge...a good example YES...a judge NO...a pointer toward a better path YES...a wrangler into a pre-prescribed path NO

i'm so sorry to hear how hurt some of u feel by Pete's certainly didn't afford him good will...and i think more then anything he would have liked to have been accepted even with his gnarled and unresolved conflicts

i hope he can find it in the next place he lands...whether he deserves it or not

peace to u all AntiG...Ms Grant...Cuddles...Refried...SDaniels...Jay Allen...may tomorrow be our better day


Jay Allen Sanford March 12, 2010 @ 12:08 a.m.

Peace backatcha, Nan! I have a screen grab of most of the PistolPete3 comments from this blog thread before they were deleted - if you want the cache file, just hit my contact button and I'll email you back with it. Gawd bless Google cache (even if it only works for around 6 hours for moderated comment forums).

RE #50, thanks RefriedGringo! Being mistaken for you isn't a problem - my credit report once mistook me for "Deceased," and that was far more a test of my epically serene nature...


David Dodd March 12, 2010 @ 3:22 a.m.

No worries, Jay, I can think of hundreds of journalists I'd rather not be confused with and am a little more than flattered that your name came up as my alias. On a side note, a few years ago one of those credit card companies offered a prize I couldn't refuse just to sign up to get a card (a road trip to Del Mar to watch the ponies live and in person!). I did. A few months later, I got a call at work. They were perplexed as to why I had absolutely no credit history at all.

Ha! I should have dropped your name! Instead, I took my death in stride. After all, you only live once!


Robert Johnston March 12, 2010 @ 10 a.m.

My, my--the Pistol Man is gone? Ach himmel! The question before the jury is...will he be missed?

Pistol Pete was an acquired taste when it came to both his blogs and his comments. Much like "Gabby" in Blazing Saddles or Joe Pesci's characters in Goodfellas and Casino. And Pistol Pete was, indeed, a character unto his own.

Love him or condemn him to the Ninth Ring of Hell--he will be missed. However, his banishment from the SD Reader Blogger Tribe is a reminder that indescretions do, indeed, lead to reprecussions! Or, for those who like shorter words: You Play, You Pay!

Here's to ya, PP! I'll fill-and-raise a mug to ya later this afternoon!



CuddleFish March 12, 2010 @ 2:28 p.m.

Pistol Pete was an acquired taste?

Okay, well, if you want to acquire those kind of tastes, then right on. I personally don't think I ever could "acquire a taste" for someone who in all the months I posted here never said one positive thing about any body, thing, or animal, screamed the N word at every opportunity, denigrated minorities and women with the lowest stereotypes and insults, admitted he avoided paying taxes and was a hacker, turned every thread into as AG said, the Pete Show, was a screaming MeMe, frankly vulgar, coarse, insisted that Daniels was making up her illness, wrote a vile and disgusting sexually explicit post about me and another poster, I mean, please, I could go on, but honestly don't want to give that troll one more brain cell, God bless him.


SDaniels March 12, 2010 @ 7:53 p.m.

re: #54: Nan wrote:

"but if a somewhat ugly human pops up and waves or shakes his dirty fist at we need to throw rocks and prove his assumption that everyone is to be suspected of further foul treatment"

Nan, I appreciate you writing to me, but as you yourself admitted, you aren't exactly completely up on the situation. Otherwise, you'd never feel the need to write me about "throwing rocks." I was immensely patient with Pete, and rather than ignoring him or just returning the invectives, I tried to clue him in to a few things (try, a few thousand things) he was missing. It's in the nature of any teacher to do so, when seeing a person seriously lacking information or social skills. It didn't work. I got tired of being mistreated, and everyone else here was sick of it, too. We couldn't talk to each other without Pete inserting himself into the equation, like a needy three-year old. Everywhere you turned, you had to relate to him, again and again. Enough is enough, nan.


nan shartel March 12, 2010 @ 7:53 p.m.

he was never mean to me Cuddles...and even gave one of my blogs his seal of approval

of course i had to find a new home near the beach for it...cause it barked worst then my terrier

i'm sorry Cuddles u can't let go of it...he is gone now u know and i DID want my blogs to have his comments represented in them

so if that is too ingratiating to u just shoot me


SDaniels March 12, 2010 @ 8:01 p.m.


refried dear, you were never receiving a spanking from me for being Pete's pal. Never. It was only for saying the things to us via him that made me/us look like naive (female) idiots, and Pete some kind of arbiter of the real.

But AG has already said what I needed to in #66.

I have not led a sheltered life by any means, and like I said, Pete never said a word or phrase I hadn't already heard from similar personality types. We all deserve our street cred.


