For example, after spending hours explaining how the crescent is a Mihrab and intended to direct people to pray toward Mecca he then points out that it’s actually 1.7 degrees OFF the line to Mecca. So apparently the conspirators were misdirecting the Muslim masses to pray toward…Hmmm! maybe Tel Aviv? Or Berlin?

And then there are the stupid little things. Like his Islamic sundial that is supposed to tell the secret terrorist visitors when to pray? Well the shadows are supposed to tell them…except that he completely miscalculates the dates the shadows strike the trees (which might not even be in those positions…and his diagram shows the shadow being cast somewhere within the trees in any case). He says that the shortest day of the year is June 17th!!!! Well, not in the Northern Hemisphere it ain’t! Where does he get this stuff?

So the poor individuals would be looking about for shadows based upon the wrong days cast somewhere within a copse of trees with no defining edge. You’d need a wall or structure with a defined edge to make such calculations. Not some leafy, ever growing mat of vegetation! Madness! Madness! Madness!

It seems that the guy is a former Stanford student who jumped from one to another field (Economics, to Constitutional Law [eek! A fan of John Yoo I’m sure], to bizarre Islamophobia). He once wrote for Stanford’s Conservative paper (which makes him an author, I suppose).

I think that Rudy Giuliani is going to send him to Malkin as a Christmas gift…with a big red bow on him!

Does a dog have Dhimmi nature?

I work intimately with the doubleclick ad system, so I know of what I speak.

I could not force myself to press send with my real “handle” attatched. These people have issues with reality vs paranoid fantasy. . .

TBogg, your new format is much less than expected (sucks) and I really think you have a ghost writer currently (definately a female) who is very not you. FDL was never a regular destination for me. First, now one has to register, and then we cannot comment in several of your posts, not very progressive, or friendly, mostly irritating actually.
Also, the contact feature does not work, as I would have mentioned this PRIVATLY in that forum if possible.
You are missed.

(Roof rack for hauling Spouses optional.)

Would you really treat a spouse the way Willard treated his dog?

Spouses go in the trunk.

criminy, what’s with the gripes about the READ MORE link? Just click the title and you get the whole thing. Then when you get to the bottom of the page, you can go to the next or the previous post. Seriously, if this is all you have to complain about, you’re in pretty good shape.

The “Read More” link is a great example of pretty design trumping actual usability. Yes, it doesn’t render the site unreadable, and yes, all you have to do is click a few more times, but…

Back in the golden days, when TBogg was a voice for freedom and free expression, rather than the firedog lackey that he is today, a single click of my bookmark would load his entire page. That happens in the background, and I can focus my attention on the page only after it’s already been sucked down from the intertubes. Reading his page was a simple exercise in scrolling.

Now, it goes like this:

1) load the main page (in the background)
2) click the “Read More” on the first entry
3) wait for the page
4) read the page
5) click the next entry
6) wait for the page
7) read the page
8)…

“Read more” sucks because I am now spending one-third of my time at tbogg’s site *not* reading his glorious words. Instead, I’m busy looking for the links and waiting for all the bee-yoo-tiful graphics to load.

“Read more” is a *huge* step backwards in terms of web design usability. If I wanted to read an RSS feed, I’d read an RSS feed. Just let me load the friggin’ content and read it once. What’s the point?

And yeah, if this were all I had to complain about, I’d be in pretty good shape. But there’s also my hip, and my head hurrts, and my daughter’s got a cold…