SDaniels March 12, 2010 @ 8:06 p.m.

re: #69:

Nan wrote:

"i guess that was what i thought Pete was doing...vomiting it all up to have an empty stomach for a worthy meal"

Yeah, I thought that was what he was doing too, Nan. Unfortunately, he wasn't.


Nan wrote:

"so much of what's being brought forth here is JUDGEMENT"

Actually, it isn't. It is honest assessment. Just as honest as you might have felt Pete was when he was confessing things.

What I say is no less honest if I use "fancy" language, as quillpena put it recently. The packaging is of no import, finally.


nan shartel March 12, 2010 @ 8:08 p.m.

SDaniels...what am i suppose to do about this...can u tell me...i think both u and Cuddles have expressed ur opinions very clearly

is it ur preference now since u both seem quite upset about my individual view of the Petester that u would prefer to sever all connections with me

i will ascide to ur wishes where this is concerned

i'm not a love me love my dog individual...and i don't excpect other to be either

don't u think were all to old to be up to a "choosing sides" situation???

i hold each of you (u and Cuddles) in great respect...think very highly of u and am ashamed Pete treated u so badly in print

i never have...and please may i ask that if u do intend to stay in touch that u treat me kindly as a person with a diverse opinion

if u want me to leave off visiting ur site say so now and i will do as u wish

but i'll miss ya

just like i miss Pete...i'll miss ya


SDaniels March 12, 2010 @ 8:10 p.m.

"i'm sorry Cuddles u can't let go of it"

Nan, give CF a chance to get it out of HER system--he's only been gone a day!


SDaniels March 12, 2010 @ 8:11 p.m.

is it ur preference now since u both seem quite upset about my individual view of the Petester that u would prefer to sever all connections with me



SDaniels March 12, 2010 @ 8:16 p.m.

Ok, nan, why are you are offended? We gave our opinions in a respectful way, through dialogue. No one has suggested--or even thought--anything like you are writing. If you valued Pete so much for his "honest" way of expressing himself, what is wrong with us being honest here? You wanted the 411 on what all of us save refried (and LPR, apparently) thought of the situation, and of what we've been through. You asked to know, didn't you? If not, I'm sorry. I know what sudden extreme politeness means--you are in effect, showing me the door? No problem, if that's your intent. If you are instead willing to listen with an open ear to what has been going on that you missed? Well, much preferred.


nan shartel March 12, 2010 @ 8:38 p.m.

please continue then gals...i'm as open to ur opinion as any of the others who've commented here

and can u tell me when i threw stones at u??

disregard my abruptness please

i think that i have not been as kindly an ear to u as i should be...and that would make me ashamed of myself...and i admit that i'm rarely in the loop about all that's going on with anyone here

i also stop reading when all the comments being rendered seem to be only insulting

please forgive me SDaniels and Cuddles for my terseness


Robert Johnston March 12, 2010 @ 8:41 p.m.

Who said that I acquired a taste for PP's outbursts-cum-comments in the first place? The dude was rude, crude, and lewd--and downright scary to boot. You never knew what load of literary napalm PP was going to lay on you when you saw he was in your "comments" queue.

As with Ceasar (after the Senators got done carving him up like a Saturnailia goose), I neither seek to praise PP--nor to bury him. I leave the praising to his truest fans, while the burial I leave to the gravedigger, undertaker, and preacher.

Strange to say, however--PP wasn't that nasty with me (as if I need that in my life). For that much, I raise a mug of Spaten Optimator up and thank the man for it.

Let it be--so be it!



nan shartel March 12, 2010 @ 8:52 p.m.

ditto LPR...he was often an ambiguous ass wipe..but like i SAID BEFORE..HE WAS NICE TO ME...AND HEAVEN HELP ME I LIKED THE MAN WARTS AND ALL


oh crap...the Cap LOCK was on and i'm to lazy for a do over


SDaniels March 12, 2010 @ 8:59 p.m.

and can u tell me when i threw stones at u??

Nan, I never suggested that you threw stones. You must be confused with another poster/posting. There is nothing to forgive, and frankly, I am done with the subject of Pete, as I suspect most are. I would like nothing better than to just tend my blogs and go read an excellent story or two to calm down for the evening. Kisses to all {blows} xoxo.


nan shartel March 12, 2010 @ 9:29 p.m. too final foray by a writer far better then myself..thoughts i think we can all take to heart

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosives and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own; for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to The Twilight Zone." Rod Serling, closing narration "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street"


CuddleFish March 12, 2010 @ 9:31 p.m.

nan, I have just now read these comments, was gone all evening.

First, I was responding to Robby's post about "acquired tastes."

Second, I have let it go.

Third, nothing I wrote has or had anything to do with our friendship. I love your threads, you must surely know that. And you have shown me nothing but love and respect, for which I am appreciative and grateful.

I think ... some of this is blowback from other bad vibes going on with other people, and people who have left, and we are all trying to sort ourselves out and get back on track.

It will be fine. The thing I like most about this forum is that we all seem to be grown-ups here, and dang, some of you people are smart, most of you are honest, and all of you are loving, in your fashion, even if you don't know it. Some of us bring out the worst in each other, but hey, you gotta recognize that and rise to the challenge.

I don't hate anybody, most of the time I'm too lazy even to bear grudges. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom! :)


JohnnyJ March 12, 2010 @ 11:44 p.m.



David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 12:23 a.m.

LPR and nan, I'm totally with you. There is this whole stupid crappy thing about since I like Pete then I suck. Then I suck. Don't be my pal anymore then. I like Pete just fine, we email sometimes. And I completely understand why the reader banned him, although if I sat in on that meeting I would've objected.

Anyway, I'm a better person to have known him. And, that continues, lucky me! And to anyone who thinks I'm an a-hole because I'm not afraid to want to love someone you find as a racist or a bastard in some way, sorry to disappoint you. Go get your own Goddamned Judas. Pete isn't anything you aren't.


David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 1:04 a.m.

Emerson, this is unfair. You have the right to your opinion, but it isn't kosher to blame the jar of pickles this way. Come in first, introduce yourself, and then call us all out. I'll own up to my B.S., but you really should be up front about it. Come correct.


David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 1:28 a.m.

First, about Daniels: Maybe the smartest lady ever. Write something, send it along. She'll break it down. You know what they say about those Lit Comp types? Apparently not, my friend, or you'd have never written a word about her. Oh, Ralph, I want to buy you a beer, we need to talk. Never judge a woman by her initial posting on a site like this.

Second, about CF: I don't like her either, but I won't vilify her. Come on, man, who are you to decide that she's unfit for the kingdom of God? I think she sucks goat balls but I'd never wish that on her, she has every right to whatever heaven she believes in.

Third, about Pete: I liked him too. I still do.

Last, about me: I'm not any less of an a-hole than anyone else. I appreciate your support, but really, we're all just so many levels of a-holery. I try to be nice, and I appreciate your support, but honestly, you can't slam others who don't stoke the great fires of our awesome Pete-loving bon-fire. It is what it is, my friend, and we are what we are. This is what happens.


David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 2:04 a.m.

I know, mailman, I got it the first time. I'm not the smartest bastard on the planet, but I'm smarter than some. Sent you am email back. Careful, my friend.


antigeekess March 13, 2010 @ 6:46 a.m.

I'm the mail "man" around here, motherf***ers. And right now, I'm going to work.

Oh, and Pete? Try not to stink the place up too much before you get busted again.

Later, MasterBaiter.


SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 9:14 a.m.

To Pete's "character sketches" in #91:

It is amusing that you'd post such facile little stereotyped descriptions, Pete, and not at all surprising for someone stuck at the age of 13. They more describe you than they do anyone else. Oh, by the way, "everyone" is "a tad racist" "nowadays?" Why especially "nowadays," Pete? Is that just something you pulled from your ass, or do you have a point? I suspect the former. Yes, it is humanly impossible to escape it. No one here is going to be faulted for locking the car doors at a light when a gangsta-looking guy walks by. That's not what any of this has ever been about--for the zillionth time.

It's about how honest you are about the racism you carry, but it's also about how much you are willing to face the way we've all been brainwashed into scapegoating people by race or cultural practices. To examine the racism in oneself, and where it came from.

I'm willing to face that, and do all the time--and funny, I can do it without throwing racial epithets around at people! Wow! I wonder: Who is more constructive on this topic? Me or PistolPete? Show of hands, "class?" (in keeping with my "schoolmarm" persona)

Otherwise put:

Pete: "F--in Wetb***s! Get out now and quit f--in up our country!"

SD: "This brings up a lot of questions: Why is it that we would blame the ills of an entire country on one group? What makes it "our" country more than anyone else's? What kind of ideological platform is founded on racist beliefs in order to exist?"

I ask again: Which approach is more constructive?

And btw, it does suck to see the name of a poet who really inspired me to get into literature used in this way. I'm sure you've read very little of Emerson, Pete.


SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 9:18 a.m.

In honor of dearly departed Pike:

Half-Century Snarf!



SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 9:19 a.m.

Oops: That should have been:

Century Snarf!


Robert Johnston March 13, 2010 @ 1:04 p.m.

I do love you people so... God only knows why. Seems to be easier to hate than to give love a try.

The evil that folks do to all gives me no end of pain. But love, God bless it, clears it away like heavy rain.

All that I ask of you is this: put the lid back on your vitriol. Inflicting pain just isn't right. The end--that is all!



David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 3:52 p.m.

SD, if it were a contest about being constructive, you'd kick everyone's butt in here. Some people weren't fans of Pete, I get it, I understand that. My guess would be he gets that too, I'm sure that much of his shenanigans were intended for that purpose. I'm also certain that the main reason he got tossed is because the Reader employee in charge of making sure that this interaction doesn't get out of hand, lost patience and quite possibly hours of sleep having to read every "Report it" someone pressed when he commented.

I'm not making, nor have I ever made Pete out to be a hero. But, he's that guy down the street, amongst a lot of guys down the street. I can enjoy a beer with those guys, even if I'm not going to agree with them politically or be a portion of their social agenda. What would bother more would be if the Pete's of the world didn't get to have a voice, that would be very scary world. In other words, I'm much more comfortable with someone using racial slurs in a public website than I am of whomever is hiding behind complete anonymity and using a noose at a public college to get their point accross.

That, quite frankly, scares the hell out of me, especially since this is 2010 and not 1910, we were supposed to have learned something in last hundred years.

I just don't think that intolerance ever solved anything worthwhile. And people can claim that Pete was intolerant, but if that's true, do you change intolerance with more intolerance? And there were plenty of times that Pete was brought around to see the points of view of others in here. And yes, I know, the very next day he'd rant about not caring about animals or something.

"But, Dave, I will NOT TOLERATE RACISM!"

Yes, all of you, I hear it. But really, you do tolerate racism, because there are racists everywhere and there isn't much one can do about that. Well, except to try and be a good example and hope that racists learn a little from the example. And really, I'm not certain that someone using racial slurs is necessarily a racist, although I'm not going to argue with the logic of assuming so. I have the feeling that Pete isn't a racist, sue me if I'm wrong, but if I am wrong, then I would rather have access to that person's friendship because maybe I'd have a chance to be a reasonably positive example.

I don't agree with the banning of Pete, but I certainly understand it. At the same time, a lot of our opinions probably pissed him off, too, and I bet he never hit that "report it" button one single time. I'm probably not the greatest example for Pete, I'm far from perfect, but I'm willing, and he has a lot to teach me about life, too. That's how it works.


SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 4:48 p.m.

For the quadrillionth time: I have not supported censorship. Sue me--I'm glad Pete was banned too. I'm sick of him meddling everywhere I go to post, and in every conversation I'm having. It's more than annoying--it's a menace.

And I will point out that RWE IS PETE every time too, if he says anything snarky to me. Otherwise, I'll just try to ignore it and go my way.

Everything you commend in Pete, funny--just about everything you commend in Pete is true of just about one or other of us. I've NEVER hit the REPORT IT button either. So what? I don't believe in censorship.

Aside from the point. The problem is that "freedom of speech" is used around here as an excuse to be an ass and to be a blatant, meanspirited racist with clearly NO other point or purpose than to troll and annoy.

That's what you are missing, refried. You are romanticizing Pete, thinking he has some amazing message for the world. He has none. He spews the same tired old rhetoric we've heard over and over.

Such as the point about "We are all racists. We are all Pete."

I think most people here have done enough self-searching and have enough self-awareness that this point has not been lost. We don't need a Pete in order to be or become self-aware and aware of our shortcomings. That is a presumption that can be gracefully retired, no?


SurfPuppy619 March 13, 2010 @ 5:03 p.m.

Wow, I am SOOOO glad I am not in the middle of this drama :)


CuddleFish March 13, 2010 @ 5:05 p.m.

How ridiculous is this, all of this. There is NOTHING WRONG with reporting racist, sexist, harassing, abusive conduct. That is why the Report button is there. Nobody has to excuse themselves for using it, nobody has to defend the Constitutional Right to Free Speech when some troll is making rational discussion, or even polite conversation, impossible with their screaming rants, disgusting insults, attention-seeking opinionated idiocy. Guilt tripping people is so lame and just shows the weakness of their argument.

I fail to see how tolerating someone screaming the N word makes me a better human being. Wow, let's tolerate hate speech in order to make my own lack of character acceptable. MLK Jr. must be spinning in his grave. Orwell, on the other hand, is laughing his patooties off. Not to mention Freud.


David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 7:05 p.m.

"That's what you are missing, refried. You are romanticizing Pete, thinking he has some amazing message for the world. He has none. He spews the same tired old rhetoric we've heard over and over."

No, no. Come on now. Everyone spews the same old tired rhetoric. Nobody has an amazing message. You are WAY smarter than that, nothing is original and nothing is amazing, everything's been said already. That is so not the point to all of this.

You keep accusing me of romanticizing Pete, but I'm not getting that, I'm pretty much just calling him what he is. He doesn't have to have an amazing message to be any more relevant than we are. He pissed you off, and you told him so. He pissed CF off and she tells him so. He pissed AG off and she tells him so. And there is no way in the world that Pete didn't expect that to happen, and no way in the world that he didn't expect to get banned here. He expected it. How in the hell am I romanticizing Pete? Everyone gave him exactly what they felt he deserved here and everything that he expected, where's the romance in that?

Remember when he wrote those blog entries and for a quick moment he was everyone's darling because opened himself up for a while and showed you who he was? That only lasted as long as it took everyone to jump back on his case. Did he deserve that treatment from you all? YES, he expected it! But what did YOU expect? That suddenly, he was going to love kittens and become a preacher? Do you really even want Pete to love kittens and preach? And I'm the one romanticizing?



David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 7:06 p.m.

CF, I find it interesting that you drop "attention-seeking opinionated idiocy" and "guilt" in your comment. I am going to confess something to you. I do not attend church nor practice a religion. I have read about five different versions of that bible you rely on. I have them all here, the best being the Jerusalem Bible, which was translated directly from the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic into French (and then into English, thereby tossing the Latin out the door), I highly recommend that one. I also have a copy of the Quran right here on my desktop. And the Book of Mormon, it's around here somewhere, these books are fascinating reading, I've learned quite a bit from them.

But I don't attend church. Know why? Boolean algebra. AND OR IF THEN EXCEPT NOT. All religions share this, you know. If you believe in Jesus, then you'll go to heaven. If you kill non-muslims and die a martyr, then you'll get virgins in heaven. It goes on and on. There is some big F-off reward for everything. I don't have a problem with the religions, I have a problem with the rewards.

I want what I do, what I say, and how I feel to have nothing to do with some possible pay-off in the end. Otherwise, I have to read some "attention-seeking opinionated idiocy" and rely on "guilt" in order to get to heaven. I find it ironic how easily you can judge people and in the same paragraph toss those words around so lightly. It's also ironic that I defend your religion and someone like Pete all in the same breath, yet I find the concept of a heaven to be insulting. I couldn't care less how many times you hit that "report it" button, but I'm guessing that there isn't much of a big F-off reward for that, either.


CuddleFish March 13, 2010 @ 7:19 p.m.

Where's Waldo? Another troll bites the dust?


David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 7:58 p.m.

Ralph, I'm not sure that anyone's making Pete out for martyrdom. I admire and respect SD, AG, and Grant, even though I know they're baffled as to why I think it's a shame Pete's not around. I'll likely never get along with CF, but even her button-pushing outrage didn't do Pete in. Pete did it to himself.

And my point has always been this: There is going to be another Pete in this place, in this world, in everyone's life. There's no requirement that everyone likes him, and no guarantee that he won't eventually be thrown off of the website, but if you want a kinder, gentler Pete, it'll happen by example, not by force. You can call that romanticizing if you want, but it's an honest and real observation.


SurfPuppy619 March 13, 2010 @ 9:31 p.m.

Pete didn't have an agenda but the cat ladies do.

Who are the "cat ladies"???

And are there any "pup ladies" around? I need some luving.


SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 10:36 p.m.

I am NOT calling Pete "Ralph." I am not calling Pete by the name of one of the poet/philosophers whose words first inspired me to study literature (yeah, a Romantic poet at that--no irony lost). Uh uh. I have no idea why anyone would take up such a ridiculous pretense, and call him anything else.

refried wrote:

"That only lasted as long as it took everyone to jump back on his case. Did he deserve that treatment from you all? YES, he expected it! But what did YOU expect? That suddenly, he was going to love kittens and become a preacher? Do you really even want Pete to love kittens and preach? And I'm the one romanticizing?"

Actually, I did not change my approach much at all. While he acted like a human being, I spoke to him as I would anyone. When he found he couldn't sustain it, and went back to being a troll, I became wary again. I did not romanticize him--I simply had hopes. Just as everyone else did, because then we would be allowed to like him, and enjoy the things he said that were funny or interesting. If I romanticized anyone's role, it was yours, refried. I gave you credit for the transformation, recall? :)

The romanticizing on your part comes in with statements like "We are all Pete," and "You wouldn't even want him to change," etc. There are plenty of examples, but I think we should let it go.

Dear, this whole back and forth about Pete is his wet dream, and I'm tired of fulfilling it. There is a reason he chose to stereotype the three of us. It's like we are mummy and daddy caught with "Baby" in some ironic Oedipal drama.

I think we should drop it all--you enjoy your interactions as a single "parent," and I'll go on to tend my blogs and conversations. I hope this new handle means that he is going to leave me alone, because aside from calling out his racist epithets, I have no wish to converse. You on the other hand, I hope will stay ;)

PS: I'm proud to be a Cat Lady, y'all--and never more than today! Not a spinsterish hag, but a happily married cat lady with lots of friends and family and online friends and the whole of life out there--and yes, CATS! Love me some cats. I've never been accused of being man-hating or too bookish, or of not knowing the ways of the world. These stereotypes fall away like so many dry husks. And it's awfully hard to pitch a dry husk at someone, isn't it? :)


David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 11:18 p.m.

"I gave you credit for the transformation, recall?"

But hun, there wasn't a transformation, and I didn't do anything. The only interaction I've had with Pete that wasn't public occured over the past couple of days. And I didn't learn anything new about the man, certainly nothing that you don't know yourself, excepting for a pretty amazing tale about a cat he tried to save once, I found that out this afternoon. I'll let it go, but I don't think that Pete is butt-hurt over any of this, and I'm not his "parent", I'm a pal, just because.

The reason he stereotypes you and Grant and AG is because you keep on feeding it. Ignore what you don't like, and encourage what you do. Whether it's Pete or Ralph or whoever turns up next. I know you guys get pissed off and go after one another, I do it too when I get mad. But don't presume that he hates cats. He tried to do more for one cat than I would have ever thought of doing. I don't think Pete would even bother with you if he didn't admire you in some way.


David Dodd March 13, 2010 @ 11:30 p.m.

And Ralph, please, get off of the "cat ladies", all of us have things that are important to us, it isn't fair to exploit that any more than it's fair for them to exploit Pete. There are some amazing and very admirable qualities in these people, and I'm not saying that to blow smoke, it's true and you know it. Be cool. Emerson was thought to be a homosexual and horribly taunted for it, but he liked what he liked. It didn't make his prose any less beautiful. Some people like cats. I don't find any fault in that, and I know that you don't either.


David Dodd March 14, 2010 @ 12:37 a.m.

Ralph, honestly, I think that some people just like cats. At least, I've recently reached that conclusion. Skip the cat blogs, browse others. There's something here for everyone.


SDaniels March 14, 2010 @ 1:05 a.m.

refried, read back over my post. Nowhere did I suggest there was a real "transformation." I think it's pretty clear that no one concluded there was.

"He tried to do more for one cat than I would have ever thought of doing."

Hmmm. It already seemed clear that you were stealing thunder from others to lend to Pete--but now saving a cat? Have you followed what AG and I just accomplished? Uh, gettin' a little scary here.

We are arguing pointlessly. I'm finished, and will not respond further. I've spent far too much of my time responding to taunts by an ignoramus with a fetish for negative attention from strangers. How sick is that? I don't know--I no longer have anything to do with it.


David Dodd March 14, 2010 @ 1:32 a.m.

I did actually read about the cat and AG, it's awesome. I wasn't trying to steal any thunder, what Pete related came before I even read that post. Kudos to you both. My point about Pete and the cat weren't related to it, if they were I'd fess up.

Pete might have read it before I did, I couldn't say. I considered that he was probably referring to one of Ms. Grant's posts. And before anyone thinks or accuses me of hating cats, I don't feel one way or another about them. If I saw someone beating the hell out of a defensless cat, I would stop it. That's how I'm wired. If I saw a dead cat in the road then I would just bury it, because that's also how I'm wired. Animals is animals - some I eat, some I pet, and I wish them no ill will otherwise. And I don't have a problem for anyone going out of their way to love animals, have at it and I'm proud of your efforts.


MsGrant March 14, 2010 @ 9:20 a.m.

"The reason he stereotypes you and Grant and AG is because you keep on feeding it."

"Pete might have read it before I did, I couldn't say. I considered that he was probably referring to one of Ms. Grant's posts."

Hmmmm. I posted four times on this thread. Don't bring me into this. I have said my piece and am done with this. Like I said before, it is stupid.

Yesterday I road my bike down to the tidepools at the lighthouse, went to see Crazy Heart, watched Sunshine Cleaning, and then cooked a wonderful dinner for my husband. I come back and you are still playing "Where's Waldo?". I suggest healthier activities. Just a suggestion.


CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 9:42 a.m.

Well, I been sucked into this hamster wheel something like 13 times, MsG, 14 if you count this post. :))

BYW, Waldo has left the building.


antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 10:55 a.m.

Twice, now three times in 127. He'd starve to death if he depended on me to feed him.


CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 11:07 a.m.

  1. But I have to say this: Prior to this discussion ABOUT Pete's banning, I had not responded TO Pete's comments, either to myself or others, for months, which I know frustrated him no end. He baited; I never took the bait.

nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 12:16 p.m.


take a deep breath everyone~~sigh~~

we have more important things to discuss here


~~we must of course plan a baby shower~~

has an ultrasound been done yet or does the fact Jay Allen doesn't have a uterus make things more complicated


what is the due will be a C Section of course

is the sex of the baby known yet???


back to round 131


nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 12:18 p.m.

oh wait...i forgot...i want to be the Godmother!!!


CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 12:21 p.m.

LOLOL!!! That comment was in response to a comment from Waldo that has been removed, so there is no context to get the joke, sorry about that jayallen!


nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 12:34 p.m.

NO BABY!!!!!!???


i was just about to rush out to Baby R Us to peruse the neutral Yellow and Green newborn section



antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 12:53 p.m.

"has an ultrasound been done yet or does the fact Jay Allen doesn't have a uterus make things more complicated"

LOL. Ya think?



CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 12:57 p.m.

Now, nan, not trying to be nosy here: How do YOU know jayallen doesn't have a uterus???


CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 1:02 p.m.

Wait a minute ... is jayallen stepping out on me with you, nanners???


nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 1:14 p.m.

r u implying that Jay Allen is a Hermaphrodite Cuddles

s*** if i'd known that i WOULD have been jumping his/her bones myself!!




nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 1:21 p.m.

and come u pulled that delightful Troll Blog

as a Bulwinkle fan i wanted to stalk Rocket with some "FAN MAIL FROM SOME FLOUNDER"

or do u my dear fishy have dibs on that too

Oh and too all the intelligentia out there...Happy Pie Day!!


CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 1:35 p.m.

Nope, not me that pulled the thread, nan. Admin did. :(


nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 1:50 p.m. Allen...forget about that call homey~~


MsGrant March 14, 2010 @ 5:07 p.m.

}};-] - I'm thinking as well. I added furrowed brow.


SDaniels March 14, 2010 @ 5:20 p.m.

Oooh, nan, using characters in the repertoire.

Rock on with those tildies and asterisks!

re: #124: Merci a propos des chats, refrito ;)


SDaniels March 14, 2010 @ 5:23 p.m.

Hey Grant, do you recommend Sunshine Cleaning? Alan Arkin in that one too?


antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 5:25 p.m.

I'm hungry, and there's no decent Mexican food within walking distance. Hell, there's no decent Mexican food within DRIVING distance, for that matter.

Dammit. I miss San Diego.



antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 5:30 p.m.

Sunshine Cleaning is very cute, if you can stand Amy Adams' crestfallen-recovery-braveface thingy that she does in EVERY SINGLE MOVIE ad nauseum.

eyerolling thingy


CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 5:31 p.m.

Oooh dang, AG, there is an awesome taco place right around the corner from me, make those Tijuana style tacos, and fresh fruit drinks, you can eat out on the patio and they bring you a huge plate of appetizers -- and the tacos are a buck seventy eight!

I try not to go there more than once a month, just too tempting to sit there and scarf for hours.

Around the corner and down the block the other way, a new Mexican restaurant just opened yesterday, am looking forward to trying them. And once a month, delicious tamales at a meeting I go to at the beginning of the month, delicious burritos at another meeting I go to at the end of the month.

So I get my fix. :)


antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 5:34 p.m.


Yer killin' me!

pitiful, hungry look


MsGrant March 14, 2010 @ 5:51 p.m.

To SD - yes and yes. Anti has a point, though. I felt a very similar reaction to Amy Adams constant frown-turned-upside-down method of acting. She is cute, though, and the movie has a really strong message, so I would give it a thumbs up. It's really Emily Blunt's role that drives the message home.

Christ almighty, CF, whataya trying to do to Anti, torture her? Now I want tacos!!

Anti, you must come back. Casa de Loma, my favorite dive Mexican restaurant, is beckoning you. Their margaritas are like a hallucinogenic.


antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 5:57 p.m.

Or Old Town Mexican Cafe. Or even On the Border (which really should be called "On the Freeway").


munches crappy chicken


nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 6:04 p.m.

hey "Por Favor" in El Cajon is great too...patio...out front on E.Main seating or inside seating...great fave is Chili Rellenos...Mariachi music and delicious Margaritas and Tequila Sunrises


nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 6:06 p.m.

antiG we should send u in a refrigerator carton some super tasty Mexican food!!!


nan shartel March 14, 2010 @ 6:09 p.m.

the most gigantic burritos and delicious ones known to man on Los Coches Road/Hwy 8 Bus

"Los Posa"


CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 6:13 p.m.

slaps my own face

Sowwy AG!!!! :(

You have to come back, no place where you can't swing a dead cat by the tail and not hit a Mexican restaurant is worth living in.

Look at all the yum places these guys have listed, and they don't even live where I live!

Bless your heart with the crappy chicken, baby girl!

hungry pitiful look haunting me now


antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 6:36 p.m.

I guarantee you the worst item on the menu at any one of those places is better than the best thing I can get up here.

Which sucks.




CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 7:02 p.m.

Awwwwwwww. :(

You know, some of those frozen tacos aren't so bad. The Jose Ole are actually pretty tasty, when I have a yen and it's the middle of the night, I eat a couple of them. Best fried, but microwaved ain't bad, either.


Robert Johnston March 14, 2010 @ 10:05 p.m.

Hey, if you folks come up here to North County, you can probably find something fast, frugal, and filling w/o having to go too far.

By far, when I'm in Downtown O'side, I hit Mary's Kitchen when I'm in the mood (and have enough cash to pay for my meal). Good old-style American comfort food, reasonable prices--and not too far from the beach!

As for Mexican-styled food? I have to be careful eating that, since I have a problem with jalepenos and guacamole. My usual "guilty pleasure" is "Un Carne Asada Burrito con Crema y Quesa Solamente" (A Carne Asada Burrito with only cheese and sour cream). No pico de gallo or guacamole for me.

Oh, FYI to you burger-folks--Sonic is still going strong in Vista. They fix your burgers "to order," and for fast-food fare, they taste great.



CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 10:09 p.m.

Sounds delish, Robby! Unfortunately for AG, she's a little north of North County. :(


Jay Allen Sanford March 14, 2010 @ 10:17 p.m.

Cancel the baby shower --- Toldja not to worry, CF, had my tubes ties ages ago ----

"Hermaphrodite"??? Jeez, my picture turns up in one 30 year-old newspaper dressed as Frank-n-furter at the Rocky Horror Show, and years later people are still confused......


antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 10:32 p.m.

SONIC?!?!?!? You had to bring up SONIC, TOO???

sniff, sniff



nan shartel March 15, 2010 @ 6:12 p.m.

can i lick ALL the mustard off that frank-n-furter Jay Allen

~~that nanshe's badreally badlike all kinds of BAD~*~



CuddleFish March 15, 2010 @ 6:41 p.m.

Oooooh, dang, nan, ...................


CuddleFish March 15, 2010 @ 8:44 p.m.

Oh my gracious God, this place is turning into a freak show!!!!


SDaniels March 16, 2010 @ 1:32 a.m.

re: #155: Cuddle folksied out with:

"... no place where you can't swing a dead cat by the tail"


Could it really be the only way to express this? Whatabout as the crow flies, etc?

I'm starting to wonder about you and cats, Cuddle.

Who was it gleefully expressed that a big orange tom looked like coyote food, over on quillpena's blog?

Watchin' ya, "cat lady." ;)


nan shartel March 16, 2010 @ 9:54 a.m.

i liked it Cuddles...but then i have a dark side...A VERY DARK SIDE...i might add

~~cackles and wheezes over the morning coffee~~

we should have a dark side blog contest!!


nan shartel March 16, 2010 @ 9:55 a.m.

here SDaniels...u can borrow my binoculars


Robert Johnston March 16, 2010 @ 10:05 a.m.

How dark is dark, anyway? Do we really want to expose that part of ourselves in the light of day? For I can tell you that some things can be brought to light (I used to write dark poetry when I was younger), to deal with and expose our darker selves is still a taboo subject in these times.

Still, without "the dark," we would be hollow as human beings. The "yin-yang" symbol sums it up best here!



CuddleFish March 16, 2010 @ 10:14 a.m.

Yes, I would say dark humor lightens things up, nan! :)

Quite right, MsG, no light without darkness.


nan shartel March 16, 2010 @ 10:19 a.m.

LPR...i suppose we could say it's a contest and put a disclaimer at the end

i have written poetry so dark candles were ashamed and blinked out ...but i think poets and candles r allowed to do that...hahahahaha

Stephen King made a fortune doing it...and he doesn't hold a candle to me darkwise...hahahahahahaha...and yes the transposition may not be possible any other way


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!